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.

sitting at Rita's desk

I'm sitting at Rita's desk today. For those of you not familiar with the ESR community, I've dressed up very professionally and am spending the day pretending to be a very competent and outgoing receptionist. It's fun for moonlighting, but I wouldn't want to do this every day. And no, I haven't really been asked to make coffee, although I've sure been drinking it.

There's not much to do- I cheerfully and graciously answer the phone when it rings, and then transfer the lucky callers to whomever might be able to actually help them. The unlucky ones get lost somewhere in the system, and I return to two important tasks:
a) looking competent
b) updating various things on the internet.

So, I've changed my Facebook status and updated my books, changed some Myspace stuff and left some comments, tinkered with my email, and now I've updated my Blogger list of books I want to read. It's in the top right hand corner, just in case you ever come into a large amount of money and want to spend some on me. I'm also updating my articles list, which I think I haven't touched since last semester. At some point, I will stop everything to search out more coffee, and perhaps redo my hopefully competent looking hair- if I've learned anything from working at the Roadhouse, or from preaching, it's that looking like you know what's going on is half the battle.

I read this today: The Peace Racket. "...we’re talking not about a bunch of naive Quakers but about a movement of savvy, ambitious professionals that is already comfortably ensconced at the United Nations, in the European Union, and in many nongovernmental organizations." Well, thank Heaven for that, at least.

And this: Enhancing Humanity "Of course, people are worried about more invasive innovations; in particular, the direct transformation of the human body. And this is where the gradualness of change is important, because as individuals we have a track record of coping with such changes without falling apart or losing our sense of self entirely. After all, we have all been engaged all our lives in creating a stable sense of our identity out of whatever is thrown at us." Narrative identity, etc. I've been reading a lot about that lately. Pieces of it will probably end up in my credo; my credo, in fact, is mostly pieces of things I've come across over the summer that I thought were interesting. It probably says more about my faith in its form than in its content.

And then this, from my hero Ben Witherington: Ignorance is Bliss? Biblical Illiteracy in the West. "Well of course part of the problem is the very nature of the modern and western church. It is all too often narcissistic and self-serving to the core. It spends the vast majority of its budget on itself-- its own buildings, its own clergy, its own self-help and nurture programs. The church has ceased almost altogether to be what it was at its inception-- an evangelistic movement, that also did some nurture and training of converts. Instead we are nurture institutions that might have a missions committee. Talk about placing the emphasis on the wrong syllable as the culture becomes increasing less Biblical. [...] What's wrong with needs based preaching? First of all in a culture immersed in constant advertisements and sales pitches, most people in the West have no idea what their real needs are. They can identify their wants, and they mistake them for actual needs." I just like Witherington, that's all. I love the fact that he has a blog, and that he uses bad grammar on it.

Ok, time to find more coffee.

overheard at Sacred Grounds

Spike Haired Fellow: Well, I don't know much about economics, but I've heard the argument that the economic success we saw under the Clinton administration was really due to Reagan and Bush, but we just have such a short view of things that we don't really think about long term effects. At least that's how it gets reported in the media, you know?

Baldy: So the economic success of the Reagan Administration should be attributed to the Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society, right?

Spike Haired Fellow: Well, um, well that's where I don't know much about economics.

What Spike meant was "well, that's where I don't know enough about economics to be able to twist whatever evidence I have into my right-wing mold," but he had to stop mid-sentence to thoughtfully sip his drink.

I thought that was funny and blogworthy, but now that I've written it I'll probably see them at Convocation as new Bethany students. Hopefully they won't recognize me as the young woman who was laughing at them at the coffeehouse.

carnival of the feminists no. 43

Link. Good stuff- I keep forgetting that these awesome carnivals exist.