Difficult passage.

I did the readings at church this morning. Both lessons were difficult: the Old Testament lesson was about the exclusiveness of Israel as God's chosen, and the New Testament reading was about a husband's and wife's duty to one another. This was the second week in a row that the pastor (a visiting priest covering the regular rector's vacation) mentioned the fact that these difficult and often controversial readings are placed in the liturgical calendar in the middle of August, when everyone is on vacation and can "miss" them.

He then went on to preach about the need to analyze and contemplate what these difficult passages mean to modern Christians. These are lessons that have been interpreted literally and used to maintain the legitimacy of reactionary or conservative power structures, particularly sexist, patriarchal hierarchies. However, the story of Christ is certainly not about maintaining the status quo. Thus, there is an obvious contradiction here. One explanation, the reverend said, was that the revolutionary rhetoric of early Christians was tempered by language in the epistles to demonstrate that Christians were not threatening to turn the world upside down. Another approach he suggested to these lessons is to alter the assumptions about the very language used, and to see the imagery of the writings more broadly. The point is, the sermon challenged us to think carefully and contemplatively about the lessons.

This addresses a problem I have from both ends of Christianity. On the one hand, as a (nominal, at least) Christian, I do get frustrated with people who assume that all Christians are creationists who hate science. On the other hand, I often want to put as much distance as I can between myself and fundamentalists who see all questioning of scripture as heresy. Faith is not the negation of inquiry, it is the starting point for it. I got interested in the Church because of the intellectual discipline and philosophical examination that are an integral part of it. I do not think that we are obliged by our faith to accept the conclusions that earlier observers came to regarding the interpretation of scripture, the nature of God, or the questions of how we get along with one another. The observance of faith, that is the practice of religion, does not give us answers to life's problems, it gives us an approach to use in figuring things out for ourselves.

Am I missing something?

I just read a news item about the young woman who recently freed herself from captivity in Austria after eight years. The police investigators on the case are trying to determine if the sexual contact her kidnapper had with her was "consensual or forced." I always thought Austria had a fairly advanced legal system, so I can't imagine under what circumstances anything done by a girl abducted when she was ten years old could be considered consensual. Not that it matters much, now, since the cowardly bastard who did it killed himself.

Drastic change of topic.

I just got back from a long walk around JP. I was surprised to see that the real estate office that had burned down last week re-opened in a new location. They were obviously ready to open before the fire. I'm not sure what relevance this could have to the fire, but I found it curious that it wasn't mentioned in any of the news stories I read.

Also, I had a couple of pints and picked up some take out from my favorite neighborhood place last night. Aside from coming home smelling like I had spent the night inside a wood burning stove, the place was back to its old self.

"Clutching forks and knives"

On this day in 1967, Abbie Hoffman and some friends disrupted trading on the NYSE by tossing dollar bills onto the exchange floor from the gallery. The traders rushed to collect the falling manna from the skies, evidently deciding that a buck in the hand is worth ten on the big board.

On a completely unrelated note, it has always struck me as odd that underperforming public schools are threatened with having their funding cut. If a child comes home from school with a "D" on her report card, you don't take away her books.

Doubleplusungood.

I saw a very disturbing item in the national news briefs yesterday. Evidently, the Bush administration is “retroactively” classifying the number of nuclear weapons the United States had stockpiled during the cold war. According to the story (in the national news briefs of the August 21st Boston Globe), documents that reference the number of nuclear weapons held by the US during the Cold War now have the numbers blacked out. These figures were formerly public information. (See this story in the Times.)

I find this discouraging in two ways. First, it is frightening in the Orwellian sense. When politicians start manipulating and obfuscating historical records, we take one step closer to the memory holes of 1984. Soon we will see high school history books that talk about the US, England and Germany fighting the French and the Soviet Union in World War II.

Second, this kind of pointless secrecy has been the hallmark of every incompetent employer I have ever worked for. Discretion is one thing, but playing everything close to the vest simply because you don’t actually know what you can and can’t afford to reveal shows a lack of vision. Who knows what the Bush administration thinks it stands to gain by suddenly making history secret? The disturbing truth is that even the people responsible for this decision likely don't have a clue.

