Nations Sign Cluster Bomb Treaty

Well, some nations anyway.

"The first of more than 100 countries have begun signing a treaty to ban current designs of cluster bombs, at a conference in Oslo, Norway.

Campaigners are hailing the treaty as a major breakthrough.

But some of the biggest stockpilers, including the US, Russia and China, are not among the signatories. "

BBC News

This isn't the kind of thing that affects you negatively, is it? I mean, you're not likely to come across a bomblet so you can easily avoid injury. You could probably go your whole life without meeting anyone effected by a bomblet so you'll never have the awkward experience of trying not to stare at some kids stumpy legs or arms.

Besides, we couldn't be who we are without using cluster bombs, could we? And we like us don't we? You at least like you, right?

Yeah.

I thought I was upset by this. I almost called the Capitol Switchboard at (202)224-3121 to do some ranting, but no... I think we'll be okay here.

We're All Mormon Now

Long-time readers of my series-of-tubes-log risk developing hemorrhoids but may also remember I've mentioned the silliness of Protestant, specifically Evangelical, notions of scriptural authority as stated in most Evangelical statements of faith.

As a Christian, I don't disagree with the idea of the Bible's authority, but as I've said before, the insistence upon a capital W "word" seems blasphemous in those statements of faith. And I've said before, it seems a bit odd to claim the Bible to be more authoritative than it ever does itself, let alone thinking that it is the kind of text that "makes claims". And it's silly the way the whole thing is often conceived and practiced with a wink. Sure there are better and worse ways of doing the bit- it can be sophisticated, responsible, thoughtful, and honest to varying degrees. To wit, someone has a concern, imagines there is a single word that deals with said concern, finds every instance of the Bible mentioning that concern and then creates a prescription for it from the pile of verses gathered. Something like that would be of the least degree. I know, I know, the horse isn't getting any deader, but I mention this as background and intro to where we are now.

"Where is that?" you ask.

Well, I'm glad you asked, but once I tell you, you may be unhappy.

We are now under the auspices of the Mormon Magisterium- or whatever the interpretive authority among LDS is called.

What?!

It's true. I bet you didn't think that would happen, but it did.

I'm guessing folks who think the Bible says something about homosexuality and marriage and that something is "gay folks can't get married" did not think through one of the more troubling implications of voting to eliminate that right. In their eagerness to make the state (in their minds "the world" as a whole) correspond to the world they imagine ought to exist in relation to some metaphysical template they find in scripture, they decided to traipse along with a Mormon and Christian Reconstructionist understanding of the world vis-a-vis scripture.

Huh?

The matter of same sex marriage is hardly settled among Christians- even among Bible believing Evangelical Christians. Of course for some, that one is not particularly settled on it belies one being a Bible believing Evangelical Christian. Whatever- the point is, it's not settled. Churches ostensibly decided what counted as marriage, who could get married, what criteria had to be met, etc... A pastor didn't think a Buddhist and Christian should get married, they didn't marry them. One partner was a member the other wasn't? No church marriage for them. A divorced partner and a first-timer? No way. Same sex marriage was a similar matter- subject to the criteria of a given congregational context. You like the stability, cohesiveness, commitment to love, discerning a life in community, togetherness, and loyalty marriage requires and fosters but not if it means banging sticks? Great, you don't allow same sex marriage.

I'm sure some of us think we dodged a bullet; the state addressed the issue so we don't have to. Our minds were nagged- even as some denominations formally settled the matter. We knew that while one body of Christians prohibiting same sex marriage existed side by side with another that received it, it could not rest. And what's church for if not settling into easy and familiar ruts? I think we thought this could lock us easily into those grooves.

So what does this have to do with being subject to scriptural authority and LDS?

Well, back in the day, when there was just one church (we'll pretend that actually was the case), that one church was the authority. We would all settle where the church said we ought to settle. But those were dark times and we're Protestants now. We say, "The church doesn't tell us how to think or understand things, only the Bible can do that, and when we read the Bible we all think the same thing we've always thunk". I know, that's silly, but we're ham-handed. So we say it's the Bible alone and ignore all whatever else that goes into our saying what we say the Bible says about what we do.

The larger point is that we're trying to say the matter is finally settled by virtue of some authority and what we've shown that authority to be is the state wielding power for a Mormon or Christian Reconstructionist understanding of the world.

It's not just troubling (to those who are troubled) that some unnamed gay person wants to love and marry some other gay person. The scarier concern (for those who are scared) is the confusion that churches reading the same Bible walking such different paths causes. Thankfully (for those who are thankful),the state offers security. Mormons have shown themselves willing to step up and be the point of stability we've been asking for.

Isn't that great?

A Whole Lot of Funny In One Quote

One white supremacist leader, describing himself as moderate, professes alarm.

"There is a tremendous backlash" to Obama's election, said Richard Barrett, the leader of the Nationalist Movement in Learned, Miss. "My focus is to try to keep it peaceful. But many people look at the flag of the Republic of New Africa that will be hoisted over the White House as an act of war."

LA Times

Learned, Mississippi.

Naturally.

It's Not About You... Just Kidding It Totally Is

A couple of whiles ago I met the chaplain for the Lakers. He's exactly the kind of person you would think the chaplain for the Lakers ought to be. He's tall, good-looking, broad-shouldered, and gregarious. His voice has a bright, laughing timbre that, no matter what he says, makes you think he's done you a favor by speaking- a favor made all the more gracious because he's the chaplain for the Lakers but he's willing to waste time talking to you. (You're no Derek Fisher- you're not even a Luke Walton.)

I heard him give a chapel message. It was something positive and uplifting, I'm sure. I've forgotten it. That's not necessarily an indictment of my memory or his "sermon". Through most of it I was distracted by thinking how terrible it must be to be the Lakers' chaplain.

Let alone the awful actions of people associated with the team*, his job isn't to care for or shepherd the people that make up the Lakers institution. He can't be concerned with making disciples of Christ. His responsibility is the maintenance of the institution for which he is a chaplain. Those responsibilities may involve doing churchy things here and there, but it doesn't involve being a church or making Christians. Someone needs prayer? Pray. Someone feels glum? Cheer them up with some motivational words. Someone has twelve illegitimate children scattered across the country? Well, that's what paternity suits are for. He may preach, he may pray, he may lead Bible studies, but ultimately his job is to serve the Lakers.

Of course all that only seems terrible to me because I would see it as frustrating, misguided, and most importantly, at cross purposes with the Gospel. And of course, I only see that because I see the Gospel as something challenging, transformative, and freeing. If I were smarter, if I had any sense of self-preservation, if I would just accept that all Jesus wants to do is give us all a great big hug, then I would see that making people capable of feeling good about themselves just as they are is really what the Gospel is all about.

I bet I could do that if I started drinking more.

* Except for that Jerry Buss. Total class.

High School Skybalon Sure Did Relate to This Charming Man
The Smiths-The Smiths

They Can Have My Gold When They Pull It From My Cold Dead Teeth

I've noticed the reemergence of a golden thread running through the various paranoid media outlets I visit. (I hate myself.) If you're a certain type of paranoid, now is the time to invest in gold.

Well... I suppose you don't have to be paranoid to turn to gold to offset currency instability, but I'm sure this ad is meant to appeal to a specific someone:

Someone not necessarily concerned with inflation or currency exchange. Someone that still has foodstuffs left in their Y2K stockpile. Someone who generally feels haunted by some vague fear but who is also much more terrified now than they were of even Y2K.

I've said before that we have experienced a kind of apocalypse, and now we see it is a zombie apocalypse- Obama seems to be raising the Clinton dead for his administration. So sure, I can see why you'd be afraid. But gold?

I've never understood why gold is so valuable generally, but it seems especially worthless if things are about to go horribly wrong.

Like so much of contemporary Conservatism, I think hyping gold is a move to squeeze a little more blood from REAL AMERICANS (thick-skulled rubes) who are only too happy to dig their own graves if they think it means they're taking the next guy's plot. (I should think of a more artful way to construct that image- it seems like a good one.) The fear on which selling gold depends seems not only a scam but also a misdirection. When there's a run on gasoline and bullets... and football pads, S&M gear, mohawks, dune buggies, and Tina Turner anthems- then we'll know it's all over. But by then it'll be too late, and who's going to want your shiny yellow rocks then?

What Was The Phrase I Like Girls Used- "'Something' Kill"?

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

The above is from a speech Martin Luther King, Jr. gave at a church a year before his murder. You probably don't know it. Saying stuff like this makes you less cuddly and gets you killed.

So there's a rash of MLK-Obama merchandise hitting the streets and following that is a move by the King estate to make sure they get paid. I suppose that seems right. I suppose it also seems right to tie the two men together. Actually, it must seem right because folks all over the place were using some sort of "content of character" "color of skin" "dream this or that" construction to color the historic significance of Obama's election.

