Context
As I was driving to my volunteer job today I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck that said, "An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." A quick Google search reveals that "armed=citizen, unarmed=subject" is a common internet trope. I had never heard it before today.
Commentary
I am a religious pacifist. I am not, however, totally anti-gun. Biathlon is my favorite Winter Olympic sport and I actually gave a pro-Second Amendment speech at the American Legion's National Oratorical Contest (of course, I was younger then). However, I am completely flabbergasted by the idea that weapons are our most important, or if I'm to take the bumper sticker literally, only tool of citizenship.
Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I'd rather be accused of overthinking something than underthinking it. I mean, if your gun is what makes you a citizen, why don't we have an armed coup d'etat every time a pro-gun control candidate is elected? Obviously the ballot box, the peaceful protest, the letter-writing campaign from hell and even the liberally-biased mainstream media (as an actual liberal, that last one gives me a giggle, but I digress) are insignificant props, so why use them?
If I were to be really mean (and I'm in that kind of mood, because this is the dumbest political slogan I've seen all week), I'd say the "must be armed to be a citizen" folks are rank cowards. Think about it. What they're saying is that if they don't have a gun available, they can be made to do anything. Or perhaps, since we know the government is unlikely to be unarmed, they're saying that if someone else holds a gun to their head, they'll do whatever they're told. I know the first one's not true of me and I'm hoping the second isn't either.
In the end, I guess that's the foundation of my pacifism: the belief that there are all kinds of things that are mightier than the sword, and the mightiest of all is the will of God. To which we're all subject.
What did you see today?
7/09/2009
7/06/2009
I heard a co-worker describe a work situation
Context
As part of a meeting at the library today, one of my co-workers was talking about the flow of items from Acquisitions to Cataloging. Shreve Memorial's website doesn't have pages for these two departments, but if they did, they'd probably look something like this and this. My co-worker's description of the situation was so self-effacing ("It's perfectly all right if we do it this way,") that we had trouble figuring out her preference. Once we did, we immediately put what she wanted into effect.
Commentary
I have resolved that if anyone ever asks me to lead a meeting, I'm going to put two signs up in plain sight, one saying, "We're seeking the best solution, not a perfect solution," and one saying, "Make sure you're answering the question that was asked." I've now decided to add a third: "Don't start your negotiation with what you'll settle for." I think this one, unlike the other two, might be controversial so I've already worked out some responses to potential objections:
Potential objection #1 - "It's nice to be flexible when you're negotiating, so I should show I am from the very beginning." I certainly agree with the first part of this statement and maybe the second as well, but I also think that negotiation is intended as a reconciliation of of different viewpoints. If you start off embracing all viewpoints, it's not a negotiation, it's a summation. On the other hand, if you state clearly what you want from the get-go you may find, as we did in my co-worker's case, that no negotiation is needed at all. Even if it is, the process can go forward with the concrete goal of truly satisfying as many needs as possible, which is kind of difficult when someone says, "I'll be happy with anything."
Potential objection #2 - "I'm saving effort by stating what's good enough at the start." This is certainly true, but you may end up looking either lazy ("It's too hard to go through the process of working things out.") or possessed of a martyr complex ("Nobody's going to do what I want so I'll just sacrifice. Again.). There's a fine line between the laudable goal of making a negotiation more efficient and contemptible one of circumventing it. I think it's easier to stay on the right side of the line if all parties make decisions about acceptable process instead of one person taking the burden on all by herself.
What did you see today?
As part of a meeting at the library today, one of my co-workers was talking about the flow of items from Acquisitions to Cataloging. Shreve Memorial's website doesn't have pages for these two departments, but if they did, they'd probably look something like this and this. My co-worker's description of the situation was so self-effacing ("It's perfectly all right if we do it this way,") that we had trouble figuring out her preference. Once we did, we immediately put what she wanted into effect.
Commentary
I have resolved that if anyone ever asks me to lead a meeting, I'm going to put two signs up in plain sight, one saying, "We're seeking the best solution, not a perfect solution," and one saying, "Make sure you're answering the question that was asked." I've now decided to add a third: "Don't start your negotiation with what you'll settle for." I think this one, unlike the other two, might be controversial so I've already worked out some responses to potential objections:
Potential objection #1 - "It's nice to be flexible when you're negotiating, so I should show I am from the very beginning." I certainly agree with the first part of this statement and maybe the second as well, but I also think that negotiation is intended as a reconciliation of of different viewpoints. If you start off embracing all viewpoints, it's not a negotiation, it's a summation. On the other hand, if you state clearly what you want from the get-go you may find, as we did in my co-worker's case, that no negotiation is needed at all. Even if it is, the process can go forward with the concrete goal of truly satisfying as many needs as possible, which is kind of difficult when someone says, "I'll be happy with anything."
Potential objection #2 - "I'm saving effort by stating what's good enough at the start." This is certainly true, but you may end up looking either lazy ("It's too hard to go through the process of working things out.") or possessed of a martyr complex ("Nobody's going to do what I want so I'll just sacrifice. Again.). There's a fine line between the laudable goal of making a negotiation more efficient and contemptible one of circumventing it. I think it's easier to stay on the right side of the line if all parties make decisions about acceptable process instead of one person taking the burden on all by herself.
What did you see today?
6/23/2009
I saw a plea for advocacy.
Context
I was reading PUBLIB today. I've commented on it at least twice before, here and here. In this post the writer is trying to use the nationwide network of PUBLIB subscribers to find as many people in Ohio as she can to advocate for continued funding for libraries in that state.
Commentary
Even though I'm a librarian, I don't usually advocate for increased spending for libraries. Increased use of libraries, sure, but seeking more funding seems a little too self-serving to me, like I'm saying, "Please support my livelihood!"
Upon further consideration, I don't usually advocate for higher government spending anywhere. I know that if I were official receiving these calls I'd be awfully tempted to ask, "OK, where would you like me to cut funding in order to increase it for your pet cause?" I'm not an absolutist when it comes to governments having balanced budgets, but I do know there's no such thing as free money and I hate to advocate for something without considering the adverse effects it may have on other people's lives.
Of course, if a politician really did ask me this question I'd give the President Clinton answer (as quoted in this article, down towards the bottom): "Don't cut anything. Tax me more." It really is ridiculous how little I pay in taxes, given how much I make. When I was looking up this quote on the internet, I was flabbergasted to discover that several states (but not Louisiana) really do have Tax Me More provisions and the Treasury Department takes donations as well. I guess it's time for me to put my money where my mouth is. That's right anti-tax folk, I said "my" money.
What did you see today?
I was reading PUBLIB today. I've commented on it at least twice before, here and here. In this post the writer is trying to use the nationwide network of PUBLIB subscribers to find as many people in Ohio as she can to advocate for continued funding for libraries in that state.
Commentary
Even though I'm a librarian, I don't usually advocate for increased spending for libraries. Increased use of libraries, sure, but seeking more funding seems a little too self-serving to me, like I'm saying, "Please support my livelihood!"
Upon further consideration, I don't usually advocate for higher government spending anywhere. I know that if I were official receiving these calls I'd be awfully tempted to ask, "OK, where would you like me to cut funding in order to increase it for your pet cause?" I'm not an absolutist when it comes to governments having balanced budgets, but I do know there's no such thing as free money and I hate to advocate for something without considering the adverse effects it may have on other people's lives.
Of course, if a politician really did ask me this question I'd give the President Clinton answer (as quoted in this article, down towards the bottom): "Don't cut anything. Tax me more." It really is ridiculous how little I pay in taxes, given how much I make. When I was looking up this quote on the internet, I was flabbergasted to discover that several states (but not Louisiana) really do have Tax Me More provisions and the Treasury Department takes donations as well. I guess it's time for me to put my money where my mouth is. That's right anti-tax folk, I said "my" money.
What did you see today?
6/11/2009
I saw poorly written blogs
Context
One of the e-mail lists I’m on pointed me in the direction of the Learngasm blog, which includes this entry. The 100 links on it looked interesting so I thought it would take me forever to go through all of them, but that turned out to not be the case. Most of them were poorly written, so I rejected them as wasting my time.
Commentary
There is almost no content in the world that I will wade through poor writing to get at. Living in the 21st century, I find there’s usually enough good writing available on any subject that I can afford to filter this way, so I feel blessed.
So what counts as poor writing? Well, it's similar to poor teaching, which I define this way: any educational experience that is more strongly focused on the teaching than on the learning is of poor quality. My hope is that you’ve never had this happen, but I’ll bet you have: you’re in a class and you quickly discover that the instructor’s goal is just to get through a certain amount of material. Whether you actually understand it is not part of the equation. I think the same dynamic is often at work when people write. They’re seeking to communicate something, but mostly they appear more concerned with getting it off their chest than in ensuring that the message is received.
What are the hallmarks of this kind of writing? Undefined acronyms and references ("My school.” Which is where? What kind of school? What do you do there?), stream of consciousness sentence and paragraph structure, and my personal bugaboo, misspellings and grammatical errors.
“Oh, Lynn,” you might say, “that’s not fair. Grammar and spelling rules in English are really hard to learn. You can’t expect someone to observe all that minutiae.” Whether the rules are hard or not is debatable, but the fact of the matter is they are the conventions we use in order to understand each other. When I teach my Introduction to the World Wide Web, I tell the students that transfer protocols (http, ftp, SMTP) are agreements between computers to share information the same way so they'll understand each other. Rules governing grammar and spelling are the same sort of thing, and disregarding them amounts to breaking a covenant with your reader.
"Aha," you might rejoin (Wow, you're really being feisty about this issue!), "but you break grammar rules all the time. Why, I can see you're just itching to start a sentence with a conjunction like you always do." OK, but I learned in school that breaking grammar rules on purpose isn't poor writing, it's stylized writing. The author who does this is actually creating a new covenant with his/her readers, like when a poem is written in dialect so readers will experience the lyrical qualities of unfamiliar sounds. If I come across something like this I still may choose not to read it, but I will have some respect for the writer's cleverness, creativity and courage.
On the other hand, even if I concede to the clueless blogger that the conventions are hard to learn and apply, that makes the abdication of responsibility even worse. It's like she/he is saying, "It's too difficult for me to figure out whether to use 'there,' 'they're,' or 'their' in this sentence. Instead I'll just type whatever comes to mind. The reader can expend the effort to figure out what I mean." Thank you, but I must respectfully decline.
What did you see today?
One of the e-mail lists I’m on pointed me in the direction of the Learngasm blog, which includes this entry. The 100 links on it looked interesting so I thought it would take me forever to go through all of them, but that turned out to not be the case. Most of them were poorly written, so I rejected them as wasting my time.
Commentary
There is almost no content in the world that I will wade through poor writing to get at. Living in the 21st century, I find there’s usually enough good writing available on any subject that I can afford to filter this way, so I feel blessed.
So what counts as poor writing? Well, it's similar to poor teaching, which I define this way: any educational experience that is more strongly focused on the teaching than on the learning is of poor quality. My hope is that you’ve never had this happen, but I’ll bet you have: you’re in a class and you quickly discover that the instructor’s goal is just to get through a certain amount of material. Whether you actually understand it is not part of the equation. I think the same dynamic is often at work when people write. They’re seeking to communicate something, but mostly they appear more concerned with getting it off their chest than in ensuring that the message is received.
What are the hallmarks of this kind of writing? Undefined acronyms and references ("My school.” Which is where? What kind of school? What do you do there?), stream of consciousness sentence and paragraph structure, and my personal bugaboo, misspellings and grammatical errors.
“Oh, Lynn,” you might say, “that’s not fair. Grammar and spelling rules in English are really hard to learn. You can’t expect someone to observe all that minutiae.” Whether the rules are hard or not is debatable, but the fact of the matter is they are the conventions we use in order to understand each other. When I teach my Introduction to the World Wide Web, I tell the students that transfer protocols (http, ftp, SMTP) are agreements between computers to share information the same way so they'll understand each other. Rules governing grammar and spelling are the same sort of thing, and disregarding them amounts to breaking a covenant with your reader.
"Aha," you might rejoin (Wow, you're really being feisty about this issue!), "but you break grammar rules all the time. Why, I can see you're just itching to start a sentence with a conjunction like you always do." OK, but I learned in school that breaking grammar rules on purpose isn't poor writing, it's stylized writing. The author who does this is actually creating a new covenant with his/her readers, like when a poem is written in dialect so readers will experience the lyrical qualities of unfamiliar sounds. If I come across something like this I still may choose not to read it, but I will have some respect for the writer's cleverness, creativity and courage.
On the other hand, even if I concede to the clueless blogger that the conventions are hard to learn and apply, that makes the abdication of responsibility even worse. It's like she/he is saying, "It's too difficult for me to figure out whether to use 'there,' 'they're,' or 'their' in this sentence. Instead I'll just type whatever comes to mind. The reader can expend the effort to figure out what I mean." Thank you, but I must respectfully decline.
What did you see today?
6/10/2009
I saw routing flags
Context
Because Shreve Memorial Library has 20 branches and uses a hub-and-spoke model to move materials around(similar to this one, but we try not to lose your luggage ;-)), we have pre-printed, color-coded routing flags that we stick in and sometimes on materials that say where they're going. The problem is, once the item arrives at its destination, the flag becomes temporarily useless. Nobody is trying to send things from the Main Library to the Main Library, after all. So each branch, when they've received a sizable number of these things with their name on them, bundles the flags up and sends them back to the Main Library hub. Our Interlibrary Loans Department is normally responsible for routing both the traveling material and the flags themselves.
I occasionally receive items (correspondence or pieces of hardware I need to look at) with Main Library flags attached to them. Since I receive so few I don't bother to give them to Interlibrary Loans; I just drop them off at the next branch I happen to visit. So I was looking at the three or four flags sitting on my desk awaiting redistribution today.
Commentary
I am not much of an environmentalist. I like to think this is not a character flaw on my part, but just a question of some other aspects of life taking higher priority. However, I do like the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra and try to apply it when I can. That's why I like the routing flags; they are single scraps of paper that can be reused over and over again.
So there's something that some of my coworkers do that drives me straight up a wall: they write my name and/or my floor on the flag, which renders it un-reusable. Oh sure, I'm going to be sent more mail at some point in the future, but no one's going to hold on to the routing flag with my name on it waiting for that eventuality. The floor designation's unnecessary anyway; it's Interlibrary Loans' job to know where everyone is in the Main Library. And if you want to attach my name, use a separate piece of paper; don't invalidate the routing flag! See, I told you I get up in arms about this.
So as I was looking at the unsullied, still-reusable flags on my desk, I was wondering why people don't just "do right" in this respect. It's something I frequently wonder about and I've come to the following conclusion: it's because they don't see the world the way I do. There is some quantity of people that don't look at an item that can easily be reused and say to themselves, "I should do everything I can to make that happen."
My first instinct in situations like this is to ponder what I can do to make people change. 45 years of life experience have actually taught me the answer: nothing. The good news is, recent religious exploration has convinced me that it's not only impossible to make everyone conform to my view of the world, it's not even desirable.
God is vast and vastly creative. No one person can perceive, appreciate and participate in all that He is doing. So our different ways of seeing the world are a gift we can offer to the Lord and to each other. For example, when I interact with a friend who thinks airline travel is immoral because of the ecological impact, I get to learn that just owning a Prius isn't enough to call myself an environmentalist, and she gets to see that people can hold other priorities in good faith, like wanting to build community through travel. Everybody gets to grow!
Share with me what you saw today!
Because Shreve Memorial Library has 20 branches and uses a hub-and-spoke model to move materials around(similar to this one, but we try not to lose your luggage ;-)), we have pre-printed, color-coded routing flags that we stick in and sometimes on materials that say where they're going. The problem is, once the item arrives at its destination, the flag becomes temporarily useless. Nobody is trying to send things from the Main Library to the Main Library, after all. So each branch, when they've received a sizable number of these things with their name on them, bundles the flags up and sends them back to the Main Library hub. Our Interlibrary Loans Department is normally responsible for routing both the traveling material and the flags themselves.
