No Quarter

I learned at lunch yesterday that yet another young mother killed her baby soon after birth. Yes, that's what we're talking about at lunch after church. Great isn't it?

The Qweenbean said I need to pick lighter conversation fare. First of all, no. Secondofly I didn't pick the fare, the fare was thrust upon me.

In any case, the conversation turned to whether the young killer should be tried as an adult. The conversation went that way, because we've been asked to take it that way and I am, often enough, an obedient little cog.

If you don't care to know these things stop reading. If you need to be told that... I don't know what to say about that.

So back in April, a little girl in Texas gave birth to a baby at school, crammed its mouth with paper and drowned it in the toilet before being discovered. Like I said, that was back in April. I hadn't heard about it. I also would likely not have heard about the discussion to try her as an adult had it not come up yesterday. But now it has and of course, being the loudmouth I am, I have to write something about it and expose you to it in the process.

I'm not sure if the attempt to declare her an adult is officially intended to send a strong message to other eighth graders thinking about drowning their infants or more as an optimistic (Texas, remember) attempt to bypass the prohibition on executing minors. I tend to think it's for another purpose all together.

I suppose when we treat, or here try a child like an adult it's because we want to indicate the gravity of the situation and demonstrate that we expect someone will be held to account and by that we often mean treated in kind. This is a pretty horrible thing and the reptile in me wants some type of revenge. Not correction or justice. Revenge. And if revenge has to be targeted, what's easier to target than the girl responsible for it all? And what better way to demonstrate we say she is responsible than to declare her legally able to bear the responsibility for this act and punish her accordingly? I suppose I'm assuming others would think like me.

But maybe it's not about revenge at all.

Imagine how many adults- the people that are supposed to know better, the people that are supposed to be responsible- had to drop the ball for this to have happened. Imagine what it would take for an eighth grade girl to deliver a baby at school. Imagine what things must be like for her to have gotten pregnant at 13. Imagine what conditions must exist for a 13 year old to be having sex. Of course she made her own choices- it feels like I have to write that- but the range of possible choices were laid before her by others. The world that was possible for her was crafted by adults. So in a way, considering her actions it is fitting that adults would now be debating if she has done enough to warrant entry into their world.

As Ann as the Nose on Plain's Face

A dummy once told me that there are three ways we can be- we as America. First, we could lose this war of civilizations to Islam. Second we could be overly influenced by decadent atheistic Europe. Or third, we could be strong Christian America. It was kind of boiler plate for him to say those things.

He once wrote an article that was very popular saying much the same thing. And now magically, that article is not available on the internets, well not on his archived articles internets.

Okay.

Watching the opening ceremony to the Euro final told me three things:
1. The godless don't appreciate flash. I mean, helium balloons and orchestral anthems when you can use fighter jets and R&B caterwauling.? It's probably because they have no God so are easily impressed whereas knowing such a big impressive God, we require much more to be amazed.
2. They're not doing decadence correctly. Their dancing girls are fully dressed for God's sake. Even their "cheerleaders" have their bellies covered.
3. They're better than us. It's a good thing God is on our side.

It's a Fact: The Majority of Americans Love a War When One is Proposed

Save Your Breath for The Hippies

So I'm watching John McCain speak to a NALEO gathering this morning (that's right- I'm a nerd) and just as he's about to say even undocumented Latin@s are his brothers and sisters, some yahoo holding a sign that reads "McCain=Guerra" gets up and yells, "Your silence is consent to war crimes!" en inglés y español.

Really? Consent? C'mon, that's a bit outrageous isn't it? Consent requires some sort of active assent or approval. Maybe my silence says "I just don't care." Isn't that possible? Maybe my silence is apathy to war crimes.

If someone's going to interrupt a televised event, a live televised event, I should add, shouldn't they make sure their accusations are accurate? And if I don't care, then why bother saying anything to me? I don't care, so your saying anything just makes you look foolish. It would be like you exerting energy to tell me TBS is running a 12 hour marathon of the Bill Engvall Show this weekend? It means nothing to me.

Or maybe my silence is contentment. Maybe the issue of whether we as a nation have committed war crimes would require some type of research and discernment on my part, and probably some discomfort too. None of that sounds like something I'd like to bear, especially if I'm presently happy and comfortable. So my silence is really just an expression of inertia. So you're attempt to accuse me of something really just demonstrates that you're a jerk. My goodness, why would you want to make someone unhappy?

It's very presumptuous to assume you know why I am silent in the face of war crimes.

Then Who Can Be Saved?

So The Qweenbean and I somehow ended up on new mailing lists and are now receiving junk mail from groups that clearly have no idea who we are.

One of these bits of propaganda is full of housewares that we could not afford financially or morally. Take a look at this:
It's the Kohler Purist Hatbox Commode. It's $3,000 (I'm including tax, though I figure if you can afford this, you can also afford a way to avoid paying the tax). You put poop in it. Phew, I almost used a bad word there.*

I saw it in the EXPO catalogue that came in the mail yesterday. The rest of the catalogue is full of all kinds of things that I find offensive, but it barely scratches the surface of the kind of world that exists in which this is a good thing.

When I used to remodel rich people's houses I learned there was not only a huge chasm between me and rich people, but also a difference between having a lot of money and being wealthy. Rich people have a lot of money. Sure. A rich person may buy this toilet. Rich people buy lots of things you or I, as not rich people, can look at and see as marks of their richness. But wealthy people are more. In one sense, wealthy people live in a world where it's unnecessary to display the marks of their riches because there's no need to differentiate from those without. It is not about contrast because they/we create the standard for what is. Does that make sense? I mean wealthy people have more than money. They have the power that wealth is; the power to create a world in which we say it is fine to buy this toilet if one can afford it. If one has earned the money to pay for it, it is their right to use the money as they see fit. There is no burden on them to justify this type of life because that is life. It is the kind of life that says it is possible to earn this type of money. It is possible to deserve this and it would be wrong for anyone to try to stop you.

I don't think poor people are more wholesome than rich or wealthy people. If we think there is somehow a greater level of decency or kindness among THE POOR, perhaps we ought to re-examine ourselves and be sure we are not romanticizing evil- especially if that romanticization allows us to be comfortable with the way things are. Poor people are just rich people without money. And if we say God shows a preference for the poor (clearly God must- since there's so many) I don't think we say it is because the insecurity of being poor is better than the stability of having access to resources- starving is better than being fed or dying from preventable diseases is better than receiving healthcare, secure and reliable shelter is worse than living on the street. When we read of prophets in the Old Testament offering woes to those who are comfortable, when we read of Jesus saying we cannot serve wealth and God, do we see that as having to do with owning stuff? Do we see material goods as the problem? Are we saying we affirm the idea we exist as bodies but abhor that these bodies should be cared for? Or do we see that the challenge is against those who are comfortable because the source of their comfort is not in the things but in their ability to pervert justice, the ability to call evil good. I don't mean the error any of us may make when we act selfishly, thoughtlessly, or autonomously and say we had good intentions. I mean the ability to destroy life by writ. The ability to justify ourselves by saying discover rather than conquer, liberate rather than invade, employ rather than steal, evil is good, bitter is sweet. That's wealth.

