So I know there's a post below on a stupid forward I received about boycotting Pepsi products because they've left out the "under God" phrase from the Pledge of Alligence. I initially posted it tongue-in-cheek, consoling myself that it was an extreme example of religious right ignorance back home.
Sigh. Maybe it's not such an extreme example.
This weekend in Washington DC, there was a evangelical conference entitled: The War on Christians and the Values Voters 2006. Speakers included some of "Justice Sunday" favorites, such as Tom Delay, Phyllis Schlafly, Gary Bauer, and Alan Keyes.
In last night's Hardball on MSNBC, Chris Matthews featured a segment titled "Is Christianity Under Siege?"-- which had (the Rev.) Al Sharpton and Tony Perkins, the president of the (hyper-conservative/evangelical) Family Research Council.
He's upset that "religion" is under attack in America -- specifically Christianity.
He calls it a "growing hostility" and cites the injustice of the legislature of Indiana no longer being allowed to open with prayer, if they only pray to Jesus.
He finds it of "concern" that there is no public prayer at schools, graduations, football games (all rulings of courts)
and claims Christianity is under attack -- case in point: the county of Los Angeles was "forced" to remove a cross from its city seal.
But the most enjoyable part of the segment is when Sharpton nails Perkins and the RR's support of former House majority leader Tom Delay [who's in the midst of being investigated for several ethics and money laundering violations]. The RR is making Delay a symbol and martyr of Christianity, saying he's "being persecuted for standing up for Jesus."
Sharpton asks Perkins: "But I would like Tony to tell me how what Tom Delay is facing has to do with his religion, or any religion -- it has nothing to do with it. ... How does Jesus and embezzling funds have anything to do with each other?"
Perkins stumbles and attempts an answer, but ultimately cannot defend it. He claims that it's partially due to Delay being evangelical and pro-life -- as if THAT'S the reason why he's being investigated for ethical violations. Riiiight.
Supposedly, Perkins just wants people to be able "to display their faith publicly." Translated: They want a dominionist theocracy, where there's one religion validated by the government.
Oy, and don't even get me started on the RR's claim of Christianity and government as a part of our "history" and "heritage" as a country -- the men who founded the US government and constitution WERE NOT CHRISTIAN. If anything, the framers of the Constitution went OUT OF THEIR WAY to make sure that God and Christianity were not evoked in the setting up of our government.
Then again, when you don't take the time to actually read the Constitution, I suppose it's easier to make such unsubstantiated claims.
Don't forget to go watch the clip that spurred on this rant o' mine.
Don't buy Pepsi in the new can. Pepsi has a new "patriotic" can coming out with pictures of the EmpireStateBuilding, and the Pledge of Allegiance on them.
However, Pepsi left out two little words on the pledge,"Under God."
Pepsi said they didn't want to offend anyone. In that case, we don't want to offend anyone at the Pepsi corporate office, either!
So if we don't buy any Pepsi product, they will not be offended when they don't receive our money that has the words "In God We Trust" on it.
HOWFASTCANYOUFORWARDTHISONE?
I hate email forwards, especially when they're as culturally-humilating as these.
I highly doubt any Pepsi boycott will occur in my household. For one, I married into a "Pepsi family" -- and I support not having the "under God" in the pledge. Most people don't realize that those two words weren't a part of the pledge until the 1950's, and were only added in an effort to deter communism [read me].
Separation of church & state -- and carbonated beverages, I say!
This last week's Real Time with Bill Maher was really good. You never know with that show -- it's either really well done, or just boring/painful to watch. This week's panel was Muslim author Reza Aslan, actor Jason Alexander, and my old Congressman from GA, Jack Kingston. Good discussion all around -- well worth watching.