Sure, I am all farklempt by Obama's election. I think it marks the possible end of one world and the dawn of another. I know that sounds like hyperbole, but try to imagine this happening a generation ago. There is something significantly different about America simply because of the color of our president elect's skin. But at the same time, Obama's not magic simply because of the color of his skin. To be more pointed, he did not/will not, as the convention goes, come along to magically make "white people" better for the sake of their narrative. White people still largely went for the erratic, intemperate, injudicious McCain over Obama. Was it because McCain was white? Maybe. Was it because Obama was black? I want to say "yes". But that's only slightly here or there.

The symbolic significance of Obama's victory is not in the magical transformation of racist folks to not racist folks but it is in the transformation it portends for the face of a nation. Nationally, white people voted more often for McCain. I am not saying every white person that voted for McCain was a racist (not any more than the average American anyway). I am saying, the majority of white people did not vote for the brown guy. The election of a person with dark skin to the White House does not indicate the end of racism (duh), so let's not be too back patty about what Obama's election means in that regard. But there is a transformation worth mentioning: the old, rural, white people that voted for McCain are dying and the browns are participating in greater numbers. Simply stated, the group among whom Obama did the worst is not long for this world. That, along with the conceptual shift does signify a change worth noticing. Still, white folks voted for the white guy, brown folks voted for the brown guy- not really a "dream fulfilled" moment. But, there was a brown guy for brown folks to vote for, so...

But to the Martin Luther King, Jr. point. Again, though there were obviously plenty of people who could look past skin color to some type of content, it's hard to describe this as a dream fulfilled. I recognize that it is something new and in a world of "at leasts" it is something good. But that seems a bit secondary and we ought to be careful about how much MLK dust we apply in this case.

It was not King's goal to get a dark-skinned person elected president. While that occurrence could mean something to and for what we might call the soul of our nation, King's call was to the revolutionary power of the Gospel, not the attrition of racists.

But, But, But, But...

So last night, as a change of pace, our Quaker Peace Fellowship group went to see/hear Christopher Hitchens. I thought it would be helpful to hear his articulation and understanding of how we work towards a stable, responsible, international community- especially because he sees imperialism as a good thing. I don't think he represents the majority of folks in that. Not that we don't endorse imperialism. I think most folks just don't think about the consequences or manifestations of our militarism as imperialism. He does. He calls it what it is, and endorses it. For whatever else you can say about the guy, you can't say he doesn't try for some sense of responsible thought about geopolitical concerns. That thought process seems important, especially because the majority of folks don't.

I'm not saying I endorse an imperial approach to stability or security. Only that it's important to know what thoughtful folks might say about such a thing.

For the most part I enjoyed it. I especially enjoyed how much the hipster college kids who came to hear him rail against theism were disconcerted by his support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Of course I had my own moments of embarrassment. No evening of Christopher Hitchens would be complete without some anti-theism. I have no problem with that per se. My embarrassment came from how shallow his anti-theism can be. There is nothing new, and little clever or very interesting about his case against God. Why should there be? He has no reason to be any more thoughtful about his position than he is. Most often, the God that we demonstrate as true is a pathetic laughable mess.

We demonstrate belief in a God... why am I doing that? We demonstrate belief in a god that is hardly worth the argument. That Hitchens' job is so easy is an indictment of the church.

What we do as the church reveals what we say about the god we believe in. It is that, that determines the nature and meaning of our existence and that we are able to live such shallow, petty, self-righteous, desperate lives, all the while clinging to hollow statements about the "bigness" of some Santa Claus on the other side of the moon is argument enough. We believe in a straw man.

We should thank God Hitchens is there to point that out.

ed.- The majority of folks don't seem important to me? Is that what I meant to say? Edit, man, edit.

The Really Good Parts of Heaven Are Reserved for Male Virgins

We don't buy into this do we?

If you see a lady you like among your enemy, bring her home, rape her, and she's yours. If you later decide you don't like her after all, you can get rid of her, but you can't sell her because you made her dirty. (Deut. 21:10-14)

If a man rapes an unengaged young woman, he must compensate her father and then marry her. (Deut. 22:28)

If a young engaged women is raped in town and she doesn't cry out loudly enough to get help, she should be killed. (Deut. 22:23-24)

Men should not "go to worship" with damaged genitalia. (Deut. 23:1)

As you're speaking with your child, telling her about the ins and outs of physical intimacy, teaching her about what love means to us, what she should do, what she ought not do, what she might expect, how to treat others, you teach her this don't you? Of course if you do, you're already violating the sense of the law since it was written for men. See you in hell, dummy (from heaven).

But your son, you tell your son to keep his penis intact so that he can go to church, right? You tell him to make sure he only rapes a woman he can afford, don't you? Of course you... oh you don't? Oh well, see you in hell, too.

***
I should offer a tip of the hat to students with whom I first shared these verses, who remind us these "translations" have me read "seizing a woman" as rape rather than something a man gets to do to a woman by virtue of his being a man. That is, my use of "rape" may not be appropriate since it carries with it a meaning for us that may not be present for the audience who could not imagine certain types of forced sexual intercourse as something wrong. But that remains a part of my point, which is, we generally* don't say this has a direct "do and do not do" bearing on our lives even though we say the Bible has a direct "do and do not do" bearing on our lives.

We can say that because there is something that comes before the do and do not do (and it's not the "New Covenant"), though it's not likely that we see it. It's hard, if not disorienting, to see the things through which we see. Imagine if you were aware that you see your eyeball lens as you see through it.

Cosmic, man.

No wonder we don't question the Late Capitalist Agenda, or even know to look for its influence on how we imagine and approach everything. (Sure, but we can imagine something like the Gay Agenda can exist- as if people excluded from the "mainstream" have the type of position in the world to create an agenda). No wonder it seems silly for me to identify something called Late Capitalism and suggest it has an influence on us. Did I say influence? That's not nearly strong enough. What would you call the activity of a power that completely dominates your being, binds you to itself so the whole of your life is determined to serve it? Maybe in-fluence is the perfect word.

I only mention this because we reject the Gospel for our lives, so we are determined to imagine something we call homosexuality is treated by the Bible. Yeah that's what I'm saying: if you think the Bible addresses what we call homosexuality and from that you say something like "It's wrong for a man to be physically attracted to a man, blah blah blah", you need Jesus to save you from that. But don't feel bad, we all need Jesus. So, you know, whatever.

*I say generally because I am sure there are those who would love for this to be the basis of social order. I'm looking at you, "Yes On 8" financial backers.

When I Hear Gay Agenda, I Think of This
Waiting for The Bus- Violent Femmes
It's Oh So Quiet- Björk
Novacane- Beck
Jumpin' at the Woodside- Duke Ellington
Myxomatosis- Radiohead
Tangled Up In Blue- Bob Dylan
When The Levee Breaks- Led Zeppelin
Livin' Thing- ELO

Maybe They Should've Built a Cracker Barrel Instead of The Chili's

My brother was recently assaulted by a couple of Bros just west of the Glendora country club. According to him, some Bros started yelling at him from their truck and followed him from the Glendora Marketplace to Route 66. He was initially confused- wasn't sure if he knew these guys or what, and then they started shouting the N-word and making some sort of gesture. He likes The Rap Musics and listens to it pretty loudly so I guess that makes some kind of sense. When he pulled over and got out of his car, they self-corrected and used the phrase "Sand-N-word" instead. If you've ever seen me or my brother, that makes more sense.

He should've stayed in the car.

The other day a friend of mine told me one of his students was called a N-word Lover for sporting an Obama '08 sticker on his car. This was at the Glendora Marketplace, too.

My response then was something I've said before and and will now say again:
"30 miles east of Los Angeles sometimes may as well be
2000."

Someday You'll Thank Me For All This Scary Love

We like to say our thoughts on sex, or more accurately our rules regulating sexual behaviors, are rooted squarely and surely in scripture. I think, as Christians of a certain type anyway, we like to say that about everything, but these days, sex especially.

I don't happen to think Christianity is about regulating behaviors, but let's say for a moment it is, and let's then say that the Bible is the source for those regulations.

We know what to do and not do based on what the Bible says (not what we say the Bible says), and there are things that the Bible says we ought to do or not do and those things are tied to whether one gets to be a Christian and from that whether one gets to go to heaven. This is important to remember.

It's easy to make those opposed to THE GAY into a God Hates Fags caricature. Of course it's made all that much easier because of a tendency to see the complexities of desire and attraction as an absurd simplification called gay or straight, but let's resist the tendency to both caricaturizations. Could that be any less clear? Point being, it's easy to forget that those who imagine there is some thing called GAY and oppose it however it is manifest may do so out of a sincere desire to offer what is best for the one who is gay.