Last night, Classic Grandpa reminded us that there are those who may steal with a gun and those who steal with a pen. That's exactly what a Classic Grandpa would say. Hippy folky. We should also see that there are those who steal and destroy and what they do we call neither stealing nor destroying.

* Tony Campolo used to do this magic trick in which he would be speaking about acts of evil in the world and then use a bit of what we call "vulgarity" and then comment on how people were probably more upset about the bit of vulgarity than they were about the acts of evil. That's funny magic.

Softly in the Background
Pet Sounds- The Beach Boys

Now, Mostly Dead is Slightly Alive, All Dead... Well, With All Dead, There's Usually Only One Thing That You Can Do

Two things happened that have me writing this post.

First, Val Thomas died and came back to life.

Second I received a veiled death threat in which a commenter suggested death is very objective.

I guess as the headline suggests (if you check the link), we're saying she woke up from whatever she was doing. Dead people don't wake up. Sleeping people wake up. So she was not dead. Still, she met the criteria for being dead, and as the article says, rigor mortis, had begun to set in when she woke up from whatever it was she was doing... or not doing for 17 hours.

The history of how we declare someone is dead, and who gets to do the declaring, reveals that it is not so clear-cut as we might think it is. It was only towards the very end of the last millennium that criteria for declaring someone dead were developed to compensate for the fact that we can restart someone's heart to get their blood circulating again or can keep them breathing even when their brain has quit.

Crazy, huh?*

If you've ever been in the presence of a dying something- not plants or bugs- I mean those hierarchically/pedagogically more familiar things like pets and people- then you know something happens when one goes from what we call living to dead. But it's a strange something. EEGs are just finer measures than needles in the eye, mirrors under the nostrils, hot irons on feet- variations on checking to see if one is still doing the things that living things do. From the information in the article, Val Thomas was clinically dead, and apparently brain dead, so as far as we know- dead.

But dead people are dead. Dead people don't wake up. Maybe something is missing from our criteria for how we declare one dead. Or maybe there was a screw up; something was misread, overlooked, or forgotten. She was given her Stygian fare too soon, and now doctors are out that and the looming malpractice settlement. Or maybe she's a zombie.

As a tangent, one of the things Haters say to debunk Jesus is the fact that people don't come back from the dead. Ironically it's also one of the points apologists raise to say, "See, Jesus must be someone great, because he did come back from the dead and lots of people believe he did to the point they are willing to die for that belief, so there." Just so we don't do anything dumb with this- miracles, by virtue of being miraculous are not like anything else that can be explained. We probably don't want to say this is anything like what we say Jesus did. Not if what we say Jesus did is meant to be miraculous anyway. Also, even if every other person on the planet believes something that is a matter of faith, even to the point that they would die for it, your own personal commitment to that belief is still no more a matter of certainty.

Anyway, for its universality, death is strange. This isn't to say death doesn't happen or that one cannot observe death. There is a lack of knowledge about death that can be overcome by further investigation into or observation of it. Finer measures and more criteria may let us state more clearly, "Val Thomas is dead." That may not make it any clearer or easier to know whether to plug people into machines or to cut out their organs to give to someone else, but we can make observations about chemical reactions causing electrical impulses in the brain, cardiovascular function, catabolic and anabolic actions and what all else I don't know. Those are the kinds of things about which we can say something. Just like, the book is on the shelf. (Guess what, I'm sitting in a room full of books.) That's the kind of thing that can be said. And if we come some day to find that there is something we were overlooking, one more thing of difference between living and dead, we can add it- if it belongs in the category. If that's what we're saying death is.

Whatever.

As for being very objective... like my problem with saying something is inherently evil, I don't know that something can be more or less objective, more or less certain if it is an experienced kind of thing. I will die, but, apart from the observations we might make about one we say is dead, it seems like the kind of thing I will know very subjectively when I am able to say, "Oh, so this is death"... But then, if I am really dead, I won't be able to say anything about it at all.

So does that mean then that no one ever experiences death? I guess so, if we say it is the end of life. Of course people die, so what I mean is death is not the kind of thing that is experienced, maybe it's the end of experience. I don't know.

* "Huh," again, pronounced here as that sound one makes when they mean "Am I right?" or "Isn't it?".

Go Through His Clothes and Look for Loose Change
Mr. Tambourine Man- Bob Dylan
The Harder they Come- Jimmy Cliff
Catching on Fire- They Might Be Giants
I Wish- Stevie Wonder
Dunque lo Son...- Rossini
Collapse- Soul Coughing
On Green Dalphin Street- Tito Puente

Thanks For Nothing, Al Gore

It may be result of believing a false memory, but I think I remember a time when pollution and polluting were bad things and being conservative meant one was interested in conserving things.

I remember Woodsy Owl commercials suggesting that if I, in fact, give a hoot, I would not pollute. If I cared, polluting was something I would not do. The implication seems that there isn't a cost benefit analysis involved, that it is not my libertarian right to dump garbage on "my" land, that polluting itself- was bad. I have the cloudiest memory of Iron Eyes Cody crying at a pile of garbage. It's not good to make people cry, piles of garbage made him cry- don't make piles of garbage. I even remember a character named ConservaCat coming to my school to teach me how I could be a conscientious energy consumer. Actually, I think I was taught how to be an annoying kid- reminding my parents to turn off lights, unplugging appliances, saving water by refusing to take a bath.

But that stuff was for kids and we all know now that what we say is good for kids is really a bunch of bologna that you have to put up with until you're an adult that gets to do whatever you want. Well, it was for kids and naive adults. This was about the same time that future next president of the US, Al Gore, held the first congressional hearings on greenhouse gas emissions and Honda came out with the CVCC engine- stupid Nobel prize winner and flash-in-the-pan Honda Motor Company. They won't be around long.

Did that stuff disappear? I know Al Gore refuses to do us all a favor and disappear, and Honda hates America so much it keeps making high quality vehicles, but that other stuff- do we still do that?

These days I don't think we can even talk about pollution because we've managed to find a way to create a controversy about the parameters or frames of reference for what pollution may be... Does that seems too conspiratorial? Are our failures on the subject really more a matter of the difficulty of finding shared values and commitments on the matter and not necessarily a consequence of decisions made by oligarchs in smoked filled rooms or whatever other fora fit the metaphorical bill? Well I guess that's really begging the question; clearly I assume we've missed some major opportunities to intentionally apply technology and resources in such a way that would have created a dramatically different present... Like anyone could even know that.