I occasionally receive items (correspondence or pieces of hardware I need to look at) with Main Library flags attached to them. Since I receive so few I don't bother to give them to Interlibrary Loans; I just drop them off at the next branch I happen to visit. So I was looking at the three or four flags sitting on my desk awaiting redistribution today.
Commentary
I am not much of an environmentalist. I like to think this is not a character flaw on my part, but just a question of some other aspects of life taking higher priority. However, I do like the "reduce, reuse, recycle" mantra and try to apply it when I can. That's why I like the routing flags; they are single scraps of paper that can be reused over and over again.
So there's something that some of my coworkers do that drives me straight up a wall: they write my name and/or my floor on the flag, which renders it un-reusable. Oh sure, I'm going to be sent more mail at some point in the future, but no one's going to hold on to the routing flag with my name on it waiting for that eventuality. The floor designation's unnecessary anyway; it's Interlibrary Loans' job to know where everyone is in the Main Library. And if you want to attach my name, use a separate piece of paper; don't invalidate the routing flag! See, I told you I get up in arms about this.
So as I was looking at the unsullied, still-reusable flags on my desk, I was wondering why people don't just "do right" in this respect. It's something I frequently wonder about and I've come to the following conclusion: it's because they don't see the world the way I do. There is some quantity of people that don't look at an item that can easily be reused and say to themselves, "I should do everything I can to make that happen."
My first instinct in situations like this is to ponder what I can do to make people change. 45 years of life experience have actually taught me the answer: nothing. The good news is, recent religious exploration has convinced me that it's not only impossible to make everyone conform to my view of the world, it's not even desirable.
God is vast and vastly creative. No one person can perceive, appreciate and participate in all that He is doing. So our different ways of seeing the world are a gift we can offer to the Lord and to each other. For example, when I interact with a friend who thinks airline travel is immoral because of the ecological impact, I get to learn that just owning a Prius isn't enough to call myself an environmentalist, and she gets to see that people can hold other priorities in good faith, like wanting to build community through travel. Everybody gets to grow!
Share with me what you saw today!
6/03/2009
I saw my iGoogle page
Context
I have an iGoogle page. Mainly I use it as a quick link to this blog and for sharing a calendar with my husband. I also have links to some other websites with hard-to-remember addresses that I use regularly and a couple of RSS feeds. There are a lot of other things I could add to the page, but in the three years I've had it I've made very few changes.
Commentary
As mentioned previously, I am not a quick adopter of technological innovation. In fact, if I'm completely honest with myself I have to say I'm not a person who changes easily, period.
I'm not change-averse; I'm change-cautious. Or maybe change-skeptical. Change-intentional? I like to have a good reason to change, OK? And just, "it's new!" doesn't qualify as a good reason in my book. So looking over my iGoogle page caused me to wonder, "Do I need to add anything new here?" And the answer was no, I didn't feel like it lacked for anything important. Which got me to thinking about what does cause me to change. What is a good enough reason? The answer that immediately popped into my head was: "Other people."
I was flabbergasted. If you asked anyone who knew me to make a list of my personality traits, "people-pleaser" wouldn't make the top 200. And since "argumentative," "stubborn," and um, "forthright" would probably be in the top ten, I have a certain amount of sympathy for anyone who tries to make me to change something.
Nonetheless, other people are usually involved when I decide to change something. The scenario usually goes like this: I see someone in need. In examining the situation, I see a change that I could make that would likely improve matters. The change gets made.
For example, the reason I share a calendar with my husband on iGoogle is because I used to hand him a paper calendar every month and that became really difficult for him to keep track of. Plus my schedule is often kind of up in the air, so I had to hand him frequent updates and even though his schedule is usually fairly regular, I had a hard time remembering it, and blah! It all just became much easier with a shared web solution.
Realistically, of course, I'm often solving my own problems at the same time, but I find it harder to see my problems. Forest for the trees, I suppose. Paradoxically, I seem to need to see another person's problem with my own eyes in order to respond, rather than just believing them when they tell me about it. So I guess it's a good thing to keep my eyes open.
What did you see today?
I have an iGoogle page. Mainly I use it as a quick link to this blog and for sharing a calendar with my husband. I also have links to some other websites with hard-to-remember addresses that I use regularly and a couple of RSS feeds. There are a lot of other things I could add to the page, but in the three years I've had it I've made very few changes.
Commentary
As mentioned previously, I am not a quick adopter of technological innovation. In fact, if I'm completely honest with myself I have to say I'm not a person who changes easily, period.
I'm not change-averse; I'm change-cautious. Or maybe change-skeptical. Change-intentional? I like to have a good reason to change, OK? And just, "it's new!" doesn't qualify as a good reason in my book. So looking over my iGoogle page caused me to wonder, "Do I need to add anything new here?" And the answer was no, I didn't feel like it lacked for anything important. Which got me to thinking about what does cause me to change. What is a good enough reason? The answer that immediately popped into my head was: "Other people."
I was flabbergasted. If you asked anyone who knew me to make a list of my personality traits, "people-pleaser" wouldn't make the top 200. And since "argumentative," "stubborn," and um, "forthright" would probably be in the top ten, I have a certain amount of sympathy for anyone who tries to make me to change something.
Nonetheless, other people are usually involved when I decide to change something. The scenario usually goes like this: I see someone in need. In examining the situation, I see a change that I could make that would likely improve matters. The change gets made.
For example, the reason I share a calendar with my husband on iGoogle is because I used to hand him a paper calendar every month and that became really difficult for him to keep track of. Plus my schedule is often kind of up in the air, so I had to hand him frequent updates and even though his schedule is usually fairly regular, I had a hard time remembering it, and blah! It all just became much easier with a shared web solution.
Realistically, of course, I'm often solving my own problems at the same time, but I find it harder to see my problems. Forest for the trees, I suppose. Paradoxically, I seem to need to see another person's problem with my own eyes in order to respond, rather than just believing them when they tell me about it. So I guess it's a good thing to keep my eyes open.
What did you see today?
6/01/2009
I saw a discussion of repatriation attempts during the Holocaust
Context
I am reading the proceedings of Second Yad Vashem International Historical Conference in a volume entitled Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust. You can purchase this book through the Yad Vashem website, but I'm not sure how many mainstream booksellers have it. I got my copy at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Currently I'm reading a report on attempts by President Roosevelt and others to repatriate European Jews during the Holocaust period. The only successful massive migration took place after the war, when Britain loosened restrictions on entering Palestine. Shortly thereafter, the state of Israel was born.
Commentary
I bought this book after touring the Holocaust Museum because frankly, I was depressed. For as long as I've been aware of the Shoah (the TV miniseries The Holocaust was my first exposure) the question has tortured me: why didn't anybody do anything? So I needed to cling to the idea that someone tried.
I didn't actually start reading the book until ten years later, which is probably a good thing. Notice that the title isn't "Successful Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust." It's interesting reading, but not exactly inspirational.
I find myself particularly puzzled by this chapter on repatriation, because it keeps being couched as a solution to the Jewish "problem". What I keep asking myself is, "How did this happen?" Germany (and Poland and Hungary, etc.) was the Jews' home; how did they become a "problem" that needed solving? The answer is as simple as it is chilling: they became a problem because the dominant culture decided they were. From that point on, no amount of "See here now, old fellow, you're being irrational," could save a single person from the concentration camps, so the rest of the world was forced to adopt the "solving the Jewish problem" approach.
Which brings me to the Palestinians. It is considered something of an internet truism that once you bring comparisons to Nazism into any argument you've lost it (quick capsule of this idea here), but I'm going to claim my right as an historian (B.A. 1987, Rice University) to say that no situation is ever completely unprecedented, and valid historical comparisons are educational regardless of the emotional content behind them. So, onward!
For various reasons, the state of Israel has decided that Palestinians are a problem and that they don't want them anywhere near Israeli citizens. This is remarkably similar to the early rhetoric the Nazi regime used about the Jews.
Just to be clear, here's what I'm not saying: I don't believe the Israelis have any intention of sending the Palestinians to concentration camps and exterminating them. I'm also not saying that Israel doesn't have legitimate security concerns about at least some of the Palestinians living in their midst.
But here's what I am saying: if you time-warped a person from the Warsaw ghetto to some of areas Palestinians live in today, he/she would see some points of commonality. I'm also saying this: very few people start off intending to be an oppressor. They start off defending themselves from a perceived threat. From there it takes very few steps to decide that it's appropriate to do whatever you have to in order to "solve your problem."
What did you see today?
I am reading the proceedings of Second Yad Vashem International Historical Conference in a volume entitled Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust. You can purchase this book through the Yad Vashem website, but I'm not sure how many mainstream booksellers have it. I got my copy at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. Currently I'm reading a report on attempts by President Roosevelt and others to repatriate European Jews during the Holocaust period. The only successful massive migration took place after the war, when Britain loosened restrictions on entering Palestine. Shortly thereafter, the state of Israel was born.
Commentary
I bought this book after touring the Holocaust Museum because frankly, I was depressed. For as long as I've been aware of the Shoah (the TV miniseries The Holocaust was my first exposure) the question has tortured me: why didn't anybody do anything? So I needed to cling to the idea that someone tried.
I didn't actually start reading the book until ten years later, which is probably a good thing. Notice that the title isn't "Successful Rescue Attempts during the Holocaust." It's interesting reading, but not exactly inspirational.
I find myself particularly puzzled by this chapter on repatriation, because it keeps being couched as a solution to the Jewish "problem". What I keep asking myself is, "How did this happen?" Germany (and Poland and Hungary, etc.) was the Jews' home; how did they become a "problem" that needed solving? The answer is as simple as it is chilling: they became a problem because the dominant culture decided they were. From that point on, no amount of "See here now, old fellow, you're being irrational," could save a single person from the concentration camps, so the rest of the world was forced to adopt the "solving the Jewish problem" approach.
Which brings me to the Palestinians. It is considered something of an internet truism that once you bring comparisons to Nazism into any argument you've lost it (quick capsule of this idea here), but I'm going to claim my right as an historian (B.A. 1987, Rice University) to say that no situation is ever completely unprecedented, and valid historical comparisons are educational regardless of the emotional content behind them. So, onward!
For various reasons, the state of Israel has decided that Palestinians are a problem and that they don't want them anywhere near Israeli citizens. This is remarkably similar to the early rhetoric the Nazi regime used about the Jews.
Just to be clear, here's what I'm not saying: I don't believe the Israelis have any intention of sending the Palestinians to concentration camps and exterminating them. I'm also not saying that Israel doesn't have legitimate security concerns about at least some of the Palestinians living in their midst.
But here's what I am saying: if you time-warped a person from the Warsaw ghetto to some of areas Palestinians live in today, he/she would see some points of commonality. I'm also saying this: very few people start off intending to be an oppressor. They start off defending themselves from a perceived threat. From there it takes very few steps to decide that it's appropriate to do whatever you have to in order to "solve your problem."
What did you see today?
4/20/2009
I saw an older European-American man driving poorly
Context
In Shreveport, I-20 West has an off ramp that merges into northbound Common Street. As I was traveling north on Common this morning, one of the cars on this ramp failed to yield to oncoming traffic like it was supposed to. When I looked at the driver of the vehicle, I saw that he was an older European-American, and that he was looking down at the seat next to him rather than watching where he was going. I said "Sir!" in an exasperated tone as I swerved around him. At least one of the cars behind me, which had to swerve even more, honked at him.
Commentary
My theories as to what happened with the guy this morning all center around him not realizing he was sliding into traffic. In other words, he thought he had a moment or two to glance at his papers or his phone or whatever before he would have to pay attention to other cars, but he didn't. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about white privilege.
I am not a road-ragey type. This is one of the few areas in my life where I actually hew pretty closely to the Quaker peace testimony. I do not honk my horn in anger, only in warning or greeting. When my fellow drivers do something irritating, I usually just say or yell something in the privacy of my own vehicle and it usually isn't even profane or insulting. Something along the lines of "C'mon!" or "Seriously?" If I'm particularly irked I'll emulate my dad, who used to say "Well, friend . . . " in a very sarcastic tone. This is pretty funny in light of the fact that my dad was not a Quaker but a Baptist, but I digress.
However, I don't recall ever saying "Sir" before. Now maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, where "yes, sir" and "no ma'am" have been codified into law. But I don't think so. I think it's because the driver was older than me, which definitely does deserve some respect, and because he was white and male, which doesn't necessarily.
So I guess my new mandate in the fight for equality is to refer to every bad driver, without prejudice, as sir or ma'am. Wish me luck!
What did you see today?
In Shreveport, I-20 West has an off ramp that merges into northbound Common Street. As I was traveling north on Common this morning, one of the cars on this ramp failed to yield to oncoming traffic like it was supposed to. When I looked at the driver of the vehicle, I saw that he was an older European-American, and that he was looking down at the seat next to him rather than watching where he was going. I said "Sir!" in an exasperated tone as I swerved around him. At least one of the cars behind me, which had to swerve even more, honked at him.
Commentary
My theories as to what happened with the guy this morning all center around him not realizing he was sliding into traffic. In other words, he thought he had a moment or two to glance at his papers or his phone or whatever before he would have to pay attention to other cars, but he didn't. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about white privilege.
I am not a road-ragey type. This is one of the few areas in my life where I actually hew pretty closely to the Quaker peace testimony. I do not honk my horn in anger, only in warning or greeting. When my fellow drivers do something irritating, I usually just say or yell something in the privacy of my own vehicle and it usually isn't even profane or insulting. Something along the lines of "C'mon!" or "Seriously?" If I'm particularly irked I'll emulate my dad, who used to say "Well, friend . . . " in a very sarcastic tone. This is pretty funny in light of the fact that my dad was not a Quaker but a Baptist, but I digress.
However, I don't recall ever saying "Sir" before. Now maybe it's just because I live in Louisiana, where "yes, sir" and "no ma'am" have been codified into law. But I don't think so. I think it's because the driver was older than me, which definitely does deserve some respect, and because he was white and male, which doesn't necessarily.
So I guess my new mandate in the fight for equality is to refer to every bad driver, without prejudice, as sir or ma'am. Wish me luck!
What did you see today?
4/11/2009
I heard a guiding principle
Context
In my Friends meeting today we were discussing guiding principles for life, things that help us decide what path to take in a given situation. One woman said she goes by "always take the easiest path," but upon further consideration she decided it was more like, "always take the path with the most fun."
Commentary
"Always take the path with the most fun" reminds me of football. The old season is two months gone and the new season is four months away and still things remind me of football. Whatcha gonna do?
Anyway, for about the past ten years, the NFL has had an "instant replay rule" (details here) which allows referees to take a look at video of a just completed play to see if they made the correct call or not. I often tell my husband they should change this rule to favor not the "correct" call but the "most fun" call.
I'm not serious. I know this wouldn't work because the main goal of professional football and most other organized sports is to create a set of objective standards (move the ball a certain distance, prevent the other team from moving the ball, catch the ball within the confines of the field of play, etc.) and award a "win" to whichever team does the best job of conforming to them. Since football has a lot of these standards, you need a person whose job is to very precisely evaluate each team's performance for compliance with all of them. That's your referee, or in the case of big-time football, your whole officiating team.
However, I think my proposal does fit in well with some of the NFL's ancillary goals. It's supposed to be sports entertainment, after all, so fun should come in somewhere. I also think most professional sports organizations like to promote a certain amount of parity, because a good close game makes it more likely that people will watch the whole thing. If referees started awarding questionable calls to whichever team was losing, it might very well make the game more fun.
It might make for interesting coaching strategies as well: "let's not take the lead yet. Let's try for a couple of 'most fun' calls." Hmm. How do you think that would work as a guiding principle for life?
What did you hear today?
In my Friends meeting today we were discussing guiding principles for life, things that help us decide what path to take in a given situation. One woman said she goes by "always take the easiest path," but upon further consideration she decided it was more like, "always take the path with the most fun."
Commentary
"Always take the path with the most fun" reminds me of football. The old season is two months gone and the new season is four months away and still things remind me of football. Whatcha gonna do?
Anyway, for about the past ten years, the NFL has had an "instant replay rule" (details here) which allows referees to take a look at video of a just completed play to see if they made the correct call or not. I often tell my husband they should change this rule to favor not the "correct" call but the "most fun" call.
