|
 |
| |
| The Nile ain't a river in Saskatchewan |
Usually before we go anywhere, Jerry will joke that I'm in weather denial. This comment stems from the fact that I don't like having to wear my winter coat or layers any longer than I have to. If I can get away wearing a bunny-hug or sweater, I'm good. Of course this is quite a change from his perspective on the weather, as he'll wear 3 or 4 layers when it's barely sweatshirt/sweater temperatures outside!
That said, tonight is calling for flurries -- Wednesday's forecast, too. And by the looks of outside right now, I wouldn't be surprised if my hair does get a bit frosty on the trek home later.
It never fails, every year I'm never fully prepared for winter. This year's no different!
Though apparently someone else in our graduate student hovel office is in a bit of rush, seasonally-speaking. For the third day straight, I've heard Christmas carols playing in someone's cubicle. I can handle the crooning of Bing, but when Celine comes on -- that's just a little too much for this girl. |
|
|
|
| New digs |
Time for a change -- New look, new comments, same content!
Let me know whatcha think.
EDIT: Grrr, now I know why I hadn't changed my template in 3 years -- what. a. pain. Firefox is way friendlier to me than IE. Hopefully it loads okay in both browsers, now. |
|
|
|
|
You fit in with:
Spiritualism
Your ideals are mostly spiritual, but in an individualistic way. While spirituality is very important in your life, organized religion itself may not be for you. It is best for you to seek these things on your own terms.
60% spiritual.
40% reason-oriented.
Take this quiz at QuizGalaxy.com
It looks like me and Fundamentalists are at separate ends of the spectrum -- nice to see it visually, confirming what I pretty-much knew already by experience.
(via this Taoist guy I know) |
|
|
|
|
It's Hallowe'en tomorrow, though it doesn't feel like it -- that could be because I missed the annual Rocky Horror Picture Show last night, the first time in years.
But in honor of the festive holiday I never was allow to celebrate until I became an adult, some links:
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever had one of those dreams that you still vividly remember after you've woken up? And not only do you remember all of its details -- but you somehow feel changed, because of it?
I'm not going to bore anyone with the details of my dreams, but right now I'm in that creepy space where the dream world intertwines with reality.
Maybe it's because it's Hallowe'een tomorrow? That, or it could always be because I stayed up until 5AM reading a novel. |
|
|
|
|
Happy Fitznukkah, Everybody!
Al Franken
That's right -- it isn't a one-day holiday like Fitzmas. This could go on and on. One day a great gift like Libby, the next day a pair of socks (Ari Fleischer), the next day, who knows: maybe an Xbox 360 (Karl Rove)! Maybe this can be dragged out until the 2006 midterms.
Anyway. Boy, did he lie! Wow. That. Is lying. Hoo boy.
And how about Rove telling the press he was going to have a great Friday and a great weekend? They can't even not lie about what kind of weekend they're going to have.
The only disappointment was the lack of a "treason" indictment. Looks like thirty years is the most Scooter will get. But who knows? He might get squeezed and end up ratting out the other guys, and get only eight to twelve.
It occurs to me that all of this may be about covering up the phony rationale for the march to war. One of you enterprising "bloggers" should look into that. Here's a clue: At one point, Cheney told Tim Russert, "there's no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program." If that statement could be proven false, that might provide the motive for smearing Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Flame.
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny how certain books can speak right to the heart of the matter. A couple weeks ago, I picked up a slew of cheap books at the CFUW book sale -- one of which was a book by Pierre Berton, The Comfortable Pew: A Critical Look at the Church in the New Age.
This book was written in 1964, so the illusion to "new age" is not to the metaphysical movements usually associated with the phrase today. I don't think I'd be far off in saying that Berton uses "new age" in a way McLaren uses "post-modern" or emerging. (then again, I'm still in the early processes of the book -- I may revise this assertion later)
The impetus of this book is especially interesting. The Anglican Church's Department of Religious Education sought out Berton to give a critique of the status of the Protestant church in the mid-twentieth century.
From the book's foreword (written by the Anglicans who commissioned the book):
During the last few years, there has been much talk about the need for the Church to "listen." We have shown a grand talent for lecturing and hectoring; but we seem unwilling to believe that God works through men outside our ranks, who may have much to teach us and a few legitimate challenges to make.
Several ideas are clear ... [the church] can look to the outsider for help. The second idea is that we can best understand the views of others by inviting them to express theirs under our own roof and with our blessing. We have printed many books in which Christian writers stated the views of outsiders and then proceeded, without difficulty, to rebut them. Why not ask somebody who would express these views directly and confidently, and who would, in doing so, show us those areas where the Church needed to examine its work with great care? Right away, you can see why I'm hooked. While they may have initially perceived this action as risky -- I find it refreshing (and rare?), and can already foresee an opportunity to gain some new perspective. Besides, Berton is an amazing writer -- and this book is combining two of my favorite arenas: politics and social justice. You can expect to see plenty of his quotes littering this space in the near future.