If I supremely care for the condition of your soul- read "I don't want you to go to hell", then I would want to make sure you are not being or doing something that may send you to hell. Forget for a moment that that set up depends on a way of knowing the world at odds with a Gospel narrative, but if I say being and doing gay, whatever that may be, is something that will send you to hell, then the idea of putting up barriers around the possibility of gayness makes sense. Good sense.

It's not hate, at least not the kind of hate that rolls up to campus with a Confederate Nazi flag (seriously- what was up with that guy?). It's a kind of love- a kind of distorted, crazy, self-serving love, but a try at love. That's something, no? And to my more delicate readers I apologize for putting the words but and love so close together.

So it's not hate, not always anyway. But being a distorted, crazy, self-serving love doesn't make it good. Maybe sympathetic, to a degree, maybe understandable, but not good. It is something that ought to be exposed to light, overcome, and redeemed, at least if one buys into being a Christian.

Monster Machine and I Were Briefly Discussing Whether Slipknot Was More Motorhead or The Misfits for Its Attachment to a Certain Comic Teen Aesthetic. What say You?
Sister I'm a Poet- Morrisey
We Are 138- The Misfits
Cosmopolitan- Nine Black Alps
No New Tale to Tell- Love and Rockets
Mr. Hurricane- Beast (If Jamiroquai and The White Stripes had a baby, it would cry like this)
Brazil- Pink Martini
Cut Your Hair- Pavement
Think- Aretha Franklin
Suzie- Boy Kill Boy

Now I Understand What So Many Others of You Were Feeling This Week

So this is how that hope everyone keeps talking about feels.

You Want This, Don't You?

The hate is swelling in you now.

Our God Has Given Our Enemy Into Our Hand

Three things.

First.
I'm guessing if the No on 8 folks had early on clearly identified what and who was behind the Yes push- Mormon and Ahmanson money- it would not have passed. Consider that the present constitutional revision passed by a much narrower margin than the 2000 ballot measure that proved unconstitutional, though it was organized and well funded. We could say it's just a matter of a few more decades before these remaining folks are dead or at least outnumbered and a referendum is put to voters. Or we could recognize that the No campaign, a campaign that did not call out the kooks behind Prop 8, a campaign that let distortion and misrepresentation stand, a campaign that didn't make this about real people, and had to deal with Gavin Newsom's boorish soundbite, did as well as it did. Not that that is a great consolation, but if it had countered or done those things earlier, I think it would have passed- especially if the whole theocratic agenda of the financiers was clearly laid out. When most "straight folks" realize this is as much about their protection under the law, they will be less inclined to slouch along with Mormons and Christian Reconstructionists. Unless of course I'm wrong about that, and the vast majority of Californians would actually like to live in a Rushdoonian Mormon Bible-based paradise in which we wear magic underwear while stoning homosexuals* and adulterers.

Two.
Since passing Prop 8 was the great ecclesial call of this generation, since we successfully averted the flood they said was a'comin', could we as the church now maybe do one or two of the things Jesus actually talked about as recorded in the gospels? We could even say, "It's about the children" if we must, but how about 100 days of prayer and 40 days of fasting for something actually attributable to Jesus Christ if one is going to call one's self a follower of the guy? At least as a show of sincerity- "No hard feelings, homos, we take everything this seriously. High five? C'mon, sport, don't leave us hanging."

And D.
Now that THE CHURCH, at least in California, is safely ensconced in the security of the state, thoroughly protected by the power of legislation from any threats of strangeness or difference, insulated from any thing that may threaten its self-certainty, I wonder what will become of folks like me who seemed so suited to ministry until it was learned we didn't know how to properly read the Bible. Are we now bound with the bronze fetters of the law and so may be safely put to the wheel?

* As if the Bible says anything about homosexuality.

And I Proudly Stand Up...

Please join Citrus College, City of Glendora and Azusa Pacific University in Saluting our Veterans.

The Ceremony will begin at Citrus College Center Quad at 11:00 and end with Flyover and Landing of US Army Helicopters at the APU Football Field



SALUTING OUR VETERANS
Thursday ▪ 6 November 2008 ▪ 11:00 AM to 1:30 PM



Musical Prologue
Covina Concert Band

Welcome, Proclamations, and Remarks
Dr. Jeanne Hamilton, Vice President of Student Services at Citrus College
Karen Davis, Mayor of Glendora

Presentation of Colors
American Veterans State Honor Guard (AMVETS)

National Anthem
Dani Bustamante, Cameron Lanier, and Frank Rodriguez, Citrus College Music Students

Moment of Silence
Chaplain Rick Givens, Azusa Pacific University

Salute to Fallen Veterans
American Veterans State Honor Guard (AMVETS)

Keynote Address
Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis

US Army Helicopter Flyover

Closing Remarks
Dr. Jeanne Hamilton, Vice President of Student Services at Citrus College

US Army Helicopter Landing at APU Football Stadium

We command people to go and do things that no human should do, to subject themselves to the worst we have to offer, to be bound to a way of being that requires death and destruction, but I would be seen as the jerk for saying this event meant to honor anyone seems like a whole lot of nothing. I guess we do what we can.

It's Nothing Personal

So there you have it, fags. TRADITIONAL VALUES... well Mormon values anyway, cut the legs out from your homosexual agenda. Decent, righteous upstanding Californians were able to tell queers they don't know that they can't marry.

Oh, and of course I don't mean "fag" or "queer" in any disparaging way. Just like no one means anything disparaging by saying you are inherently incapable of doing or being what is necessary to marry. You're fine, really. This was always all about THE CHILDREN. And since this was always about what marriage means for kids, it's only a matter of time until we make minimum income and education requirements before allowing people to have children. We won't allow divorcées with children to remarry because that really screws up a kid. We'll probably reconsider interracial marriage as well- that just seems like it's inviting problems. What else... who knows? I mean, there's all kinds of things we need to do for THE CHILDREN now that we've got this ball rolling.

And as far as THE CHURCH's responsibilities in the matter, we can show how seriously we do take marriage by telling straight couples that we won't allow them to get married because they don't meet some random serious and consequential set of criteria. We can have church committees monitor the sex lives of congregants to make sure they're not doing anything to violate nature or tradition. Ministers will no longer hire themselves out to "perform" weddings. In fact, we could probably go to some type of arranged marriage system- all in all, that just makes sense.

So in short, no hard feelings, right homos? We just really really love marriage... and children. Don't forget to think of THE CHILDREN.

Excellent

President Obama is satisfying but if I can wake up tomorrow knowing that I can marry a man when the Qweenbean and I are forced to divorce, it will be a perfect world.

Update- Nov. 5th, 9:30 AM

Great. Thanks for painting me into a corner, California.

So now there's a Democrat majority in Congress and a socialist headed to the White House, but just when I think I get to have a gay terrorist Muslim divorce on a burning American flag fetus and be single again, I won't be able to marry a man.

I was going to marry Seth Rogen, he seems soft and fun.

Thanks a lot.

Wake Up Whuate Payple

So it was raining this morning, now it's cool, cool enough to require a jacket, at least when compared to last week.

My dogs are barking at people coming up here to vote.

I think this shows that creation is trying to suppress the Glendora vote.

Also- I should reconsider writing longer posts when I'm so tired- which is all the time these days.

Who Is This Who Even Forgives Sins?

You know that Onesimus was a slave when Paul wrote to Philemon saying he wasn't a slave, right? For some people, the fact that Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon without unequivocally and certainly overturning the institution of slavery, similar to certain of Paul's comments about the nature of gender and sexuality, makes the Bible an ideological text meant only to justify entrenched power and injustice. To be brief, it is that for those who wish it to be. There's plenty in the Bible that can give a veneer of legitimacy to anyone that seeks to dominate and destroy.

But to see it that way ignores the fact that what we have here is just a snapshot of a guy in a certain place and time trying to live according to this strange power that is unlike anything in the world. A snapshot wherein we see he says, "You're slave is not a slave." The powers, the very real institutional powers that determine the way we live and know the world say there is such thing as a slave and here is how you navigate your existence around and with that reality. That's just the way it is, so here is what you do and how you live given those circumstances. Except, Paul says, "No it isn't."

That's the power of God versus the power of the world- the power of the world has Paul writing letters from prison, whereas the power of God has Paul writing letters from prison. I know, right?

This past Sunday, a visiting preacher, shared from Philemon, and it was perhaps good timing. He talked about the safety and security of our American congregations and wondered if we really trusted in the power of God to work miracles. And although he was offering a more allegorical reading of Onesimus as a slave of sin freed by the power of God*, given our circumstances it could be just what we need- an outsider's eyes to point out what's right before our own.

