I just finished reading an interesting book. Have a Nice Doomsday: Why Millions of Americans Are Looking Forward to the End of the World, by Nicholas Guyatt (2007, Harper Perennial). In it Guyatt, a Brit who now lives and teaches in Canada, takes a look at the state of apocalypse thinking in the United States.
He spoke to a number of preachers and writers who spend their time thinking about the End Times and following what they believe are the signs of the imminent Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Some of the individuals he writes about are well known: Tim LaHaye, co-author of the Left Behind series of novels; Hal Lindsey, author of The Late, Great Planet Earth, and televangelist John Hagee. Others spend their days toiling in the field of apocalyptic thinking from a rather lower profile, although most of them have either written books on the subject, broadcast less well-known programs about it, or have a presence on the internet.
To a man (there are apparently no women active in the field, or else Guyatt couldn’t find any), they all deny that they are violating the Biblical injunction against focusing too much on the time of the Second Coming. They all also protest that they are not advocating actions that might hasten the End Times and that, anyway, they don’t really have any influence in Washington. Never mind the fact that some of them hold summit meetings on the millennium in Washington; that some of them actively ask their congregations or readers or viewers to write letters to their Congressmen urging them to support policies that, if followed, could cause the kind of instability that could trigger wars and rumors of war; that some of them are in demand as speakers for groups from various departments in the government. Never mind that some of them appear with fair regularity on cable news networks, billed as experts on the Middle East. The most worrisome thing about those TV appearances is that they are rarely identified as being Christians who are devout believers in the End Times, and they even more rarely volunteer that information.
Guyatt also provides a bit of the history of Christian apocalyptic thinking in Europe and America, and points out that Christians are not the only apocalyptic thinkers. He points out, in fact, that some of America’s Christian apocalyptic thinkers have been very busy in the past few years point their fingers at certain Islamic leaders (Iran’s president’s name comes up) and accusing them of being dangerous crazies who are trying to bring about the End Times by fomenting trouble in the Middle East. That strikes me as a kind of a “pot and kettle” situation, or perhaps a bit of projection, but it illustrates vividly part of the problem with this sort of thinking.
The fact that Guyatt is not a US citizen or resident puts him in a unique position to look at what is, presently, a mostly American preoccupation with the Rapture, the Tribulation, the Millennium, the Battle of Armageddon, and the Second Coming. He injects himself into the book as he talks people involved in spreading the message of the End Times, and as individuals he seems to find most of them personable and open to explaining their thinking. But he concludes that, for all their protests that they really have no power and that they don’t have an agenda that includes helping biblical prophecies about the End Times reach fulfillment, there is a danger that the political activism that some of them engage in is influencing Washington to some extent, pushing events in directions that could be worrisome to those of us who don’t believe in their message and don’t appreciate that they are “looking forward to the end of the world” and want to take the rest of us with them.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A glimpse out my window...
While I'm sitting here waiting for some information to come across so that I can continue my work for the day, I opened the blinds on the window right next to my desk so that I could see what's going on out in the world.
Only, there isn't all that much to see...it's foggy out.
I'd heard it was on the morning newscasts, but the fog usually stays fairly high here in town. But this morning, I can barely see down the short block and across the street to the university campus just over...there. Even the trees just across my street, the trees are only half-visible in the mist.
What I can see are all the cars parked up and down my street, bumper to bumper. That's because Spring semester begins today across the street, and nobody wants to pay the $68 per semester or whatever it is now to buy a parking permit on campus. And I see even more cars, cruising up and down the street looking for a place where they can park. I'm just glad my building has assigned parking spaces for building residents around in back.
You know, I don't blame people for not wanting to pay all that money to park. But it really is a pain not to be able to park in front instead of in back of the building when I have a load of groceries in the car (I have to do grocery shopping later, so that's on my mind), so that I don't have to bring everything so far into the house. And it is also a pain to try to have guests over, even at night, because classes run 'till ten p.m. across the street and there is very often no parking at all available from around 7:30 am until nearly 10 pm during the week.
Ah, well, it'll be this way, with the exception of Spring Break, all the way through until the middle of May.
And how is your day going?
Only, there isn't all that much to see...it's foggy out.