There's a chapter in the book entitled, "Can Nuclear War Ever be 'Just?'" Context of the chapter -- again, this was written in the early 1960's, in the height of the Cold War. The Bay of Pigs incident had only occurred 2 years earlier, and the world's sensitivity to nuclear destruction was especially heightened. In this chapter, Berton outlines his disappointment with the willful silence of most Protestant churches, in matters concerning nuclear weapons and disarmament procedures:
I have searched the newspapers following the first published news of the atomic explosions in Japan to try to find evidence that somebody of stature in the Christian Church called out against this national denial of the Christian message. There is very little, and most of what there is says very little. [...] Other individual ministers used the news of the bomb to call for a return to religion, but few if any attacked the use of the bomb itself or called for its abandonment as a weapon of war. Nor did any of the major churches.
Undoubtedly Christian consciences were privately troubled. Canon John Collins tells me that he received a letter from the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher, "in which he said that it would absolutely outrage Christian conscience were these bombs to be developed after the war. But, alas, when the time came no such official voice was ever raised in protest, and the Church, as part of the 'Establishment,' has continued to sit on the fence, and so by implication support whatever government has been in power in its policy of nuclear armaments." Exactly. While I have difficulty comprehending silence in regard to nuclear weapon abuses, the above rebuke is still applicable to today's Church. Berton is saying that it is the church's responsibility to speak out (and not remain silent) when there are injustices being committed in the world. It's a responsibility to voice your disapproval for unjust wars -- whether these wars involve the killing of innocent civilians somewhere overseas or a battle on our own soil, one that endorses eager discrimination within our own ranks. Inaction and silence, no matter what auspices they hide under, is no excuse.
Later in the chapter, Berton mentions the post-WWII tendency of many of the clergy to "go along with the majority feeling in the United States at any given time" and how this inaction is "tantamount to an admission that Christ's suffering on the cross was a failure." I know that back home the Religious Right is speaking out in FULL force these days -- but this version of "speaking out" isn't what I'm referring to. (far from it!)
I'm thinking more along the lines of what Jim Wallis calls "changing the wind." And it's something that's necessary -- not only politically, but in the church, as well. I suppose this is where I see my faith. It's not one that's hidden, or afraid to speak out when there's wrongs being committed. I think that part of my inclination stems from being an older sister. I've got an implicit protective instinct of fighting for underdogs or the oppressed -- which I know sometimes gets me into trouble.
I'm far from perfect (as many of you can attest to), and I know that my passion often gets in the way of my message -- but this passion is an important part of who I am. Nowadays I'm just learning the process of perceiving when it's the time to reign it in -- versus the times when it's necessary that I speak out ... loudly. |
|
|
|
|
After spending ALL DAY at school today, I'm curling up and watching CBC's documentary series, The Passionate Eye. Tonight's episode is called "Frankensteer," and it's only reminding me (rather graphically) of some of the reasons why I'm not a red-meat eater (and an only occasional chicken/turkey consumer).
The episode's description:
Frankensteer is a disturbing documentary that reveals how the ordinary cow has been turned into an antibiotic-dependent, hormone-laced potential carrier of toxic bacteria, all in the name of cheaper food. Frankensteer exposes the harsh and sometimes frightening realities of how our beef gets to our tables.
According to this compelling documentary, the beef industry, supported by North American government agencies and pharmaceutical companies, has engaged in an on-going experiment to create the perfect food machine. Their goal is to increase the speed of production and reduce the cost of manufacture. But there is a price in producing a cheap industrial product. This benign, grazing herbivore has undergone a transformation in how it’s raised, fed and slaughtered. Consumers are unaware of the dangers lurking in their beloved steaks, ribs and, especially, hamburgers.
According to Mike McBane of the Canadian Health Coalition, "When you bring a package of hamburger home from a supermarket, you have to treat it as toxic material…"
Frankensteer reveals some startling facts. Every year, fifty per cent of the total tonnage of antibiotics used in Canada ends up in livestock. Cattle raised in massive feedlots are routinely dosed with antibiotics even if they are not sick for public health safety reasons. During the current BSE (Mad Cow) crisis, North American health officials labeled parts of the cow as bio-hazardous products and ordered that they be handled accordingly. Recent changes in inspection rules have shifted the responsibility for food safety from government inspectors to the people on the floor who do the slaughtering and packing. Peaceful herbivore cows are routinely poisoned, forced to eat food they would not normally (often making them into cannibals, by feeding them the meat and bones of other cattle), they endlessly suffer in huge disgusting grain lots, they're injected with hormones and all sorts of cancer-causing antibiotics, and then beef consumers then ingest it all.