I liked this particular exchange between Maher and Aslan, referencing religious perspectives on torturing:
Bill Maher: And I think this is interesting. There was a Pew study of different religions: 31% of Protestants and only 26% of Catholics said it was never okay to torture. That seems like a very small percentage of Catholics – 26% -- to say, you know – Jesus was tortured – to say it was never okay. Forty-one percent of secular people – atheists or agnostic – said it was never okay to torture. And I – I bring this up because, reading your book, I was struck by how liberal and tolerant Muhammad was. I didn't really know that.
And I think there's something Christianity and Islam have in common, which is that neither one of them follow their leaders. [applause]
Reza Aslan [author of the book No god but God]: Well, no, this is true – this is true not just of Islam or Christianity, it's true to religion. You know, we have this idea, somehow, that prophets invent religions, that Jesus invented Christianity, or that Muhammad invented Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What prophets do is they take the social and cultural and economic and political milieu in which they live, and they reshape it. They recast it. They don't talk about the future. They talk about the present.
It's the prophet-followers who then take those words—
MAHER: [overlapping] and screw it up.
ASLAN: [overlapping]—take those deeds, and turn it into what we call a religion. And it's often the case that it has far more to do with their own ideas, their own biases, than it does with what the prophet said or did.
At Brownies tonight, one of my co-leaders pitched a royal fit and left -- 5 minutes into the hour-and-a-half long meeting. She was having "issues" I suppose, and felt like she didn't need to be there to help us. Odd thing is, the other senior Brownie leader was out of town tonight too, leaving me and a junior leader to deal with 15 seven and eight year olds -- without any specific plans.
Oh, what a night.
We did well, and it was probably better that Her Royal Highness didn't stay for the night -- because it would have only made the situation worse.
I'm not very happy though, with her irresponsibility -- especially considering I've only been in Guides leadership for less than 6 months.
And while I could leave more sortid deals about how much I'm not very pleased with this individual, I think I'll leave it at that.
(this late night musing is brought to you by insomnia and the letter C, for constant coughing)
"Burn your bridges" to permanently and unpleasantly end your relationship with a person or organization. ex:/Welles had burned his bridges so badly with the movie studios that they laughed when you mentioned his name.
Etymology: based on the military action of burning a bridge you have just crossed to prevent the enemy from crossing it after you.
[Before I start this post, there needs to be a disclaimer -- there are some of you, out there, who will read this and probably think I'm talking about you. I'm not. Well, maybe I am -- albeit indirectly -- but this post is not a veiled, passive-aggressive way of me taking a cheap shot. This is me, stranded alone at 3:30 in the morning, with my thoughts. It's a scary place, and this blog often feels the brunt of it.]
I never realized the phrase "burning bridges" had a militaristic tinge in its etymology. Now that I know the history of the phrase, I can see how it works. It's quite a vivid image, imagining those metaphorical bridges burning in the wake of a diminished friendship. The older I get, the more I recognize the heat of flames of my own making.
Burns. I've got several scars of past burns on my body -- one of them is on my arm, permanently searing my first summer job of making pretzels in a mall. Another is only from a couple weeks ago, when I tried to cram a cookie sheet into our too-small-for-words oven. Burns carry the memories of hurt, blistering, and scarring -- and when burns happen in relationships, I now realize it is one part of a cycle.
I look at how much my life has changed -- just in the last 5 years -- and it's hard to grasp. 5 years ago, I was in Savannah. I wasn't happy, I was in the middle of a degree I didn't really care about, I weighed 40 or so extra pounds. I was lost, in many ways -- and many of the relationships I had, back then, weren't helping me out of the mire. If anything, some of them only pushed me further into it.
So, what happened? I realized that I needed to pull myself out. I needed to take control, make difficult choices -- and in the process, sever some of the relationships that weren't supporting me or helping me become a better person. So, that's what I did. Many of my friends (at that time) either didn't like my choices, or couldn't accept me after I did them -- and as a result, those friendships slowly burned themselves out.
I moved to Canada. I started a whole new life. And now, even looking back on the "me-of-four-years-ago" -- I can see how much I've changed. Today, I'm more confident in who I am and I'm not as willing to allow others compromise or censor that. I'm willing to ask questions I know can't be answered -- and I'm also willing to stick my neck out by saying what's really on my mind (and heart). It can be rewarding, while also scary as hell.