This set up is a bit misleading. I suppose I could go into how those options that were available to us some 30 years ago, if pursued, if not quelled, if leaders lead in different ways could have... Who knows? Well maybe at the very least the Ford and GM SUV plants that are being closed may have been producing something else these days- something else that needed to be produced- something else that the workers presently facing lay-offs could still be producing. There is something to realizing that the commitments and choices of today feed the "could have beens" of our future. As a post, it could go that way, and maybe it is in part about that, though I haven't clearly said what "that" is. "That" is intention and more specifically my wonder at how we could intend to participate in creating a world that I would imagine is so clearly contrary to what many would say are our interests.

I don't happen to think there is an "end" to humanity that can be universally known. Let's be specific. That is, I don't think you can translate virtue from one culture to another nor that there is the possibility of "inherent" anything in an act that makes it a matter of good or bad as itself. So to be absurd (because that's seems to be necessary when we talk about moral concerns), I would say there in nothing inherently evil about pushing an old lady in front of an oncoming bus. First of all, why would you say an act in inherently anything? Does that add anything to it for you? Isn't it rather that the act is either evil or it isn't? But why am I asking, it's me on the spot here, right? So I say there is nothing inherently evil about pushing an old lady in front of an oncoming bus. Does this mean I am going to push an old lady in front of a bus? Does it? C'mon- be serious. It means there are no acts in themselves that can be inherently anything. What would that even be? But this is a bit of a tangent- a frustratingly important tangent (frustrating because it seems that it needs to be something), my interest is in saying I don't think we can universally say "This is what you do to be a good person". I say that because virtue is not translatable across a culture's boundaries and there is not the understanding of an act that is separable from a culture. So sure, I say pushing an old lady in front of a bus is probably evil. But probably more importantly I am not going to push an old lady in front of an oncoming bus. Unless...

Anyway, I do say that morality is a matter of virtue and that we ought to be concerned with what type of people we are becoming- I am concerned with a telos of sorts. That is, we are for something. I just say you can't know that apart from a people among whom that end is known and pursued. That end is absolutely a matter of faith- It is a matter of absolute commitment to that end and that does not express itself in commitment to a prescribed list of inherently good acts or the avoidance of inherently bad acts. So say you are of a people that say "we want to be a people who love justice, seek mercy, and walk humbly with God" what do you do to be that people? What is it you do that demonstrates any of that and how is it that those things do that- in your condition?

So I am baffled. I am baffled because I think these last two paragraphs I share as a matter of background must be true yet I see how easily we separate what we do from what that makes us... even though I realize in what I wrote above that simply means we are a people largely concerned with confronting only petty and narrow complaints. And like other things that we learn, these must be fabricated as well, so we fabricate a world and people wherein our specific little gripes and grumbles reign. Of course we are most concerned with our lives- I don't mean just that, and I don't only mean to suggest that the good old value of "pursuing our self-interest magically leads to what's best for everyone else" is garbage- it is garbage, but I mean our sense of what is good or important to our existence is so petty and small-minded.

We are acting today in a way that creates what is possible in the future- that's plain; not only is there a disconnect between what we will and won't care about and the growing consequences of those cares, there are also the actual results of those actions. So, as an example, we are a people for whom enhanced interrogation, extreme rendition, and Operation Iraqi Freedom can mean something. That demonstrates who we are. Even if there is a sense of unease with those things, we would largely not know what to do make them right. In that sense, we have created a world in which they are present but wherein we also lack the knowledge or craft to address them (if we find them a problem to address). Similarly, whether we think President Jesus has done anything that requires the attention and accountability impeachment would bring says something about who we are, and how we proceed now, in that specific example, will open some possibilities and collapse others.

Perhaps those examples are too global- perhaps we are a people who don't think caring about those things requires anymore than sucking our teeth, or that even caring about those things is a distraction from what we really ought to care about. In that case does it make sense to try to have something that doesn't make sense make sense?

That's a tough one.

Victory Is In Your Hands

I don't know if your marriage has yet fallen apart because gay people are getting married. If it has thus far survived the contemporary assault on THE FAMILY, beware. There is another force acting against the family in a sort of Pincer movement that will certainly destroy it without stalwart defense. Last week the House passed the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act to increase parental leave (it includes fathers- good lord, they hate families).

Thankfully, President Jesus, in order to defend families, has said he will veto it. What are you doing?

Of course, in the intro, I've assumed you are married. If you're not, all I can say to that is, "Why do you hate THE FAMILY so much?"

If You Don't Eat, You'll Die

So someone was saying to me "What we really need is a theology of the body blah blah blah..." but it seemed what they meant was "I would like to be able to take some Bible verses and apply it in a way that determines what we say we can do with bodies."

That happens a lot. You can replace the word body with just about any other word and do the same thing. Theology of life. Theology of death. Theology of work. Theology of food. As I type this out it seems like the internets naked lady/porn meme. You can search anything with naked lady and porn and find hits- I'd bet you could do the same thing with "theology". And fittingly enough, it is its own kind of porn. Self-serving, indulgent, fruitless in terms of theology. (I wasn't able to find anything good with "theology of theology"). Anyway I don't think it does what one probably hopes to do when they say they are creating a theology of [insert word here]. I also don't think that happens to be theology.

Second things first. My guess is that what one wants to do when they are creating a theology of x is to make something called theology relevant to that x. In this type of set up, theology is a set of metaphysical premises addressing a range of concerns. The purpose seems to be to make those metaphysical premises address the subject or make it seem the subject is integrated into or with those metaphysics. So the project is to make whatever x might be, "the body" in the example, fit into the metaphysical framework- especially in a way that then lets one know what ought to be done. I'm not saying we ought not engage in that project. It is what we do, it's how we get our sense of do and do not do, who's sane who's mad, who's right who's wrong, who we can eat who we can't (why I should've written "'what' we can't"), who's family who's enemy. We do that. My metaphysical commitments and concerns have me say we should do that. That's a fine project. I'm saying that project is not theology. That's the second thing first: that's not theology.

Well... maybe it's a kind of theology. Maybe an anthropocentric theology, which I would still say isn't theology. I think that sense of theology works like the word "god". It's the end of the line in what we say tells us what to do. So for some, what is meant by theology is "The last word on what we do or do not do", so because we say, "God ultimately tells us what to do", a study of what to do about something or other could be called a theology of that something or other. Of course not everyone says that it is "God" telling them what to do- but at the end of the line of justification and legitimacy you have something that functions as the final authority whatever it might be: a Dungeon Master's Guide, a motto, a volcano, a belly, gilt pages, funny hats, a goat statue, a gun... Anyway the "final" authority on something seems like the kind of thing the word god can be thrown at. That is oftentimes what we mean, or how we use the word god. God says this, God says that are other ways of saying "Do this, not that". And you must admit it's easier than:
-What are you doing?
-I'm loading the car so we can go.
-Why?
-Because we're going to grandma's.
-Why?
-What do you mean "why"? Because it's Thanksgiving and we go to grandma's for Thanksgiving.
-Why?
-Because
-Because why?
-Because I said so- Throw your pillow in and get in the car.

Whatever.