Considering the preacher's own experiences, the possibility of imprisonment or death for being a Christian, Paul's imprisonment resonated with him. Paul preached and was imprisoned and so the idea of being a Christian meaning being bold enough to preach the Gospel in the face of prison or death as a demonstration of the power of God makes sense. But here you're not likely going to go to prison or be killed for being a Christian- even when Obama is president- not if being a Christian means what we generally understand it to mean. This doesn't mean preaching harder to raise the ire of people who already find Christians obnoxious. Preaching the Gospel in our context generally has little to do with preaching anyway. But his point should still be taken. His sermon could be taken to ask whom or what we trust for our security and what security means to us. It should be taken that way- especially considering that tomorrow a lot of us will be demonstrating to what degree we trust God- or rather how we trust God.

But even if tomorrow were just an other Tuesday instead of our religion's high holy day, we could ask where we find our security, in what do we trust, and on what power we rely and for what.

When as THE CHURCH our priority is not alienating visitors or losing our tax exempt status, I think we can say where our security lies. When we believe in the power of something called international borders that allow us to treat people like animals, the power of "our way of life" that encourages us to kill and easily identify people as our enemies, or the power of some self-privileging artifice we call nature or tradition that allows us to deny the possibility of two people's love I think we can get a sense of what powers we trust.

Of course someone that was willing to live in opposition to those powers because of a higher power, someone that understood there was some Good News that freed them from the tyranny of those powers, in this present time and place would probably... Ah who am I kidding? Like we could even know.


* A reading I don't necessarily dispute when I see that Onesimus is a slave because of sinful power and it's only the power of God that has Paul see that such is not the case.

It's a Beautiful World

I'm sure you've heard that some voters are viscerally (read racistly) against voting for Obama but don't want to say so, so they use the Secret Muslim or We Don't Know Enough About Him memes to justify their not voting for him though they might were he white. That's silly, you don't have to be racist to not vote for Obama. It might help, but it's not necessary.
Likewise, you don't have to be not racist to vote for him. To wit, this Esquire article describing a white supremacist argument for supporting Obama:

White people are faced with either a negro or a total nutter who happens to have a pale face. Personally I’d prefer the negro. National Socialists are not mindless haters. Here, I see a white man, who is almost dead, who declares he wants to fight endless wars around the globe to make the world safe for Judeo-capitalist exploitation, who supports the invasion of America by illegals--basically a continuation of the last eight years of Emperor Bush. Then, we have a black man, who loves his own kind, belongs to a Black-Nationalist religion, is married to a black women--when usually negroes who have 'made it' immediately land a white spouse as a kind of prize--that’s the kind of negro that I can respect.

Esquire via BOING

The Holy Spirit Will Come Upon You, and The Power of The Most High Will Overshadow You

In a Christian sense of the world, salvation is an unwarranted gift from God. That's a pretty standard concept to a Christian. What we say is that there is no human work that earns salvation or requires that God save us. Rather it's something in the nature of God- the good news of the Good News is that God is revealed as the kind of God that seeks to save humanity because of God's nature, not human nature.

I don't say this to try to sell it to anyone that doesn't already buy it. And of course, saved to or from what needs to be filled in. And I suppose there are other things to fill in as well, but I mention this point specifically because we who claim to know this, often act as if knowing this is the thing to do to get this salvation; we live in such a way that says "Knowing that Jesus died for your sins is that which you must do to get to get to go to heaven". I'm going to ignore for now that idea of "going" to heaven. You should too- there is something more important to address. Namely, knowing something, knowing anything, is a human work that, like any human work, is worthless insofar as "being saved" is concerned. Saying you believe "such and such" does nothing for your salvation.

You should be happy about that. It's a reminder that it's the power of God that saves, not your silly notions about this or that or what may or may not be. That's good news. And strange as it seems, it remains news to even Christians; in our lives as people who know that Jesus saves we easily get confused into thinking that knowing Jesus saves saves so the good news is often viewed as scary news.

We, evangelicals, are pretty good at saying you can never be good enough to earn salvation. You can never feed, clothe, or shelter enough people, you could never give away enough of what you own, you could never turn the cheek enough times, we could never [insert your pick here] to make God save you. Jesus saves. Sure. Often, that just makes most of us pretty good at neglecting that type of behavior. we say you can't do anything except we do have requirements for doing. We require the knowing and building and receiving a world in which we know what we know. That is something we do.

We say our beliefs are how we are saved (and as soon as we say that we're saying it's not the power of God that saves). We ignore maliciously or innocently, that we create a sense of the world in which belief in any thing and of any kind is possible. We act as if we don't craft and negotiate the sense of the world in which we know we know. We pretend that our minds are senses that simply receive what the world is. This is death Any sense of the world, even our Christian sense of the world, is a created thing, so to put our faith in that- to say belief saves- is to trust a human work for salvation. What we are doing with that is tying our salvation to a particular world. In one sense, that's only as it can be. We exist. We make choices and have commitments and loyalties in order to live. What else could we do? But to be brief, thinking that salvation lies in one particular set of commitments and arrangements is idolatrous.

What follows from that are often behaviors that pull us deeper and deeper into a particular way of doing and knowing that is more and more alien to faith. We want it because we often confuse the illusory security and certainty of a well established way of the world with the indomitability of life in Christ. We seem to know to say that Christianity is not about following a particular legal code of conduct (even if we say it with a wink), but we do say being a Christian means being and doing some type of such and such. It can be a terrible trap then to ask for more of that which we say makes one a Christian because we may only be asking for a more world-fixed expression of that which we presently call Christianity.

"Make me more of what I am," "Give me a bigger portion of what I already have," "Make me more secure and certain in the world," "Give us a deeper and stronger commitment to the way we know and do things now." "Thank you Lord that we are not like other folks... will you make us even more of that?"

We don't need more of the same, we need the courage, humility, and openness to strangeness that will lead us to walk in places we have never walked. When I hope that God would meet us, invigorate us, and give us new life, I realize I'm opening myself to a life that is foreign, alien, and scary.We don't do this ourselves. We need the spirit to confront us because the foreign, alien, and scary is generally that which we work to exclude and eliminate from our well-crafted, stable, and certain Christian existence.

It certainly doesn't seem easy, but if a young girl can say "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be to me according to your word"* knowing only that it will turn every aspect of her world upside down, then we can do it, no? We're better than some little girl that doesn't have the sense to not get pregnant while she's engaged to some other guy aren't we?

No? Maybe?

Nah let's just stick with what we know.


* It's a bit inside but with this verse in mind I could've titled the post "We Are 1:38".

Skynet Became Self Aware at 2:14 AM

Christians seldom seem to.

Consumerist Passover

Considering we keep hitting 90+ degrees, you would be forgiven for forgetting that Halloween is this Friday. However you will not be forgiven for thinking a Sarah Palin costume is clever. There is time to think of something better. You will think of something better.

There is also time to make sure you don't do more to damage the already laughable reputation of Christians surrounding their Halloween hum-buggery (that makes me laugh). To that end I offer this:

A Brief Guide to the Best and Worst Treats You Can Give
These are the worst items you could hand out on Halloween. If you think it is an act of generosity or good Halloween cheer to give any of these, you deserve whatever property damage follows throughout the year.
Raisins
Unshelled nuts
Loose change
Bible tracts
Fruit of any kind
These last two are asking for broken windows.

I would describe the following as borderline offerings. They are easily better than the above but may also be seen as a bit lazy so it's a bit of a gamble to give them out. You may avoid a yard full of egg shells and toilet paper, but don't be surprised if morning reveals a path of candy from your door to the sidewalk.
Bazooka Joe gum and that other brand of rock hard wax paper wrapped bubble gum... Empire Bubble or some such
Hershey's Miniatures: Krackle
Generic colorful transparent suckers and hard candies
Packs of gum- specifically, Wrigley brand 5 packs
Neopolitan Chews

Of course there are hundreds, if not thousands, of good candies and treats that can be given out on Halloween so a list of the best could never be definitive nor final. I guess all it can be is a list of candies and treats you should give me if you don't want me to egg your house.
Chocolate and Peanut Butter Taffies
Pixie Stix
Any full-size candy bar (except for those awful awful Zone style diet bars you can buy in bulk at 99 cents stores.)
Reese's Peanut Butter Cups
Pencil Toppers/Erasers (Seriously, kids under 10 go crazy for that kind of junk- so do I)
Balvenie Scotch

Well Sure, Why Didn't You Ask Earlier?

"Pakistan's government summoned the U.S. ambassador today to urge an immediate halt to missile strikes on suspected militant hide-outs near the Afghan border."

LA Times

Are the kind of people that feel it's okay to go around blowing up other people the kind of people you can ask to not blow up other people?

Thanks For Nothing

"A U.S. military judge barred the Pentagon Tuesday from using a Guantanamo prisoner's confession to Afghan authorities as trial evidence, saying it was obtained through torture."