But even in my life of today, I've had those similar experiences of the past -- friendships in the cycle of growing, dying, or being completely lost.
I used to think the number of friends showed the degree of how much a person is loved and supported in life -- today, I see it's more about the caliber and strength of a few good relationships (rather than the fleet of many so-so friends).
A simplistic revelation? Maybe. But a hard lesson to learn.
Are you still looking at that picture of that statue? Please stop looking at it. Oh my God, I can't believe this thing even exists in America. Shouldn't it be illegal to make a statue of some lady you don't know? I feel like it should be, especially if she is ALL NAKED IN IT, oh my God. Anyway, it's also totally, like, wrong because I had a Caesarean section with Sean (and could someone please explain to me what that has to do with the salad? Because who would name a salad after an operation? It's so weird. But everything I ask my mother she just starts laughing and then she sighs real big and lights another cigarette). So, anyway, in addition to being GROSS and like a total VIOLATION of my CIVIL RIGHTS as an AMERICAN, it's also totally inaccurate, or whatever.
AND OH MY GOD I JUST HAD A TERRIBLE THOUGHT. WHAT IF JUSTIN SAW IT? Oh. Oh. OH GOD. God, I am so embarrassed, y'all. I really want to die. I just want to die. What is WRONG with PEOPLE? Who MAKES A STATUE OF SOMEONE ELSE HAVING THEIR BABY ON A CREEPY BEARSKIN RUG? I don't care if it's just a joke. It's disgusting and I am disgusted and also totally grossed out and if you look at that picture again I am removing your name from the Britney fan club mailing list and I will NOT put it back on. EVER. EVER!
[and yes, it's a parody, but highly amusing to me in the condition I'm in today. For more amusing musings on the stars and their "fugly" attire -- go fug yourself]
Tick, 20,000 dollars, tock, another 20,000 dollars.
So rapid is the rise of the US national debt, that the last four digits of a giant digital signboard counting the moving total near New York's Times Square move in seemingly random increments as they struggle to keep pace.
The national debt clock, as it is known, is a big clock. A spot-check last week showed a readout of 8.3 trillion -- or more precisely 8,310,200,545,702 -- dollars ... and counting.
But it's not big enough.
Sometime in the next two years, the total amount of US government borrowing is going to break through the 10-trillion-dollar mark and, lacking space for the extra digit such a figure would require, the clock is in danger of running itself into obsolescence.
...
Believing that the signboard had served its purpose, the Dursts pulled the plug in 2000 with the debt total showing around 5.7 trillion dollars and the individual "family share" standing at close to 74,000 dollars.
The clock was covered with a red, white and blue curtain, but not dismantled.
"We'll have it ready in case things start turning around, which I'm sure they will," Durst said at the time.
He only had to wait two years as the Bush presidency coincided with an upsurge in borrowing. The curtain was raised in 2002 and the digital readout flickered back to life showing a national debt of 6.1 trillion dollars with the numerals whizzing round faster than ever.
In 2004, the old clock was torn down and replaced with a newer model which had optimistically been modified to run backwards should such a happy necessity arise.
Instead the debt continued to rise at such a rate that the once unthinkable total of 10 trillion dollars veered from alarmist fantasy into the realm of impending reality.
Not to worry, though. A couple weeks ago Congress raised the amount the US can borrow to 781 billion dollars -- the 4th such raise since Bush took office. (and I thought my student loan debt was a crazy amount)
This medicine I'm on is kicking my ass -- while I'm happy that I'm no longer coughing (who knew how much of an ab workout it is?!), I'm not enjoying the side effects.
I've got to teach in an hour -- this should make for an interesting class.