Think about that when you have another Big Mac attack. (yuck)
Ugh, and I hate hearing about the fact that many growing calves are fed blood instead of milk. Time for me to start seriously rethinking soy.
I first heard about having a "theology of the body" from Andrew on his blog -- documentaries like this one reinforce that need. For me, it'll be worth paying the extra that's required to ensure my food is free-range, not factory farmed.
Either that, or I'll just make that final leap and become a vegetarian for good. |
|
|
|
|
And now a literary flashback from August 11, 2004:
"When I was a little girl the heads of my paper dolls came off, and it was a long time before I discovered that my own head would not fall off if I bent my neck. I used to walk around holding it very stiff because I thought a strong wind or a heavy push would snap my neck. Nel was the one who told me the truth. But she was wrong. I did not hold my head stiff enough when I met him and so I lost it just like the dolls."
Sula, Toni Morrison |
|
|
|
|
The start of all the cards falling down? Miers withdrawls.
The news could be even better tomorrow.
UPDATE: Harriet laments the loss over at her blog: WIP (Withdrawl in Peace)
Her thank you note:
Dear Supporters.
 This is obv a really hard day for me, I was super excited about being a Justice. I was looking at my very first blog post and it made me cry. But this day isn't about me. Its about all of us. And I have to say... Thank You.
Of course I have to start with a thank you to Hugh. Hugh Hewitt. Hugh your the best!! Here's what Hugh wrote today, Ms. Miers deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. Same to you!! Your simply the greatest.
Thank you to everyone who writes comments on this blog, Mike Sparkle Judy Gyrobo Bob Liz Ah Patrick EVERYONE, you know who you are. You are my BFF, for real.
Thank you to Nicolle...its the Silver Lining that I get to stay in the WH and work with you again. Your the BEST!!
But Most Of All...
THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT. I know this wasn't you're decision anymore than it was mine...but guess what, we're going to STICK TOGETHER just like always!! (yes, I know it's a goof) |
|
|
|
|
I'm not usually a fan of Maclean's, but this week's cover story looked to be a gem: "The Age of the Wuss: the sad slump of North American manhood" -- so you know I had to check it out. And to make it even more interesting, "exhibit A" on the cover lists the "limp life of the Canadian Tire guy."
Now Jerry and I have a running theory about this "Most Irritating Canadian" figure on TV -- we think he's some type of android. He's got to be, because no human can get so excited (and yet be so annoying) about silly gadgets and trinkets from a Walmart-wannabe store.
But I digress. The cover story is by Charlie Gillis, and it's entitled "He's Come Undone: After all their 'evolving,' men run the risk of obscuring the meaning of male altogether -- it's an interesting case study and history on the changing cultural expectations of men in the 21st century.
Some parts I found interesting:
[from the introduction] It's become almost cliché to portray men as being in some state of socio-sexual chrysalis, slowly emerging from a few millennia of male hegemony and discovering the woman inside themselves. The post-feminist era has unleashed no end of books, studies, surveys and essays charting this trajectory, in most cases portraying it as a rise from primordial incivility to a more advanced state of being. Like primates developing opposable thumbs, men were supposed to be acquiring traits to better serve them in a world where gender lines don't matter. Aggression would give way to sensitivity, ruggedness to style, stoicism to "emotional intelligence."
[and the conclusion?] A few years ago, Kimmel formed a three-pronged theory about how American men were protecting their outdated ideas of masculinity. They sought to exclude others, such as women and homosexuals, from their fraternal world, he said. Or they tried escape -- "lighting out," as Mark Twain would have it, on hunting trips, or mythopoetic retreats, à la Robert Bly. When all this failed, Kimmel believes, they retreated into themselves, focusing on appearance and their ability to shape their own bodies.
As Pujos-Gautraud's reactions illustrate, this may prove the most dangerous outcome of men's current malaise. Yes, their experimentation with appearance -- remaking themselves on ever more feminine principles -- has torn down weary stereotypes. It may even help them understand life from a woman's point of view. But men now run the risk of obscuring the meaning of male altogether, of robbing the sexes of that age-old friction that, however frustrating, happens to be the stuff of life. If the views of one open-minded, middle-aged Frenchwoman are anything to go by, that would be one evolutionary rung too far.
Interesting stuff.