I know, I know, that leaves things hanging in mid-air. Well some things anyway. I'm not one of those who may say there is no such thing as an objective observation or proposition. But I don't think that goes to "there is 'science' and the possibility of objectivity about some things so it seems there must be the possibility of some objectivity about all things, so if I can say with objective certainty something banal like 'My shoe is on my foot' I should be able to say with objective certainty something like 'It's wrong to eat puppies' and what's more if God is anything it ought to be the kind of thing about which there is the most absolute certainty and most absolute certainty seems like it should be objectivity so if I can say I know what God says I can say it even more certainly even though there shouldn't be degrees of certainty otherwise we're not really talking about certainty. Right?"

No.

I mean science as a method is about observations, falsifiable propositions and testable theses, addressing things that are of no concern. But those things that are a matter of concern are those things that tend to be left hanging in mid air, as it were. Should you marry so and so? Should we kill children who disobey their parents? Should I consume peyote? Handle snakes? Bomb Iran? Less glibly- say you know some kid who wants- right now, in our present circumstances- to join the military because he or she is sick of living at home and wants to earn some money for college. How, and especially wether, you counsel that kid is not a matter of objectivity. Neither are the reasons that could make sense to them.

I know, as THE CHURCH especially, we're inclined to think that what we believe and do is just the way it is, as in it corresponds to an established order and someday everyone will see things exactly the same way- sometimes, conveniently enough the way we see things now. And so theology is often seen as a matter of seeing that "The Way It Is" in a moral sense. That said, I am not picking on churches here, though I am picking on that sense of THE CHURCH that imagines it can find some sense of pure or pasteurized sense of "ought" that is the way everyone over all time should be. This can be leveled at even the non-churchy; an attempt to reduce "oughts" to a matter of genetic determinism seems the same. Moral knowledge is created and known in culture and culture is a fluid thing.

Which is why I suggested previously metaphysics is/are crazy, and I think crazy is the right word to use to make the point. But that shouldn't be a problem to a church people, should it? Who better than a people called the church should be okay remaining unsettled, waiting in mid-air? Why shouldn't a people who claim to act in faith not proceed in faith? I suppose because we still remain people.

M'eh.

Anyway, I tend to think theology is about clarifying the ongoing redemptive nature of God. I have nothing to say to that that would make sense apart from a community that is living in light of that knowledge and experience. That is, the only thing that can justify that claim is the community that lives it. There is no proposition or proof set that can stand alone and in itself prove to anyone that this concept beats their concepts. I would say a responsible theology is one that is concerned with better and more clearly living this claim.

I like a description of theology that a clever student coined a semester or two ago. She said theology ought to be like crafting recipes. I liked that. I like it.

Now we could have a "theology of the body" that corresponds to this sense of theology. We could say, this is our experience of bodies that demonstrates we are a people who believe God is set on saving us from us. So, first things second now. When we say we have a theology of x in an attempt to make our claims relevant to x- it seems what we are actually doing is speaking about that x in such a way that it does not correspond to how we live with that x. We are forced to make it stand alone so that it no longer bears any resemblance to how any person would experience that x in their life. So the attempt to make it relevant makes it matter less to any existing person. So rather than redeeming, the "theology" dominates. Rather than reflecting the redemptive nature of God, it becomes a means of demonstrating the dominance of the particular concept. We make a thing out of a concept that ought not really be a thing.

It almost seems that the project of theology ought to be discarded for the sake of demonstrating a theology that reflects a redeeming God. Almost. I suppose it depends on how we say it.

So now you're maybe asking "Well then, how do we talk about something like the body in relation to what we say God is?" To which I say, "Exactly, how do we?"

Good Grief

The day of my and The Qweenbean's wedding, a lot of people asked if I was nervous. Even leading up to the wedding, people kept asking if I was having second thoughts. I wasn't. I didn't. I could say without exaggeration that it was the happiest day of my life. Up to this point anyway- I'm still holding out for a beer truck to crash in front of our house. I was nervous when asking if she would marry me. I'll spare you the details, but The Qweenbean and I weren't even speaking to each other the night I showed up at her house and asked if she wanted to be married to me. Crazy, right? I mean, why should I have been nervous- who wouldn't want to marry me- deal with my nonsense, pursue some nebulous life of ministry, poverty, my skinny legs? Big deal that she and I weren't speaking. I could probably walk up to any number of women I presently do not speak with and ask them to marry me. I'd bet I'd get at least one "yes".

Still, I was nervous about asking but not nervous once that hurdle was overcome.

Long time readers of my globowebjournal are misspending their few days on earth but my also remember that The Qweenbean will be having a baby... in exactly a month according to the professionals. I am not nervous about that. There is some anxiety about our present "jobs" situation, I have a greater sense of urgency about finishing school and more intention about making our life of service more structured- perhaps even traditional, concerned about making time to complete the things that must be completed to make room for a baby, afraid I might forget important details from our baby-having class. But I'm not really nervous about any of that.

I am, however, completely, irrationally, horribly gripped by a paralyzing sense of terror.

When I was a kid I was terrified of sheer drops. I wasn't afraid of heights. I was afraid of precipices: cliffs, roof ledges, the front row of a stadium tier above the first, the extreme back row of a stadium level facing out- any extreme drop.

As I stand here (I am in fact standing at this moment) I do not feel as if I will fall one way or another. I am not worried that a gust of wind will blow me off balance or that some involuntary reflex will make me leap forward. I cannot recall ever in my life being possessed by the desire to simply hurl myself to the ground. But if I were standing at the edge of a 100 ft. drop, I would, when I was a kid, have had those fears. In the world of possibility, I suppose that anything can happen while standing at a ledge, so even now, as I am supposed to know better, I still tremble at ledges. It's not heights. I do all kinds of things that require I be high above the ground. It is drops.When I am at one level of stability, overlooking an extreme change to another- I am terrified.

This is perhaps like that terror. I am overwhelmed by the quantum change that is coming. I have these images of doing incredibly stupid and irrational things. Not like getting her Bratz Dolls, I mean really inexplicable and horrible things like not feeding her, forgetting her someplace, dropping her down the stairs. I worry about doing things that make no sense because I have no knowledge of what the world that is coming will be like. I have no choice but to proceed, but I have no way of knowing how to proceed because that world is completely foreign to me. I should be clearer. I move on, but the coming world is not a matter of choice. It doesn't matter that countless other human beings have done this- I haven't.

The way I know to be now is fine for this world in which the baby is safely (safely enough) out of sight. The way I know to be now may have nothing to do with how I will need to be once she is breathing my air... Our air.

I've never had to breathe our air. I wonder how it will compare to breathing my air.

I'm going to vomit.

Just Keep Swimming
Positively 4th Street- Bob Dylan
Without God I Could Do Nothing- Mahalia Jackson
We're Not Gonna Take It- The Who
Since I've Been Loving You- Led Zeppelin
New Feeling- Talking Heads

If It Wasn't So Long It Would Be Its Own Title

"For whom, it suddenly occurred to him to wonder, was he writing this diary? For the future, for the unborn. His mind hovered for a moment round the doubtful date on the page, and then fetched up with a bump against the Newspeak word doublethink. For the first time the magnitude of what he had undertaken came home to him. How could you communicate with the future? It was of its nature impossible. Either the future would resemble the present, in which case it would not listen to him: or it would be different from it, and his predicament would be meaningless."