I'd heard it was on the morning newscasts, but the fog usually stays fairly high here in town. But this morning, I can barely see down the short block and across the street to the university campus just over...there. Even the trees just across my street, the trees are only half-visible in the mist.
What I can see are all the cars parked up and down my street, bumper to bumper. That's because Spring semester begins today across the street, and nobody wants to pay the $68 per semester or whatever it is now to buy a parking permit on campus. And I see even more cars, cruising up and down the street looking for a place where they can park. I'm just glad my building has assigned parking spaces for building residents around in back.
You know, I don't blame people for not wanting to pay all that money to park. But it really is a pain not to be able to park in front instead of in back of the building when I have a load of groceries in the car (I have to do grocery shopping later, so that's on my mind), so that I don't have to bring everything so far into the house. And it is also a pain to try to have guests over, even at night, because classes run 'till ten p.m. across the street and there is very often no parking at all available from around 7:30 am until nearly 10 pm during the week.
Ah, well, it'll be this way, with the exception of Spring Break, all the way through until the middle of May.
And how is your day going?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Quiz time again...
| You Are a Total Brainiac |
 You're amazingly brilliant. Some would even say genius. You're curious, thoughtful, analytical, and confident. You take on difficult subjects because you want to... not because you have to. No field of knowledge is too complicated or intimidating for you. You've got the brains to do anything you want. It's possible you end up doing everything you want. |
Yeah, right. I'm so brilliant that I'm sitting here taking quizzes (and trying to remember if quizzes has one z or two).
I've realized, though, that there is a good reason for the existence of these quizzes (see? I've decided on two z's). They exist for those times when my brain is too tired to manage a real post or for those times when I have too many things I'd like to blog about, but every time I start to write about one of them I get all frustrated/angry/upset that I can't write anything that isn't a rant.
Since it is election season, guess which one it is this time.
By the way, thanks to Sister Susan over at Musings of a Discerning Woman for pointing the way to this quiz.
Monday, December 31, 2007
The year in review, or, at least, what I read in 2007...
Well, it is the last day of the year.
I haven’t made any resolutions (anyway, none that I’m willing to go on record with), and I’ll leave the “year in review” pieces to those who don’t get as depressed as I do looking back at this year of record stupidities.
But, I thought I’d at least share my reading list for the year.
At the beginning of the year I decided that I was going to read a book a week. I ended up short by 12. But that means that I did manage to read 40 books this year. Not bad in a year that was crowded with work, with taking care of my mother, with trying to be a more active writer, and with all the various activities that make up everyday life.
Some of this list might look familiar; I posted the list for the first half of the year at the end of June/beginning of July. Anyway, this is the list for the full year (the dates are the day I completed each book. Non-fiction titles are marked with an asterisk.
1. Rage, Jonathan Kellerman (Ballantine Books, 2005) 391 pages (paperback edition). 1 January 2007.
2. Behind Closed Doors, Natalie R. Collins (St Martin Paperbacks, 2007) 322 pages. 8 January 2007.
3. The Lucifer Gospel, Paul Christopher (Onyx Books, New American Library, 2006) 357 pages. 4 February 2007.
4. Last on the Menu*, Sister Eleanor Quin, C. S. J. (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969) 182 pages. 18 February 2007.
5. The Republican Noise Machine*, David Brock (Three Rivers Press, 2004; Afterward copyright 2005) 432 pages. 19 February 2007.
6. The Templar Legacy, Steve Berry (Ballantine Books, 2006) 487 pages. 24 February 2007.
7. The Republican War on Science*, Chris Mooney (Basic Books) 357 pages.
7 March 2007.
8. An Alphabetical Life*, Wendy Werris (Carroll & Graf Publishers) 292 pages. 12 March 2007.
9. Hotel California: The true-life adventures of Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young, Mitchell, Taylor, Browne, Ronstadt, Geffen, the Eagles, and their many friends*, Barney Hoskins (John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2006) 324 pages. 25 March 2007.
10. The Alexandria Link, Steve Berry (Ballantine Books, 2007) 462 pages. 26 March 2007.
11. Michelangelo’s Notebook, Paul Christopher (Onyx Books, 2005) 358 pages. 5 April 2007.
12. The Collar*, Jonathan Englert (Houghton Mifflin, 2006) 301 pages. 8 April 2007.
13. Tutu Deadly, Natalie M. Roberts (Berkley Prime Crime, 2007) 248 pages. 17 April 2007.
14. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus*, Charles C. Mann (Vintage, 2005, 2006) 541 pages. 4 May 2007.