EDIT: She survived -- barely. I skipped my medicine this morning, mainly because I didn't think it would look good to have to lay down (or throw up) in the middle of teaching. This medicine is good at suppressing the incessant coughing, but it leaves me dizzy and nauseous for the rest of the day.
Africa: Unsafe Abortions the Scourge of African Women -- An estimated 4.2 million African women resort to these dangerous practices each year, and 30,000 die as a result, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Although only 10 percent of the global total of abortions happen in Africa, the continent accounts for almost half of the world's deaths from unsafe abortions, with one in 12 women dying, according to WHO. For every death, 20 to 30 women suffer permanent damage to their uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes, intestines or bladder. (via)
Abortion lessons from Latin America -- Abortion is illegal in most countries in Central and South America, though the law waives criminal penalties for women who have abortions in certain circumstances: after rape or incest or if their life or health is endangered by the pregnancy. Over the last five years, I have interviewed dozens of women and girls who faced unwanted pregnancies and had abortions in Argentina, Mexico and Peru, all countries that limit access to contraceptives, sex education and abortion. The most common tale I heard was one of desperation.
The rest of the article outlines "three clear lessons" for South Dakota (and the rest of the US) to consider.
The following three links were from Our Word's Reproductive Rights, Week in Review -- a weekly post worth checking out.
An op-ed by Rev. C. Joshua Villines from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. From the article: The issue of abortion is not about whether life starts at conception. There are convincing arguments either way. The issue is which carries more weight: the life that may be in the embryo, or the life and needs of the woman in whose body that embryo was conceived?
After spending time in women's health clinics, I have come to realize that the "most vulnerable and helpless" who need our active protection are the women and couples who are faced with the agonizingly difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. As a Christian pastor, I strongly support protecting the right of women to make this decision. Other Christian pastors have chosen otherwise, and our division on this issue is proof that there is no Christian consensus here.
In Bad Faith: How Crisis Pregnancy Centers Deceive and Manipulate Women, a documentary that describes the experiences of girls who visit these centers for help. So-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPC's) are carefully disguised anti-abortion centers whose sole raison d'etre is to use misinformation and scare tactics to stop women from having abortions. In Bad Faith takes us inside the crisis pregnancy center, witnessing the spectacle of guilt and gore through the eyes of a vulnerable, frightened teenager.
But I am propelled to speak now because I - along with many other women - am so alarmed by what is happening in this country.
When I walked to my pharmacy this morning to pick up my cough medicine, I saw a huge poster behind the counter that said -- "Need Emergency Contraception? Don't be afraid to ask." For a moment, I was proud to be living in a country such as this.
... okay, I kid. I've got some funky bronchial virus in my chest -- hence, the old man coughs that have kept me up the past 3 nights. Good news, I've got some heavy duty drugs that'll hopefully knock me out enough so I'll actually sleep. Bad news, this is putting me even further behind schedule.
I first heard about this book by reading this Washington Post article with the byline: "In the Bestseller 'Misquoting Jesus,' Agnostic Author Bart Ehrman Picks Apart the Gospels That Made a Disbeliever Out of Him." Right away, I'm sure you can see my intrigue. As it happens with books you're destined to read, I kept running into more about Ehrman -- including a Daily Show interview, which I've posted below.
The WP article basically serves as a precis for the book -- it outlines a bit of Ehrman's past, and how it inspired him to write such a project ... along with a few of the key points he makes in the book itself. If you're curious about what the book will be like, read this article and it'll give you a pretty good idea.
The Bible has always been one of those troubling parts of Christianity for me. (which is why, you ask, I'm writing a thesis on one of its interpretations?!) I grew up in a fairly evangelical, nay, nearly fundamentalist background -- where we were taught that the Bible was the "inerrant" and "infallible" word of God. Much of my past was spent arguing (with others, and myself) trying to make this belief work, despite some of the difficulties the text itself presents. Questions were encouraged, as long as you didn't REALLY question -- I suppose it's difficult to explain this, unless you've been a part of a church culture.
