things I read during history class today

McCain: I Support Women's Rights...As Long As They're Meaningless
McCain the Women's Libber
“Fun Dads”, “Strict Moms”, the myth of male weakness and female anorexia: some further thoughts on Courtney Martin’s book
Crazy English
Wagering with Zeno
The Color of Plants on Other Worlds
Eviction Slip
Reading Herodotus

Hard To Get

"Did You forget about us after You had flown away
Well I memorized every word You said
Still I'm so scared, I'm holding my breath
While You're up there just playing hard to get
You who live in radiance
Hear the prayers of those of us who live in skin
We have a love that's not as patient as Yours was
Still we do love now and then..."
Rich Mullins

I hope it stays back this time.

Fafblog!

copy editor?

From the Earlham College newspaper, I just learned that the "sexual violence advocacy program" is unsustainable.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that we have enough advocation of sexual violence as it is.

virginia is not on my short list...

...of places I'd like to live. Usually, asking anti-abortion activists how long a prison term they envision for women who end their pregnancies works as a rhetorical strategy. Gets folks rethinking the matter.

In Virginia, though, the answer is apparently "five years."

(link to picture)

Unrelatedly, this is more fun.

new definitions

“Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, ‘Let’s don’t go forward with this act.’” (Link)

You might have thought that defining rape more along the lines of 'sexual intercourse with someone by force,' and then saying that rape so defined is a bad thing, was a positive development. Clearly, this is because you are a godless liberal.

things I've read lately

You Like It, You Wear It
Obama's "Universal" Healthcare Deception
Anti-choicers still want to ban your contraception
Huckabee to Get Evangelical Leader's Nod
Dobson Endorses Huckabee
The Evangelicals' New Clothes

how big a geek am I?

...every congressional [district] attributes a number of delegates -- between three and eight. It is very difficult to get an extra delegate in an even-numbered district. For example, in a 4 delegate district, the candidate split the delegates 2-2 unless one of them breaks 62.5%, in which case the allocation is 3-1. In a 6 delegate district, the allocation is 3-3 unless a candidate breaks 58%, in which case it's 4-2. In odd delegate district, a one vote margin in that district gives the victor an extra delegate. So if a candidate gets 50.01% of the vote in a 5 delegate district, that already creates a delegate gap.

I thought this was a great article, that's how much.

I liked this snippet from a post supporting Sen. Clinton:
...in his effort to woo more conservative voters he's running to Clinton's right on health care and using right wing language on anything from Social Security to tax cuts. It used to matter to progressives how a candidate talks about issues; it still matters to me. It's not that I think Barack Obama isn't a progressive, certainly his voting record is, but the idea that he would run right to make distinctions from his opponent in a Democratic primary goes against everything we've been fighting against; and how else am I supposed to judge how he'll be as president than by the policies he's offering as a candidate? Whenever Obama does something questionable to progressives, it's fascinating to see the bending over backwards that goes on throughout the blogosphere to justify it. I don't think we should be trying so hard to look for signs that Barack Obama is a friend to the progressive movement even as he boasts about wanting to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

But I liked this, too, supporting Sen. Obama:
The problem with Clinton then is that she seems hopelessly frozen in these narratives – a byproduct of 1994 and coming of political age in Arkansas. Regardless of her disagreement with Republicans on individual issues, she cedes ultimate political victory to them because she accepts the terms of the debate they establish. Her stances on Iraq and Iran are objectionable to be sure, but what really concerns me is that they reveal a worldview that will result in more future bad decisions. Similarly, while her immigrant-bashing might help her tactically, it’s a long-term loser because it solidifies the view that (1) legal process is something one must earn; and (2) immigrants are bad. On the taxes front, her bashing of Obama’s payroll tax suggestion falls into this same category.

Actually, come to think of it, I've found two quotes that don't support either candidate. They're both negative. I miss Chris Dodd.

creeping racism

I haven't posted anything I've read lately, so here's a link: Link.

I'm not a big fan of Clinton, but...

When women say they support Hillary it's because they are irrationally supporting someone because of their gender. When men say they won't support Hillary it's because "she gives off the feeling that she despises them." If you even bring up the fact that there are men out there who will refuse to vote for any woman, you attacked for allegedly saying that men aren't decent people. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Link.
That makes me want to support her, war votes and all.

i knew it!

chalk one up for Morty

Now Morty can get ham flavored soda. Or pop, if he prefers; I don't know he swings on that.

When I ran "ham soda" through Google Image Search, this picture came up.

postbreakfast not-so-jauntiness

Latest depressing development in my prayer life: iGod won't talk to me. I said 'Hello,' and the page froze. I don't even know where to begin theologically reflecting on that.

This afternoon, though, I've learned that Halloween is for Devil worshippers, and that Bush has declared war on fire.