Make Friends for Yourselves...

- I think you were a bit unclear. What you meant to say was other people's religious propositions are crazy whereas ours are true. Other people are in cults or false religions while we believe and do simply what actually is.

- Okay I guess understand what you're getting at, but why do you have to say "crazy". You know, when you say crazy, you insult us as well and make it sound like what we say isn't tenable or rational.

-I think you're missing the point that we are the heirs to a great divine synthesis of faith. I can see that there may have been some mistakes or outrageous claims in the past- even some horrible evils committed in the name of God- but what you're missing is that through God's divine working, the position we now maintain is the correct one. There may have been some bumps along the way, but now everything's fine.

Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're The Same Face! Doesn't Anybody Notice This?

I only just realized on a car ride north this past Saturday how a statement, a statement I was going to address to make the point that as a Christian I find Christian metaphysics an odd sell, may be true. I was going to point and say, "See how silly," but now I don't know. Of course I am ahead of myself and, you dear reader, I've left at the station.

Let's start at the beginning, and when I come to the end, I'll stop.

So I have the good fortune of sorting through gifted books to see which should be saved and which should be sold or gifted farther down the library food chain. Oh, right- I'm library faculty now. So, I'm sorting through books and as I do so, I encounter an insurmountable problem: we exist as we do. Since we exist in time and space and books are actually made of matter, I find it difficult to make the cuts that must be made. I suppose in a perfect world, in which we and other things did not have mass and take up space, I could save all the books there were, but two roads diverged in a yellowed wood and all that, so we save what we can and pass along the others.

Just to be clear, I know the things that we say should be saved. John Calvin could've smeared feces on vellum, called it theology and we'd save it. But there are other more difficult or less obvious calls to make. I suppose that's where I come in with my particular "expertise". Perhaps it's more fair to say my particular familiarity. In any case, that's not a tough call either. But then there are the texts that seem like an obvious throw away, but to me should be saved. Texts like Jesus Taught Me to Cast Out Devils by Norvel Hayes or 101 Questions and Answers on Demon Powers by Lester Sumrall, the latter containing this gem:

"It could be possible that the headquarters of the devil is on the moon. There is no scripture to substantiate this theory, but we do know that the moon has a tremendous effect upon our earth. If someone goes crazy, he is called a lunatic, meaning 'moon struck'. Medical science has stated that patients in mental hospitals become very unstable during certain phases of the moon; they may be normal for 28 days, then suddenly become stark raving mad. This is an area for further study."

Clearly, in a finite space (the library space) some things can be saved and some things must be passed over. And this will be passed over. I could probably make the case that our library has a particular interest in the Devil's on the Moon text because Lester Sumrall was loosely connected with Theodore Engstrom who was one of our university board chairs and part of the whole mid-century Holiness stew that dotted the cultural landscape with radio hours, tracts, bible colleges, publishing houses, and political movements. There is, in fact, a straight and direct "spiritual path" from Lester Sumrall to John McCain. I say that to neither impugn nor lift up John McCain, only to point out that this is not some crazy, out of left field, claim. It may be crazy, but it is mainstream crazy. It is as mainstream crazy as Billy Graham positing that heaven is a physical place located in/at the North Star.*

These books must be saved, but they won't be. Of course there's a kitschy value, there is a loose denominational interest, it's a collection of someone's thoughts and ambitions manifested in the prioritization and arrangement of physical resources into a book- for these reasons I think they are, like any book, worth saving. They are artifacts.

But I also think it ought to be saved for the sake of our being saved. These books, like so many tracts, pamphlets, sermons, regionally published studies, Sunday School lessons, passion play programs, crusade literature etc.. will be lost. And it is in those materials where crazy hides. When we dispose of these artifacts we develop the ability to suppress the story they tell. We can escape the actual presence of these books that influences day to day Christianity. We are able to deny they have ever had a role in shaping our religious commitments or, more importantly, our condemnations. We can say we've never been crazy, we've always been on the side of good, we're nothing if not right and by right we mean whatever is winning right now. So when I say they ought to be saved for the sake of our being saved, I mean that they should remain as a reminder of our folly and arrogance and a reminder that the saving work of God is not done for the sake of getting our stories straight. Unless of course Christian salvation is a matter of assent to a properly constructed and expressed proposition, in which case I will take this all back.

I'll make it plain. It is the purview of religious people to spout crazy. It's what we do. She's a witch, burn her. "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten..." so women can't be priests. I'm not saying crazy because it may turn out to be a mistaken claim (which, technically it isn't because it's not the kind of thing about which you can be mistaken). It's crazy because it's rooted in... well nothing. Nothing more than personal commitments anyway. Which is something- in fact it's something much more than nothing. Those personal commitments are what make your life worth living. If your life is worth living. But because the claims are crazy, very little can be claimed, though the claim always remains as the basis for how we live. And when I write "we" I mean "we" not just "one". As in, it is the basis for how we live, not for how one lives. And that's why I wrote an odd "sell" up above. It's a strange bit as it is, but even stranger to try to convince someone else outside of your "we" to go for it. But that's what we do and the whole of Western Christian history, let alone all human history, shows that we'll say and do just about anything.

That's the thing with metaphysics- you can say whatever you want, and who's going to tell you you're crazy? I mean other than me, who is going to tell you you're crazy? Well, also, I mean other than another group's armed adherents who come and throw you out of a second story window because they reject your metaphysical claims- who's going to tell you you're crazy? Or, I mean other than the authorities that will burn you at the stake for articulating the wrong things- who's going to say anything?

But maybe not.

Like I said. This car ride saturday may have me change my tune. When I shared with others the line that the devil's headquarters is on the moon, I quickly remembered that Gil Scott-Heron said Whitey is on the moon and suddenly the possibility of a clear singular vision came to mind. I don't have it yet, but I may only be able to be so dismissive of metaphysics for a little longer.

I Always Thought it Was the Smith's That Took Me Back
Nothing's Shocking- Jane's Addiction

* See Edward Fiske in the June 8, 1969, New York Times if'n you're all up in my face about not including references. He said it. Rationalize it and move on.

You Say "Mommy" Like It's a Bad Thing

Longtime readers of my blog likely suffer eyestrain and numbness and tingling of the fingers due to poor workstation set up but may also remember that the Qweenbean was what they call RIF'd. That means she was laid-off by her school district because California state funding is besieged by the tyranny of tax-dodging whiners who want to destroy the state's public infrastructure and curse our future to ruin. Plus, they got theirs so screw everyone else, right? It's an ownership society.