I'm not serious. I know this wouldn't work because the main goal of professional football and most other organized sports is to create a set of objective standards (move the ball a certain distance, prevent the other team from moving the ball, catch the ball within the confines of the field of play, etc.) and award a "win" to whichever team does the best job of conforming to them. Since football has a lot of these standards, you need a person whose job is to very precisely evaluate each team's performance for compliance with all of them. That's your referee, or in the case of big-time football, your whole officiating team.
However, I think my proposal does fit in well with some of the NFL's ancillary goals. It's supposed to be sports entertainment, after all, so fun should come in somewhere. I also think most professional sports organizations like to promote a certain amount of parity, because a good close game makes it more likely that people will watch the whole thing. If referees started awarding questionable calls to whichever team was losing, it might very well make the game more fun.
It might make for interesting coaching strategies as well: "let's not take the lead yet. Let's try for a couple of 'most fun' calls." Hmm. How do you think that would work as a guiding principle for life?
What did you hear today?
4/03/2009
I saw a DVD on harassment and discrimination
Context
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."
Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).
What did you see today?
The Technical Services division of my library had its annual training on discrimination and harassment in the workplace today. Interspersed with watching a DVD called Without Regard we had some commentary and discussion time. At one point while we were discussing discrimination one of my co-workers made, I think without realizing it, a blatantly discriminatory remark about the suitability of men and women for a particular job. A little later on, when the HR director was talking about the potential harm caused by jokes, I thought to myself, "people are just being silly if they get offended when we do stuff like that."
Commentary
I don't have much to say about the situation today. Instead I want to say something else about Matthew 7:1-5: it is a quality of sinners that if it's wrong we don't think we do it (my coworker), and if we do it, we don't think it's wrong (me).
What did you see today?
4/01/2009
I saw compliments on something I did
Context
I've spent some time this week contributing to a wiki composed of information on using a piece of software called Symphony by SirsiDynix. Today, a couple of people on an e-mail list devoted to the same subject complimented my work. I cannot link to either my contributions or their comments because that information is proprietary to SirsiDynix.
Commentary
The compliments I received got me to thinking about what motivates us to take extra effort. I mean, I wasn't expecting compliments when I sent my files to the wiki; I thought my contribution was way too mired in minute detail to be of much use.
The subject of motivation has interested me since high school. I think it came to my attention for two reasons. One was a book my dad was reading called Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna, which broke down motivation to a very neat set of flow charts. If only real-world management was so easy!
The other was a class I took my freshman year of high school on comparative economic systems. This was not a "capitalism good, communism bad!" class, it was a legitimate comparison of the merits and drawbacks of these two major systems and other economic theories. In fact, I think the evenhandedness of it was what caused some of my fellow students to think our teacher was herself a communist, but I never got that impression.
I came away from that class thinking that communism was a lovely theory that could never work. Ideally it would be nice if we could all work for the common good, but it was not realistic to expect human beings to be motivated by altruism. As a strong believer in sin, I still think that's true.
Over time, though, I've come to realize that communist theory is more subtle than that. It doesn't expect altruism, it expects faith. If you believe that Karl Marx's view of human interactions is correct and/or morally superior, than you will be motivated to implement his theories. The same thing actually applies to capitalism and Adam Smith.
So what was my motivation to contribute to the wiki? Well, I had some faith that the material I contributed would be welcomed. OK, someone actually asked me to send it in, which was enough to inspire some confidence.
I guess I also believe in collaborative efforts in general. Not all of them, and I sometimes think wikis bring out the worst aspects of "writing by committee," but I'm often convinced that three hundred heads are better than one.
Finally, I believe that if you can help someone out, that's worth some extra effort. Wait, does that mean I'm a communist?
What did you see today?
I've spent some time this week contributing to a wiki composed of information on using a piece of software called Symphony by SirsiDynix. Today, a couple of people on an e-mail list devoted to the same subject complimented my work. I cannot link to either my contributions or their comments because that information is proprietary to SirsiDynix.
Commentary
The compliments I received got me to thinking about what motivates us to take extra effort. I mean, I wasn't expecting compliments when I sent my files to the wiki; I thought my contribution was way too mired in minute detail to be of much use.
The subject of motivation has interested me since high school. I think it came to my attention for two reasons. One was a book my dad was reading called Analyzing Performance Problems, or You Really Oughta Wanna, which broke down motivation to a very neat set of flow charts. If only real-world management was so easy!
The other was a class I took my freshman year of high school on comparative economic systems. This was not a "capitalism good, communism bad!" class, it was a legitimate comparison of the merits and drawbacks of these two major systems and other economic theories. In fact, I think the evenhandedness of it was what caused some of my fellow students to think our teacher was herself a communist, but I never got that impression.
I came away from that class thinking that communism was a lovely theory that could never work. Ideally it would be nice if we could all work for the common good, but it was not realistic to expect human beings to be motivated by altruism. As a strong believer in sin, I still think that's true.
Over time, though, I've come to realize that communist theory is more subtle than that. It doesn't expect altruism, it expects faith. If you believe that Karl Marx's view of human interactions is correct and/or morally superior, than you will be motivated to implement his theories. The same thing actually applies to capitalism and Adam Smith.
So what was my motivation to contribute to the wiki? Well, I had some faith that the material I contributed would be welcomed. OK, someone actually asked me to send it in, which was enough to inspire some confidence.
I guess I also believe in collaborative efforts in general. Not all of them, and I sometimes think wikis bring out the worst aspects of "writing by committee," but I'm often convinced that three hundred heads are better than one.
Finally, I believe that if you can help someone out, that's worth some extra effort. Wait, does that mean I'm a communist?
What did you see today?
3/06/2009
I heard about no-win situations
Context
My boss and I were talking about situations where you "catch more flies with honey than vinegar," and he mentioned one where there's nothing you can say that won't get you in trouble: "should I eat this?", when spoken by a girlfriend. I said, "yup, and the ever-popular 'does this make me look fat?'"
Commentary
I'm not going to talk about body-image issues. It is, frankly, too easy a target and I don't think I have anything new to contribute to it. Instead I'm going to make a heartfelt plea that we stop asking questions of our significant others that we should be answering ourselves. And it's not just straight women. People of every conceivable type of romantic interest set these little traps (hopefully unintentionally!) for the people they supposedly like.
Take "does this make me look fat?" First of all, this question implies that what you look like is somehow the fault of an inanimate object. Also, you're asking someone outside yourself to create an objective reality for you. No matter how she or he answers, that answer is supposed to stand in for everyone else in the world, including you.
At the very least, make this a question that encompasses only one person's opinion: "do you think I look fat when I wear this?" Before you ask a question like this, though, you should probably prepare yourself for one of three answers:
1) I have no opinion. The sad fact of life is if you're asking a straight male the question, this is likely the answer. Men may be partial to or repulsed by how some small subset of our garments look on us, but face it, when we own the same pair of shoes in navy and black, we can't even tell the difference ourselves most mornings.
2) Yes. This means your significant other thinks this is an unflattering garment. Or that he/she likes you fat. Nothing more. It is not a reflection on the entire history of your relationship.
3) No. This may potentially mean your partner disagrees with you on how flattering this item is.
So how do you deal with this disagreement? Go with your own opinion (oh well, I don't like it anyway, off to Goodwill)? Then why did you ask? Go with their opinion (OK, I'll keep it then, just as a present to you)? Actually, this is not a bad way to train your significant other to be honest, because if she/he is not, you're going to end up with a lot of clothes neither of you can stand! Honestly reassess your opinion in light of partner's, but still make up your own mind? Heavens! How insanely well-adjusted of you!
As for the "should I eat this?" question, I think it is far more easily dispensed with. There are only three circumstances under which you should be asking ANYONE this question:
1) You have been presented with something that for cultural reasons you don't know the purpose of. If someone gives you a definitive answer either way, do what they say.
2) You are under 14. In this case you should give some credence to the answer, especially if you have documented food sensitivities.
3) You are asking a registered dietician, in which case you can ask for the advice but still make up your own mind.
In every other situation grownups are expected to know how to feed themselves. Even female grownups with body-image issues.
What did you hear today?
My boss and I were talking about situations where you "catch more flies with honey than vinegar," and he mentioned one where there's nothing you can say that won't get you in trouble: "should I eat this?", when spoken by a girlfriend. I said, "yup, and the ever-popular 'does this make me look fat?'"
Commentary
I'm not going to talk about body-image issues. It is, frankly, too easy a target and I don't think I have anything new to contribute to it. Instead I'm going to make a heartfelt plea that we stop asking questions of our significant others that we should be answering ourselves. And it's not just straight women. People of every conceivable type of romantic interest set these little traps (hopefully unintentionally!) for the people they supposedly like.
Take "does this make me look fat?" First of all, this question implies that what you look like is somehow the fault of an inanimate object. Also, you're asking someone outside yourself to create an objective reality for you. No matter how she or he answers, that answer is supposed to stand in for everyone else in the world, including you.
At the very least, make this a question that encompasses only one person's opinion: "do you think I look fat when I wear this?" Before you ask a question like this, though, you should probably prepare yourself for one of three answers:
1) I have no opinion. The sad fact of life is if you're asking a straight male the question, this is likely the answer. Men may be partial to or repulsed by how some small subset of our garments look on us, but face it, when we own the same pair of shoes in navy and black, we can't even tell the difference ourselves most mornings.
2) Yes. This means your significant other thinks this is an unflattering garment. Or that he/she likes you fat. Nothing more. It is not a reflection on the entire history of your relationship.
3) No. This may potentially mean your partner disagrees with you on how flattering this item is.
So how do you deal with this disagreement? Go with your own opinion (oh well, I don't like it anyway, off to Goodwill)? Then why did you ask? Go with their opinion (OK, I'll keep it then, just as a present to you)? Actually, this is not a bad way to train your significant other to be honest, because if she/he is not, you're going to end up with a lot of clothes neither of you can stand! Honestly reassess your opinion in light of partner's, but still make up your own mind? Heavens! How insanely well-adjusted of you!
As for the "should I eat this?" question, I think it is far more easily dispensed with. There are only three circumstances under which you should be asking ANYONE this question:
1) You have been presented with something that for cultural reasons you don't know the purpose of. If someone gives you a definitive answer either way, do what they say.
2) You are under 14. In this case you should give some credence to the answer, especially if you have documented food sensitivities.
3) You are asking a registered dietician, in which case you can ask for the advice but still make up your own mind.
In every other situation grownups are expected to know how to feed themselves. Even female grownups with body-image issues.
What did you hear today?
2/18/2009
I saw an article about a crime
Context
I read an article from yesterday's Shreveport Times today. It may be at this link, or it may not, depending on how long they archive the material. The article concerned the murder of a local woman, Ashley Scott, by her husband in Tennessee. Here is a direct quote from this article:
"Stephens said there were signs of domestic violence -- Ashley would wear heavy makeup or high collars to hide bruises -- and concerns by faculty. But when he talked to Ashley, offering Employee Assistance Program help, she said, 'Everything will be OK.'
Said Stephens: 'I don't think anybody realized how bad it was, how bad it was getting.'
It was, Stephens now realizes in hindsight, 'this perfect facade of a relationship.'"
"Stephens" is the principal at the school where Mrs. Scott taught.
Commentary
I understand that Mr. Stephens is under an extraordinary amount of pressure, but I feel compelled to point out that although his first statement is likely factual, the second one is mistaken at best and the third one is an outright lie. If you see a woman dressing to cover the signs of spousal abuse, you know exactly how bad it is, and she and her husband are not maintaining anything resembling a perfect facade of a relationship.
So why say it? I think it's likely that Stephens has heard, possibly more than once, or maybe just in the privacy of his own head, this accusation: "if you knew what was going on, why didn't you stop it?" So he backs off, pretends he didn't know what was going on. It's a more palatable answer than what seems to be the truth, "she wouldn't let me."
I blame the afterschool specials. The media has done such a good job of convincing us that domestic violence is a simple situation involving one monster and one victim that we think curing the problem should be equally simple. Just walk away. Accept the help an outsider offers you.
But real life isn't like that. Abuse is only part of a relationship. It may be a constant part or an intermittent one, but it's still only one element. And the person who's being abused may not see it as important enough to outweigh all the other elements.
My father used to hit my mother. Not regularly, but certainly more than once. I know I just wrote that in a universally accessible blog, but up until this moment I have kept that information relatively close to the chest. My close friends know; I've told church groups I was close to, but I've never made a big announcement or been all crusady about it.
I think one of the reasons I'm reluctant to talk about it is because I'm wary of the oversimplifications. The stereotypes I'm accustomed to don't fit the situation. My mother was neither too stupid to know what was going on nor too helpless to walk away. She was a woman who weighed her alternatives and made her decisions. And forgive me for straying off the P.C. ranch, but she wasn't always particularly nice to my dad either.
The conditions did not match Ashley Scott's. My father never cut my mother off from her friend and relatives and her life was never in danger. But if I'm really, really honest, I have to admit that the two people I'm ashamed to have never discussed this with are my mother and my father. Would it have helped? Can a daughter actually say to her parents, "your relationship is really screwed up and I think you both could make better decisions"? They're both gone now so I'll never know.
And now Ashley Scott is gone as well and we're all left feeling like there's something more we could have done . . .
What did you see today?
I read an article from yesterday's Shreveport Times today. It may be at this link, or it may not, depending on how long they archive the material. The article concerned the murder of a local woman, Ashley Scott, by her husband in Tennessee. Here is a direct quote from this article:
"Stephens said there were signs of domestic violence -- Ashley would wear heavy makeup or high collars to hide bruises -- and concerns by faculty. But when he talked to Ashley, offering Employee Assistance Program help, she said, 'Everything will be OK.'
Said Stephens: 'I don't think anybody realized how bad it was, how bad it was getting.'
It was, Stephens now realizes in hindsight, 'this perfect facade of a relationship.'"
"Stephens" is the principal at the school where Mrs. Scott taught.
Commentary
I understand that Mr. Stephens is under an extraordinary amount of pressure, but I feel compelled to point out that although his first statement is likely factual, the second one is mistaken at best and the third one is an outright lie. If you see a woman dressing to cover the signs of spousal abuse, you know exactly how bad it is, and she and her husband are not maintaining anything resembling a perfect facade of a relationship.
So why say it? I think it's likely that Stephens has heard, possibly more than once, or maybe just in the privacy of his own head, this accusation: "if you knew what was going on, why didn't you stop it?" So he backs off, pretends he didn't know what was going on. It's a more palatable answer than what seems to be the truth, "she wouldn't let me."
I blame the afterschool specials. The media has done such a good job of convincing us that domestic violence is a simple situation involving one monster and one victim that we think curing the problem should be equally simple. Just walk away. Accept the help an outsider offers you.
But real life isn't like that. Abuse is only part of a relationship. It may be a constant part or an intermittent one, but it's still only one element. And the person who's being abused may not see it as important enough to outweigh all the other elements.
My father used to hit my mother. Not regularly, but certainly more than once. I know I just wrote that in a universally accessible blog, but up until this moment I have kept that information relatively close to the chest. My close friends know; I've told church groups I was close to, but I've never made a big announcement or been all crusady about it.
I think one of the reasons I'm reluctant to talk about it is because I'm wary of the oversimplifications. The stereotypes I'm accustomed to don't fit the situation. My mother was neither too stupid to know what was going on nor too helpless to walk away. She was a woman who weighed her alternatives and made her decisions. And forgive me for straying off the P.C. ranch, but she wasn't always particularly nice to my dad either.
The conditions did not match Ashley Scott's. My father never cut my mother off from her friend and relatives and her life was never in danger. But if I'm really, really honest, I have to admit that the two people I'm ashamed to have never discussed this with are my mother and my father. Would it have helped? Can a daughter actually say to her parents, "your relationship is really screwed up and I think you both could make better decisions"? They're both gone now so I'll never know.
And now Ashley Scott is gone as well and we're all left feeling like there's something more we could have done . . .
What did you see today?
2/08/2009
I saw a group of unfaithful people
Context
I had a dream this morning. It started in a church. I was there with my husband and I had decided I wasn’t interested in the proceedings, so I went by myself to an area in the rear where the pews were turned backwards and I could hang out without really paying attention to what was going on.