AP News

Once, on a family trip to Mexico, I bought a half dozen or so throwing stars and a butterfly knife. At least once. Anyway, when my dad found out he said it was fine that I bought them, but I couldn't bring them into the car, carry them on my person, take them across the border, or give them to anyone else to do the same.

My indignant response: "Well then why did I even buy them?!"

My Dogs Don't Speak English

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, we had a sense of salvation that said we were freed from guilt and that means we were well-adjusted, self-actualized, happy, positive people who have no reason to feel bad or unduly suffer.

Let's say that's what we say Jesus does for one who is saved, so I am saved from any sense of a negative self. So we have to assume that we believe in a self that can feel negative and so needs to be saved from that self-negativity. Fine, that comes with the territory- as do any number of other metaphysical assumptions and commitments. We're not evaluating or assessing the validity of those metaphysical assumptions- we're just imagining that that is what we say/believe.

So for the sake of time and space, let's say that what we say it means to be a Christian is to be redeemed from that negative sense of self so that what gives a life meaning is self-edifying fulfillment and happiness. Redemption is a matter of being able to love one's self.

So, if that were a description of some Christian person and that person hung out with others- though it would be odd to say that person was a part of a community... or maybe it would just be an odd community... anyway, it's some someones. You, and me, and some generic anyone. Okay. So it's some group of people like that- a church- how would that church confront things that were difficult to confront about themselves? I don't mean how would they deal with crises and difficulties. I mean how would they confront their ugliness, their participation in or affirmation of "bad things"? How would it even be possible?

ed.- Why do I hate grammar?

Think of The Children, Indeed

He Is An Elitist

"Senator Barack Obama will use his prime-time half-hour infomercial on Wednesday night to make what is effectively a closing argument to a national audience of millions. At times he will speak directly into the camera about his 20-month campaign, at others he will highlight everyday voters, their everyday troubles, and his plans to address them."
NY Times

If he thinks people bitterly cling to guns and religion when the abject desperation of their lives is too much to bear... Well, Bill Watterson said it before.

click it for big

She's Tidied Up and I Can't Find Anything

APU has this lecture series or institute, I'm not sure what it is exactly, called CRIS. Creative Research on Institutes and Science, Coloring Rates Infinitely Superior, Can't Really Identify with Science or some such like that. Oh, Center for Research In Science

Anyway, I went to their lecture called "What's So Important About Creation Theology?" and I learned something very important:

I can't hear the word "science" without thinking "Science!"

I Still Wouldn't Say "Convinced"

What is this country coming to?

So a crazy white woman accuses a generic black man of attacking her and it turns out to be false. Forget the electoral elements of this, within living memory this type of accusation- even false- would have been enough to bring about the murder of any number of black men throughout the country, or in more enlightened environs, the arrest and imprisonment of some random innocent soul who made the poor choice of being tall, black, and young in the United States.

But the times they are a'changin'.

And it's these a'changin' times that still have me disagreeing with The Qweenbean over the possibilities of an Obama presidency.

You know people who were raised and taught by good decent upstanding folks who knew as plain as anything that black people... no not people... blacks were just different, in a worse kind of way, than white people. It wasn't about hate. It's not about hate. It's about the banality of racial epithets, the impropriety of mixed marriage, the existence of something you call race, and the sensible wisdom of the Biblical mandate to stick with your own kind. It's why a black* man was never going to be your pastor, your boss, your son in law, or your president.

But that world is ending and an apocalypse is seldom a welcome thing. It's difficult to see one's sense of everything come crumbling down. Who, except for those willing to accept the call to be the church**, can confront that? And even for those who have accepted the role of sojourner, it's not easy. It's with that dis-ease I am concerned.

There is a rationale to the craziness exhibited by someone whose foundations are failing. This "Everything is Dying and I Have to Make You See It" so I'll scratch a "B" on my face makes sense. It's a desperate and crazy sense- but still a sense. Her world is ending, nature and reason themselves are threatened, what else would you have her do?

The threatened and dying have a limited palette but can be inordinately loud; that's my concern.

If things are changing, if we are living through the death of one world and the birth of another in a significant way, there will be zombies. And we all know how awful zombies can be.

* And pay attention- black isn't a reference to skin color.
** Not THE CHURCH

Cue Shelves Being Knocked Over and the Elderly Storekeep Being Punched in The Gut

Youze gots yourself a nice little shop here. It would be a shame if anything wuz to happen to it.

Only I Like Girls May Watch This

I Have Built You an Exalted House, A Place for You to Dwell in Forever

Being a jerk is part of my vocation.

There.

Now that that's out of the way we can proceed and you needn't wonder if I know that what I've said is kind of jerky.

I recently received a number of email forwards lauding the outbreak of revival at Barclay College in Kansas. The broad strokes are a missionary on furlough visited the college and many students did things like confess their use of drugs, share that they felt their parents didn't love them, agree to become involved in some sort of ministry, stay in school, etc...

That's cool. I don't think any of it is necessarily a bad thing. In fact, if someone is addicted to drugs, finding a way to end that addiction would be a good thing. Or if someone is estranged from their parents, they should work towards reconciliation. Good things those. I say, "Hooray for you."

But revival? M'eh.

I suppose there are different types of revival, so I guess I am open to the possibility that experiences similar to what happens on Dr. Phil could be a type of revival. I'm sure in the lives of those people, it is a big difference, it is a reinvigoration of life, so I guess a revival of sorts, maybe.

Okay.

No.

I don't know that it is all that revival-y to suddenly overflow with what one has kept bottled-up or to finally come to a decision on a matter, even a deeply troubling or significant matter. I mean, "I was so sad, and couldn't tell anyone" and "I was going to leave school but now I'm not" moments may be significant scenes in the movie of one's life but I wouldn't call it revival. I don't call it revival. I can't.

It seems so individualistic, so self-centered, such a part of the life-crushing way of the world that I am reticent to use revival in regard to the occasion. Other people saying it's revival? Fine, call it revival. What am I going to do, say you're wrong that it seems like revival to you? Whatever. All I can say is I don't think it is, and I certainly don't want to pray or fast or do any of the voodoo that we say would encourage this kind of behavior because it seems like trying to cure a disease with more of the disease.

I am not saying it's bad to get something off of one's chest, or to make some kind of public declaration about a commitment to something or other, but if we're going to set aside the term revival, I think it ought not be for moments of self-understanding and revelation akin to what finds on a reality show cast reunion.

Do we sometimes need to do things like this? Sure. But it just seems par for the course for a "Be a Better You" kind of Christianity which seems like any other Modern, Western sense of self-understanding that's all about you and if that's all you're after rent Pay It Forward or read M. Scott Peck.

If we're going to say revival is a consequence of the Word of God confronting and changing us, then it seems silly at best, and maybe blasphemous at worst to liken it to "An Oprah Event to Remember".

So it is something I would like to see. It is something that better practices of silence anticipate and so maybe something Friends might appreciate. But given what we presently say passes for revival, we'd likely try to put an end to revival rightly called.

There's probably a parable or something about that.

If You Give a Man a Fish...

Null Set- How would I find a book on Luke's audience for Jesus?
skybalon the librarian- Do you mean the community that would've first read the Gospel of Luke or more the sociological and cultural context of Jesus' life suggested in Luke?
Null Set- ...
skybalon the librarian- Or... do you mean the literary audience in Luke, the people the author has receive Jesus' message in the text itself?
Null Set- blink... Okay...
skybalon the librarian- Which...?
Null Set- The audience...
skybalon the librarian- Right then...

It's not a strange thing that many of us in the western Christian world feel perfectly at ease carrying Bibles around in these happy nylon cases and telling ourselves that it tells us what to do, who to be, and all else. And that is a strange thing.

Having Eyes, Do You Not See?

"The latest newsletter by an Inland Republican women's group depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama surrounded by a watermelon, ribs and a bucket of fried chicken, prompting outrage in political circles."

...

"I absolutely apologize to anyone who was offended. That clearly wasn't my attempt."

The PE



Clearly.

I love these apologies. "If I offended anyone..."

Of course the "attempt" wasn't to offend. It was to solidify, insulate, demark, unify, assure, cohere, and defend.

I believe her. I believe she had no "intention" of offending. I think she was intending to create a sense of us, to mark off the people who get it, to create a type of boundary for her community. Within that community, for that sense of the world, these would not be offensive images or ideas. How could they be? (She just miscalculated who her audience was).

Think the images are awful. Understand why you think so. Say there is no place for them in democratic discourse. But don't mistake your ability to say so (if you say so) as a universal sense of decency or good that would allow anyone to say so.

If we assume there is some general sense of decency or good (and in sending this email/mailer she knew she was violating that) we are assuming our way of seeing the world is THE WAY to see the world. We tend to do that. It seems we want to do that.