Anyway, she's... we've been a little stressed out because the bacon I bring home is made up of those chewy fat pieces that don't seem to cook or chew easily and you can hardly raise a kid on that. Plus, she really enjoyed her job, and she was good at it. That is a whole other source and type of stress. Something she enjoyed, something that was good, something that was fulfilling was taken from her. Drag.

I've spent enough time in a classroom to know who is and isn't a good teacher. The Qweenbean is a good teacher. I was recently speaking with an acquaintance who told me how difficult it was to be a teacher because "kids these days"* are so disrespectful and don't want to learn. He had seen classrooms- or at least one classroom- wherein kids were jumping around, yelling at the teacher, not listening, and generally doing the sorts of things that might discourage one from being a teacher because it plants the idea that kids these days are disrespectful and don't want to learn. He was telling that story to prove how horrible public schools are and thank God for the gift of private and home-schooling, but that may only be slightly here or there. In any case I've seen classrooms like that too. I've known kids who are instigators in classrooms like that. I was a kid who was an instigator in classrooms like that. I realize that there are worse and better environments but what a kid will try to get away with is largely dependent on the kind of environment the teacher creates, whether the classroom is public, private or "home". Whether a kid will act disrespectfully or act as if they want to learn largely depends on what a teacher will let a kid do.

The key is not whether students are allowed to pray in class, or whether their pledge to a piece of cloth includes the phrase "under God", or whether science as a discipline concerned with the natural world makes reference to a super-natural world. The key is teachers who care about student's learning and see teaching as a profession or vocation rather than a job. The Qweenbean is one of those teachers. She is a person who sees the art of teaching as transforming kid into students. Anyone... most anything could transfer data from one location to another, from one brain to another; that is not teaching. Imparting the range of data in a field (a range of data that changes over time) creates little more than well-trained animals. Good teaching, whatever the subject, involves discipline. I don't mean beating children, at least not in this instance. I mean the training involved in developing in someone the skills necessary to learn. I mean the art of turning someone into a student, a learner. Of course her subject area does involve the transfer of data, and these days, the data she transfers are seen as worth less.

I know that to many, the value of Home Economics, or Family and Consumer Science as it is called in districts with some sense of self-preservation, is less than that of Algebra or Physics, or, closer to the truth, curricula specifically designed to prepare students to vomit answers onto a standardized test, but there is no convincing argument for eliminating those programs unless one is committed to the destruction of any sense of a future common weal.

So that's what was taken from The Qweenbean, and with the best or most condescending of intentions people have been telling her that it's okay because with the baby coming she'd rather be "a mommy" anyway. It's good to have lost this because now she can focus on being a good momma. To that, she has been less and less inclined to be patient.

It's not such a strange thing that the idea of a mother is abstracted in a way to keep women in "their place," abstracted in a way that serves dominating interests, abstracted in a way that fosters the destruction of public education. That's what we tend to do with abstractions: steal, kill, and destroy. Oh, maybe that's too much.

At the very least, we ought not think that being a mother- or rather "a mommy"- requires The Qweenbean accept this disappointment and the conditions that led to it. Or maybe, being a mommy does while being a mother doesn't. Maybe mommy and momma are the words children use to refer to their parents, and though I only write out of my butt on the matter at this time, it seems what a child thinks a parent is and what a parent must be are two different, too different ways of being. Actually, only one is a way of being, the other is an idea that a child has and in this case, in the wrong hands, is used to impugn The Qweenbean's desire that she be a teacher and have a child. It makes sense for a child to think of a mommy, it does not for an adult. "When I was a child" and all that.

That said, she has an interview next week with a new school district. Depending on whether you think she ought to be a mother or a mommy, you may or may not want her to get that job.

*Is there another expression that reveals better than this that what the speaker means is "Stuff I don't get is weird and probably wrong"?

First-Half Highlights

Tommy Smith- Deh buhl droops doon like it fell oof deh etch oofuh table!
The Qweenbean- Nice voice, dude. Learn to talk.

...

Skybalon-I hate that Cristiano Ronaldo, he so rich, young, athletic, and good looking-
The Qweenbean-I know right? Riding in on that scooter likes he's so cool. And the way he combs his hair
Skybalon- Or like doesn't, it's like ex-squeeze me have you ever heard of styling gel?


We're pathetic and we're going to be parents.

Still of all the pathos there is to pass, I'd rather instill this than... say a love for Thomas Kinkade or Carlos Mencia.

If a Tree Falls in a Forest...

Did you see Dennis Kucinich present the articles of impeachment against President Jesus yesterday? No? Oh. Well, it happened.

How about American Gladiators or that American Idol with Emo Ray Cyrus? That's cool.

Anyway, in his statement he said:
George W. Bush, in violation of his Constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and to the best of his ability, preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be safely executed has committed the following abuses of power...

But he's short- look at him. He looks like an elf. Or, no, not an elf- a pixie- those are girlier. He looks like a pixie.

Article I: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq...

I mean look at him, he's all little and wrinkly- like a white raisin with ears.

...has both personally and acting through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice-President, illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false cause for war against Iraq. The Department of Defense has engaged in a years long secret domestic propaganda campaign...

Did you know he's a vegetarian? What a fruitcake. I mean he'd probably want it to be illegal for us to eat meat- am I right? A vegetarian- seriously, that's crazy.

... The program illegally involved, "Attempts to change opinion through the use of third parties. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recruited 75 retired military officers and gave them talking points to deliver on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC"...

I heard someone somewhere say he believes in ufos. Cuckoo!

... According to the Pentagon's own internal document, the military analysts were considered, "Message-force multipliers," as surrogates to deliver administration themes and messages to millions of americans in the form of their own opinions. In fact they did deliver the themes and messages but did not reveal the Pentagon had provided them with their talking points. Robert S. Bevelaqua, a retired Green Beret and Fox News analyst, described this as follows: he said, "It was them say, 'we need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.'" Congress has restricted annual appropriations bills since 1951 with this language, and I quote, "No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States"...

What's this guy even talking about? He's crazy right? What a little jerk, he's probably just angry because he always gets pushed around and knocked over because he's so little. He's like a chihuahua that's been sat on too many times- he's barking and shaking at everything. Just look at him, how can you listen to anything he says? Seriously, I have no idea what he's talking about it.

But did you see how the audience all had Hulk fists and Titan was painted all green? That was cool.

You Could Learn A Lot from a Dummy

Hey remember when that David Jeremiah Wright guy said "God damn America" and everyone was upset that Obama knew him 'cos it's not nice to say "God damn anything" let alone America even though God would at least have to be the kind of "thing" that would damn something given the right conditions or circumstances so saying "God damn whatever" would at least have to be a possibility and given how big America is and all the things that did or could have conceivably occurred in time, if not history, the phrase "God damn America" may actually be a pretty plain thing to say or failing that at least remains within the realm of the kinds of things a religious person would say?

Well, I was just seeing if you remember how upset so many people were that he said that. It's funny what people will get upset about.