Both ends burning

I think somebody is trying to burn my city down. Over the last year there have been two firebombings targeting properties owned by Greek-American landlords. Then last week there was a fire right around the corner that put my favorite pub out of commission for a few days, and completely destroyed a dentist's office and a pizza parlor. Now (last night) a suspicious fire destroyed a real estate office and a nail salon at the other end of JP. (Granted, the fire closest to me is the only one that I haven't heard any speculation about regarding arson.) I'm pretty sure the most recent one was also a property owned by the same Greek-American family targeted in the earlier two fires.

I keep walking past charred out shells of formerly thriving businesses; I feel like I'm living in Detroit.

Alone in the crowd

I went to Bill's Bar last night to see my wife's cousin's band (The Herocycle) play. The band sounded great, and in spite of being seven people crammed onto a tiny, crowded stage they managed to put out a good amount of energy while playing.

What drove me bat-shit insane (an expression I've appropriated from the missus) was the ridiculous volume at which the club pumps the between-band music. No one needs that. Between sets is when people are supposed to be able to have a little conversation with each other and the bands are supposed to schmooze with the crowd. I spent most of the night trying to read people's lips. I finally gave up and sat at a corner table with a dopey smile plastered across my face waiting for the band to come back on.

Hint to Bills' Bar: It shouldn't be easier for people to talk over the band than it is to chat between sets. And don't get me wrong - I love loud music. I've stopped going to shows at places like the Tweeter Center and the Bank of America Pavilion because those big corporate tent places tone it down so much I end up hearing more of the conversations three rows away than I do of the band. I miss Bunratty's.

Just a test

I just want to test something. Can you see the bear?



Hey. Looks good. I just wanted to see if that worked. Back to your regularly scheduled summer.

Summer summer summer

It's probably as close to a perfect summer day as you can get in New England right now. Almost no humidity, 73 degrees, and not a cloud in the sky. I've got about three hours of sunlight left, so I'm going to get out of this office, pick something easy up for dinner (to cook, that is - not for company), and wait for the missus to get back from the gym.

It's been a good summer so far, and it should segue into a nice fall. I'm doing my back-to-school shopping this Friday, and I hope to be house (or condo) shopping in January.

What else do you expect me to do?

Agh. It's hot. I can barely type. I am sweaty. I am running fans in every window. I am so glad I am not a hairy animal, but so sad I am not a dolphin or an otter. That's all I can say/type. Hot. Sweat. Agh.

Bad Start, Good Finish

This was the first week of 9:30 services (moved up from the usual 10:30 time) at church. It's also the first day of the month that I have had to go anywhere on the MBTA. And, I forgot to pick up my T-pass at work last week, so already I'm off to a bad start.

Now, I've been a supporter of the new Charlie Card system since the T announced it. I remember using a similar system on my trip to London years ago and it worked well. Of course, the average citizen of London is about three times as intelligent as the average T-rider, and the average Tube employee is Albert Einstein compared to the glorified welfare recipients that work for the MBTA.

I get to the station, with a little extra time because I have never purchased a fare ticket from the automated machines. Everything looks straight forward and self-explanatory, which is good, because there's no one around to answer your questions if you have one, and people started asking me what the fare to South Station was. The machine rejects my ten dollar bill. Twice. Three times. I go to the collector's box, and it's empty, with a handwritten sign taped to the window saying "No Cash No Change." The useless moron on duty in the station tells me I have to get change from the donut shop. She tells me not to blame her, they aren't her machines and it isn't her system. It must be nice to feel so good about what you do for a living. She stormed off in a huff, going through one of the gates to the platform. I followed her through the gate.

My opinion of MBTA employees is that they are basically unemployable parasites. Seventy-five percent of them can't even be bothered to tuck their shirts in. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Whether I'm right or wrong, this is a crappy way to head to church, and start my day. So, I sit through the service, and by the time we get to communion, I am feeling contrite and repentant and generally bad about myself for letting any of it bother me, and for taking it out on the woman working at the station, and I'm ready to commit myself to being more patient, more humble, and so on.

On the way home from church, I walk through the station. (I don't ride the train because there's no time concern, but it's on the walking route back to home.) The same woman is still standing next to the empty booth, completely inept and useless, chatting on her cell phone. And I decided that I was right - I shouldn't let it bother me. If someone makes the decision to be useless, it's their life they are going to have to look back on.

Catching up to God

I attended the Boston Pride Day parade with the contingent from St. John's in Jamaica Plain last Saturday. Aside from a thorough soaking, I was able to take in some good camaraderie and conversation. Reverend Anne Fowler, the rector at St. John's, mentioned that Bishop Shaw said when it comes to love and understandinng of others, "the Church has always had to catch up to God."