If one is a Christian, though, or more to the point, if one is confronted by the offensively transcendent (that's silly), one ought to see that as a subtle trap. It's a trap in that it lures us with a hope for certainty and security but it's the security of a prison- sometimes thoughtfully crafted, but a prison all the same.

What we do and who we are is understood in communities wherein what we do and who we are makes sense. That's as it can only be. Abstract concepts take on real meaning as we live them. Love, justice, freedom, salvation, etc. are meaningless, or worse are ideological, when we simply relate to them as a concept or ideal- or when we pretend that the concept or ideal is real. For good and ill, we show what we understand love to mean when we show what we understand love to mean. The same for any other concept: justice, freedom, salvation, sin, etc... What does it mean to show justice right now given our present conditions? Free to be what? Salvation, from, to and for what? Sin against what, in what way, why? All of that is done within some cultural boundary, maybe permeable, but still bound.

That's what we do, what we are doing. It's a human thing to do, a human work, if you will. And as such, it, as far as some Christian narrative may be concerned, is a bit deadly (as if death comes in bits), except of course, in so far as it allows us to be some type of reflection of divine love. So you know, that's something.

But in creating this world of meaning and understanding, we are creating a world of meaning and understanding (duh). And we are no less prone than anyone else to making it a prison just because we think what we have to say is very special. Perhaps we are at even greater risk because we think what we have to say is so stinkin' special. Maybe we pretend our stink is somehow unique from everyone else's stink. Maybe we are convinced that our stink comes from God rather than us. That's fine, but we need know, even if we receive divine stink, we have to speak it from our own stinking holes.

The point is, we build so we can make these ideas known as more than ideas. We make sense of the world so we can make sense of the world, but we easily fix these expressions in stone. We fix a safe and secure world where it is clear what we mean by "we" that never means to offend, in which we cannot even know if it would offend, but also in turn wherein we lock out what is offensive. Our prisons secure us from everything, but worst of all, isolate us from what is ultimately scandalizing and offensive about the Word of God (for any idolators out there, I don't mean The Bible).

I would say it is a part of our being made holy to be better and better able to catch this, to be made brave enough to be drawn out of that prison, but it's possible, actually it's quite likely, that Sunday after Sunday, Bible study after Bible study, whatever it is we do necessarily as Christians, we craft the culture to build the walls of our Christianity higher and thicker. We solidify the boundaries of who we are. We confuse being made holy, sanctified, set apart from the world, with being more and more enmeshed with and adapted to a particular sense of the world.

"If I offended anyone..." is the other side of "Well, I never..." Both could be a promising starting point, but we try to avoid them or seldom mean them as we should.

What Is That All Over The Walls and Floor?

Liberation theology was an absolute necessity if the establishment was going to continue to control the minds of minorities. If a person of a minority group had not invented it, the liberal establishment most certainly would have created it.

Vine Deloria Jr. in For This Land

It's my mind, man, 'cos it's totally been blown.

What Are You Gonna Do, Vote for Someone Else?

I know people, dyed in the wool, Limbaugh-loving, don't care about policy just the R after the name, if the GOP says "up is down" then up is down, Republican people, who despite their ideological loyalty still have to exist, and in their existence have had to face choices that McCain dismissed last night with scorn and air quotes.

Maybe I can assume they are no longer watching debates, but if they were, I wonder how this played.

Oh, and eloquence is a bad thing?

If You Watch This, You're a Terrorist

Until we have a gigantic- GIGANTIC- meteor hurtling toward earth, or spaceships hovering over DC, or a nuclear suitcase bomb hidden somewhere in the country, I remain unconvinced.

Build Zion With Blood and Jerusalem With Wrong

Last night at our Quaker Peace Fellowship meeting we watched Taxi to the Dark Side.

Infuriating.

But as I was preparing for it, writing up the curriculum, as it were, I was struck by the difficulty of describing a dependence on torture as anything other than a kind of faith.

I offered this as part of the discussion material:

Relying on or accepting torture requires a kind of faith- a trust in something unprovable and unknowable and often contrary to given evidence: that torture will provide useful information. It becomes a system that takes human life in the name of that faith making that human life a sacrifice. In Christian theological terms this is idolatry....

The issue of faith goes further. It preserves our way of life. It keeps us safe. It is ultimately a good. That all seems to be part of the faith and hope in a system that uses torture (even as it wants to call it something else). Torture becomes an act of devotion to the god of that system. I could really drag out the metaphor, only I don't think it's a metaphor.

In any case, faith or hope seem like the wrong word, but in their inappropriateness, each seems like the perfect word. Others may want to call it something else. A negative faith. Sin. Despair.

Sure.

But I think faith has to be the first word to use so there is some dissonance, so we are confronted with our idolatrous relation to a system. (That is, if we are a people who have a sense of what faith might be.) If we have a misplaced faith, it ought to be called out as such. Only after we see that it is possible for it to be misplaced faith could something like sin or despair make sense. No?

The Times They Are a'Changin'
Well, Replace "Times" with "Old Racists" and "a'Changin'" With "a'Thankfully Dyin'-Off"

Or it could alternately be called

How Cute

“I’ve always been against the blacks,” said Mr. Rowell, who is in his 70s, recalling how he was arrested for throwing firecrackers in the black section of town. But now that he has three biracial grandchildren — “it was really rough on me” — he said he had “found out they were human beings, too.”

Same NY Times article.

If only we could get every white supremacist to become the grandparent of a biracial child. The world could be a better place.

Impenetrability! That's What I Say

“I would think of him as I would of another of mixed race,” said Glenn Reynolds, 74, a retired textile worker in Martinsville, Va., and a former supervisor at a Goodyear plant. “God taught the children of Israel not to intermarry. You should be proud of what you are, and not intermarry.”

Mr. Reynolds, standing outside a Kroger grocery store, described Mr. Obama as a “real charismatic person, in that he’s the type of person you can’t really hate, but you don’t really trust.”

NY Times

This is just how THE LIBERAL MEDIA work... works? That's a tough one. Media is plural, but I think when it's used in that ideological sense it should become singular. Right. Like Jews as actual people is a plural, but THE JEWS would be a single mass, so singular...

Anyway. This is how it is done. You go to some Wal-Mart parking lot in Mobile, Alabama and let people talk about their insane racial prejudices just so you can make it look like people in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Mobile, Alabama have insane racial prejudices.

THE LIBERAL MEDIA. Hmph.

This is just like their making a big deal about the McPalin supporters who yell out "Kill him!" and "Terrorist*", or carry an Obama monkey at campaign rallies but no mention is made of how people call the president a war criminal.

Sure, the president did actually authorize war crimes, but hey, that's his right as MY PRESIDENT.

And I'd bet there are a number of Obama supporters who would yell out nasty things at an Obama rally- I've heard "boos" in fact.

I'd even bet, if asked "Do you think someone who bombs civilians could be considered a terrorist?" Obama supporters might say "Yes." There. See? They'd call John McCain a terrorist.

Are you hearing about that? No. Oh, but some random people in Alabama say Obama's another breed of human, or “He’s going to tear up the rose bushes and plant a watermelon patch,” and it's front page news. Well, not literally front page. But it's news.

And we keep hearing about how Palin keeps saying Obama pals around with terrorists and that he's too different to be the president of REAL AMERICA, and McCain keeps suggesting Obama is too mysterious, too unknown and it's all portrayed as racist nationalism and jingoism just because people are receiving it as racist nationalism and jingoism.

Where's the balance?

* I actually have a hard time getting upset about that one. It reminds me so much of GOB it makes me laugh.

This Makes Sense

Where Would You Even Begin?

"If Obama were a white Democratic nominee named Barry O'Malley, the GOP would be going after him twice as hard. But many liberals would still caterwaul about fomenting hatred and racism, because that's what they always do."

LA Times

Hey... I'm an idiot, too. Why don't I have an LA Times column?

We Could Just Leave

"With time running out for the conclusion of an agreement governing American forces in Iraq, nervous negotiators have begun examining alternatives that would allow U.S. troops to stay beyond the Dec. 31 deadline, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials."

Washington Post

So do we say nothing, apply no pressure, because this has no impact on our 401(K)s? Except that it does. Do we remain silent on this because there are people in love that want to marry against your wishes and you have to devote energy to that? Overall, you're not sure what to say or do because this somehow makes you free?

A house guest that acted like us would clearly be seen as the boorish ass they were. You don't want to be a boorish ass.

Why Doesn't He Just Start His Own Church?

"A week ago, Father Geoffrey Farrow stood before his Roman Catholic parishioners in Fresno and delivered a sermon that placed him squarely at odds with his church over gay marriage.

With Proposition 8 on the November ballot, and his own bishop urging Central Valley priests to support its definition of traditional marriage, Farrow told congregants he felt obligated to break 'a numbing silence' about church prejudice against homosexuals."

LA Times

First we should say, "What a fool, putting his livelihood on the line for the sake of conscience?"