After a time a woman rose up to speak to the church. She said that she and a group of others were going to leave the church, which was called Nassaret, because of its teachings. I was interested in this development, so I looked over the back of my pew to see the power point presentation she was doing.
She mentioned several offensive things that had been said at Nassaret, including that it was OK to look at nudity. None of the things she said were preachings that would bother me in a church, but even though I didn’t agree with her I remember admiring the zeal behind her words.
After a time I saw the separatist group again. They were readying a boat, so I guess they were planning a major geographic exodus, rather than just starting another church nearby. I met some of the other people involved in the movement, including a drummer who was playing some music for people to work by. Now that I’m awake and remembering this dream, I realize that the drummer was the administrator of a nursing home where I do some volunteer work.
Another period of time passed and as I was going down a street near my house I saw the drummer again, drumming between orange cones that had been set in the street to reserve the lane for her. I was dismayed because I realized this meant the group hadn’t separated themselves at all. Sure enough, following the cones I found that they were part of a fundraising effort and they led back to the boat the group had been preparing. There were tons of people on board, including all the separatists and all the people from Nassaret.
I found the woman who had started the movement and asked her what had happened. She said they had found out they didn’t really need to create a schism and everything was going to be all right. Suspicious, I asked who had told her so. She said, “He’s right here!” and took me into another room to meet him. “This is Senator [Something] Neutral.” As soon as I saw him my suspicions were concerned. He was a servant of the devil.
“Nice to see you again,” I said, putting out my hand to shake. He shook it and said, “likewise.” Then I said, “begone!” and he said a phrase I didn’t know, presumably “bite me” in some ancient language.
“Begone!” I said again, and he gave no response. “Do you really want me to say it a third time, with the puff of smoke and everything?” He shrugged.
“Begone!” I said and he did in fact disappear in a puff of smoke.
The former leader of the separatist group was appalled. “I’m going to have you put in jail!”
“Do it! For God’s sake!” I said this in anger, and then stopped because it seemed an inappropriate time to be using the Lord’s name in vain. Then I realized I really was speaking for God’s sake so it wasn’t in vain. I said it again, “For God’s sake!” A third time, and deadly serious. “For God’s sake, follow through on one thing you promise Him you’ll do!” Then I woke up.
Commentary
I believe this dream came from God so it doesn't require a lot of commentary, but I do have a couple of things to say.
It was a dream, so my conscious mind may have changed some aspects in order to make it work as a narrative. I do clearly remember the exchange with the Senator and the final thing I said to the woman is a verbatim transcription.
I don't know if this dream is for me or for someone else. I can't think of anything I've backslid on recently, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If it is for you then I'm glad to have supplied it.
In Revelation 3:16 God says, "because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
What did you see today?
I had a dream this morning. It started in a church. I was there with my husband and I had decided I wasn’t interested in the proceedings, so I went by myself to an area in the rear where the pews were turned backwards and I could hang out without really paying attention to what was going on.
After a time a woman rose up to speak to the church. She said that she and a group of others were going to leave the church, which was called Nassaret, because of its teachings. I was interested in this development, so I looked over the back of my pew to see the power point presentation she was doing.
She mentioned several offensive things that had been said at Nassaret, including that it was OK to look at nudity. None of the things she said were preachings that would bother me in a church, but even though I didn’t agree with her I remember admiring the zeal behind her words.
After a time I saw the separatist group again. They were readying a boat, so I guess they were planning a major geographic exodus, rather than just starting another church nearby. I met some of the other people involved in the movement, including a drummer who was playing some music for people to work by. Now that I’m awake and remembering this dream, I realize that the drummer was the administrator of a nursing home where I do some volunteer work.
Another period of time passed and as I was going down a street near my house I saw the drummer again, drumming between orange cones that had been set in the street to reserve the lane for her. I was dismayed because I realized this meant the group hadn’t separated themselves at all. Sure enough, following the cones I found that they were part of a fundraising effort and they led back to the boat the group had been preparing. There were tons of people on board, including all the separatists and all the people from Nassaret.
I found the woman who had started the movement and asked her what had happened. She said they had found out they didn’t really need to create a schism and everything was going to be all right. Suspicious, I asked who had told her so. She said, “He’s right here!” and took me into another room to meet him. “This is Senator [Something] Neutral.” As soon as I saw him my suspicions were concerned. He was a servant of the devil.
“Nice to see you again,” I said, putting out my hand to shake. He shook it and said, “likewise.” Then I said, “begone!” and he said a phrase I didn’t know, presumably “bite me” in some ancient language.
“Begone!” I said again, and he gave no response. “Do you really want me to say it a third time, with the puff of smoke and everything?” He shrugged.
“Begone!” I said and he did in fact disappear in a puff of smoke.
The former leader of the separatist group was appalled. “I’m going to have you put in jail!”
“Do it! For God’s sake!” I said this in anger, and then stopped because it seemed an inappropriate time to be using the Lord’s name in vain. Then I realized I really was speaking for God’s sake so it wasn’t in vain. I said it again, “For God’s sake!” A third time, and deadly serious. “For God’s sake, follow through on one thing you promise Him you’ll do!” Then I woke up.
Commentary
I believe this dream came from God so it doesn't require a lot of commentary, but I do have a couple of things to say.
It was a dream, so my conscious mind may have changed some aspects in order to make it work as a narrative. I do clearly remember the exchange with the Senator and the final thing I said to the woman is a verbatim transcription.
I don't know if this dream is for me or for someone else. I can't think of anything I've backslid on recently, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If it is for you then I'm glad to have supplied it.
In Revelation 3:16 God says, "because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
What did you see today?
2/02/2009
I saw a cartoon
Context
Carolyn Hax writes a daily advice column for the Washington Post called "Tell Me About It." It's a daily column, but the Shreveport Times only carries it on Sundays. Yesterday, they printed the Friday column, which you can find at this link (may require registration). The column usually has a cartoon, not done by Carolyn herself, that summarizes the problem being described.
Commentary
Yes, despite my stated objections to registering for the Washington Post, I actually broke down and did so for the purpose of bringing you the link posted above. I hope you're happy.
Actually, I'm happy because now that I've found out that Carolyn writes every day, I'll probably be reading her every day. I like advice columns in general and I'm particularly fond of Carolyn's because I think she takes a very straightforward approach to problem-solving.
But I wanted to talk about the cartoon. If you're not able to look at the link, you'll have to take my word for the fact that it seems to depict two African-American characters. Carolyn herself is European-American and I have no idea of the racial identity of the advice-seeker in question. In fact, the characters in the cartoons on Tell Me About It seem to regularly cycle through the physical characteristics of various races and that got me to wondering if that actually helps people of different ethnicities identify with the advice Carolyn gives.
To be fair, it seems to be a general assumption that we make. When deciding issues as varied as who to cast in a TV show and whether to celebrate Black History Month, some consideration is given to the idea that people need to see someone who looks like them in order to identify with them.
But is this really true? I don't think it is for me. I'm more likely to identify with someone who has the same personality characteristics I do than someone who looks like me. Here's an example: Stephen King's book The Stand has twelve main characters (and dozens of minor ones, but I digress), three of whom are female and to my very picky standards quite well-written. I don't identify with any of them. Instead I identify with three of the male characters, one because he's a constant screw-up (Peter is my patron saint), one because of the challenges he has to surmount to achieve his destiny, and one because he's an intellectual.
My Quaker meeting, which has no African-American attenders, invited several black women to come talk to us a couple of years ago about ending racism. What I remember most clearly from the discussion was one lady saying she was dismayed that teachers at her son's school thought he wouldn't be interested in certain activities because he'd be the only black kid in attendance. Since then I've resolved to never make assumptions about a person's preferences based on their physical appearance. There may be some cultural characteristics that many black people share, but I think we go seriously astray if we assert that all people with dark skin identify with all of them. Our choices aren't based on how we look; they're based on who we are.
What did you see today?
Carolyn Hax writes a daily advice column for the Washington Post called "Tell Me About It." It's a daily column, but the Shreveport Times only carries it on Sundays. Yesterday, they printed the Friday column, which you can find at this link (may require registration). The column usually has a cartoon, not done by Carolyn herself, that summarizes the problem being described.
Commentary
Yes, despite my stated objections to registering for the Washington Post, I actually broke down and did so for the purpose of bringing you the link posted above. I hope you're happy.
Actually, I'm happy because now that I've found out that Carolyn writes every day, I'll probably be reading her every day. I like advice columns in general and I'm particularly fond of Carolyn's because I think she takes a very straightforward approach to problem-solving.
But I wanted to talk about the cartoon. If you're not able to look at the link, you'll have to take my word for the fact that it seems to depict two African-American characters. Carolyn herself is European-American and I have no idea of the racial identity of the advice-seeker in question. In fact, the characters in the cartoons on Tell Me About It seem to regularly cycle through the physical characteristics of various races and that got me to wondering if that actually helps people of different ethnicities identify with the advice Carolyn gives.
To be fair, it seems to be a general assumption that we make. When deciding issues as varied as who to cast in a TV show and whether to celebrate Black History Month, some consideration is given to the idea that people need to see someone who looks like them in order to identify with them.
But is this really true? I don't think it is for me. I'm more likely to identify with someone who has the same personality characteristics I do than someone who looks like me. Here's an example: Stephen King's book The Stand has twelve main characters (and dozens of minor ones, but I digress), three of whom are female and to my very picky standards quite well-written. I don't identify with any of them. Instead I identify with three of the male characters, one because he's a constant screw-up (Peter is my patron saint), one because of the challenges he has to surmount to achieve his destiny, and one because he's an intellectual.
My Quaker meeting, which has no African-American attenders, invited several black women to come talk to us a couple of years ago about ending racism. What I remember most clearly from the discussion was one lady saying she was dismayed that teachers at her son's school thought he wouldn't be interested in certain activities because he'd be the only black kid in attendance. Since then I've resolved to never make assumptions about a person's preferences based on their physical appearance. There may be some cultural characteristics that many black people share, but I think we go seriously astray if we assert that all people with dark skin identify with all of them. Our choices aren't based on how we look; they're based on who we are.
What did you see today?
1/16/2009
I saw an item that was cataloged correctly
Context
I was looking at new children's books in my library's catalog and noticed that two picture books had parts of their titles on the spine labels instead of parts of their author's last name. Using the title on a spine label is a standard practice for items where no single author is immediately obvious, but since I could see the author's name in the same catalog record, I didn't understand why it wasn't being used.
When I asked the head cataloger about the discrepancy, she said they were marked that way because the "author" was an illustrator, not a writer, and "the rules" said that was how she was supposed to do it. After some discussion we decided to throw out the rules in favor of letting these very similar books be next to each other on the shelf.
Commentary
Have your eyes glazed over yet? I told you it takes special skills to be a librarian, one of which is actually caring about this stuff! And if you want to see some people who really care, you should take a look at the recent PUBLIB discussion on "Dewey or don't we?" (starts here, ongoing as of this writing).
I believe my discussion with the head cataloger today was generally more rational and fruitful than the Dewey discussion, which got me thinking about how people argue (Yay, she's not going to talk about cataloging anymore!). A lot of the Dewey discussion seems to follow this template: "X is what happens to me when I go to a bookstore; this experience should cause all public libraries to respond by doing Y."
I'm not saying that talking about one's own experience is bad; I'm confused by the assumption that personal experience is so generalizable. Why do we believe, despite mounds of contrary evidence, that other people experience things the exact same way we do? I didn't go to the head cataloger today and say, "I couldn't find both of these books when I wanted them; we must recatalog them right away!" Conversely, she didn't say, "when I go to libraries that don't catalog by the rules I can't find anything!" Instead we discussed what the rule was and whether we thought it would generally be helpful to bend it under this particular circumstance.
This kind of tunnel vision not only makes it hard to find solutions, it can make it difficult to see that you're even having a disagreement. I've had this exchange with more than one person:
Me - My opinion on this matter is different from yours.
Not Me - No, no, I'm just not explaining myself properly. What I mean to say is . . .
Me - I understand what you're saying. I just disagree with you.
Now, I see that this may just be good manners at work, a belief that it's not polite to argue with someone. But I also see an undercurrent of "any rational person possessed of the same facts I have would come to the same conclusion." I think it's related to the instinct people have to say, when confronted with the fact that I'm anti-death penalty, "but what if someone murdered your loved one? Wouldn't you want revenge?" When I'm in a certain mood I'm tempted to reply, "Oh my God! I've never thought of that! You've completely opened my eyes! Thank you, thank you, thank you!"
What did you see today?
I was looking at new children's books in my library's catalog and noticed that two picture books had parts of their titles on the spine labels instead of parts of their author's last name. Using the title on a spine label is a standard practice for items where no single author is immediately obvious, but since I could see the author's name in the same catalog record, I didn't understand why it wasn't being used.
When I asked the head cataloger about the discrepancy, she said they were marked that way because the "author" was an illustrator, not a writer, and "the rules" said that was how she was supposed to do it. After some discussion we decided to throw out the rules in favor of letting these very similar books be next to each other on the shelf.
Commentary
Have your eyes glazed over yet? I told you it takes special skills to be a librarian, one of which is actually caring about this stuff! And if you want to see some people who really care, you should take a look at the recent PUBLIB discussion on "Dewey or don't we?" (starts here, ongoing as of this writing).
I believe my discussion with the head cataloger today was generally more rational and fruitful than the Dewey discussion, which got me thinking about how people argue (Yay, she's not going to talk about cataloging anymore!). A lot of the Dewey discussion seems to follow this template: "X is what happens to me when I go to a bookstore; this experience should cause all public libraries to respond by doing Y."
I'm not saying that talking about one's own experience is bad; I'm confused by the assumption that personal experience is so generalizable. Why do we believe, despite mounds of contrary evidence, that other people experience things the exact same way we do? I didn't go to the head cataloger today and say, "I couldn't find both of these books when I wanted them; we must recatalog them right away!" Conversely, she didn't say, "when I go to libraries that don't catalog by the rules I can't find anything!" Instead we discussed what the rule was and whether we thought it would generally be helpful to bend it under this particular circumstance.
This kind of tunnel vision not only makes it hard to find solutions, it can make it difficult to see that you're even having a disagreement. I've had this exchange with more than one person:
Me - My opinion on this matter is different from yours.
Not Me - No, no, I'm just not explaining myself properly. What I mean to say is . . .
Me - I understand what you're saying. I just disagree with you.
Now, I see that this may just be good manners at work, a belief that it's not polite to argue with someone. But I also see an undercurrent of "any rational person possessed of the same facts I have would come to the same conclusion." I think it's related to the instinct people have to say, when confronted with the fact that I'm anti-death penalty, "but what if someone murdered your loved one? Wouldn't you want revenge?" When I'm in a certain mood I'm tempted to reply, "Oh my God! I've never thought of that! You've completely opened my eyes! Thank you, thank you, thank you!"
What did you see today?
1/15/2009
I saw announcements about the Inauguration
Context
I was reading PUBLIB again today, and people were talking about setting up TV sets at their libraries for patrons to watch the President-elect Obama's inauguration ceremony. You can see an example of what I'm talking about at this link.
Commentary
I like this idea of providing a communal space to watch the Inauguration. My bachelor's degree was in history, so I know the importance of sharing these events with each other.
That being said, I have no plans to watch the Inauguration and I certainly don't intend to head out for Washington to attend. I like Obama and voted for him, but the whole inauguration party thing just makes me go "meh."
Some of this can be attributed to the fact that I'm not a very social person, so being in a crowd with a couple million of my closest friends is not very attractive to me. Plus I don't care much for parades except the Tournament of Roses (everything's made of flowers! What's not to like?). I figure the highlight of the day will be Obama's speech and I'm sure that will be both recorded and described. Shoot, I'm sure they'll hit all the high points on The Daily Show, so what else do I need?
I guess another thing that's going on is I wish we weren't treating this as so much of a big deal. I won't claim to "not see color" like Stephen Colbert (Wow! How many references to Comedy Central can I put in one blog post?), but I do try to not see people in Jim Crow terms, where one drop of black blood makes you black. Aren't we inaugurating both our first black president and our 44th white one?