But the best part of the issue is the rant on the Canadian Tire guy -- Love it. "The prince of Simoniz pressure washers -- the pitchman on one of Canada's most hated ad campaigns -- has proven especially repulsive to bloggers. Every mention of him on the Web results in a string of nasty posts written with a rage so visceral it's hard not to fear for the safety of Canadian Tire Guy's fictional family. If he lived in any real Canadian neighbourhood, somebody would probably have glue-gunned his lips shut."
That article is followed up by a humor piece of various diary entries of the Canadian Tire guy (by Scott Feschuk). My favorite entry:
Dear Diary,
What a surprise! While using my new Simoniz S2800 Gas Powered Pressure Washer, available at Canadian Tire, to brush my teeth this morning, I noticed that our next-door neighbours, the Johnsons, have a "For Sale" sign up -- even though they've been here for less than a year. I went over and asked Walt why they were moving and he said: "You. You and your obnoxious, know-it-all ramblings about cheap, piece-of-crap products no one needs." Then he chased me off his property with a set of barbecue tongs. That Walt! I'm going to miss his sense of humour! Our other next-door neighbours are trying to sell their home, too. Come to think of it, so are the two families right across the road, including Bill and Carol, who been on the street for -- wow, how long has it been now? -- almost 17 months! A new record! I really think they would have become our best friends in the whole wide world if it weren't for Bill's hectic work schedule. And the restraining order he filed against me.
Stories like these made those annoying ads almost bearable. |
|
|
|
|
Flashback -- November 2, 2002:
Modern Aphorisms:
- I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
- Borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back.
- 42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
- A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good.
- A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
- All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand.
- The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
- I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
- OK, so what's the speed of dark?
- Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
- When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.
- I intend to live forever - so far, so good.
- If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
- Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
- What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
- Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
- A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
- Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
- To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.
- Everyone has a photographic memory, some just don't have film.
|
|
|
|
|
e·piph·a·ny - A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something.
- A comprehension or perception of reality by means of a sudden intuitive realization: "?I experienced an epiphany, a spiritual flash that would change the way I viewed myself" (Frank Maier).
It's 4:23AM in the morning, and I'm having one of those epiphany moments that you just can't roll over in bed and forget about.
A couple posts below I used that ageless cliche of the church, of speaking the "truth in love." Truth, in love. Truth in love. Truth IN love. What does this mean?
Lately I've been really struggling with relating to people from polar sides of an issue close to me. I've racked my brain, futilely attempting to understand why they'd see the issue from the obviously wrong perspective! (yes, that's sarcasm) In my communication class, I emphasize over and over again to my students the need for relation in all of our communication -- but ironically, I had little to no relation going on with my opponents. They saw things one way, I saw things from a completely different perspective. No middle ground, no attempt to understand.
But tonight, having a long sleep-deprived conversation with the Mr., my epiphany occurred. What does truth in love mean -- beyond its conventional use as a free pass to hurt someone's feelings while hiding behind the supposed legitimacy of honesty?
Many times when a person evokes or employs "truth in love," the emphasis is placed more on the truth aspect of the message than the love. But that's not how the sentence itself is structured -- truth is in love, inside of it. Love is what is encompassing it, surrounding it -- which should effect how this truth is delivered.
Which leads me to my problem. Whenever I see an injustice in the world, I want to remedy it ... but remedying it doesn't mean emphasizing what I see as the truth at the expense of love.
Anyone that knows me knows that I'm big on accountability. There are few things I despise less than someone who's a hypocrite -- saying one thing, while intending (or doing) another. My drive for accountability needs to be balanced with a drive for showing love -- or compassion (not pity) -- for whoever my opponent is. This is huge!
Both of these elements -- accountability and compassion -- have to be a part of my approach. Without accountability, my compassion could easily slip into condoning of actions and a general sense of apathy to what is right and wrong. Yet without compassion, my drive for accountability (and justice) is useless, because it gets me nowhere.
And that's the common ground I've been looking for, in all these discussions that have frustrated me so much lately. It's as if I can see the person behind the opposition -- and I know now why I get so adamant about continuing this dialogue.
So, there you go. That's where I am. I'm leaving the post from earlier tonight down below -- but I know in the few hours that have transcribed since writing it, I'm a different person.
And hopefully, I can be a better one because of it. |
|
|
|
|
 I meant to post this earlier this week -- has anyone caught the newest Daily Show spinoff, The Colbert Report? Hilarious. It's like a humorized mismashed version of all the O'Reilly's and Chris Matthew's out there.
On the second show, he did a bit on congressional districts ("Better know a district") -- and which of the 435 districts did he start with? One from Savannah, GA! "The home of the cradle of Southern civility (after Charleston) ... Savannah is also known for its gardens; many of which are sometimes good, sometimes evil, and at midnight -- a little bit of both."