What's with you people? David Wright? David!? How would you let that slide? Lazy writer. Lazy consumer.
Is it that you don't care?
Is it that you didn't notice? Did it slip by because you knew what I meant despite what I wrote? (Thereby demonstrating my point that you actually do create something when reading)
I meant Jeremiah but for some reason wrote David. David Wright is formerly my boss/dean. I don't know if he said "God damn anything". Jeremiah Wright is the one that we care said "God damn America".
How is it that no one said anything about that?
Are you indicating that what is said here doesn't really matter? I don't assume it does"matter", but if you do, then this is the kind of thing about which you might say something.
Are you assuming that what I say must be the way it is? You shouldn't. I'm just me.
Were you sparing my feelings? That's neither kind nor necessary in this context.
So, even my errors have something to say?
Truly brilliant.

Where The Carcass is, The Buzzards Will Gather

I am not sympathetic to street preaching or cold sell evangelism. It is not, according to my understanding, a part of what it means to be making disciples. Though doing it may be a part of what it means for someone to be growing as a disciple. That's possible. Still, I just can't do it.

It is often dependent on facile word games or invalid and untenable premises. It sets up the Gospel as a matter of assent to an abstract proposition rather than living or virtue. It strikes me as arrogant and in line with the worst aspects of religious expression regardless of tradition.

That said, it is very straightforward and, in a sense, honest. So, it's got that going for it. If one believes that the only way a person can avoid an eternity of post-mortem torture and anguish is by giving assent to a certain proposition then the least one should do is tell as many people as they can how to avoid that torture. If you believe that the person ahead of you in line, your mother, the guy in the crosswalk, your coworker, et al. are bound to an eternity of inconceivable punishment if they do not hear about their sin and then accept Jesus Christ, then you would be a pretty big jerk if you didn't tell them all about that. It's not very different from standing idly by as a bus comes speeding down the highway and it is only a matter of moments before they are killed, but you say nothing. If you have the knowledge that can save them and you don't share it, then it seems like you have a part in their death. And we say hell would be worse than being hit by a bus.

It seems, someone that doesn't share this knowledge is far worse than the person who doesn't know any better. How could you not spend every waking moment warning people? How could you even sleep knowing hell was in store for everyone? How could anything not directly a warning about the coming hell not be a vanity? The least you would have to do is offer a warning if not a clear means of rescue.

It would seem a Christian who believes this but didn't share it would be the most detestable thing there could be.

I don't buy the premises though. Of course for some, these are not merely premises one can accept or not. These premises are, for some, "just the way things are" and I have clearly rejected that. My saying I do not buy the premises may simply be a result of cowardice and laziness. That may simply be how I reconcile my belief that I am a Christian with the fact that I do not go around telling everyone how to avoid spending eternity being boiled in a lake of fire. And, for others this may be the very point that shows I am not a Christian.

That's fine I guess. I don't know how I could accept something I can't accept. If the only options are to believe those premises or not. I do not. If it follows from that that I am bound to an eternity of torture, that's out of my hands- which I suppose fits with a sense of faith that puts everything into God's metaphorical hands. I have not been given whatever must be necessary to believe the premises so I can't believe them. That all seems to fit together nicely and what's life for if not making sure everything fits together with a perfectly nice sense of certainty and security?

So there's that. I am willing to admit that I may, according to a certain set of premises, be hell bound even though I claim to be some sort of disciple of Jesus. It seems there ought to be more like me: people who claim to be Christians but are condemned by their laziness. Take a look at some of the statements of faith of various groups- mostly evangelical groups. It's mostly evangelical groups that make it a point of necessity to give statements of faith. You'll find that they almost invariably say something like: We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

Of course there is often some wiggle room in these statements. "We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential" doesn't tell you how that regeneration occurs so perhaps one is not inevitably on the "get into the streets" hook. So maybe we need not be so concerned with warning people of hell. Maybe there is some other way for the not-knowing to become the knowing.

But for those on the hook we see clearly that their faith is in what they do. What they are able to say about their faith is plainly in their actions. That is their statement. That's important to see. What we do follows from what we accept as necessary. Evangelicals do something similar, even if they aren't on the hook for their statements. That is, the act of abstracting one's "faith" into statements that stand apart from one's life is itself an act that says something about one's faith- the evangelical need to put things into abstract propositions that may or may not have an expression in a community is itself an expression of that community's faith. That is, "Making The Statement" is an act integral to evangelicalism- even if what one thinks ought to follow from those statements is absent. That is the "what we say" in line with the "what we do".

We have statements on all manner of things and the statement is sufficient because making the statement is the life (though that alienates living from one's life). It seems to me that it is an attempt to give the statement a life that the body doesn't have. When we can't say, "See how we live", we must resort to "Refer to what I said." It is much like the task of correctly describing a frog- dead, flayed and pinned open on a tar tray. It's certainly a frog though there's not much more to do with a frog in that condition. And describing the frog is certainly an act that is done that says something about what one thinks ought to be done.

Unfortunately, a community oriented about the correct labeling and use of statements is as much a church as a dissected frog specimen is a frog; when the needs of living encounter either, both will be found lacking.

Which Was the Style at the Time

I don't normally point out or clearly denote the allusions and references I make. I leave it up to you as a reader to either know it and glean from it layers of connection and meaning or to pass over it. Like explaining a joke, it would not be a part of any meaning for you no matter what lengths I went to to explain my intention or why the particular reference makes sense, unless of course explaining the joke were itself a part of the meaning.

As I began this, I thought it might be important in this case to clearly point out to what the title refers, but upon reflection I don't think explanation would offer anything more whether you knew the source or not. I am tempted to think, because it is so hilarious in my head, it would have to be hilarious to you as well. But the truth is, it would only remain an example of how we may talk past each other, how things can only make sense if they make sense in our world, how certain elements escape translation.

So let's close the curtain and get back to what's what.

So I'm filled with hope. Regular readers of this blog ought to find a more worthwhile way to spend their time but should also remember that I am part of the problem. I am inspired and hopeful about the prospect of an Obama presidency- Pffttt, Who am I kidding. "Prospect"? Let's just say it now- "President Elect Barack Obama."

So I am inspired and hopeful. They're an inspiration and hope of a type I could put into words but are perhaps better expressed by recounting the actions of KTLA News' evening anchor, Emmet Miller. (Which is still putting it into words). Last night, while trying to read his prompter's promptings connecting the significance of Obama's delegate count to Martin Luther King's "Dream" he almost lost it. Twice. What a baby. Am I right? High five!

I'm not a baby, so I'm not going to get all farklempt trying to explain what is so amazing to me about the possibility of an Obama Presidency. Policy concerns aside for a moment, (and really that's what we do) there's an incredible meaning in the symbolism of Barack's success. The new voter turnout, the appeal to youth, the demonstration that we create history, the utopian (used technically) possibility that challenges us to live rather than sleep through life- they all point to what might be in a way that transcends some of the worst of the past and makes a "God Bless America" bumper sticker worth more than a chip on one's shoulder. Of course the possibility of a president that will honor the Constitution again is pretty cool too. Whatever- we mustn't underestimate the symbolic value of Barack Obama.