On the other hand, if we're going to talk about Obama being black I don't want this to be a rare occasion. The bigger the fuss we make the more it seems that way, like we're not accustomed to the idea that African-Americans can actually flourish in our nation. Barry Sanders is famous in the football world for NOT celebrating his touchdowns. He always just handed the ball to the ref and went back to the bench. Why? Because he always knew there was another one coming up soon! What if we behaved that way in regard to having an African-American president? Just the first of many . . .
Here's what I think is the biggest deal about the Inauguration: how embarrassing is it that the United States elected its first black president 15 years after after South Africa did?
What did you see today?
I was reading PUBLIB again today, and people were talking about setting up TV sets at their libraries for patrons to watch the President-elect Obama's inauguration ceremony. You can see an example of what I'm talking about at this link.
Commentary
I like this idea of providing a communal space to watch the Inauguration. My bachelor's degree was in history, so I know the importance of sharing these events with each other.
That being said, I have no plans to watch the Inauguration and I certainly don't intend to head out for Washington to attend. I like Obama and voted for him, but the whole inauguration party thing just makes me go "meh."
Some of this can be attributed to the fact that I'm not a very social person, so being in a crowd with a couple million of my closest friends is not very attractive to me. Plus I don't care much for parades except the Tournament of Roses (everything's made of flowers! What's not to like?). I figure the highlight of the day will be Obama's speech and I'm sure that will be both recorded and described. Shoot, I'm sure they'll hit all the high points on The Daily Show, so what else do I need?
I guess another thing that's going on is I wish we weren't treating this as so much of a big deal. I won't claim to "not see color" like Stephen Colbert (Wow! How many references to Comedy Central can I put in one blog post?), but I do try to not see people in Jim Crow terms, where one drop of black blood makes you black. Aren't we inaugurating both our first black president and our 44th white one?
On the other hand, if we're going to talk about Obama being black I don't want this to be a rare occasion. The bigger the fuss we make the more it seems that way, like we're not accustomed to the idea that African-Americans can actually flourish in our nation. Barry Sanders is famous in the football world for NOT celebrating his touchdowns. He always just handed the ball to the ref and went back to the bench. Why? Because he always knew there was another one coming up soon! What if we behaved that way in regard to having an African-American president? Just the first of many . . .
Here's what I think is the biggest deal about the Inauguration: how embarrassing is it that the United States elected its first black president 15 years after after South Africa did?
What did you see today?
12/24/2008
I saw a story I'd written
Context
I had a dream about James Bond last night, which caused me to write a very brief piece of fanfic about it. Out of respect for both copyright and the bounds of taste (it's pretty graphic) it will remain on my computer, out of the public eye. In my dream Daniel Craig appeared as James Bond and Dame Judy Dench, was M.
Commentary
Chalk one up to marketing that I see Daniel Craig as Bond, since I didn't care for Casino Royale and didn't bother with Quantum of Solace. I guess I like him in theory, not practice.
Writing fanfic is interesting. One of the reasons my piece is so short is that I didn't have to do any of the heavy lifting. Character, scene, and even plot are already set out by Ian Fleming and the screenwriters who've adapted his work. So I was left to devote 159 words to a brief glimpse into the character's psyche.
Which leads me to the importance of books, or at least written stories. Over the past couple of years I have encountered a couple of people who never read books, which always calls to mind a quote that is apparently misattributed to Mark Twain: "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."
Anyway, it is my impression that these people get all their stories (and everybody needs stories, make no mistake about it) from movies and television. Video is a fine medium for storytelling, but as I learned from my brief foray into fiction writing, it's not good for talking about interior working of someone's brain. Charlie Kaufman does as good a job as he can, but sometimes metaphor is no substitute for just being able to say, in plain English, "this is what the character's thinking."
Apparently the written word isn't always effective, either. When my husband read the story I wrote he said, "that's not Bond. Fleming never wrote him that way." Even when I told him I wasn't trying to write in Fleming's style, just using his character, he wasn't convinced. From my husband's perspective James Bond's mind works however Fleming says it does. Maybe that's the consequence of not doing any of your own heavy lifting.
What did you see today?
I had a dream about James Bond last night, which caused me to write a very brief piece of fanfic about it. Out of respect for both copyright and the bounds of taste (it's pretty graphic) it will remain on my computer, out of the public eye. In my dream Daniel Craig appeared as James Bond and Dame Judy Dench, was M.
Commentary
Chalk one up to marketing that I see Daniel Craig as Bond, since I didn't care for Casino Royale and didn't bother with Quantum of Solace. I guess I like him in theory, not practice.
Writing fanfic is interesting. One of the reasons my piece is so short is that I didn't have to do any of the heavy lifting. Character, scene, and even plot are already set out by Ian Fleming and the screenwriters who've adapted his work. So I was left to devote 159 words to a brief glimpse into the character's psyche.
Which leads me to the importance of books, or at least written stories. Over the past couple of years I have encountered a couple of people who never read books, which always calls to mind a quote that is apparently misattributed to Mark Twain: "Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't."
Anyway, it is my impression that these people get all their stories (and everybody needs stories, make no mistake about it) from movies and television. Video is a fine medium for storytelling, but as I learned from my brief foray into fiction writing, it's not good for talking about interior working of someone's brain. Charlie Kaufman does as good a job as he can, but sometimes metaphor is no substitute for just being able to say, in plain English, "this is what the character's thinking."
Apparently the written word isn't always effective, either. When my husband read the story I wrote he said, "that's not Bond. Fleming never wrote him that way." Even when I told him I wasn't trying to write in Fleming's style, just using his character, he wasn't convinced. From my husband's perspective James Bond's mind works however Fleming says it does. Maybe that's the consequence of not doing any of your own heavy lifting.
What did you see today?
11/22/2008
I saw the price of gas
Context
Thus far the poor economy has not affected me much, as both my husband and I are employed and don't plan on retiring soon. However, I keep an eye on the price of gas as an economic indicator. It's falling like a rock around here, down below $1.70 a gallon in some places.
Commentary
In some ways I know falling gas prices are like the silver lining to the current economic situation, but even when it benefits us personally deflation is a problem in a free market economy. It indicates a lack of demand, which indicates a lack of growth, which leads to more job loss and credit problems.
So this got me thinking about who else in the United States' economy is dealing with falling demand. The Big 3 auto companies who are requesting a bailout from Congress, that's who. And this is not just an economic indicator to me. I have an emotional connection to the fate of General Motors because my dad worked there from the time he left the Air Force until his retirement over 30 years later.
Ever since I became an adult I've looked at GM differently than my dad, because he was a Republican and I'm so liberal that even the Democratic party doesn't satisfy. He died several years ago so I can't ask, but I imagine he would feel some ambivalence about the proposed buyout. He'd probably be generally in favor of it but have some choice words on the side for corporate folks who had mismanaged the company into this position in the first place. He might have even loaned a slightly sympathetic ear to the people who say General Motors should declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy just for the opportunity to stick it to the United Auto Workers. By the way, as the daughter of an executive, it's weird for me to see management and labor so united on something. Well, sort of. This is the UAW's take on the situation.
Anyway, that was my speculation about what a specific conservative would think, here's what this specific liberal thinks: government should not be helping business; it should be helping people. A lot of the pro-bailout rhetoric emphasizes that helping the Big 3 would help people, but I'm not completely convinced. At the very least, I would not hand automakers a blank check, either in terms of amount or conditions. When I'm in a really ticked off mood I think, "if this industry is so important to our nation's wellbeing we should nationalize it." So there!
In the end I'm hoping for one relatively minor silver lining to this whole mess. As a government employee, I'm sick to death of people saying my agency should be run more like a business. So at least I can say to the next person who proposes it, "like what business? GM?"
What did you see today?
Thus far the poor economy has not affected me much, as both my husband and I are employed and don't plan on retiring soon. However, I keep an eye on the price of gas as an economic indicator. It's falling like a rock around here, down below $1.70 a gallon in some places.
Commentary
In some ways I know falling gas prices are like the silver lining to the current economic situation, but even when it benefits us personally deflation is a problem in a free market economy. It indicates a lack of demand, which indicates a lack of growth, which leads to more job loss and credit problems.
So this got me thinking about who else in the United States' economy is dealing with falling demand. The Big 3 auto companies who are requesting a bailout from Congress, that's who. And this is not just an economic indicator to me. I have an emotional connection to the fate of General Motors because my dad worked there from the time he left the Air Force until his retirement over 30 years later.
Ever since I became an adult I've looked at GM differently than my dad, because he was a Republican and I'm so liberal that even the Democratic party doesn't satisfy. He died several years ago so I can't ask, but I imagine he would feel some ambivalence about the proposed buyout. He'd probably be generally in favor of it but have some choice words on the side for corporate folks who had mismanaged the company into this position in the first place. He might have even loaned a slightly sympathetic ear to the people who say General Motors should declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy just for the opportunity to stick it to the United Auto Workers. By the way, as the daughter of an executive, it's weird for me to see management and labor so united on something. Well, sort of. This is the UAW's take on the situation.
Anyway, that was my speculation about what a specific conservative would think, here's what this specific liberal thinks: government should not be helping business; it should be helping people. A lot of the pro-bailout rhetoric emphasizes that helping the Big 3 would help people, but I'm not completely convinced. At the very least, I would not hand automakers a blank check, either in terms of amount or conditions. When I'm in a really ticked off mood I think, "if this industry is so important to our nation's wellbeing we should nationalize it." So there!
In the end I'm hoping for one relatively minor silver lining to this whole mess. As a government employee, I'm sick to death of people saying my agency should be run more like a business. So at least I can say to the next person who proposes it, "like what business? GM?"
What did you see today?
11/19/2008
I heard a loud motorcycle
Context
I heard a motorcycle while I was driving today that sounded like it had no muffler at all. I think the noise it was creating could be considered a violation of the Shreveport noise ordinance (Chapter 58, Article II at this link), but I can't be sure. Loud motorcycles are very common in Shreveport.
Commentary
Loud motorcycles bug me. I often feel like saying to the rider in question "yes, I get it. You have a motorcycle. Is it possible for you to enjoy the experience without imposing it on me?"
As I read the above I realize that I'm asking for someone to repress a very strong natural impulse: the sharing of joy. There are quiet pleasures, surely, but often when we're happy we want as many people as humanely possible to know about it. That's why we invite 300 people to watch us get married.
Or is it? Sometimes when I read about insane wedding extravaganzas, I feel like the couple in question is showing off. Or being insecure. Or possibly both. This may apply to the loud motorcyclists in question: "how can I really believe my motorcycle is cool if people don't look at me while I'm riding it?" Or maybe they're trying to be annoying as part of the bad-ass motorcycle experience.
Because we're talking about noise here, it's hard for me to communicate my response to the rider, which is roughly this:
1) That's a nice bike.
2) I would prefer to enjoy it visually, not audibly.
3) You're not bad-ass. You're annoying. There's a subtle but important difference.
4) Enjoy!
I'm going to try to come up with a series of gestures that communicate all of these things while I'm sitting at a stoplight.
What did you hear today?
I heard a motorcycle while I was driving today that sounded like it had no muffler at all. I think the noise it was creating could be considered a violation of the Shreveport noise ordinance (Chapter 58, Article II at this link), but I can't be sure. Loud motorcycles are very common in Shreveport.
Commentary
Loud motorcycles bug me. I often feel like saying to the rider in question "yes, I get it. You have a motorcycle. Is it possible for you to enjoy the experience without imposing it on me?"
As I read the above I realize that I'm asking for someone to repress a very strong natural impulse: the sharing of joy. There are quiet pleasures, surely, but often when we're happy we want as many people as humanely possible to know about it. That's why we invite 300 people to watch us get married.
Or is it? Sometimes when I read about insane wedding extravaganzas, I feel like the couple in question is showing off. Or being insecure. Or possibly both. This may apply to the loud motorcyclists in question: "how can I really believe my motorcycle is cool if people don't look at me while I'm riding it?" Or maybe they're trying to be annoying as part of the bad-ass motorcycle experience.
Because we're talking about noise here, it's hard for me to communicate my response to the rider, which is roughly this:
1) That's a nice bike.
2) I would prefer to enjoy it visually, not audibly.
3) You're not bad-ass. You're annoying. There's a subtle but important difference.
4) Enjoy!
I'm going to try to come up with a series of gestures that communicate all of these things while I'm sitting at a stoplight.
What did you hear today?
11/04/2008
I saw a man not vote
Context
There was a long line at my polling place today at 6:30 a.m., so while I was waiting I had a chance to see an African-American man talking with the European-American guy who was the only election commissioner with a cell phone. It appeared to be the latter's job to check for other possible polling locations for those not registered in my precinct. He apparently found nothing helpful, because he sent the petitioner away with phone numbers for the parish registrar of voters and the secretary of state.
Commentary
I could talk about voter fraud and racism today because I think both of those might have been at play in the situation I observed, but it seems only fair to note what my husband said, which is that the African-American man might have been just inquiring about his polling place, not actually attempting to vote at that time. So I think I'll just focus on perception.
My perception of the situation today was, "that's what happens when we're concerned about voter fraud. People get turned away from the polls." Which led me to think about ACORN.
I'm embarrassed to admit I believed the soundbites about ACORN (sample here). I believed that some members of the organization had been so rabid about recruiting new voters for Barack Obama that they had filed fraudulent registrations in the hopes of somehow turning those registrations into actual votes. I also believed that external institutions had unearthed those registrations before the scam went too far along. I wasn't concerned about the situation for two reasons: 1) I know that many legitimate registrations do not translate to votes, and 2) I know that every organization that tries to do some good ends up with some bad apples.
Now that I've done some research at factcheck.org, I've realized that even my relatively benign beliefs about ACORN were incorrect. Most of the bad registrations in question were flaggedby ACORN itself because after collecting them by state law they were required to file them. That's actually how we keep organizations like this from becoming partisan machines. They're required to file every registration, even the ones they'd rather not. More important to me, as perceptions go, is the fact that the frauds weren't perpetrated by people trying to influence the elections. They were done by people trying to make money without doing the requisite work.
So as I said, I'm embarrassed. But I'm more angry. I only found these things out today after I got started thinking about voter fraud and started to do some research. And the only reason I was thinking about voter fraud was because of the ACORN soundbites. After reading up on the situation and talking with my incredibly intelligent husband, I realized that I should have been thinking about why we pay people to collect registrations in the first place. Have we been making voter registration too difficult? Have we made the results of voting insufficiently valuable to be worth people's while (I'm a liberal living in Louisiana. Due to the Electoral College, my presidential vote almost never counts. Why do I keep showing up at my crowded polling place? Hard to say . . .)?
The above are important questions for us to consider. But we never will if we keep letting the soundbites guide our thinking. If we keep thinking it's nice legitimate voters vs. evil fraudulent voters or rotten people who want to disenfranchise the poor vs. saintly volunteer registrars going door-to-door. We need to change our perceptions. We need to open our eyes.
What did you see today?
There was a long line at my polling place today at 6:30 a.m., so while I was waiting I had a chance to see an African-American man talking with the European-American guy who was the only election commissioner with a cell phone. It appeared to be the latter's job to check for other possible polling locations for those not registered in my precinct. He apparently found nothing helpful, because he sent the petitioner away with phone numbers for the parish registrar of voters and the secretary of state.
Commentary
I could talk about voter fraud and racism today because I think both of those might have been at play in the situation I observed, but it seems only fair to note what my husband said, which is that the African-American man might have been just inquiring about his polling place, not actually attempting to vote at that time. So I think I'll just focus on perception.
My perception of the situation today was, "that's what happens when we're concerned about voter fraud. People get turned away from the polls." Which led me to think about ACORN.
I'm embarrassed to admit I believed the soundbites about ACORN (sample here). I believed that some members of the organization had been so rabid about recruiting new voters for Barack Obama that they had filed fraudulent registrations in the hopes of somehow turning those registrations into actual votes. I also believed that external institutions had unearthed those registrations before the scam went too far along. I wasn't concerned about the situation for two reasons: 1) I know that many legitimate registrations do not translate to votes, and 2) I know that every organization that tries to do some good ends up with some bad apples.