Colbert interviews my former "African American" representative Jack Kingston. Wow, was it funny. The clip of it is here. |
|
|
|
|
The following was said "in christian love" in response to a post on another blog. So far, it's the last word spoken in the comment thread -- I just hope someone will address it for what it really is: (I would, but I've got a not-so-sneaky suspicion that I'm not welcomed by some in the thread)
Lastly and perhaps most importantly I wish to speak to those, brothers and sisters who engage in homsexual relationships.
My friends, before you are anything in your own estimation, you are first, last and always a beloved child of your Creator, your Father in heaven.
He "knew you in the womb", He has "counted and numbered the hairs on your head." In His great love for you he has endowed you with his very being, he gave you of Himself in the spiritual being that is your soul. When salvation was compromised, he did not abandon us, rather He gave us his Son. He does everything for us in love, as love.
First, last and always you are a beloved child of God, as am I.
And what of you, my brothers and sisters? Do you not hope to see yourself as something more than a sexual orientation. Are you not a son, a brother a sister, a friend. Would you not rather be identified first with skills you have learned and shared. Would you not rather be first known as a lover, a giver, a person of good humour? Do you not dream of a relationship with life that transcends sexual expression, as it's defining characteristic?
Forgive me if I offend you, my brothers and sisters. Truly it is not my intention. Rather I come in love offering what I believe to be words gifted to me from the Holy Spirit.
May the grace and peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with us always. Completely clueless.
This line particularly bothers me: "Do you not hope to see yourself as something more than a sexual orientation?" Does anyone else see the irony of this statement (?!) -- the writer is assuming that the sexual identity of anyone who's gay works as the primary identifier of who they are! If anything, the commentor is the one obsessed with their sexual identity. This is a clear-cut case of someone who is out of touch with the complex human realities of a situation. The falsity of labeling them as "brothers and sisters" works more as a slap to the face than an effort to reconcile differences.
Which, I suppose, is what bothers me the most when these theological-pseudoacademic discussions on this issue comes up -- it's the attitude of it all. The conversation usually digresses into a pin-the-tail on the sinner type of game, where judgement proliferates -- usually based on a few passages, and usually taken out of context (with the biblical text and the cultural context of today's realities).
Labels abound in these talks -- and the word "political" inevitably comes up. It's not political. Ultimately, it's a humane issue. Screw being politically correct, this is about loving people for who they are, not who we think they should be. In fifty years from now, I'll be an even spunkier old woman -- and I hope that I can look back on these smug discussions as something that occurred in the past, because the church decided to move away from judging and onto the loving. (cliche, yes -- but necessary)
I get really passionate and emotionally involved in discussions concerning this issue -- and of course, because of this, I'm usually the first written off in the conversation -- mainly because I can't enter the dialogue in the acceptable detached, superior manner. When I see injustices being committed, I have a hard time sitting idly by. Ivory towers extend beyond academia. I'm tired of listening to others talk about "Others" by either objectifying them to abstraction or by exuding pious-pity, rather than the compassion that is necessary in the situation.
[note: Okay, I've come back to this post after watching a rather-enjoyable Daily Show, breathing some rather deep breaths, and hopefully gaining some perspective.
I don't mean to paint the entire conversation going on in this comment thread as entirely negative. Many people on there have interesting things to say, with an attitude that is cautious and not at all arrogant. There's even a few comments where I've admired the transparency of the individual -- particularly when someone said, "Is there any place for us to live in the tension of our inability to discern the correct answer? Even better, is there any place to which we can come where the real life people about whom we're speaking in the third person as though they're not in the room become something more than "an issue" to people like me?" While I may not agree with everything he's said, I can at least appreciate the fact that he's put a face on the issue -- and won't deny the implications of that personalizing. I really respect that vulnerability.
Of course, there's others on the thread who act the opposite by remaining more concerned with the policy than the person. Obviously, it's these latter folk that really rile me -- but I wanted to clarify that my post above is not directed toward those who are earnestly seeking conversation on this issue. I'm not militant enough to demand that everyone must agree with me -- I just want the conversation to be real, and not centering on the pretentious one-upping of each other using theological scholarship.] |
|
|
|
|
One of the best Daily Show interviews. Ever.
Stewart nails conservative editor Bill Kristol (the same guy who's spouting buzz phrase "the criminalization of politics"). Key bits:
Stewart: "I have to give you credit ... you, I think, if you go back and read the essays, certainly what you were saying Saddam Hussain in 1997 -- you were wrong about Iraq way before anyone else, and I have to give you credit." Oy, did Kristol look strained for the ENTIRE interview. He just couldn't defend the Administration's antics.