But... But, we are still who we are.

So I'm watching McCain in Louisiana this morning and I'm worried. I'm worried because of the past. I'm not worried about the past with John McCain in inverse relation to the way I'm hopeful for the future with Barack Obama. I worry about the past because I remember how painfully stupid President Jesus looked in debates with Al Gore and John Kerry and that that was ultimately an asset for him.

One might think we would want a thoughtful, articulate, familiar with the issues, intelligent visionary to be our president. You might think we would want our leader to, in fact, be better than us in many ways- elite if you will. Or maybe you wouldn't think that because you've seen what we actually do.* Eight years ago we resented how mean and unfair it was to make W look bad. With Bush-Gore, more observers actually thought Gore was smarter, more well-spoken, more accomplished, and more capable, but all that made him less likable. W was aided by a "C'mon, give him a break" handicap and carried forward by the momentum of a collective "You think you're better than me?!" angst.

I remember all that as I watch John McCain this morning- doddering around on stage, stumbling over words, twitching, saying "My Friends" as often as he blinks. In all, he looks tired and confused and in our popular perception, that means old. He is old but I think he stumbles over his words because he knows he is making misstatements. I think the bewildered look of his countenance belies the double-mindedness required by his pandering to the worst elements of his party. He is a bad speaker because he is stale and uninspired. None of this because he is old.

Still if there's a perception that he is wrong and confused because he's old, not because he is wrong and confused, it is an out. We, as a nation of idiots, generally don't like it when the smart person in the room points out our idiocy. We may further balk at the uppity young black man being rude to the aged war hero.

And now John McCain has thrown down the gauntlet of a dozen town hall meetings around the country. A dozen opportunities for Obama and McCain to contrast foreign policy ideologies. A dozen opportunities for Obama to be the bad guy because he points out that McCain has left his blinker on. A dozen opportunities for Obama and McCain to debate health care proposals. A dozen opportunities for Obama to not respect his elder. A dozen opportunities for Obama and McCain to debate whether, let alone how, the Constitution applies to the president. A dozen opportunities for Obama to have to let slide because he's old grandpa's inappropriate comments.

Yes. I am saying that.

The only way John McCain can become president is if we give into the ideological claim old people have on us.

The important thing was, I had an onion on my belt
They Might Be Giants Podcast

* I never voted for the guy and would likely vote for a thousand monkeys making decisions at a thousand typewriters for a thousand years before casting a vote for W, but I have to say "we" because we are all responsible for being the people that have allowed him to be our president. It was one thing when a close minority of voters chose W after Clinton. That guy made it look like being a competent president was a walk in the park- if you were being chased by a pack of rabid dogs. Hounded from day one and he still managed to do the job. But then we chose him over Kerry as well. Even taking our version of Latin American voting/selection methods into account, we are all responsible.

Here Is Something You Can't Understand

FRAMINGHAM, Mass. — Framingham police say a 13-year-old middle school student pulled a knife on his teacher in the classroom and demanded money so he could buy a video game.

Fox News

It's possible that Fox News is emdumbening. But reading my internetsjournal is emsmartening, so you break even.

In any case, I've yet to play the latest GTA. No one loves me enough to buy me a PS3. I could only say out of ignorance that playing the game does or does not cause violence.

It's clear though, that not having the game causes violence.

Take that, video game haterz.

The lesson from all this then: I will totally kill you if I don't get a PS3.

Read This Blog

It's likely you recognize the arrangement of shapes here as letters and that a certain sequence of letters and spaces makes words and that these words come together to perhaps lead you to some cognitive processes that present things to you that correspond ephemerally in your mind and possibly to some thing in space.

That's a fine arrangement.

Crocodile

So here I've made you think of a crocodile.

Orange

Here orange.

A 747

A corpse,

A sky.

Morose

That, at a basic level, is literacy. You recognize these particularly arranged squiggles and spaces as some type of cognitive abstraction, sometimes expressed in sound, sometimes not. But whether uttered vocally, the squiggles and spaces are not strange to you. The shapes are not nothing; they are words.

You translate.

But translating symbols into thoughts or sounds that correspond to concepts or objects is not reading. It is translating symbols into thoughts or sounds that correspond to concepts. It's impressive certainly; it is this:


We and the parrot see cognitive abstractions. Well, that parrot doesn't, he's expired and gone to meet his maker. He's a stiff- bereft of life. Nonetheless, good Parrot, two green blocks. I hope you are duly impressed with that. Two green blocks is something the parrot, and we, must create in light of experience. The ability to construct the idea of two green blocks is amazing- and it's a birdbrain doing it. So when I say literacy is not reading, that reading is more than literacy, don't think that I am unimpressed with literacy. Literacy good.

The ability to deliver an output from stored data is handy and impressive, but it is not reading, and here, in this corner of the internets, we are concerned with reading because confusing the input of a stimulus followed by the output of data with reading is a bit of a trap.

When I order {m i c h i g a n } together in what we would consider the proper arrangement for the word Michigan, we could say that I, in a way, transmitted the word to you. In a way, you have passively received the word as I have laid it out. With that there may be the temptation to see the concept of Michigan corresponding to that word as fed to you along with it; the word carries with it its meaning that you receive.

Don't do that.

There is no Michigan apart from that which is actively created by you, dear reader, and to think otherwise is to acquiesce to a noxious monster. I suppose, if subjugation to a monster is fine with you and you choose it, there is little I can do about that. However I would hate to be seen as participating in that, so it may be necessary to offer some guidelines or points for clarification.

To that end, be aware that reading is difficult, mastered with practice, and requires active and critical awareness of one's participation. It is not the consumption of an idea, but its creation. You are doing less than is required of reading if you read passively, as if you were the receptive object of my activity.

You must be willing to confront and engage your role and existence as a subjective being and with that, reading as an expression of your subjectivity.

You may not proceed without understanding. This does not mean you may not proceed without having understood what was meant. It means you may not proceed without a conscious critical engagement. You can continue translating the squiggles into words, but you lack the means to go on reading. This is not a matter of "ought" but of freedom of possibility. You, as an existing subject, must be engaged in the process of reading, of creating, of questioning, of understanding- otherwise you do not read despite any demonstration of literacy. Reading is not a matter of reception but of creation.

Following that, this is not for everyone, but only those who choose to actively read. I suggest that reading is a model for life and that we are in fact creating the world as we live, however, we often imagine living to be a matter of objective reception: things are as they are and we receive them as such. This is not the place for such an approach. If there is a place where one may remove one's self from the need for understanding it is not here, nor would it be a place where reading mattered. If there was a place or matter for which that was appropriate, you, as you exist, could not matter.

You, as a subject, matter. You, as a subject, read. If that is beyond the scope of your desire then you ought to be elsewhere, but then you aren't you, and so have no desire so none of this matters to the non-existing, object you.

There is elsewhere.