Well, I came to a crisis of faith -- where I finally was able to admit that I didn't see the Bible as necessarily the God-inspired, perfect piece of literature I was always taught to believe. There's lots of unresolved issues in its pages, issues that there aren't any easy explanations for. I was tired of having to contort my own life experiences in order to have the Bible be relevant for my particular situation (the perils of seeing it as an encyclopedia or rulebook). I was also weary of either using (or having it used, against me) it as a weapon or mold to force people into. Not to mention, there are some pretty brutal passages of violence and oppression that are not easily explained away, despite what some would have you think.
So, rather than seeing this book as THE book, the ONLY book, the only PERFECT book I was supposed to consult in all issues and matters of life -- I began to see it as a HUMAN book. Rather than forcing upon its pages a divinity that didn't necessarily fit, I saw that there were lessons I can gather from its pages -- without having to compromise or aerobatically argue its perfection and ultimate authority.
And while that seems like the ultimate heresy to many people, for me -- it was the most freeing thing possible. I had the freedom to question, but also the freedom to learn what I could. [A side benefit was that by believing this about the Bible, I didn't have stop or limit God from revealing herself by only relying on recorded experiences of 2,000 years ago.]
So, with my own background in mind -- I read Misquoting Jesus with a new sense of curiosity of how this will help me in my own grapplings of how I consider the Bible. [Granted, if you hold a different view of the Bible, you may read these pages with a bit more of a defensive posture -- but this is still a book you should read and consider, no matter where you stand on the debate.]
In his book, Ehrman does a good job of setting up a context and history to textual criticism -- particularly, the ins and outs of how the various books of the Gospels were recorded, throughout the centuries. In fact, at first I was a little frustrated, because I was eager to get to the "misquotations" of the Bible -- but looking back on it, I'm really glad he took the time he did to set up the discussion and argument he puts forth. While I'm hardly schooled on NT textual criticism, I do feel like I've had a bit of a primer on its process. Also, by taking the extra time to establish a theoretical framework, Ehrman increases his credibility -- and shows that he's not just out to defame/discredit the scriptural process.
When he does get to the different parts of the text that have been altered, he structures the changes in two ways -- theological motivated alterations (addressing many of the variant forms of Christianity) and different social conditions/expectations of the era (women's roles, and views of Jewish and pagan opposition). There's a wealth of information and theories he puts forth about all sorts of passages in the NT that have been either inadvertently or purposefully altered -- you'll really need to read the book to give his argument the full justice it deserves.
But I was really appreciative of the way Ehrman ended his study, in his Conclusion. I think it is in this final chapter that his heart, and true intentions behind the book are revealed. Here he talks about the instinct many readers of the Bible have, to blend together the accounts of the books into one consistent record. He rejects that, and makes an impassioned plea to consider what makes each book different -- and that while many of the books may have used another as a basis for their story,
these authors passed along the traditions they inherited in different words . . . Each of these authors was human, each of them had a different message, each of them was putting the tradition he inherited into his own words. Each of them, in a sense, was changing the "texts" he inherited. (213, 215)
While most people wouldn't argue with that statement, Ehrman applies the concept to the process of interpretation, that we -- as readers -- take part in, everytime we encounter a text.
For the more I studied, the more I saw that reading a text necessarily involves interpreting a text ... the reality, as I came to see, is that meaning is not inherent and texts do not speak for themselves. If texts could speak for themselves, then everyone honestly and openly reading a text would agree on what the text says. But interpretations of texts abound, and people in fact do not agree on what the texts mean.
... Texts do not simply reveal their own meanings to honest inquirers. Texts are interpreted, and they are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of the texts only by explaining them in light of their knowledge, explicating their meaning, putting the words of the texts "in other words."
Once readers put a text in other words, however, they have changed the words. This is not optional when reading; it is not something you can choose not to do when you peruse a text.
... That's what the scribes of the NT did. They read the texts available to them and they put them in other words. Sometimes, however, they literally put them in other words.