Kristol: "Harriet Miers will pull out in the next two weeks ... it'll be the right thing to do. She's loyal to the President, she's a bad appointment, she should have told him it was a bad appointment -- she didn't, so she'll now withdrawl ...
Stewart: "So, when he came to her and wanted her to be the next Supreme Court Justice, she should have said, 'but I'm not qualified, sir!'? She should have had the cajones!" Heh. The clincher came at the end:
Kristol: [defending the war in Iraq]
Stewart: So, to have weapons inspectors, to look around, might have been a good move.
Kristol: Well, it was a good move.
Stewart: And they could look around and be like, [looks under coffee cup] -- No.
Kristol: Well, the weapons inspectors themselves said that Saddam wasn't fully complying -- could we have kept 150,000 troops there forever? So the weapons inspectors could have inspected ....
Stewart: You're right, because that would have cost us alot of money.
Watch it. |
|
|
|
|
Matt sent this to me to "cheer" me up. Love it.
(and maybe if Prosecutor Fitzgerald delivers, it could happen! Then again, I AM an idealist.) |
|
|
|
|
In "honor" of the upcoming season, this flashback from January 28. 2004:
Fun in the cold. (or, things I woulda never learned had I not moved so far North)
- Having any liquid present in your nose instantly freeze, making it feel crunchy
- Automatic extra freezer space -- on your back porch!
- Taking off 2 layers of clothes and still being fully dressed
- Being unable to open your car, due to the locks being frozen tight
- Knowing the meaning of "dry cold"
- Having your cheeks still be stinging from the cold, 10 minutes AFTER coming inside
- Wet socks. 'Nuff said.
- Legitmate excuses to skip the gym or even leave your apartment
- Waiting at a crosswalk and seeing a car skid, 20 feet away, in order to stop right in front of you
- Having your jaw freeze and being unable to talk for a few minutes until you thaw
- Automatic conversation starter with strangers, bitching about the weather
- Unable to reach a taxi or a tow truck, due to busy signals
- Looking forward to the day it'll only be -20 (downright tropical!)
- Being able to wear all the clothes you own, AT ONCE
- Watching people walk backwards, against the wind
- Sheer bragging rights for surviving it
- Having to start your car 20 minutes before you go anywhere
- 3 inches of ice on your bedroom window -- on the INSIDE of your window
- When your tape player plays in slooooow motion, or your CD display doesn't
- Preparing to teach an amazing lesson, and only having less than half the students actually show (but I still had an awesome class this afternoon!)
- Being one of the coldest places in the Northern Hemisphere (colder than the North/South Pole, I checked)
- Thanking God you're not a postal worker
- Wearing your "bunny hug"/hooded sweatshirt with the hood up -- inside your apartment
- Your choice of stalled cars throughout the city -- with only a 16 hour wait for a tow truck!
- When you get an "ice cream headache" -- just from going outside!
Things to look forward to? |
|
|
|
|
Since the comments are still off, here's a suggestion. Email me (rbennetch -at- gmail dot com) and ask me a question. If it's interesting and not that offensive, I'll answer it here in this space.
I've already got one ready to answer, regarding my former position on the war in Iraq:
Actually, I'd also be interested on how you currently feel about some of the specific items in the post: the Canadian media reporting the bad but not the good, Saddam as dictator and some of the atrocious things he's done.
I don't disagree with your current position, of course, but I'd be interested in seeing the transition and your current response to some of the issues you raised then. First of all, I'm sure it's readily apparent that I'm a CBC-junkie these days. I had a serious case of the shakes when the lockout was on, and I was deprived of Mansbridge and The National. Even if I miss it at 10, I can still catch it online. (in fact, listening to it now)
In April of 2003, I was still getting used to being an American in Canada. It's disconcerting (at first) to listen to negative news of your country -- particularly when the only media you're used to reading/hearing is the American media. I think it's too much of a generalization to say that the Canadian and International medias were reporting the bad and not the good -- if anything, that was an attempt to counteract the Bush propaganda machine that was running full force.
And as far as regarding Saddam as a dictator, and the atrocious things he's done -- well, I still believe that. He is a horrific man, and the history of his actions deserve judgement. BUT -- doing what we did, under the pretenses of what we did ... that was not the right thing to do, either. If we were really concerned with the human rights violations of Saddam, we should have done something in the 80's, when we knew what he did to the Kurdish population -- rather than plying him with more weapons and support. Hindsight's 20/20.