One of those is clearly a joke: you decide.

further adventures with iGod

Me: Could I please have some more coffee?
God: I think you could, if you put your mind to it.
Me: Trouble is, I can't put my mind to things very well without coffee. It's like needing grace before I can be good, you know?
God: Are they exactly the same? Interesting comparasion.
Me: No, not exactly; without grace I'm totally depraved, whereas without coffee I'm totally groggy.
God: Precisely. Are you serious? Are you serious? "Without your space helmet Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult." -- HAL.
Me: Um, my name's not Dave.
God: Woe! Oh I'm sorry what is your name?
Me: Julie. Pleased to meet you.
God: That input matched my default category. Nice meeting you too.
Me: So, are you going to give me some coffee?
God: Take it easy. Why do you want it?
Me: I get impatient without it, impatient and cranky.
God: Where did you get it?
Me: This morning? I got it at home.
God: What does "this" refer to? Where did you get it?
Me: This = Coffee. I get coffee from a coffee pot.
God: What does "this" refer to? Where did you get it?
Me: Do you need some coffee?
God: Yes and I think Dr. Wallace wants some too.

I think we've all learned an important lesson today about the vulnerability of iGod, particularly if s/he hasn't had enough coffee.

random phrase generator

try it.

troubling

There's a lot more going on with the story about Juanita Bynum than I understand. She's a Pentecostal preacher who married another Pentecostal preacher, after having preached a pretty conservative message on abstinence and sexual fidelity, and perhaps wifely submission as well. Her husband beat her up in a parking lot, and now she's filing for divorce.

I keep reading it argued that the message she preached leads women into abusive relationships. Maybe so. Pam does a particularly good job of getting into the stickiness of criticizing the message she preached on femininity without saying that the abuse was her fault.

Pam links to this article on the story from the New York Times, which just made me angry:

Conservative critics among the evangelical clergy have accused her of exploiting the attack for publicity, calling her “loud,” “angry,” “aggressive” and “out of control”...

I wish the author had cited particular conservative critics, so that I could write them each an email explaining why it is inappropriate to belittle a battered woman for being 'aggressive.' Loud, maybe; she's a prophetess, and somehow I doubt those critics were belittling her for being loud when she was preaching on abstinence. But angry? aggressive? She ought to be angry, perhaps even more at evangelical clergy who would ask her to shut up than at her own husband. And slamming a battered woman for being 'aggressive' is... sickening.

nostalgia

Does anyone else remember giggling while ending a hymn title with 'under the covers'? Like this:
Be Firm and Be Faithful (under the covers)
Take Me As I Am (under the covers)
Be Thou My Vision (under the covers)
Nearer, Still Nearer (under the covers)
To the Work! (under the covers)

Did anyone else do this, or was I just a particularly bad kid?

fun

this.

PS: it smells like autumn today.

sitting at Rita's desk, again

I'm sleepy- didn't sleep well last night, kinda groggy, and wanting some coffee before my evening class. Oh, and today was the first Common Meal of the semester, so I made an ass of myself. Just like last semester. I guess someone has to be graceless and groggy so that everyone else feels at home.

That's it: it's not total lack of poise and tact, it's a ministry of hospitality.

So, sitting here at the desk in my cute skirt, reading stuff online. Last semester's beginning poem was The Layers, which turned out to be an appropriate choice for both the semester and the summer. Still sorting the layers from the litter. This poem that I found on Hugo's blog will hopefully not be equally appropriate to this semester, but I do like it:

Account

The history of my stupidity would fill many volumes.

Some would be devoted to acting against consciousness,
Like the flight of a moth which, had it known,
Would have tended nevertheless toward the candle’s flame.

Others would deal with ways to silence anxiety,
The little whisper which, thought it is a warning, is ignored.

I would deal separately with satisfaction and pride,
The time when I was among their adherents
Who strut victoriously, unsuspecting.

But all of them would have one subject, desire,
If only my own — but no, not at all; alas,
I was driven because I wanted to be like others.
I was afraid of what was wild and indecent in me.

The history of my stupidity will not be written.
For one thing, it’s late. And the truth is laborious.

--Czeslaw Milosz

Other reading from the afternoon has included this Harper's article on dolchstosslegende, a story via Digby on clowns at a KKK rally, and a slideshow via apostropher on a 200-yard spider web.

More to come, perhaps.

Update: Also Is There Anything Good About Men?, Art for our sake, India's middle class failure, Hey Folks, You're Spending My Inheritance, and The elegant assissin.

omphaloskepsis

From Evolving Thoughts:
Let's set the scene with some philosophical definitions. A scientific question is one that evidence can tell for or against. All else is a philosophical question, or as it is popularly known, navel gazing.

The article goes on in an interesting fashion, but I was reminded of one of my favorite parts of the OED: omphaloskepsis, or navel-gazing.
Here's a link for the OED-challenged.