... In that respect, the scribes changed scripture in ways that we do not. In a more basic sense, though, they changed scripture the way we all change scripture, every time we read it. For they, like we, were trying to understand what the authors wrote while also trying to see how the words of the authors' texts might have significance for them, and how they might help them make sense of their own situations and their own lives. (216-18)
I completely agree. What's interesting about reading this book -- in terms of writing my thesis -- is that the editors of Revolve (feebly) argue that they're reinterpreting the Bible to make it more "relevant" for their audience ... when really, they're acting as a type of modern scribe, and are rewriting the Bible by fashioning it as a magazine. There are some big implications, there -- and hopefully my thesis will point some of them out. [but this is sounding like another post altogether, but I should try to get *some sleep* tonight.]
I know that Misquoting Jesus has NOT been received well in a lot of Christendom, for obvious reasons. It's been labeled an apostacy and bad hermanuetics, to just name a few oppositions. I still think it's an intriguing book to read, and consider -- and anyone who's had a history with the Bible will find something interesting to ponder (or, yes, argue against).
Oh, and here's the Daily Show clip of Ehrman, from a couple weeks ago:
[Comments disclaimer: I'm not interested in debating the authority of the Bible, or whether or not I'm eternally wrong for not viewing the Bible as infallible or inerrant. My commentary on biblical authority is just that -- my own, human, most likely not-correct view of the Bible. Take it with a grain (or two) of salt.]
When I first moved to Canada -- almost four years ago (!!), I remember being amazed at the different types of cough lozenges available. My limited knowledge of Hall's flavors stopped at the abombinable cherry and honey lemon drops. But, here in Canada, we had not only those two, but flavors such as Black Cherry and Blueberry!
Over the last week, the cough that started as a slight tickle at the back of my throat has developed into an old-man hacking, can't-lay-down-at-night, full-scale coughing fit. I've gone to Shoppers Drug Mart more this weekend than I have in the past few months.
I originally just wanted some medicine to calm this hack down. I came up with the old stand-by, Nyquil. Not a bad solution, but it didn't help me much, since my symptoms involved less than the standardized list. I progressed from there to the much-dreaded Buckley's cough syrup -- which markets its product based on the AWFUL taste (but "proven" effectiveness). This stuff is so disgusting to take that it almost scares you out of coughing again.
Alas, even the disgusting Buckley's hasn't helped. Last night I was up, coughing, until 7AM, and didn't really sleep until 11. So, tonight, I'm taking a 12-hour nighttime formula, with hopes I'll actually get some rest.
I am also armed with a small inventory of different cough lozenges -- ranging from the herbal Ricolas (full of Swiss-y goodness), to the standardized Hall's, to the medievally-mentholated Fisherman's Friend lozenges. I'm prepared to burn out this cough, ready or not.
If I ever do succeed at beating this cold, I think my next writing project will involve a discussion of various cough syrups/lozenges, rating their effectiveness [think: "Consumer's Guide to One-Stop Cough Drop Shopping"].
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father's Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.
I'm sure this has already made the rounds, but it was just too good not to repost here. I love it.
I've been finishing up the book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, and the last chapter dealt with scribal changes that involved passages about the status of women in the church. According to the author, Bart Ehrman, Paul may not have been the scitzophrenic misogynist he sometimes is made out to be.
I'll write up a post on Misquoting Jesus and biblical authority sometime soon.
After perusing the various blog feeds I read, there's bound to be something in this list to offend us all: [the italics are quotes taken directly from the article/website]
Since she started the ministry, Veitch has gotten back in shape and lost 25 pounds. She wanted the strippers to see that "jealousy is not what's driving this ministry. I want them to know that if I wanted to, I could be a stripper again, but I choose to live my life for the Lord."
Now there's a rhetorical artifact just waiting to be analyzed! Apparently she made it all the way to the "700 Club" -- I would have paid good money to see the "reverend" Pat interrogate her ... um, assets of ministry.