Now that I've done some research at factcheck.org, I've realized that even my relatively benign beliefs about ACORN were incorrect. Most of the bad registrations in question were flagged
So as I said, I'm embarrassed. But I'm more angry. I only found these things out today after I got started thinking about voter fraud and started to do some research. And the only reason I was thinking about voter fraud was because of the ACORN soundbites. After reading up on the situation and talking with my incredibly intelligent husband, I realized that I should have been thinking about why we pay people to collect registrations in the first place. Have we been making voter registration too difficult? Have we made the results of voting insufficiently valuable to be worth people's while (I'm a liberal living in Louisiana. Due to the Electoral College, my presidential vote almost never counts. Why do I keep showing up at my crowded polling place? Hard to say . . .)?
The above are important questions for us to consider. But we never will if we keep letting the soundbites guide our thinking. If we keep thinking it's nice legitimate voters vs. evil fraudulent voters or rotten people who want to disenfranchise the poor vs. saintly volunteer registrars going door-to-door. We need to change our perceptions. We need to open our eyes.
What did you see today?
10/02/2008
I saw a comment on things I own
Context
Slashdot had an article today on rumored toxic fumes emanating from Mac Pro computers. In the comments following the story, one person states that it's the smell of smugness and another adds that the smell would be particularly bad if an Apple got anywhere near a Prius. I own both an Apple and a Prius.
I found an online definition of "smugness" that said it was the state of being self-satisfied, but my print dictionary says it's being "offensively self-satisfied."
Commentary
Ever since my husband and I drove our Prius off the lot, I have heard comments like this from people I know: "you must be feeling pretty smart knowing how much less you're paying for gas than the rest of us." Actually, I'm not paying significantly less as I drive more than most of the people I know, but that's neither here nor there. These comments hurt my feelings because, probably without meaning to, the people in question are saying that when I have an advantage over someone my first instinct is to lord it over him/her. Smugly.
What's even more distressing is when someone I don't even know asserts the same thing. I was driving down Westheimer Road in Houston a few weeks ago and someone in a pickup truck yelled rude things at me because I was driving a Prius. He was actually objecting to my gas mileage, as if I was somehow using a hybrid engine with the express intent of showing him up.
These reactions confuse me. My assumption is that people make rational decisions about what to drive (and blog on) based on their personal situation: what they can afford, what's important to them (nobody ever seems to comment on the low emissions from my Prius, which was the main reason I bought it), what fits in with the rest of their lives. The funny thing is, people seem to be saying that they'd like to make the decision I did, they just don't feel able to. If that's the case, I sympathize with their frustration. Or does that sound smug?
What did you see today?
Slashdot had an article today on rumored toxic fumes emanating from Mac Pro computers. In the comments following the story, one person states that it's the smell of smugness and another adds that the smell would be particularly bad if an Apple got anywhere near a Prius. I own both an Apple and a Prius.
I found an online definition of "smugness" that said it was the state of being self-satisfied, but my print dictionary says it's being "offensively self-satisfied."
Commentary
Ever since my husband and I drove our Prius off the lot, I have heard comments like this from people I know: "you must be feeling pretty smart knowing how much less you're paying for gas than the rest of us." Actually, I'm not paying significantly less as I drive more than most of the people I know, but that's neither here nor there. These comments hurt my feelings because, probably without meaning to, the people in question are saying that when I have an advantage over someone my first instinct is to lord it over him/her. Smugly.
What's even more distressing is when someone I don't even know asserts the same thing. I was driving down Westheimer Road in Houston a few weeks ago and someone in a pickup truck yelled rude things at me because I was driving a Prius. He was actually objecting to my gas mileage, as if I was somehow using a hybrid engine with the express intent of showing him up.
These reactions confuse me. My assumption is that people make rational decisions about what to drive (and blog on) based on their personal situation: what they can afford, what's important to them (nobody ever seems to comment on the low emissions from my Prius, which was the main reason I bought it), what fits in with the rest of their lives. The funny thing is, people seem to be saying that they'd like to make the decision I did, they just don't feel able to. If that's the case, I sympathize with their frustration. Or does that sound smug?
What did you see today?
9/09/2008
I saw descriptions of barred patrons
Context
We sometimes bar people from entering our library. I was looking over the descriptions of these patrons today and many of them included the following: black male; black hair; brown eyes.
Commentary
Why yes, I am going to talk about racism today but perhaps not in the fashion you're expecting. As I read these descriptions today I was trying to figure out if it's redundant to say "black male" and "black hair and brown eyes," given that these characteristics are true of the vast majority of black males. Not all, of course, but many. On the other hand, when you're giving a description of someone it's a bad idea to make any assumptions.
Which brings me to something we frequently talk about when discussing racism: the belief that all black people look alike to white people. This isn't strictly true of me, but it is true that I often have trouble distinguishing between people who have chocolate-colored skin and black hair.
I'm not being disingenuous. I don't know if it's because I'm white or I was raised wrong or I have weird cultural touchstones, but when I first meet people the first physical characteristics I look at are skin color, hair color, age, height and weight. And by "age, height and weight" I mean "relative to me." So I have found myself in the situation where I met two dark-skinned ladies with black hair who were taller, wider and older than me and was unable to distinguish them until I got to know them better. They also happened to be black. In my defense, as a person who teaches a lot of senior citizens, there are a number of light-skinned, grey-haired, older/shorter/thinner than me women I can't tell apart, either.
Certainly the situation becomes much less dire-looking if we remove the word "black" from the description of people we can't tell apart. In fact, is this a case where overgeneralization is running in the opposite direction? Is the problem that all black people look alike to me? Or is the problem that when two people with some similar characteristics look alike to me the assumption arises that I see all black people as being the same? Or worse, that all white people see all black people as being the same?
What did you see today?
We sometimes bar people from entering our library. I was looking over the descriptions of these patrons today and many of them included the following: black male; black hair; brown eyes.
Commentary
Why yes, I am going to talk about racism today but perhaps not in the fashion you're expecting. As I read these descriptions today I was trying to figure out if it's redundant to say "black male" and "black hair and brown eyes," given that these characteristics are true of the vast majority of black males. Not all, of course, but many. On the other hand, when you're giving a description of someone it's a bad idea to make any assumptions.
Which brings me to something we frequently talk about when discussing racism: the belief that all black people look alike to white people. This isn't strictly true of me, but it is true that I often have trouble distinguishing between people who have chocolate-colored skin and black hair.
I'm not being disingenuous. I don't know if it's because I'm white or I was raised wrong or I have weird cultural touchstones, but when I first meet people the first physical characteristics I look at are skin color, hair color, age, height and weight. And by "age, height and weight" I mean "relative to me." So I have found myself in the situation where I met two dark-skinned ladies with black hair who were taller, wider and older than me and was unable to distinguish them until I got to know them better. They also happened to be black. In my defense, as a person who teaches a lot of senior citizens, there are a number of light-skinned, grey-haired, older/shorter/thinner than me women I can't tell apart, either.
Certainly the situation becomes much less dire-looking if we remove the word "black" from the description of people we can't tell apart. In fact, is this a case where overgeneralization is running in the opposite direction? Is the problem that all black people look alike to me? Or is the problem that when two people with some similar characteristics look alike to me the assumption arises that I see all black people as being the same? Or worse, that all white people see all black people as being the same?
What did you see today?
9/08/2008
I saw an internet exchange about Second Life
Context
An e-mail I was reading today drew me to a blog on the American Library Association website called ALA Marginalia. On this post, both the main body and the comments caught my eye, because they contained a discussion of the accessibility of Second Life.
Second Life is a virtual world online where you can create an avatar and do stuff. I can't be any more specific than that because I'm not a member of Second Life.
Commentary
This year marks the second time I apparently neither saw nor heard anything during the month of August. There's a couple of posts during August 2007, but August 2006 is just as forlornly empty as this year. I'm sure that means something.
Second Life creates what seems to me to be a disproportionate amount of buzz in the library world. Workshops in Second Life are held about the special challenges of being a librarian in Second Life. I'm not saying this isn't the appropriate venue or that these challenges don't exist; I'm saying that I never hear anyone except librarians ever talk about Second Life, period.
Although I work in Information Technology I am far from the cutting edge when it comes to new innovations. I have a Facebook page but I never use or even look at it; I have a blog but I don't have a quick RSS feed button attached to it; I've generally find video on the web annoying. There's a difference with these sorts of things, though. I know they exist and I know other people in all kinds of contexts who love them and use them. Second Life produces, as they say in the comedy biz, crickets.
Putting aside ranting, I'm now going to address the comment exchange I said I was interested in. The complaint the 2nd commenter makes is a pretty common one in any world with divided classes. Essentially she's saying, "rich people have access to something others don't." By the way, "rich" here doesn't necessarily mean monetarily wealthy; it can apply to people who are rich in technological knowledge or youth or free time; the complaint remains the same. Anytime this complaint is made, one of the responses is possible:
1) "Too bad, suckers!", which is considered callous.
2) "Yes, we need to provide the benefit to everyone," which is what the blogger here responded (in comment #4) and is considered the progressive answer.
3) "Hmm, maybe we shouldn't bother with this technology if it's out of some people's reach." This is considered a regressive approach.
I'm not an advocate of the classless society. I think there are benefits to competition, some of which I've discussed in an earlier post. I therefore think it's possible to have the #1 response above and not be callous, although it would help to use nicer language.
#2 is lovely and caring-sounding, but also runs the risk of proposing the kind of limitless growth (Everyone is entitled to a big car! And a big house! And lots of meat!) that ultimately threatens our well-being in ways that go beyond just the environmental.
I find #3 particularly challenging. Progress is good, right? It depends; progress toward what? Quakers have a testimony of simplicity in lifestyle and if I scaled back to only those things that were available to everyone I would be living very simply indeed! As it stands, I try to consume luxuries mindfully, seeking to understand both the costs and benefits and to thank the Lord for every blessing that comes my way.
Which brings me back to my personal response to Second Life: I don't see much point in it and can think of many more interesting and productive ways to spend my time. So in my case, it is accessible to me and I don't want it! I would be callous indeed if I didn't recognize how blessed I am to be able to make a choice like that.
What did you see today?
An e-mail I was reading today drew me to a blog on the American Library Association website called ALA Marginalia. On this post, both the main body and the comments caught my eye, because they contained a discussion of the accessibility of Second Life.
Second Life is a virtual world online where you can create an avatar and do stuff. I can't be any more specific than that because I'm not a member of Second Life.
Commentary
This year marks the second time I apparently neither saw nor heard anything during the month of August. There's a couple of posts during August 2007, but August 2006 is just as forlornly empty as this year. I'm sure that means something.
Second Life creates what seems to me to be a disproportionate amount of buzz in the library world. Workshops in Second Life are held about the special challenges of being a librarian in Second Life. I'm not saying this isn't the appropriate venue or that these challenges don't exist; I'm saying that I never hear anyone except librarians ever talk about Second Life, period.
Although I work in Information Technology I am far from the cutting edge when it comes to new innovations. I have a Facebook page but I never use or even look at it; I have a blog but I don't have a quick RSS feed button attached to it; I've generally find video on the web annoying. There's a difference with these sorts of things, though. I know they exist and I know other people in all kinds of contexts who love them and use them. Second Life produces, as they say in the comedy biz, crickets.
Putting aside ranting, I'm now going to address the comment exchange I said I was interested in. The complaint the 2nd commenter makes is a pretty common one in any world with divided classes. Essentially she's saying, "rich people have access to something others don't." By the way, "rich" here doesn't necessarily mean monetarily wealthy; it can apply to people who are rich in technological knowledge or youth or free time; the complaint remains the same. Anytime this complaint is made, one of the responses is possible:
1) "Too bad, suckers!", which is considered callous.
2) "Yes, we need to provide the benefit to everyone," which is what the blogger here responded (in comment #4) and is considered the progressive answer.
3) "Hmm, maybe we shouldn't bother with this technology if it's out of some people's reach." This is considered a regressive approach.
I'm not an advocate of the classless society. I think there are benefits to competition, some of which I've discussed in an earlier post. I therefore think it's possible to have the #1 response above and not be callous, although it would help to use nicer language.
#2 is lovely and caring-sounding, but also runs the risk of proposing the kind of limitless growth (Everyone is entitled to a big car! And a big house! And lots of meat!) that ultimately threatens our well-being in ways that go beyond just the environmental.
I find #3 particularly challenging. Progress is good, right? It depends; progress toward what? Quakers have a testimony of simplicity in lifestyle and if I scaled back to only those things that were available to everyone I would be living very simply indeed! As it stands, I try to consume luxuries mindfully, seeking to understand both the costs and benefits and to thank the Lord for every blessing that comes my way.
Which brings me back to my personal response to Second Life: I don't see much point in it and can think of many more interesting and productive ways to spend my time. So in my case, it is accessible to me and I don't want it! I would be callous indeed if I didn't recognize how blessed I am to be able to make a choice like that.
What did you see today?
7/24/2008
I saw a discussion about analogies
Context
I was catching up on some e-mail lists today, including the Information Literacy Instruction list. About a month ago a distinguished professor of library science sent the query referenced here to the list, asking about the use of analogies in library instruction. This touched off a long discussion of whether to use analogies at all and if so, which ones are appropriate. The discussion has largely petered out now, but a particular piece of advice, taken from this response really struck me:
Connect to real life experience – think about those common experiences students are likely to share such as shopping, eating, and sleeping. An examination of the common sports and military metaphors used in the teaching of physics and engineering and the disproportionate number of women in those disciplines can help illustrate the need to focus on common experiences.
Commentary
I don't know what to make of the implication here that sports and military metaphors do not reflect the "common experiences" of women. On the one hand, it's certainly reasonable to say that they are more likely to be common experiences for most men than for most women. On the other hand, I and both of my X chromosomes are much likely to understand a sports metaphor than say, a shopping one (I hate shopping with a purple passion!).
There's another underlying assumption here: that not using "common experiences" is bad. I can think of two reasons why that might be the case: students might not understand what you're trying to get across with your analogy, which is not the ideal result of a teaching method, or they might be offended by it, which is not good for any relationship between human beings.
I'm wondering if both of these problems are exacerbated by students' insecurities. I'm a pretty confident student, possibly because I'm also a teacher, so if someone uses an example or a metaphor that I don't understand, I say so and I expect the teacher to come up with a different one. In other words, I see my failure to learn as a problem to be solved, not a personal shortcoming that needs to be covered up.
I think offense works similarly. Certainly I'm offended if someone insults me to my face and I'll often take the bait when someone is deliberately trying to get a rise out of a certain group of people. Most of the time, though, I assume people don't mean to be offensive; they're just ignorant or at worst, insensitive. In both cases, self-confidence helps me address the issue with the offender productively instead of stewing in my own wounded juices. Shoot, in an exchange like that I might even discover that my own assumptions were incorrect!
Touchiness, whininess, and even victimhood sometimes say, "the world sucks and I can't do anything about it." So I guess what I'm advocating is less tiptoeing around a student's potential ignorant or touchy spots and more empowering them to tell us about those spots so we can engage in the learning experience together.
What did you see today?
I was catching up on some e-mail lists today, including the Information Literacy Instruction list. About a month ago a distinguished professor of library science sent the query referenced here to the list, asking about the use of analogies in library instruction. This touched off a long discussion of whether to use analogies at all and if so, which ones are appropriate. The discussion has largely petered out now, but a particular piece of advice, taken from this response really struck me:
Connect to real life experience – think about those common experiences students are likely to share such as shopping, eating, and sleeping. An examination of the common sports and military metaphors used in the teaching of physics and engineering and the disproportionate number of women in those disciplines can help illustrate the need to focus on common experiences.
Commentary
I don't know what to make of the implication here that sports and military metaphors do not reflect the "common experiences" of women. On the one hand, it's certainly reasonable to say that they are more likely to be common experiences for most men than for most women. On the other hand, I and both of my X chromosomes are much likely to understand a sports metaphor than say, a shopping one (I hate shopping with a purple passion!).