Now the Episcopal Church USA has elected a new presiding Bishop, and the conservative element is unhappy, because they haven’t gotten their way. Much like political conservatives, they seem to think that compromise means giving them everything they want and then thanking them for it. On the selection of Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Reverend Eddie Blue of Maryland said, "I can't help but consider the peculiar genius our church has for roiling the waters. I am shocked, dismayed and saddened by the choice."

It seems that those who would like to see things stay the same should not have to suffer the indignity of having their choices questioned, but those who would like to see the Church try to “catch up to God” do not deserve to have their feelings considered. In regards to Reverend Blue’s remark, quoted above, my first reaction was that I could think of someone else who had a particular genius for roiling the waters, and He didn’t think that was such a bad thing.

“Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres”

I don't understand the logic of the Massachusetts Democratic party. Whatever Deval Patrick's odds of winning the general election in November are, they must now be divided by three. Any party that works the way this party is working in this election does not want to win, with any candidate. I mean, what's with this? If you want to win a race, you get momentum behind one candidate. How many candidates are the Republicans fielding for governor in the primary? One. How many are the Democrats? Three. Does that sound like a good strategy to win an election? No.

Sure, you can argue that the Democrats are the more "democratic" party, because they're giving the voters more choices, and attempting to vet the candidate in the November election with solid support. But what's really happening is that all those voters who vote for whoever doesn't win the primary have one more excuse not to vote in the final election. And then Sal DiMasi and Bob Travaligni will get exactly what they want: another Republican in the corner office to be their scapegoat when things don't go their way.

All the complaints I heard about the unfairness of the 15% rule in the past week came from people who are happy to see the gubernatorial election stay what it has been for 16 years: a referendum on who wins the Democratic award for "political pariah." Has anyone heard from Scott Harshbarger or Shannon O'Brien lately?

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I'll be voting for Patrick in September (and probably November). But I have no illusions about the likely outcome.

"All I know is, I'm not a Marxist." -Karl Marx

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 15% Conservative, 85% Liberal

Social Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

Radical Ideas

The Episcopal diocese of California will be electing a new bishop this weekend, and three of the candidates are openly gay clergy members. The Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) already has one openly gay bishop, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. You might have also seen his name in the news as a result of his stay in an inpatient alcohol treatment facility in February, 2006. The election of Bishop Robinson to head the diocese has led the Anglican Communion (the worldwide organization of various Anglican Churches) to the verge of schism over the issue of homosexuality. Some ECUSA congregations have even put themselves under the leadership of foreign bishops who support a more exclusive vision of Christianity. Those conservatives who insist that Christ’s servants be of a more traditional moral stripe criticize the supporters of an expanded church for espousing an ideology of “radical inclusivity.”

I recently began attending an Episcopal church in my neighborhood. I went back to church because I wanted to do something that would connect me to the community I lived in, provide an opportunity to work for the “common good,” and perhaps teach me some humility and patience. I figured spending time around unselfish do-gooders might teach me a thing or two about seeing the good in everyone around me. This particular church appealed to me because I knew the reputation of the rector, Anne Fowler, as an activist for social justice issues, such as gay marriage and immigrant rights, and because some co-workers of mine attended and were enthusiastic about the people who went there. Nobody talked about the light of Jesus’ love glowing in their hearts or the glorious joy of salvation filling them with love for mankind. I have found it to be a very open, young, interesting and diverse group of people. At least half the people I’ve met are gay couples, many with adopted or biological kids.

Many of the gay men who attend this church were raised Catholic, and the similarity of ritual and liturgy attracted them to the Episcopal Church. They found their comfort in being allowed to practice and participate without any conflict of conscience. No one here talks about “loving the sinner and hating the sin.” If you have faith in Christ, and practice the one commandment He put above all others (“Love each other as you love yourselves”) you are welcome here. I got the sense from some of the young men I’ve met here that the need for this faith is so strong, that they suffered when they were separated from it by the conflict of their nature with their religion. How can anything good come of the constant message that the very impulse to follow Christ’s commandment was a sin?

Now, I realize that there’s a difference between loving your neighbor and “luvin’ your neighbor” (wink wink, nudge, nudge). There are many forms of love, and the love we are all supposed to feel for each other is different from the love Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee have documented for all the world to see. But there is a common element to them. The love we feel in partnership or marriage is the foundation and model for the love we should try to share with everyone. This is supposed to be the basic teaching of all Christianity. This is the “radical inclusivity” Christ brought to the world.