That's the think thing about being Catholic, you kinda' have to live as if your theological convictions matter.

Crazy, no?

Also kind of sits in a weird opposition to the previous post.

ed.-Idiot. Thing! Thing!

Whether It's Hindu, Buddha, Allah

Just so you know, God, uh Hindu, has been saying some pretty crazy stuff about you.
Hindu.
No, Hindu, you know... the god with the dancey arms and the elephant head.
Oh.
Really? I always thought his name was Hindu.
Okay.
Well you know he's pulling for Obama and if he wins, well, I don't know if I should repeat what he's been saying, but it's not pretty...



I had a refreshingly honest conversation with someone this past weekend. Come to think of it, I had two refreshingly honest conversations with someone in the past week. But this post will be only about one of them.

Someone was telling me that he basically couldn't stand John McCain, was beating himself up for having to vote for him, didn't look forward to it, but because he was a Republican he was going to support his guy and vote Republican. It's just what he had to do.

For him, it was a matter of commitments and loyalty. There was no special anointing on John McCain, he didn't pretend John McCain is "such a Godly man" and so deserves his vote, he didn't try to fit McCain's narrative into a consistent type of conservatism, nor did he pretend that a McCain presidency would be best for his class interests. It was all about labels and he said so. It was a kind of reluctant critical consciousness. "Ugh, I'm so attached to labels- why am I so attached to labels?"

He was willing to talk and think through his actions and commitments to the point of revealing why he did what he did- or to see what his actions said about his commitments and loyalties.

Say what you will about "I'm a Republican so I have to vote Republican" ultimately being a shallow reason then watch that video above again.

Anyway. I suppose one could say that there is a scriptural warrant for this type of conversation with God- "God, if you don't want to look bad, you'd better help out your people."

So, there you go. Here we have a latter day Moses, asking God, on our behalf, to stick with the program, do what he said he was going to do, be the better God and show those foreigners- their Gods... sorry- gods, show those foreign gods who's boss.

It's baloney, but it is nonetheless important. Maybe all the more important. I can never get that right. Whatever the case, it is an honest articulation of the faith inherent in one's presuppositions and loyalties, and as such, when starkly stated mostly laughable.

Take this one as another example:

According to this neo-liberal logic, the pursuit of self-interest of the market would be the best and most efficient way to generate the common good; and in this way the contradiction between self-interest and common good would be solved... The best way to live the love for one's neighbor, the poor, would be to overcome the temptation to do good and continue being selfish in the market, seeking one's self-interest in a more efficient way. This way, conquering the temptation to do good through economic and social policies turns out to be the main spiritual task in the social field."

Ha ha. Get it?

Anyway, back to Moses Come-Lately. I guess we could say that making John McCain president is part of the same redeeming history. In that case, bugging God in this way makes sense. An Obama presidency would be like dying in the wilderness and God shouldn't let that happen so... We could say that, and if we say that, I guess this fits.

But it sounds like this guy is saying something different. I think this guy thinks God is an idiot and is trying to talk "him" into a fight: I don't know if you realize this God, but those other Gods are trying to make you look like a chump.

It's easy to mock it (see above), but it is very revealing. What we say and do reveals underlying spiritual commitments. It doesn't get much clearer than this. Now I don't know that he speaks for anyone other than himself in this, but how many of us, when we get down to it think in these terms?

That's all. Anything more would be getting preachy.

And the Lord repented of the evil which he though to do to his people.
Go to the Mirror Boy- The Who
Rhiannon- Fleetwood mac
Uncle John's Band- Grateful Dead
Intergalactic- Beastie Boys
Watch That Man- David Bowie
Nowhere at All - Lou Reed

History Is Caged*

A completely irrelevant man once said:

"Is this true Christian religion to see so much preaching, praying, sermons, lectures and to see so many blind and lame, poor men and women, and children up and down the streets, and at the steeple-house doors, is not this an ill savour among you and in you, and the high profession ye profess? "

George Fox, in To All The Magistrates in London

*Ugh- what a downer title. What happened to the light-hearted references to movie titles, dialogue, and song lyrics

It's About Heritage, Not Hate

So some students at a Quaker university in Oregon hung an image of Barack Obama from a tree. Really. I know that sounds bad on the surface but we should remember that hanging a black man from a tree is an age-old form of American protest.

And if you look at the situation in context you can understand the act. There was a note attached indicating that the demonstrators were protesting a university outreach program targeting minorities. From what I hear, a good number of the kids at George Fox had their Harvard and Yale spots taken from them by less qualified minority students. So, you know.

A Quaker school. In Oregon.

Anybody want to talk me down?

So How Do We Tell If She's Made of Wood?

I get it.

I just want to put that out there at the beginning so that if, when reading this, you think, "You just don't get it," you will know that I, in fact, do get it.

The McCain-Palin campaign can't possibly believe that the intense fear and white resentment they are stoking will not hit a ceiling. Granted, Republicanism of the past 40 years or so has been very successful in its adroit use of fear and racism, but everything has a shelf-life, no? No. Maybe?

Who knows?

Anyway, this intense push to identify Obama as the embodiment of terrorism, a different America, the scary "other" we don't know, could work, but if it does, it won't work in the way it has in the past.

Background please- Okay, when Bush I used racial fear and resentment against Michael Dukakis, the people you feared remained a faceless swarthy mass. Scary to be sure, but scary without a body or name. Scary because it was without a body and name. It wasn't the black kid behind the counter at McDonald's. You like him. And it wasn't the Mexicans mowing your lawn (probably Guatemalan, actually, but brown south of the border is all Mexican, right? ). Those guys are okay. Quiet, unassuming, hard-working, deferent. You weren't scared of them, but that wasn't the object of your fear. You were scared of the composite sketch, the unidentified welfare queen, the Latino male 17-23 y.o. with a slight build. Eesh, that is scary. That's the Southern strategy and it worked, especially as a form of white on white violence.

It got all kinds of people to forget about politics as it actually affects their lives as humans and worry about matters of identity wrapped up in things like Flags, Gods, and Sex, so they became perfectly willing to wage war against themselves.

Whatever.

But Barack Obama has a face. His face. He's got a name. Sure it's a weird name, but you see him and you're not actually afraid. You realize he's not so bad. Sure you still hate BLACK PEOPLE, but Barack isn't BLACK PEOPLE. He's Barack. He's like the Mexican that married your daughter versus the ILLEGAL ALIENS that are stealing your country. The faceless other can't be faceless when it actually has a face.

So it won't work like that, but like I said, it could work.

Intensifying the fear and anger will do just that- intensify the fear and anger. And even though it won't break through the lunatic 20-30% that you can see on the YouTubes, it will give that minority a momentum disproportionate to its mass.

Only lunatics were calling Bill Clinton a terrorist or radical leftist, but the fear and resentment of that era sprung up in a federal building in Oklahoma City. Now, our mainstream candidates are only steps away from calling the opposition a terrorist. (That's mainstream, folks... Volks.)

If McCain and Palin were not the Republican ticket, they could probably still fill beer halls by offering the rhetoric that they have resorted to. It wouldn't be hard to find plenty of people "mad as hell" or a bunch of frustrated white guys who are desperate for someone to affirm their belief that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist. We would probably be able to see it for what it is though- crazy.

But maybe that crazy will strike fear into enough people that they don't want to risk an Obama presidency, not because of Obama, but because of the crazies who could not accept their secret Muslim, radical Christian, gangster elitist, terrorist president.

It is perhaps a much more brilliant ploy than it appears on the surface. Or maybe it's the only thing McCain has left since he's faced with the unsavory prospect of running as a Republican in a post Atwater-Rovian context.

Whatever the case, 30% could sometimes be enough. Historically, 40% has been*.

It may actually be a fear of white people that keeps Obama from the presidency. Ironic, no?

*This line is a cray historical allusion. You can disregard it.

Irony Can Be So Ironic
Wishlist- Pearl Jam
Come as You Are- Nirvana
86- Green Day
Soozy- The Briefs
America Is- Violent Femmes
Lover Man- Sarah Vaughan
The Function- Talib Kweli
3 Speed- Eels

Laugh Now Cry Later

skybalon- Hey look what finally came-
Qweenbean- What?
skybalon- My Obama buttons
Qweenbean- Ooohhhh, those are gonna be worth a lot of money when he's assassinated.


Too soon?

Jesus, In Your Heart You Know He's Right

We, like many other congregations, have a sign on our church property that offers passersby some clever church saying or other. Right now it says something like "Real Change Comes From Jesus". Although on one side of it there is a "typo". A couple of character tiles were left up so it says "Real Change Comes From Jesus N,?"

Really.

I think to demonstrate how well tapped into the zeitgeist Glendora Friends is, our next sign ought to say: "Jesus; The Real Maverick".

I'm avoiding grading papers.