There's another underlying assumption here: that not using "common experiences" is bad. I can think of two reasons why that might be the case: students might not understand what you're trying to get across with your analogy, which is not the ideal result of a teaching method, or they might be offended by it, which is not good for any relationship between human beings.
I'm wondering if both of these problems are exacerbated by students' insecurities. I'm a pretty confident student, possibly because I'm also a teacher, so if someone uses an example or a metaphor that I don't understand, I say so and I expect the teacher to come up with a different one. In other words, I see my failure to learn as a problem to be solved, not a personal shortcoming that needs to be covered up.
I think offense works similarly. Certainly I'm offended if someone insults me to my face and I'll often take the bait when someone is deliberately trying to get a rise out of a certain group of people. Most of the time, though, I assume people don't mean to be offensive; they're just ignorant or at worst, insensitive. In both cases, self-confidence helps me address the issue with the offender productively instead of stewing in my own wounded juices. Shoot, in an exchange like that I might even discover that my own assumptions were incorrect!
Touchiness, whininess, and even victimhood sometimes say, "the world sucks and I can't do anything about it." So I guess what I'm advocating is less tiptoeing around a student's potential ignorant or touchy spots and more empowering them to tell us about those spots so we can engage in the learning experience together.
What did you see today?
7/11/2008
I heard a co-worker lower her voice
Context
The Haynesville Shale is a potential rich source of natural gas that's being explored in several parishes in Northern Louisiana. As such, it has been the topic of quite a bit of conversation and controversy. One of my co-workers was talking today about a protest she's seen some people engaging in that has something to do with the Shale. She lowered her voice when mentioning that the protesters involved were black. I said, "hmm," to all her comments.
Commentary
When I say, "hmm," during a conversation, it usually means, "I think I disagree with what you're saying, and I'm deciding whether I should tell you that or not." I mean, some things are not worth arguing about and sometimes I have a relationship with someone that I don't want to mess up with controversy. People who know me well have just read those words and been overcome at the idea that I might possibly avoid an argument, but that's because I argue freely with people I'm close to.
The "lowering your voice to say someone is 'black'" phenomenon is not entirely new to me, but I never get used to it. I used to tease a woman at my husband's former church because she would do it when using "black" as part of a person's physical description. I would say, "you know, it's not embarrassing to be black!" I wonder if she did it because the way we refer to race has gone through so many permutations during her lifetime that she could never be sure she was being mannerly.
In today's case, however, I'm pretty sure I know why my co-worker was lowering her voice. She was doing it because she was saying something derogatory about the protesters and she thought one of the black people we work with might walk into the lunchroom and be offended. What I can't figure out is why she didn't think I would be offended. That's what my "hmm" meant in this case. Something along the lines of "I'm not particularly interested in the topic or tone of this conversation. Next time you feel like you have to lower your voice in order to say something to me, please feel free to to turn it all the way down."
What did you hear today?
The Haynesville Shale is a potential rich source of natural gas that's being explored in several parishes in Northern Louisiana. As such, it has been the topic of quite a bit of conversation and controversy. One of my co-workers was talking today about a protest she's seen some people engaging in that has something to do with the Shale. She lowered her voice when mentioning that the protesters involved were black. I said, "hmm," to all her comments.
Commentary
When I say, "hmm," during a conversation, it usually means, "I think I disagree with what you're saying, and I'm deciding whether I should tell you that or not." I mean, some things are not worth arguing about and sometimes I have a relationship with someone that I don't want to mess up with controversy. People who know me well have just read those words and been overcome at the idea that I might possibly avoid an argument, but that's because I argue freely with people I'm close to.
The "lowering your voice to say someone is 'black'" phenomenon is not entirely new to me, but I never get used to it. I used to tease a woman at my husband's former church because she would do it when using "black" as part of a person's physical description. I would say, "you know, it's not embarrassing to be black!" I wonder if she did it because the way we refer to race has gone through so many permutations during her lifetime that she could never be sure she was being mannerly.
In today's case, however, I'm pretty sure I know why my co-worker was lowering her voice. She was doing it because she was saying something derogatory about the protesters and she thought one of the black people we work with might walk into the lunchroom and be offended. What I can't figure out is why she didn't think I would be offended. That's what my "hmm" meant in this case. Something along the lines of "I'm not particularly interested in the topic or tone of this conversation. Next time you feel like you have to lower your voice in order to say something to me, please feel free to to turn it all the way down."
What did you hear today?
7/07/2008
I saw a discussion about law enforcement
Context
Slashdot is a website that bills itself as "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." Since I fancy myself a nerd, I have a space on my iGoogle page for an RSS feed from it. Today I was reading this story about the criminal prosecution of a woman who was caught creating fake profiles for herself on MySpace. A word of caution: the Slashdot summary is inoffensive, but the comments, including one I'll be discussing below contain some profanity.
Commentary
Slashdot uses tagging to describe various posts, just like I do on this blog. You see those things that say, variously, "index" or "labels"? Those are tags. You might notice that this particular story on Slashdot is tagged as "badsummary." That's because, as noted in the comments below the story, Lori Drew is not a simple "user" on MySpace. She's an adult woman who said such hurtful things while using a fake profile that portrayed her as a teenage boy that she appears to have induced a teenaged girl to kill herself.
I agree with some of the comments on this article that say things like, "this is a tragedy, but the specific offense (violating a website's Terms of Service) is a civil one, not criminal." I do not, however, agree with this one: "Using fake accounts for access to some websites is de riguer on the internet. Everyone does it for a WIDE variety of reasons (dont want to get caught f*****g someone else, dont want to get caught looking up c4 recipies, dont want to get spam)." And it's not just the bad spelling and grammar that bother me, although they are egregious. It's the fact that no, everyone does not do it. For example, I don't.
From my perspective, if you're doing something (even, gasp, on the Internet!) you either believe it's right or wrong. I can see wanting to hide your identity if you believe you're doing wrong, but I can't see why other people get so up in arms about defending your right to do so. It's like we've added a new component to the Bill of Rights: the right to behave unethically without detection.
Am I against the right to privacy? No, although I think truly believing you can keep your actions secret in today's society is a pipe dream. But I don't think MySpace should be allowed to set up a hidden camera in my bedroom. However, if I set up a webcam in my bedroom and broadcast the contents on MySpace (which also violates their Terms of Service), I think the people providing the server space can reasonably insist that I identify myself. If I don't want to, maybe I shouldn't use their service.
The same goes for the spam consideration. If I believe that using a specific website is likely to get me on a junk e-mail list, I don't use the website! After all, free access to everything you want on your terms isn't guaranteed in the Bill of Rights either.
What did you see today?
Slashdot is a website that bills itself as "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters." Since I fancy myself a nerd, I have a space on my iGoogle page for an RSS feed from it. Today I was reading this story about the criminal prosecution of a woman who was caught creating fake profiles for herself on MySpace. A word of caution: the Slashdot summary is inoffensive, but the comments, including one I'll be discussing below contain some profanity.
Commentary
Slashdot uses tagging to describe various posts, just like I do on this blog. You see those things that say, variously, "index" or "labels"? Those are tags. You might notice that this particular story on Slashdot is tagged as "badsummary." That's because, as noted in the comments below the story, Lori Drew is not a simple "user" on MySpace. She's an adult woman who said such hurtful things while using a fake profile that portrayed her as a teenage boy that she appears to have induced a teenaged girl to kill herself.
I agree with some of the comments on this article that say things like, "this is a tragedy, but the specific offense (violating a website's Terms of Service) is a civil one, not criminal." I do not, however, agree with this one: "Using fake accounts for access to some websites is de riguer on the internet. Everyone does it for a WIDE variety of reasons (dont want to get caught f*****g someone else, dont want to get caught looking up c4 recipies, dont want to get spam)." And it's not just the bad spelling and grammar that bother me, although they are egregious. It's the fact that no, everyone does not do it. For example, I don't.
From my perspective, if you're doing something (even, gasp, on the Internet!) you either believe it's right or wrong. I can see wanting to hide your identity if you believe you're doing wrong, but I can't see why other people get so up in arms about defending your right to do so. It's like we've added a new component to the Bill of Rights: the right to behave unethically without detection.
Am I against the right to privacy? No, although I think truly believing you can keep your actions secret in today's society is a pipe dream. But I don't think MySpace should be allowed to set up a hidden camera in my bedroom. However, if I set up a webcam in my bedroom and broadcast the contents on MySpace (which also violates their Terms of Service), I think the people providing the server space can reasonably insist that I identify myself. If I don't want to, maybe I shouldn't use their service.
The same goes for the spam consideration. If I believe that using a specific website is likely to get me on a junk e-mail list, I don't use the website! After all, free access to everything you want on your terms isn't guaranteed in the Bill of Rights either.
What did you see today?
7/03/2008
I heard a patron express appreciation
Context
A woman called my workplace today wanting to confirm her reservation of our computer classroom for a group she was sending to the library. She did not, in fact, have a reservation, but I went ahead and made one for her. It was a little later than she wanted because I had to wait for the machines in the classroom to be freed up, as they are used by the general public when no classes are in session. In order to fill the gap between the time the session was due to start and when the computer classroom would be available, I made a reservation for the group to use our meeting room as well.
After the group arrived, they stayed in the meeting room much longer than I expected, so long that they missed their computer classroom reservation entirely. The computer classroom is one floor below my cubicle in the Main Library, so I was called downstairs to resolve the situation, at which point I told the teacher (who was not the lady I had spoken with on the phone) I would try to go upstairs and make another reservation. After I had accomplished this and checked back with the teacher, she said, "I appreciate you."
Commentary
At one workplace or another that I've occupied over my lifetime, there was a sign over someone's desk that said, "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." I was irritated with the group today because I felt like they didn't have their act together, and when I bent over backward to get them what they needed anyway, they were too disorganized to take advantage of it! I even suggested to the teacher that she reschedule for another time, rather than continue to make the machines in our computer classroom unavailable to the public, but she wheedled some more reserved time out of me. And then she said she appreciated me. I couldn't help myself; I said, "it was no problem." I just couldn't stay mad after she expressed gratitude.
The library-oriented comic strip Unshelved recently ran this installment, where the protagonist mentions you can get away with saying almost anything about a person if you immediately say, "bless him/her." When I was little, I was taught that "please" and "thank you" were magic words, and today's incident really makes me believe it. I guess on the simplest level I was feeling angry because I thought my efforts weren't being valued, and then they were!
I wonder if a lot of our anger comes from feeling underappreciated. Let's try an experiment: the next time someone's mad at you, try thanking them for something. Or blessing them.
What did you hear today?
A woman called my workplace today wanting to confirm her reservation of our computer classroom for a group she was sending to the library. She did not, in fact, have a reservation, but I went ahead and made one for her. It was a little later than she wanted because I had to wait for the machines in the classroom to be freed up, as they are used by the general public when no classes are in session. In order to fill the gap between the time the session was due to start and when the computer classroom would be available, I made a reservation for the group to use our meeting room as well.
After the group arrived, they stayed in the meeting room much longer than I expected, so long that they missed their computer classroom reservation entirely. The computer classroom is one floor below my cubicle in the Main Library, so I was called downstairs to resolve the situation, at which point I told the teacher (who was not the lady I had spoken with on the phone) I would try to go upstairs and make another reservation. After I had accomplished this and checked back with the teacher, she said, "I appreciate you."
Commentary
At one workplace or another that I've occupied over my lifetime, there was a sign over someone's desk that said, "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." I was irritated with the group today because I felt like they didn't have their act together, and when I bent over backward to get them what they needed anyway, they were too disorganized to take advantage of it! I even suggested to the teacher that she reschedule for another time, rather than continue to make the machines in our computer classroom unavailable to the public, but she wheedled some more reserved time out of me. And then she said she appreciated me. I couldn't help myself; I said, "it was no problem." I just couldn't stay mad after she expressed gratitude.
The library-oriented comic strip Unshelved recently ran this installment, where the protagonist mentions you can get away with saying almost anything about a person if you immediately say, "bless him/her." When I was little, I was taught that "please" and "thank you" were magic words, and today's incident really makes me believe it. I guess on the simplest level I was feeling angry because I thought my efforts weren't being valued, and then they were!
I wonder if a lot of our anger comes from feeling underappreciated. Let's try an experiment: the next time someone's mad at you, try thanking them for something. Or blessing them.
What did you hear today?
6/27/2008
I saw a statement about teaching
Context
I was reading messages on the Information Literacy Instruction mailing list today. A few days ago, a woman asked a question about methods of explaining Library of Congress call numbers. Over time, the discussion has gone off on the tangent of "why you shouldn't bother to teach this material at all." Today I read this message where Joseph Harmon of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis states, among other things, that he tells students to avoid subject searches because of controlled vocabularies.
Commentary
Well, I've tried to avoid explaining what controlled vocabularies were
in the past, but now I think it's required so you'll understand my response. Controlled vocabulary is a communications concept that basically says people talking about like things should use the same words. Simple, huh? And you can see why it would come in handy.
However, in the library world many thorny issues arise when you're trying to decide which controlled vocabularies to use in your catalog and how to communicate them to your users. These complications are some of the reasons why it takes a master's degree to be a librarian.
I think learning happens best when it fulfills a student's immediate need and relates to her/his personal experience. For example, there's a certain procedure we only have to use at my workplace when the internet goes down. So I tell new employees I'm not going to bother to train them on it, because by the time they need it, they will have forgotten the training. I really believe that throwing predetermined material at people just because "it's in the curriculum" not only wastes time, but also sours some students on the whole idea of education. So I can see why Mr. Harmon might say to himself, "there's no point in covering controlled vocabularies with these students. I'm going to teach them research methods that will speak more to their immediate need and experience."
We can't always limit education this way though, because it discounts two important factors: the teacher's experience and the students' future needs. In the extreme case, you wouldn't wait until your toddler was wandering off into the street to teach him about looking both ways for traffic. He may not have an immediate need when you're explaining this concept at the kitchen table, but your experience tells you it's worth teaching because he'll need it eventually.
Returning to the library instruction arena, I've done a whole lot more computer catalog searches than most non-librarian folk, and I know that subject searches using controlled vocabularies are really useful! Once you understand them, they simplify the research process enormously. So it may be outside your experience and beyond your immediate need now, but if you learn it, you may very well thank me later.
I'm not sure how this relates to my current classes, but I am thinking about how to balance students' immediate needs (which include, of course, the need to not be overloaded with information) with my projections of what their future needs will be. This is particularly hard for me because I don't like to tell people what to do. Even if it's good for them.
What did you see today?
I was reading messages on the Information Literacy Instruction mailing list today. A few days ago, a woman asked a question about methods of explaining Library of Congress call numbers. Over time, the discussion has gone off on the tangent of "why you shouldn't bother to teach this material at all." Today I read this message where Joseph Harmon of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis states, among other things, that he tells students to avoid subject searches because of controlled vocabularies.
Commentary
Well, I've tried to avoid explaining what controlled vocabularies were
in the past, but now I think it's required so you'll understand my response. Controlled vocabulary is a communications concept that basically says people talking about like things should use the same words. Simple, huh? And you can see why it would come in handy.
However, in the library world many thorny issues arise when you're trying to decide which controlled vocabularies to use in your catalog and how to communicate them to your users. These complications are some of the reasons why it takes a master's degree to be a librarian.
I think learning happens best when it fulfills a student's immediate need and relates to her/his personal experience. For example, there's a certain procedure we only have to use at my workplace when the internet goes down. So I tell new employees I'm not going to bother to train them on it, because by the time they need it, they will have forgotten the training. I really believe that throwing predetermined material at people just because "it's in the curriculum" not only wastes time, but also sours some students on the whole idea of education. So I can see why Mr. Harmon might say to himself, "there's no point in covering controlled vocabularies with these students. I'm going to teach them research methods that will speak more to their immediate need and experience."
We can't always limit education this way though, because it discounts two important factors: the teacher's experience and the students' future needs. In the extreme case, you wouldn't wait until your toddler was wandering off into the street to teach him about looking both ways for traffic. He may not have an immediate need when you're explaining this concept at the kitchen table, but your experience tells you it's worth teaching because he'll need it eventually.