15. All Saints, Liam Callahan (Delacorte, 2007). 7 May 2007.
16. The Last Cato, Matilde Asensi (Rayo, 2006; originally published in Spanish, 2001) 458 pages. 13 May 2007.
17. The Machine’s Child, Kage Baker (Tor, 2006) 351 pages. 22 May 2007.
18. Evolving God*, Barbara J. King (Doubleday, 2007) 262 pages. 30 May 2007.
19. Gods and Pawns, Kage Baker (Tor, 2007) 335 pages. 4 June 2007.
20. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul*, Edward Humes (Ecco/HarperCollins, 2007) 380 pages. 22 June 2007.
21. By Their Father’s Hand: The True Story of the Wesson Family Massacre*, Monte Francis (Harper, 2007) 285 pages. 4 July 2007.
22. Rembrandt’s Ghost, Paul Christopher (Signet, 2007) 347 pages. 22 July 2007.
23. Dr. Mary’s Monkey: How the unsolved murder of a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and cancer-causing monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK assassination and emerging global epidemics*, Edward T. Haslam (TrineDay, 2007) 374 pages. 27 July 2007.
24. Echo Park, Michael Connelly (Warner, 2006) 427 pages. 30 July 2007.
25. The Ritual Bath, Faye Kellerman (Arbor House, 1986) 282 pages. 5 August 2007.
26. Straight Into Darkness, Faye Kellerman (Warner Books, 2005) 510 pages. 14 August 2007.
27. Gone, Jonathan Kellerman (Ballantine Books, 2006) 365 pages. 19 August 2007.
28. Dress Her in Indigo, John D. MacDonald (Fawcett Crest, 1969) 301 pages. 26 August 2007.
29. The Garden of Eden and Other Criminal Delights, Faye Kellerman (Warner Books, 2006) 370 pages. 27 August 2007.
30. The Black Echo, Michael Connelly (Warner Books, 1992) 482 pages. 6 September 2007.
31. The Closers, Michael Connelly (Little, Brown, 2005) 403 pages. 11 September 2007.
32. The Concrete Blonde, Michael Connelly (Warner Books, 1994) 484 pages. 19 September 2007.
33. Lost Light, Michael Connelly (Warner Books, 2003) 385 pages. 5 October 2007.
34. Tapped Out, Natalie M. Roberts (Berkeley Prime Crime, 2007) 261 pages. 13 October 2007.
35. Trunk Music, Michael Connelly (St. Martin’s Paperbacks, 1997) 427 pages. 21 October 2007.
36. The Overlook, Michael Connelly (Little, Brown, 2007) 225 pages. 30 October 2007.
37. The Last Coyote, Michael Connelly (Grand Central Publishing, 1995) 495 pages. 9 November 2007.
38. Angels Flight, Michael Connelly (Warner Books, 1999) 454 pages. 16 November 2007.
39. City of Bones, Michael Connelly (Warner/Vision Books, 2002) 421 pages. 23 November 2007.
40. The Prey, Allison Brennan (Ballantine, 2006) 395 pages. 18 December 2007.
I read a lot more fiction this year than I usually do, and as you can see, I went on quite a mystery tangent from about July on. This is not to say that I didn’t read any non-fiction in the last half of the year. I just got most of my non-fiction reading in other places than books, and most of the non-fiction books I dipped into were for research and I did not read all of any of them.
The tangent will likely continue, as the book I’m in the middle of now…actually two of the four books I’m reading now (yes, I read more than one book at a time)…are in the mystery genre. Of the other two, one is about trilobites and the other is about the opposing views of religion and other topics taken by Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis. Interesting reading in all cases.
So, my question for you dear readers, is: What did you read in 2007? What do you recommend, and what do you recommend I stay away from? And, what is at the top of your to-read list for the new year?
I haven’t made any resolutions (anyway, none that I’m willing to go on record with), and I’ll leave the “year in review” pieces to those who don’t get as depressed as I do looking back at this year of record stupidities.
But, I thought I’d at least share my reading list for the year.