It's the WFJ -- Wrestlers for Jesus league! By using wrestling as a platform to tell a story centered around scriptures directly dealing with God's plan of salvation, these wrestlers were able to present the gospel of our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ to a group of people who would normally shun the gospel and harden their hearts towards the notion of being "saved."
For extra fun, check out the WFJ's roster of fighters -- many of whom look like they just got out of youth group themselves. (ie., not that imposing, even for so-called "holy" fighters)
Today I'm purposefully stranding myself AWAY from home, with hopes that I'll get this chapter finalized by Monday. If I stay home, I'll end up distracting myself by cleaning, napping, or anything other than writing. Not productive.
So after spending the afternoon "decidedly uncool" Broadway Roastery on 8th Street, I planned on going to another favorite caffeine haunt of mine, Joe Beans, after supper tonight. There was one slight problem with this plan -- apparently Joe Beans has gone out of business.
What's a girl to do, when she needs a pot of tea, a coffeehouse-esque environment (and preferably one with free wireless access)? I ended up at Mystic Java, a small (but decidedly hip) cafe a little further down 8th Street.
Free wireless, a pot of "monk's blend" tea for 2 bucks, and NOT crowded with obnoxious hipsters -- PRICELESS.
Not only that, but they have local musicians on Friday nights, and "mystic" readings on Mondays. I'm sold.
And now I'm getting back to finishing my chapter, honest.
Q. Hey, my question is how do you tell a friend that’s your crush that you’re into him without ruining your friendship? A. You don’t. Sorry. You just don’t tell him without it ruining your friendship. God made guys to be the leaders. That means that they lead in relationships. They tell you they like you. It is just an all around bad idea for girls to take on a guy’s responsibility.
Q. Is fantasizing wrong? I sometimes imagine things about guys, not nasty things, but just wishing things would happen. Is that wrong? A. It is no less a sin to think or fantasize about it than it is to actually do it. As soon as a bad thought comes into your mind you have to stop it. Temptation is not a sin, but yielding to that temptation – turning it into a fantasy that you think about over and over – is a sin.
Q. Having sex at a young age – is it bad? Will God still accept you? A. God will always accept you, but that isn’t the real question. The real question is, Do you love God? When people love someone they want to do things to please them. Having sex when you are young and unmarried doesn’t please God. You can never get back what you have given away. It is a gift from God intended only for you and your husband. Wait for marriage to open that precious gift.
Q. What do you think about boyfriends tickling their girlfriends? A. Tickling = foreplay. That is straight from a guy’s perspective. It is sexual. Girls can call it flirting, playing, or whatever. Guys want to be able to touch your body. And they are going to let their hands tickle you everywhere they can touch. Because “Hey, we were just playing. It was no big deal.”
Q. Why do you think guys should call girls or whatever? I don’t understand that; you mean you think men should pursue women? A. Get a grip on the truth. Guys love a challenge. They love the chase. The game. When a girl starts asking a guy out, he likes it. It strokes his ego. But he will get bored! And when that happens . . . next! So guys need to step up and be the man; you need to be the woman.
YouTube is one eeee-vil Internet invention. I've discovered the different Animaniacs clips they've got online. The one below is of "Mindy and Buttons" --
"Hello, lady!"
Love it. Of course, it isn't my favorite -- the best cartoon on Animaniacs was Katie Ka-boom ("She's Katie Kaboom, Katie Kaboom, lives in a house with a garden in bloom. Her family knows that any time soon, their little lady Katie, goes Kaboom!") Alas, I can't find any clips of her.
I'm trying to finish up this draft of my Footing chapter -- and it's like PULLING TEETH. This is painful, and I'm desperate for any distraction away from writing. (she says as she procrastinates and blogs)
BROOKLYN (March 22, 2006) --- A nude Britney Spears on a bearskin rug while giving birth to her firstborn marks a ‘first’ for Pro-Life. Pop-star Britney Spears is the “ideal” model for Pro-Life and the subject of a dedication at Capla Kesting Fine Art in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg gallery district, in what is proclaimed the first Pro-Life monument to birth, in April.