If the rational behind the Iraq war was to "spread freedom" and to stop human rights violations of dictators -- well, we better get busy invading several countries in Africa, and some of our Middle Eastern "allies," as well.
The fact is, my country initially invaded Iraq on the rationale that there was WMD that were threatening the region and our home. Now the rational is "spreading freedom and democracy" through occupation and dodging car bombs. It's a mess.
And looking at the headlines in the last few weeks, it looks like it's finally catching up with the Grand Old Party (Republicans). |
|
|
|
|
The world of biblezines has expanded!
Ever wish your Bible was as easy to pick up as your favorite magazine? Now there’s a new BibleZine™ created with today’s modern guy in mind. With an edgy, techo-savvy style and content that makes Biblical truth fresh and relevant, it might just make Bible reading the best part of your day. If teenagers and women have to put up with this drivel, then it's only right that men have access to their very own copy, as well.
via Darryl.
Speaking of which, why are women "Becoming" and men are "Align[ed]"? There's semantics and connotations galore in those title selections.
(speaking of which, it's been an embarrasingly long time since I've dusted off ye old thesis project. By the time I'm finally done, I'm sure they'll have a Revolve 3 or 4. oy.) |
|
|
|
|
One of the most interesting things about having a weblog is the ability to go back in time and see what you were thinking -- days, week, months ... and now, even years ago. The following is one of those types of posts. I wrote this one in April of 2003, and I think you'll see a different perspective than what you're used to reading in this space.
April 9, 2003: It's time for me to get off the proverbial fence.
I'm glad the US is in Iraq.
I've been debating this, over and over again in my head for the past couple weeks. Without a doubt, I've supported our military -- but I just wasn't sure how I felt about our involvement. After much brooding -- of which will continue, I'm sure -- I think it's a good thing we're over there.
No, I'm not saying that I support the killing of innocent civilians that suffer from the bombs or the fighting. That's a tragedy that no one wants to see -- least of all the US government (despite what some international media has to say). But I've noticed something, in watching/reading the different types of media available (and believe me, I'm saying this after watching more than just the US Media -- I watch everything from CBC, CNN, read Al-Jazeera, etc). I've noticed that the much of the Canadian media avoids reporting some stories, like Marines free jailed Iraqi children or human shield realizes his assumptions were wrong. Or don't show the pictures of waving, happy people welcoming Coalition soldiers, offering them food and assistance, or the pictures of clinics that soldiers operate to help the hurt and wounded. Supplies are low, the situation is bad -- but I'd be willing to bet that many of the reasons why the country is in such bad shape has to do with the government that has ran things for the past 20 years.
Instead of reporting issues like these, most of what is harped upon in the news are the civilian causalities, delivered in a smug tone that makes me feel nauseous. No one mentions that Saddam is a dictator, who brutally kills his people and makes them continually live in fear and without resources. No one mentions that this man (and the rest of his "regime") continually sanction the murders and abuse of their people -- from his son beating the national soccer team as penalty for losing (so bad that they couldn't walk for weeks) to literal torture chambers where unspeakable things happened to any dissenters.
The latest kick on campus is to rant on how this invasion is "illegal." I'm not a UN expert, and believe me -- while I may ideally like the idea of the UN, I find that it is a useless organization that spends way too much time in bureaucracy and not enough time backing up its claims. What does the UN enforce, exactly? How can it say that it merely will "investigate" situations, and sit on their hands when innocent people are being killed by evil men by the day? For example -- how is the UN going to handle the civil war that is going on right now in the Congo? The one where almost 1000 civilians were killed in a day, and buried in a mass grave?
And if I hear one other person exclaim that the US is there for the oil, I think I'm going to SCREAM. Why would we go all the way overseas and invade a country, trigger all this Muslim anger, if all we wanted was their oil? Hell, we could invade Alberta or Venezuela if we really wanted some oil -- and they're in our own hemisphere for crying out loud!
Oh, but the US has frozen 80 billion dollars in Iraqi assets to pay for the war! Well, most of those "assets" were probably in Saddam's name to begin with -- if they're now used to help the Iraqi people I don't have a problem with that.
I'm trying to remember what the world's perspective was when the US bombed Slobovan Milosovich out of Kosovo. He was a man who sanctioned genocide, and if it wasn't for the US leading the way to get rid of him -- would he still be in power? I don't know.
I realize that many people will probably read this post and will disagree with me. That's fine. This wasn't a conclusion that came easy for me. I'm proud of my country. I'm proud that instead of sitting back and letting a dictator abuse his people and squander their earnings in furnishing his palace (rather than improving the lives of his people), my country is holding him accountable for his actions. I'm proud that we're fighting for the Iraqi people -- not to take over their lands and resources -- but fighting so that we can give them BACK to the people to which they belong.