At the beginning of the year I decided that I was going to read a book a week. I ended up short by 12. But that means that I did manage to read 40 books this year. Not bad in a year that was crowded with work, with taking care of my mother, with trying to be a more active writer, and with all the various activities that make up everyday life.
Some of this list might look familiar; I posted the list for the first half of the year at the end of June/beginning of July. Anyway, this is the list for the full year (the dates are the day I completed each book. Non-fiction titles are marked with an asterisk.
1. Rage, Jonathan Kellerman (Ballantine Books, 2005) 391 pages (paperback edition). 1 January 2007.
2. Behind Closed Doors, Natalie R. Collins (St Martin Paperbacks, 2007) 322 pages. 8 January 2007.
3. The Lucifer Gospel, Paul Christopher (Onyx Books, New American Library, 2006) 357 pages. 4 February 2007.
4. Last on the Menu*, Sister Eleanor Quin, C. S. J. (Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969) 182 pages. 18 February 2007.
5. The Republican Noise Machine*, David Brock (Three Rivers Press, 2004; Afterward copyright 2005) 432 pages. 19 February 2007.
6. The Templar Legacy, Steve Berry (Ballantine Books, 2006) 487 pages. 24 February 2007.
7. The Republican War on Science*, Chris Mooney (Basic Books) 357 pages.
7 March 2007.
8. An Alphabetical Life*, Wendy Werris (Carroll & Graf Publishers) 292 pages. 12 March 2007.
9. Hotel California: The true-life adventures of Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young, Mitchell, Taylor, Browne, Ronstadt, Geffen, the Eagles, and their many friends*, Barney Hoskins (John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2006) 324 pages. 25 March 2007.
10. The Alexandria Link, Steve Berry (Ballantine Books, 2007) 462 pages. 26 March 2007.
11. Michelangelo’s Notebook, Paul Christopher (Onyx Books, 2005) 358 pages. 5 April 2007.
12. The Collar*, Jonathan Englert (Houghton Mifflin, 2006) 301 pages. 8 April 2007.
13. Tutu Deadly, Natalie M. Roberts (Berkley Prime Crime, 2007) 248 pages. 17 April 2007.
14. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus*, Charles C. Mann (Vintage, 2005, 2006) 541 pages. 4 May 2007.
15. All Saints, Liam Callahan (Delacorte, 2007). 7 May 2007.
16. The Last Cato, Matilde Asensi (Rayo, 2006; originally published in Spanish, 2001) 458 pages. 13 May 2007.
17. The Machine’s Child, Kage Baker (Tor, 2006) 351 pages. 22 May 2007.
18. Evolving God*, Barbara J. King (Doubleday, 2007) 262 pages. 30 May 2007.
19. Gods and Pawns, Kage Baker (Tor, 2007) 335 pages. 4 June 2007.
20. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America’s Soul*, Edward Humes (Ecco/HarperCollins, 2007) 380 pages. 22 June 2007.
21. By Their Father’s Hand: The True Story of the Wesson Family Massacre*, Monte Francis (Harper, 2007) 285 pages. 4 July 2007.
22. Rembrandt’s Ghost, Paul Christopher (Signet, 2007) 347 pages. 22 July 2007.
23. Dr. Mary’s Monkey: How the unsolved murder of a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and cancer-causing monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK assassination and emerging global epidemics*, Edward T. Haslam (TrineDay, 2007) 374 pages. 27 July 2007.