Categories

So, I just read a column in the Washington Post about Crunchy Cons. This is a new category of conservatives who embrace wacky, liberal ideas like eating organic food and, um, well actually, they didn’t seem to embrace any other liberal ideas other than eating organic food. He’s a right-wing writer who happens to like organic broccoli. She’s a stay-at-home mom who bakes pumpkin bread and pretty much disappears into the background in the story. They’re both converted Catholics who don’t like fags and abortion. Sure, they’ll tell you that they don’t have anything against homosexuals. They just think marriage is a sacred institution reserved for people like them. And don’t you dare read a story about two men getting married to their children. Not while they’re so young and easy to indoctrinate with the right (that is, correct) ideas.

Here’s what the story said to me, in essence: We’ve found a life we like; everyone else should live this way, too. And that just about sums up the problem with conservatism. For all the talk about liberals being dogmatic, politically correct, ideologically rigid fascists and “femi-Nazis” who shout down any attempt at dissent, it is always the conservatives that identify orthodoxy and homogeneity as worthwhile social and political goals.

Take, for example, the current debate on immigration. The argument made against the Spanish version of the Star Spangled Banner is the key to the conservative idea that assimilation is the correct goal of immigration. “We are happy to let you into our country to do the dirty work we won’t,” they say. “But you’ve got to learn English, speak quietly, and become like us.” But what does being American have to do with leaving behind all previous ethnic, linguistic and cultural connections? If “American” means anything, it is that our strength is in an amalgam of the various cultures that comprise our population.

Again, we see the same thread with the debate over gay marriage. The so-called homosexual agenda and the gay lifestyle are seen as threats to the nice, normal straight white value system. And marriage is an important part of that value system. When gays started to vocally demand access to the privilege of marriage, it caused an uproar. But I don’t think many straight people seriously believe their marriage is any less valid because two people of the same gender can also be married. The conservatives are shaken by the realization that there is no “gay lifestyle.” What shatters the conservative argument is that if they really believe the values they ostensibly promote – equality, personal liberty, self-responsibility – they have to acknowledge that they are keeping company with a much wider spectrum of humanity than they might want to admit.

Conservatives, crunchy or otherwise, are faced with the reality that, for all their talk of fundamental moral values and guiding principles, their ideology boils down to creating a rationale to criticize things that make them uncomfortable. They want to live in a world where everyone is just like them. Sure, they’re open to debate – should we support the war because the world is safer without Sadam, or because if we weren’t fighting the terrorists over there, we’d be fighting them over here? – but don’t go overboard or you’re just one of those relativists with no values.

The COOLEST Month

So, April has been okay for me. Some good, some bad, but overall I'm coming out on top. Finished my second semester of grad school, and I think I will be getting decent enough grades to get me into the PhD program in the fall. I also got the okay to work on a directed study over the summer with my advisor/mentor. I actually hate using that word "mentor," but he is not technically my faculty advisor, so I have to use something to differentiate him from my assigned mentor, whom I haven't even met with since I stared the program.

I'm still dressing like an adult (some would even say "old man") every day at work. And people are starting to get used to it. I'm starting to get used to it, too. I forget that a bow tie isn't something people are used to seeing every day, so when someone on the street does a double take and starts to smile (or smirk) at me, I am tricked into thinking, momentarily, that I know them. Then I remember that they're probably just thinking to themselves that I look like Orville Redenbacker.

I am wondering if all the immigrant staff is going to participate in Monday's May Day action. It would be interesting to see the campus brought to a standstill by all the food service workers on strike. The whole issue brings a question to my mind that I haven't seen investigated much in the media. We all know that America is a nation of immigrants, but the people on the more rigid side of the argument insist that there is this chasm of difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigration. Their ancestors might have been immigrants, but they did it the "right" way. Well, how different are immigration procedures today from 50 or 100 or 150 years ago? I don't think people who showed up at Ellis Island to join the husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters that were already here in, say, 1848 needed to go through the rigmarol that is required now.