I realize now that it's late and I should probably stop my rant. It's just so hard sometimes, being up here. I feel like I have to keep so much of what I feel and believe kept inside -- Where do I begin?
Maybe now you'll see why I'm so disallusioned with my President and his crony-Administration nowadays. I feel betrayed -- because I trusted him and his intelligence reports when they said we had reason to go to war. Now, I know better. I know it's okay to mistrust the government, and that war isn't the best solution when fighting terrorism. If anything, what's going on over in Iraq two years later has taught us that terrorism begets terrorism.
Today, I appreciate the different perspectives of news I run across -- whether it's the CBC, BBC, LA Times, or other news agencies. We need these perspectives to keep us accountable for our actions and opinions.
Obviously, I'm not that different of a person -- sitting here, two and a half years later. Still, it's rather awkward to read these past thoughts of mine. Some people would argue that living in Canada for the last 3+ years has made me more cynical of my country and its actions. I'd rather say I'm more aware -- and if anything, I appreciate my country and background all the more.
I am still proud of the fact that I'm American -- but that pride doesn't give me any entitlement on freedom and choice of religion, or does it give me the arrogance to push myself and my perspectives onto someone else. I think every American should live out of the country for at least a year, just so you can experience how we're viewed elsewhere in the world. It's a perspective you can't gain until you've experienced it, firsthand. |
|
|
|
|
My sis has a sweet post about our relationship over at her blog. Thanks, grrrl. (we've come quite a ways from the dividing-the-room-in-half-with-masking-tape stage we were in when we shared a room, long ago)
As of this weekend, I've booked our tickets home for the Christmas holidays. We'll be gone December 16-27th.
I. can't. wait.
Part of our holidays will be spent in NYC, seeing the city at Christmastide. The other half will be with my parents, in the mountains of Virginia.
Mid-December can't come fast enough for one homesick girl.
|
|
|
|
|
From another email:
"Imagine a world filled with holy listeners." - Joan Chittister |
|
|
|
|
In the interest of reviving this space once more, I've decided that this week I'm going to dredge up some older posts from the archives. Sorta akin to what Oprah did one summer, when she showed old episodes from her past.
The first blast from the past comes from June 21, 2004. I was reminded of this post because this weekend Jerry and I watched the satire "Saved!":
Are you down with the G-O-D?
The movie of 2004 that Christians need to check out is not Mel's two-and-a-half hour tome -- but rather Brian Dannelly's satire Saved!.
Good movie! But before I digress into my impressions of it, let's review the definition of satire:
A work that blends a critical attitude with humor and wit as well as with the intention of improving human institutions or humanity. Good satire is not only funny, but thought provoking. Satire is a necessary stylistic weapon that is carefully aimed to inspire social change.
 Saved! is biting in its criticism of Americanized Christianity. It focuses around the lives of students in American Eagle Christian High School -- with a special focus around the life of Mary, an 18 year old in her own dilemma that eventually makes her an outsider pitted against her former "Christian Jewel" friends.
So much of the movie rang true for me, with my background of growing up in a church and youth group. The film shows the classic case of academic Christianity clashing with the realities of the real world. Mandy Moore plays Hilary Faye, the perky, beautiful, prayer-circle-leading antagonist who is clueless when applying her faith to the world around her. She'd rather abduct her best friend for an intervention/exorcism and literally throw a Bible at her -- than take the teachings of the text and apply them in a loving way. When confronted with a schoolmate who's gay, she vehemently prays that God will cleanse him of his despicable ways -- and isolates him rather than accepting him for who he is.
For some Christians that I know, that's an easy trap to fall into. It's easy to be judgmental of another person -- especially when you've got no experiential knowledge to fall back on. What do I mean, exactly? Well, it's easy to say that someone who's gay is willingly "living in sin" and makes a choice to be that way -- when you've never been friends with someone who experiences that. Or that it's easier to be viciously Pro-life -- until you know what it feels like to have an unexpected pregnancy or know someone else in a precarious situation.
In my opinion, more meaningful conversations will be inspired by watching this film than by watching Gibson's The Passion. Churches really should be buying out theatres and letting their members in to see this film -- Though I doubt that'll happen. Instead, I'm sure many preachers will use their pulpits as resources encouraging their congregations to boycott this film -- which will ultimately mean the very people who should be watching this film won't be.
Which supports dear Mr. Swift's comment that "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own."
Alas. Funny, this review of the film seems more apt now than it did at the time I wrote it.
Stay tuned this week for more blasts from the past -- I'll even pull up some posts where I used to (*gasp*) support my President and his phony war! |
| | | | |