Dedication of the life-sized statue celebrates the recent birth of Spears’ baby boy, Sean, and applauds her decision of placing family before career. “A superstar at Britney’s young age having a child is rare in today’s celebrity culture. This dedication honors Britney for the rarity of her choice and bravery of her decision,” said gallery co-director, Lincoln Capla. The dedication includes materials provided by Manhattan Right To Life Committee.
“Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston,” believed Pro-Life’s first monument to the ‘act of giving birth,’ is purportedly an idealized depiction of Britney in delivery. Natural aspects of Spears’ pregnancy, like lactiferous breasts and protruding naval, compliment a posterior view that depicts widened hips for birthing and reveals the crowning of baby Sean’s head.
Seriously, a statue of Britney Spears giving birth -- as a monument for the Pro-Life movement?!
This opens the door for oh-so-many comments. Not the least of which, recalling that Ms. Spears did NOT have a natural childbirth (nor did she give birth on all fours on a bearskin rug, either).
It's legit. And a bit freaky. I'm still waiting for the punchline.
Oglala Sioux Tribe on the South Dakota Abortion Ban -- The president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe has floated the idea of opening a Planned Parenthood clinic on tribal land and performing abortions there despite a state law banning most abortions. “Nobody has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body,” Cecilia Fire Thunder said Tuesday. “That’s between a woman and her God. A woman could go there and get services not available elsewhere.”
Placing the clinic on tribal land would mean it would not be under the jurisdiction of the state of South Dakota, she said. “To me, it is now a question of sovereignty,” Fire Thunder said last week. “I will personally establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on my own land which is within the boundaries of the Pine Ridge Reservation where the state of South Dakota has absolutely no jurisdiction.” [I've got the contact info for Cecilia Fire Thunder, so email me if you'd like to send support (financially or otherwise) to the Oglala.]
A reader sent me this cartoon which hilariously satirizes the extent a woman should consult a government official, in terms of her choice (not of that, but of salad dressing).
A good Salon article: The Battle to Ban Birth Control (is it me, or are Salon articles automatically opening up without having to get that day pass? Cool)
Finally, a handy chart that compares two key questions of the abortion debate:
Is this policy consistent with the belief that abortion is exactly the same as child murder? or
Is this policy consistent with wanting women who have sex to suffer consequences?
For the longest time, I denied that much of the legislation and vehemence was directed at the latter claim -- but now, as more and more bills are passed, I'm starting to see a disturbing trend that doesn't have much to do with preserving life, but rather punishing and/or restricting options for women.
My head is stuffed up, and I've been fighting a zombie-state for most of the day. It feels like all the world is humming around me, and I'm in slooooooow motion.
I told my class this morning that my comments may be affected because of my "cold head." (which made sense to me)
One of my students raised his hand and said: "Here in Canada, we call that a head cold."
Apparently this summer is my 10-year high school reunion. While it's tempting to go all Romy and Michelle on it, I'm doubting I'll show. High school isn't full of great memories for me, and I'd probably be more excited to see a few of my teachers -- rather than the people I actually went to school with. (does that make me a nerd?)
One day I'll get back to Savannah. I've already made a list of people to see and people to unequivocally avoid.
The Strawfeminist is remarkably versatile. She has more guises than a Barbie doll. Unlike Barbie, however, the Strawfeminist looks best garbed in several clashing outfits at once:
She's a confirmed man-hater who can't quit raving about all the dirty, freaky sex she's been having, sex she intends to force you to have, too.
She's a bloodthirsty baby-killer who routinely lures to her bed unsuspecting men, innocent victims who believe her when she says she cannot become pregnant--all so she can ruin them financially by demanding so-called "child support" payments from them, for the rest of their lives.
She's a foolish believer in something called "sisterhood," because naturally, she hates women.