My understanding of "legal" immigration in the nineteenth century is that you basically showed up, stated your name and country of origin, declared your intention to become a citizen, and you were in. You still had to go through the process of becoming a citizen, but there weren't the kinds of border security issues back then. Of course, I also realize that at the start of this century, "great" citizens such as Henry Cabot Lodge were fighting tooth and nail to keep America white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant. As recently as 1902, laws were being passed in Congress that barred the use of "Mongolian" labor on public works projects (Newlands Act 1902).

Yikes! Lost track of the time. I gotta go get my hair cut. See you in another couple of weeks.

A Non-Normative Evaluation of Database Design and Utilization

I read. I write about what I read. I try to make intelligent comments about what the author of what I read thinks about what other authors think about what they write. Graduate school is fun. And to think I could make a living doing this.

On the day of my last update, I went to church. It was the very first time I went to church entirely on my own, without being compelled by a wedding, funeral or baptism. It was Ash Wednesday, and I figured, from what I read in my slight research online, that it was an appropriate time to start a relationship with God. I have gone every Sunday since, and a few days other than Sunday. The church is a nice, political, open-minded Episcopal parish in JP. Lots of gay ex-Catholics. Very good music. I go for the company, really.

I never liked the term "Yankee," but then I'm a Red Sox fan

Your Linguistic Profile:

40% General American English

40% Yankee

10% Upper Midwestern

5% Dixie

0% Midwestern

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

I'm kind of a blueblood snob, but "Yankee" always conjurs an image of Bing Crosby in the movie adaptation of Twain's novel.

Damned internet thingy!

I was supposed to spend today getting all caught up on my school work. I am taking a comparative constitutional law class, and we are responsible for two case briefings per week, but the professor doesn't want them passed in until the end of the term. At first, that seemed great, but I think I would prefer to have them due each week, because, fool that I am, I am already three weeks behind. Today I was going to get all caught up. So I sat my butt down at my new 14" iBook G4 and promptly started surfing the internet. Facebook, Myspace, Livejournal, Friendster; you name it, I was on it. And everything is more enjoyable on my 14" screen than my old 12" screen. I don't know how I stood it for two years.

I had managed to get my first case brief 3/4 completed when I broke to fix dinner. I was doing the washing up before hand and thinking out a plan to get more writing done tonight and it dawned on me. This professor is going to have seven students pass in nineteen two-page case briefs on the last day of class. And being graduate school, you know a bunch of these over-achievers are going to give him three, four or even five pages on some of the cases. His grades are due six days after we are supposed to turn the briefs in, and he is looking for a ten-page research paper at the end of the term as well. Just how thoroughly do you think he is going to read 266 pages of briefs? I figure I can type pure gobbldeegook and as long as I throw in a few key terms from each case (proportionate accommodation; undue burden; stare decisis; two-part Oakes test) he's gonna check 'em off and move on. Of course, I won't do any less than a completely thorough job on each one. I'm not saying that to boast; it's a fault with me. I'm a wee bit too deferential to authority figures.

In a final note - Deval Patrick, y'all. Nice job. Tom Reilly is another Scott Harshbarger. He's as bland as tapioca and not quite as firm on the issues.

Ketchup

Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Chirstmas, Happy New Year, Happy Hannukah, etc. etc. etc.

Once again, I am wondering what I want to use this "blog" for. What do I have to say, who am I expecting to say it to, why does it matter? When I go so long without bothering, I have a hard time getting back up to speed. I should just convince myself that there is some purpose to this and keep at it.

I am looking forward to 2006, because it is a congressional election year, a gubernatorial election year, and there will be some interesting local races in Boston as well. As much as I prefer academic, theoretical political science, I enjoy the campaigns, too. I just get a little bored with the breathless gossip that passes for journalism these days.

I just finished reading the review of Ana Marie Cox's Dog Days in the New York Times. It's a novel by a blogger about a blogger who writes a novel. It could be a masterpiece and I would still feel ripped off for paying for a book about writing a book about writing a "blog." This is the kind of crap that people assume I am interested in when I tell them I am studying political science. Primary Colors, Wag the Dog, Bill O'Reilly, Anderson Cooper, Ann Coulter, Tim Matthews: all this noise based on the idea that reporting the news and being the news are the same thing. I guess I shouldn't count on pundits to give an accurate portrayal of the media's role in the political process.

But I am sure I will find myself following along in the funny papers as 2006 rolls along. I'll listen as candidates scream at each other over issues of no substance, while being egged on by journalists who care nothing about the process other than that it continues to protect their ability to make a living.