Wait a Second!

I just realized something. If Barack Obama becomes president, then that means we've opened the door to all kinds of people being president.

Now I get what people are so worried about.

See, The System Works

For the first time, a federal judge has ordered the Bush administration to release prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, ordering 17 Chinese Muslims to be brought to his courtroom on Friday.

LA Times

Take that, hippies.

Six years later, four years after being cleared of any wrong-doing, these 17 prisoners have been ordered released. Of course they haven't been released yet, and if the DOJ has its way, they won't be, but that misses the point- the The System works.
They have been ordered freed. We can breathe a collective sigh of relief and go about our business, get things back to normal, as if nothing ever happened because they are free.

Well, Now I'm Convinced

Space Rock Found on Collision Course With Earth
ABC News

There you go.

Alien invasion, an asteroid hitting the earth, zombies, or some other apocalyptic scenario requires we have a black president.

True Dat

This is presently my favorite line in the world...

The Republican Party used to specialize in gimlet-eyed, steel-rim, crepe-soled common sense and then it was taken over by crooked preachers who demand Americans trust them because they're packing a Bible and God sent them on a mission to enact lower taxes, less government. Except when things crash, and then government has to pick up the pieces.

I hear it as a sermon.

ed.- I forgot this. It's Garrison Keillor.

And a Pony

So The Blonde Buddha feels pretty confident that Obama is going to be the next president. Polls are putting him in the 50% neighborhood right now but to my mind that's evidence of why he could very well not be. That anywhere around 40% of polled voters could have been paying any kind of attention, I mean any kind, even the most accidental glance at a local news teaser, and still support the intemperate, erratic, incoherent McCain (let alone McCain-Palin) speaks volumes. If it's not closer to 70-30 in the next week, I will remain unconvinced about Obama's prospects.

Call me cynical, or aware of the intense racial bigotry, fear, and political machinations that rule, I just don't think such a small margin indicates a victory for Obama. Oh sure, if all you white devils want to surprise me, I'll take it. But it will be a surprise.

That said, if Obama is the next president it will symbolize quite a victory and milestone for the US but that should in no way let anyone feel like they are off the hook. Especially don't feel that Obama is a liberal in any significant sense of the term, or that his election will be the dawn of the worker's paradise. He seems a good, willing to listen to smart people, judicious, and fair-minded guy but he's no leftist and the people that got him here (and maybe there) will have to push for at least five things in an Obama presidency. (Five possible things- not like "everyone gets jetpants!" or"nationalize the oil companies"). In no particular order:
With the bailout passing, the next administration will have its economic work cut out for it to address the mortgage issues this bill (and administration) doesn't.
Take advantage of the opening in a health care discussion to push hard to bypass insurance companies and stop employers from being responsible for providing coverage,
Withdraw from Iraq without a stopover in Afghanistan (this really should be number 1, but I said in no particular order, didn't I?)
Stop torture. Plain as that. (and kudos to McCain for being willing to utter the word at the debate).
Get a Federal energy plan with thresholds and goals at least as good as California's (at least)

That's not that tall an order. And it is an order.

The Difference Between A Pitbull and a Hackey Mom

Okay I'm a big lame so more debate stuff.

Watching the DNC, I was taken by Joe Biden's biography.* So again, last night, when Biden peeled back a layer of sexism and retold how his experience and concerns as someone who has lost loved ones and as a single parent are no less real because he has a penis, I was again struck by the story and moved by his connecting it to matters of policy.

Of course it could be boiler plate. Maybe it is a go-to line for him and people who know him better see right through it. It's not like I don't know people who make up for any lack of substance by pretending to tear up when speaking. But it seemed relevant and sincere last night and not at all like a canned line to mention his wife and child's deaths.

G'uh, I guess 'cos my wife and baby make me a baby- just thinking about his experience makes me all babified again. But maybe with time, if it turns out Joe Biden mentions his dead wife and kid as a catchall response- "Hey, Joe, how many houses do you have?" "However many it is, my dead wife doesn't get to share any of them with me"- something like that- it'll make me angry rather than empathize.

So, that said, I believed his hesitation and emotion in the answer was real, it seemed like one of those deep moments wherein personal experience/pathos is confronted with the broader world and makes one feel with and for other people. It's good that there are politicians who can do that. But it was an awful moment on the C-Span split screen, just awful. Ronald McDonald couldn't respond at all like a human. That's the "real" people are attracted to? Your wife died, but John McCain's a maverick.

At least she didn't say John McCain was a POW.

Okay, so maybe she was overcoached and couldn't get over the need to stay on message. Maybe her journalistic background took over- just look at the camera and smile. Maybe she didn't hear anything anyone said all night, she just knew to go to the cards. Those may be good excuses for seeming cold and uncaring. They don't bode well for arguing that she's a competent leader.

* Please note- That doesn't mean I think he is a Regular Joe. No one in the Senate is. (Except for Russ Feingold, PBUH.) It simply means I'm human- not "the boy who couldn't cry".

ed.- I couldn't find the split-screen version... but I guess I didn't look too hard for a C-Span take on the moment. Trust me, it's worse when you see her grinning through the whole thing and then jumping right into her Maverick notes.

When Students Do It It's Called Cheating

Did you know that Augustine's thoughts on sexuality were nuts? No? That's okay, a lot of people don't know what Augustine wrote about matters of sex. Even a lot of Christians, who assume certain things about the history of their tradition don't know what Augustine wrote about matters of sex. That's not a big deal, why should they know?

I mean I could think of good reasons to know what Augustine wrote- actual good theological reasons to be familiar with his writings. Even though he said stuff like an erection "rises up against the soul's decision in disorderly and ugly movements," and that men and women cannot have sex without lust (therefore sin) entering the picture, stuff that just doesn't make sense, his work as a testimony of the transformative power of God in a person's actual existence is amazing. The submission of his intellect to the Word (not word) of God is humbling and inspiring. His intense personal struggle to conform his life to what he understood as a divine measure is beyond... Well it's just beyond.

His disregard for women and sex is a problem but whatever, he was a 4th century Western man, give him a break.

You know what doesn't deserve a break? Our misappropriating his work. How dare we take what he said and use it as an ideological club? Who do we think we are? I mean pretending we can universally apply his historically localized and specific thoughts, that's absurd.

Ah- I'm just kidding, that's what his work is for. I mean what else would we do with it? And so it's perfect that we don't familiarize ourselves with what he actually wrote. It's easier to misapply what was never said in the first place.

It's easier to misapply what was never said in the first place... ?

I just blew my mind man.

Of course it doesn't really make sense to take some 4th century North African Latin dude's thoughts and pretend that they exist as a matter of fact or universal application. I mean that would be like finding the rules to Hungry Hungry Hippos and imagining you could use them to understand and play some other game you came across.

It doesn't make sense but let's do it anyway. And again, when we do it, let's not do it in a well-informed manner. Let's try to be mostly ignorant of what he, and others, let's include others too, let's be mostly ignorant of what they all said and wrote, but pretend it's all part of some cohesive whole, so that when we try to craft some statement about this or that, we can invoke their names, and since their real old, it'll carry their weight.

Maybe.

During my Recording process I suggested that our Faith & Practice's counsel on the issue of sexuality left a lot to be desired. It is generally unclear and buys into some categories and concepts that I think we ought not buy into if we are the people we like to say we are- namely the church.

I still think it is problematic, but at least, it was our statement. I mean, as unclear as it is, one can make the case that it came from our Yearly Meeting, so even if it is unclear and mistaken- it is our lack of clarity and mistake to own. I'm only being a little silly with that last bit. It really is a good thing to make your own mistakes.

But, now we might as well be a subsidiary of the Family Research Council or Exodus International. I mean, judging by the information that keeps finding its way to my inbox and the Gay Panic I've seen, I'd put money on the next F&P counsel on sexuality ('cos I'm sure we'll insist it be there) being a copy and paste job from some Focus on the Family pamphlets.

Is there a "World of At Leasts" part of this? No, or it's hard to see it right now if there is. I mean, I've recently had people try to toss Augustine in my face as a demonstration of the church's consistent teaching on the Dos and Do Not Dos of sex, and I've been told Exodus International is a ministerial resource we ought to use... like it's all one big pile of proof or authority.

I guess I'd just like us to be faithful enough to make our own mistakes.

Or Sometimes Pretending To Be Prepared
Myxomatosis- Radiohead
Gigantic- Pixies
Army of Me- Bjork
All I Ever Wanted- POE Soundtrack
La Danza De Los Viejitos- Mariachi Folklorico
Pure Denizen of the Citizens Band- Frank Black
La Costilla Michoacana- Mariachi Nuevo de Mexico
Won't Get Fooled Again- The Who
Mean Mr. Mustard- The Beatles
This Is The New Shit- Marilyn Manson