Returning to the library instruction arena, I've done a whole lot more computer catalog searches than most non-librarian folk, and I know that subject searches using controlled vocabularies are really useful! Once you understand them, they simplify the research process enormously. So it may be outside your experience and beyond your immediate need now, but if you learn it, you may very well thank me later.
I'm not sure how this relates to my current classes, but I am thinking about how to balance students' immediate needs (which include, of course, the need to not be overloaded with information) with my projections of what their future needs will be. This is particularly hard for me because I don't like to tell people what to do. Even if it's good for them.
What did you see today?
6/22/2008
I saw a list of "bad-boy" football players
Context
I read a column by Tim Dahlberg in today's Shreveport Times in which he discussed the phenomenon of sports team owners so desperate for a win that they'll ignore "character issues" on the part of star players. He singles out three players on the Dallas Cowboys' team for specific mention: Terrell Owens, Adam "Pacman" Jones, and Terry "Tank" Johnson. The Times doesn't appear to have the column on their website, but there's a copy of it over here on MSNBC.
Commentary
Please forgive me. It's June and I have to write about football because I'm not going to be able to watch any for two more months! Even the women's season (go AfterShock!) is over!
"Character issues" is a widely-used euphemism in the sportswriting world. It basically applies to any behavior engaged in by members of a sports organization that you would not want your children to imitate. As such, it applies to a wide range of activities.
For example, police documents relating to Tank Johnson's latest arrest, as reported here, indicate that a large amount of weapons and drugs were found in his home. I won't venture to understand why Johnson took the gun charge and his bodyguard the drug one, because I'm not a member of the Chicago police. Suffice it to say, it is generally frowned upon to collect either weapons or medication illegally in your home. Especially when you're already on probation from another weapons charge.
A short paragraph will not suffice to outline Pacman Jones' "character issues." I'll just mention that the NFL as a body got so tired of owners continuing to employ him after his multiple arrests that they suspended him for the entire season last year. The Dallas Cowboys then hired him to play for them this year.
When I see Terrell Owens' name on a list with the two gentlemen described above, I feel like we're playing a game of "one of these things is not like the others." I'm not saying he hasn't engaged in conduct that some wish he wouldn't. The Philadelphia Eagles suspended him for shooting his mouth off. He engages in touchdown celebrations that the league considers excessive. But he's never been arrested, much less convicted of a crime. In fact, his only encounter with the police was when he had an adverse drug reaction that looked to some like a suicide attempt, an opinion he vigorously disputes.
I understand having to think twice about having Terrell Owens as a member of your football team, and certainly Mr. Dahlberg is entitled to editorialize on his shortcomings in that area. But listing him in the same breath with people who violate the rules of real life, not just the lofty principles of professional football (hee!), seems unfair in the extreme. After all, isn't proportionality in judgment a behavior we would want children to imitate?
What did you see today?
I read a column by Tim Dahlberg in today's Shreveport Times in which he discussed the phenomenon of sports team owners so desperate for a win that they'll ignore "character issues" on the part of star players. He singles out three players on the Dallas Cowboys' team for specific mention: Terrell Owens, Adam "Pacman" Jones, and Terry "Tank" Johnson. The Times doesn't appear to have the column on their website, but there's a copy of it over here on MSNBC.
Commentary
Please forgive me. It's June and I have to write about football because I'm not going to be able to watch any for two more months! Even the women's season (go AfterShock!) is over!
"Character issues" is a widely-used euphemism in the sportswriting world. It basically applies to any behavior engaged in by members of a sports organization that you would not want your children to imitate. As such, it applies to a wide range of activities.
For example, police documents relating to Tank Johnson's latest arrest, as reported here, indicate that a large amount of weapons and drugs were found in his home. I won't venture to understand why Johnson took the gun charge and his bodyguard the drug one, because I'm not a member of the Chicago police. Suffice it to say, it is generally frowned upon to collect either weapons or medication illegally in your home. Especially when you're already on probation from another weapons charge.
A short paragraph will not suffice to outline Pacman Jones' "character issues." I'll just mention that the NFL as a body got so tired of owners continuing to employ him after his multiple arrests that they suspended him for the entire season last year. The Dallas Cowboys then hired him to play for them this year.
When I see Terrell Owens' name on a list with the two gentlemen described above, I feel like we're playing a game of "one of these things is not like the others." I'm not saying he hasn't engaged in conduct that some wish he wouldn't. The Philadelphia Eagles suspended him for shooting his mouth off. He engages in touchdown celebrations that the league considers excessive. But he's never been arrested, much less convicted of a crime. In fact, his only encounter with the police was when he had an adverse drug reaction that looked to some like a suicide attempt, an opinion he vigorously disputes.
I understand having to think twice about having Terrell Owens as a member of your football team, and certainly Mr. Dahlberg is entitled to editorialize on his shortcomings in that area. But listing him in the same breath with people who violate the rules of real life, not just the lofty principles of professional football (hee!), seems unfair in the extreme. After all, isn't proportionality in judgment a behavior we would want children to imitate?
What did you see today?
6/21/2008
I heard Friends discussing God's nature
Context
In Friends' meeting today we revisited a traditional topic: does God care about/control everything that happens? I am on the "way yes" side of this argument, but several other attenders view God as taking a more hands-off approach. This discussion, possibly because we live in the South, often centers on whether or not God influences the results of football games.
Commentary
Yes, I think God is involved in football. I don't advocate the use of prayer to try to sway Him one way or the other, but in my opinion He does care. I guess this is because I believe, like Amy Grant, that "we're just here to learn to love Him," so anywhere I learn things, I see God at work.
And I get quite an education from football. How-to-live lessons like: "a good game plan has to have both commitment and flexibility built in," and "the best predictor of ultimate success is your response to failure." Also: "every member of a team contributes to the triumph of the whole."
I also learn about God's creativity. I am awestruck when I watch what football players can do with their bodies, minds and hearts. God created each of those things, so watching is an opportunity to give Him glory.
I think this belief of mine makes particular sense in the context of this blog. After all, the whole point of it is to see God everywhere. Right?
What did you hear today?
In Friends' meeting today we revisited a traditional topic: does God care about/control everything that happens? I am on the "way yes" side of this argument, but several other attenders view God as taking a more hands-off approach. This discussion, possibly because we live in the South, often centers on whether or not God influences the results of football games.
Commentary
Yes, I think God is involved in football. I don't advocate the use of prayer to try to sway Him one way or the other, but in my opinion He does care. I guess this is because I believe, like Amy Grant, that "we're just here to learn to love Him," so anywhere I learn things, I see God at work.
And I get quite an education from football. How-to-live lessons like: "a good game plan has to have both commitment and flexibility built in," and "the best predictor of ultimate success is your response to failure." Also: "every member of a team contributes to the triumph of the whole."
I also learn about God's creativity. I am awestruck when I watch what football players can do with their bodies, minds and hearts. God created each of those things, so watching is an opportunity to give Him glory.
I think this belief of mine makes particular sense in the context of this blog. After all, the whole point of it is to see God everywhere. Right?
What did you hear today?
6/04/2008
I saw an odd post on an e-mail list
Context
I belong to an e-mail list called PUBLIB, which is directed at public librarians. Threads on subscription e-mail lists like this one usually start with a question or an invitation to offer advice, information or opinions on a particular topic, which are then responded to.
Recently, a library school student named Ron Creswell made various postings to the list (example here). His postings appeared in the form of essays on various topics which had not been prompted by previous discussion. As written, they did not appear to invite further discourse.
Commentary
After receiving three or four of Mr. Creswell's missives, many participants on PUBLIB, including myself, came to the conclusion that he had been given an assignment at library school to participate in an e-mail list. This is a standard assignment, one that is calculated to introduce students to the various modes of communication used by working librarians. It seems unlikely that Ron's instructor intended for him to dump seemingly random ruminations on the profession at large.
Once this conclusion had been drawn, list members' stated opinions of these postings basically broke down into four categories:
1) This guy is an idiot who is posting inappropriate material to the list and wasting our time. He would make a bad librarian.
2) This guy's teachers at library school are idiots for not teaching him the appropriate professional communication skills. They are turning out bad librarians.
3) We should be nice to this guy. Everybody makes mistakes.
4) This is a teachable moment where we could let this guy know where he went astray and what e-mail lists are actually used for.
In a perfect world we would all have had the #4 response. But I didn't. In fact, I remember being in distinct solidarity with the #1 folks, although I didn't post to the list.
As a teacher and a Christian, I find my response appalling. What is it in me that made me see my brother stumbling and decide that screaming and shaking my fist was the appropriate response? Sin, of course, but what specifically was going on?
Well, first off, I wasn't looking at my brother at all. I was looking at how his actions affected me (wasting my time). Then I started thinking, "somebody needs to tell this guy he's making a fool of himself in front of a bunch of people he may be working with someday." Not me, mind you, but "somebody."
This response might fall under the category "diffusion of responsibility." You can find a good explanation of this and other similar sociological phenomena here. I think that given the number of people who participate in PUBLIB who are more eloquent and venerable than me, I just didn't think it was my job to intervene.
So is this humility, appeal to authority (an insane thought if you know me personally), or just a method of avoiding difficult situations? Realistically, it's probably a combination of the three, but I know the third is of no merit and I should do my best to eliminate it from my repertoire.
Well, humility and standing aside are good things, right? Maybe, but it's not like I had nothing to contribute. I was well aware that Mr. Creswell was doing something unwise and I could have said so, maybe privately to him, maybe on the list itself with the aim of building community.
As for the appeal to authority, that actually has a lot of merit if I'm appealing to the correct authority. Ultimately, the student's well-being is not in the hands of his teachers or the list moderators. It's in God's hands. And if you listen to Jewel, you know that our hands are God's hands (listen to the song "My Hands" off the 1998 Spirit album if you don't know what I mean).
What did you see today?
I belong to an e-mail list called PUBLIB, which is directed at public librarians. Threads on subscription e-mail lists like this one usually start with a question or an invitation to offer advice, information or opinions on a particular topic, which are then responded to.
Recently, a library school student named Ron Creswell made various postings to the list (example here). His postings appeared in the form of essays on various topics which had not been prompted by previous discussion. As written, they did not appear to invite further discourse.
Commentary
After receiving three or four of Mr. Creswell's missives, many participants on PUBLIB, including myself, came to the conclusion that he had been given an assignment at library school to participate in an e-mail list. This is a standard assignment, one that is calculated to introduce students to the various modes of communication used by working librarians. It seems unlikely that Ron's instructor intended for him to dump seemingly random ruminations on the profession at large.
Once this conclusion had been drawn, list members' stated opinions of these postings basically broke down into four categories:
1) This guy is an idiot who is posting inappropriate material to the list and wasting our time. He would make a bad librarian.
2) This guy's teachers at library school are idiots for not teaching him the appropriate professional communication skills. They are turning out bad librarians.
3) We should be nice to this guy. Everybody makes mistakes.
4) This is a teachable moment where we could let this guy know where he went astray and what e-mail lists are actually used for.
In a perfect world we would all have had the #4 response. But I didn't. In fact, I remember being in distinct solidarity with the #1 folks, although I didn't post to the list.
As a teacher and a Christian, I find my response appalling. What is it in me that made me see my brother stumbling and decide that screaming and shaking my fist was the appropriate response? Sin, of course, but what specifically was going on?
Well, first off, I wasn't looking at my brother at all. I was looking at how his actions affected me (wasting my time). Then I started thinking, "somebody needs to tell this guy he's making a fool of himself in front of a bunch of people he may be working with someday." Not me, mind you, but "somebody."
This response might fall under the category "diffusion of responsibility." You can find a good explanation of this and other similar sociological phenomena here. I think that given the number of people who participate in PUBLIB who are more eloquent and venerable than me, I just didn't think it was my job to intervene.
So is this humility, appeal to authority (an insane thought if you know me personally), or just a method of avoiding difficult situations? Realistically, it's probably a combination of the three, but I know the third is of no merit and I should do my best to eliminate it from my repertoire.
Well, humility and standing aside are good things, right? Maybe, but it's not like I had nothing to contribute. I was well aware that Mr. Creswell was doing something unwise and I could have said so, maybe privately to him, maybe on the list itself with the aim of building community.
As for the appeal to authority, that actually has a lot of merit if I'm appealing to the correct authority. Ultimately, the student's well-being is not in the hands of his teachers or the list moderators. It's in God's hands. And if you listen to Jewel, you know that our hands are God's hands (listen to the song "My Hands" off the 1998 Spirit album if you don't know what I mean).
What did you see today?
5/17/2008
I heard a Friend talk about community reaction.
Context
My Friends meeting in Texarkana tries to have a "Peace Out" every month. This involves going into the community and doing God's work. As we were brainstorming ideas for next month's Peace Out, we thought of several things that might benefit disadvantaged members of the African-American community. One Friend expressed concern that the beneficiaries might be resentful of "these white ladies" (and we all are) coming in where they're not wanted and doing stuff.
Commentary
I don't know if race influences actions more strongly in the South or if we're just more open about it at Quaker meeting, but the subject does seem to come up fairly regularly when we're talking about the Texarkana community. If I were to try to articulate the resentment my friend was concerned about, I think it might go something like this: "these white ladies have no idea what our lives are like, so it's not possible for them to lend a helping hand without judging us, trying to change us, and generally feeling superior to us. Therefore we don't want them around."
This reaction makes me think about Christianity (OK, a lot of things make me think about Christianity). Christians know that God in fact does judge us, wants us to change, and is superior to us. In the book of Job, God makes it pretty clear that He's unconcerned about our resentment (Start from chapter 38 and go from there. You'll get the idea). However, Jesus' incarnation seems to indicate God thought some empathy might be in order. Either that, or He was removing our last stupid excuse for not heeding His word: "you don't know what I'm going through, God. Your opinion doesn't count." Well, now He knows.
So where does that leave a group of white ladies working in an African-American community? Well, I don't think it's true that we have no idea what people's lives are like. We may not be in the same economic or social circumstances, but I think all of us have felt overwhelmed, oppressed, hopeless, unmotivated, and yes, resentful at some time in our lives. If we can offer the empathy that comes from knowing all of us need help sometimes, then perhaps we'll be doing more than just a good deed. We'll actually be furthering God's kingdom.
By the way, here's my favorite joke about empathy: never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. That way, when you judge him you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes!
What did you hear today?
My Friends meeting in Texarkana tries to have a "Peace Out" every month. This involves going into the community and doing God's work. As we were brainstorming ideas for next month's Peace Out, we thought of several things that might benefit disadvantaged members of the African-American community. One Friend expressed concern that the beneficiaries might be resentful of "these white ladies" (and we all are) coming in where they're not wanted and doing stuff.
Commentary
I don't know if race influences actions more strongly in the South or if we're just more open about it at Quaker meeting, but the subject does seem to come up fairly regularly when we're talking about the Texarkana community. If I were to try to articulate the resentment my friend was concerned about, I think it might go something like this: "these white ladies have no idea what our lives are like, so it's not possible for them to lend a helping hand without judging us, trying to change us, and generally feeling superior to us. Therefore we don't want them around."
This reaction makes me think about Christianity (OK, a lot of things make me think about Christianity). Christians know that God in fact does judge us, wants us to change, and is superior to us. In the book of Job, God makes it pretty clear that He's unconcerned about our resentment (Start from chapter 38 and go from there. You'll get the idea). However, Jesus' incarnation seems to indicate God thought some empathy might be in order. Either that, or He was removing our last stupid excuse for not heeding His word: "you don't know what I'm going through, God. Your opinion doesn't count." Well, now He knows.
So where does that leave a group of white ladies working in an African-American community? Well, I don't think it's true that we have no idea what people's lives are like. We may not be in the same economic or social circumstances, but I think all of us have felt overwhelmed, oppressed, hopeless, unmotivated, and yes, resentful at some time in our lives. If we can offer the empathy that comes from knowing all of us need help sometimes, then perhaps we'll be doing more than just a good deed. We'll actually be furthering God's kingdom.
By the way, here's my favorite joke about empathy: never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. That way, when you judge him you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes!
What did you hear today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)