24. Echo Park, Michael Connelly (Warner, 2006) 427 pages. 30 July 2007.
25. The Ritual Bath, Faye Kellerman (Arbor House, 1986) 282 pages. 5 August 2007.
26. Straight Into Darkness, Faye Kellerman (Warner Books, 2005) 510 pages. 14 August 2007.
27. Gone, Jonathan Kellerman (Ballantine Books, 2006) 365 pages. 19 August 2007.
28. Dress Her in Indigo, John D. MacDonald (Fawcett Crest, 1969) 301 pages. 26 August 2007.
29. The Garden of Eden and Other Criminal Delights, Faye Kellerman (Warner Books, 2006) 370 pages. 27 August 2007.
30. The Black Echo, Michael Connelly (Warner Books, 1992) 482 pages. 6 September 2007.
31. The Closers, Michael Connelly (Little, Brown, 2005) 403 pages. 11 September 2007.
32. The Concrete Blonde, Michael Connelly (Warner Books, 1994) 484 pages. 19 September 2007.
33. Lost Light, Michael Connelly (Warner Books, 2003) 385 pages. 5 October 2007.
34. Tapped Out, Natalie M. Roberts (Berkeley Prime Crime, 2007) 261 pages. 13 October 2007.
35. Trunk Music, Michael Connelly (St. Martin’s Paperbacks, 1997) 427 pages. 21 October 2007.
36. The Overlook, Michael Connelly (Little, Brown, 2007) 225 pages. 30 October 2007.
37. The Last Coyote, Michael Connelly (Grand Central Publishing, 1995) 495 pages. 9 November 2007.
38. Angels Flight, Michael Connelly (Warner Books, 1999) 454 pages. 16 November 2007.
39. City of Bones, Michael Connelly (Warner/Vision Books, 2002) 421 pages. 23 November 2007.
40. The Prey, Allison Brennan (Ballantine, 2006) 395 pages. 18 December 2007.
I read a lot more fiction this year than I usually do, and as you can see, I went on quite a mystery tangent from about July on. This is not to say that I didn’t read any non-fiction in the last half of the year. I just got most of my non-fiction reading in other places than books, and most of the non-fiction books I dipped into were for research and I did not read all of any of them.
The tangent will likely continue, as the book I’m in the middle of now…actually two of the four books I’m reading now (yes, I read more than one book at a time)…are in the mystery genre. Of the other two, one is about trilobites and the other is about the opposing views of religion and other topics taken by Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis. Interesting reading in all cases.
So, my question for you dear readers, is: What did you read in 2007? What do you recommend, and what do you recommend I stay away from? And, what is at the top of your to-read list for the new year?
Sunday, December 23, 2007
I saw the real spirit of Christmas today...
I saw the real spirit of Christmas today.
It didn’t have anything to do with buying lots of presents or eating lots of food. It didn’t have anything to do with arguing about how to correctly greet people during the holiday season.
Driving home from checking on my friend Pamela’s dog…she’s on the East Coast celebrating with her family…I saw a woman (probably mother) and child standing on one of the freeway overpasses next to their bicycles smiling down at those of us driving on the freeway and waving big.
Obviously, I don’t know whether their motivation for giving this little gift of friendliness to the community had anything to do with the upcoming holiday or not. Perhaps they do this often. Maybe it is the halfway point on the bicycle ride they were taking, and they stopped to rest and just decided it would be fun to wave at the cars.
None of that matters. Often, Christmas cards carry messages with some form of the sentiment “Tidings of joy and peace on Earth”. Well, it seems like it would be fairly difficult to do anything harmful to peace while smiling and waving at people. And it brought me great joy to see them up there.
So, for me at least, those two individuals were the embodiment of the spirit of Christmas at that time and in that place.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
It didn’t have anything to do with buying lots of presents or eating lots of food. It didn’t have anything to do with arguing about how to correctly greet people during the holiday season.
Driving home from checking on my friend Pamela’s dog…she’s on the East Coast celebrating with her family…I saw a woman (probably mother) and child standing on one of the freeway overpasses next to their bicycles smiling down at those of us driving on the freeway and waving big.
Obviously, I don’t know whether their motivation for giving this little gift of friendliness to the community had anything to do with the upcoming holiday or not. Perhaps they do this often. Maybe it is the halfway point on the bicycle ride they were taking, and they stopped to rest and just decided it would be fun to wave at the cars.
None of that matters. Often, Christmas cards carry messages with some form of the sentiment “Tidings of joy and peace on Earth”. Well, it seems like it would be fairly difficult to do anything harmful to peace while smiling and waving at people. And it brought me great joy to see them up there.
So, for me at least, those two individuals were the embodiment of the spirit of Christmas at that time and in that place.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Mitt and Mike (don't) discuss Jesus and Lucifer...
I’ve been following this Mitt Romney-Mike Huckabee thing for the past few days, and I have to say that if they can’t find anything to do besides quibble about religion, they don’t need to be running for president. You might expect that sort of thing on the playground; I don't expect it on the campaign trail. Then again, I tend to be idealistic about these things.
But they are…running for president and quibbling about religion…and all of this gets spread out all over the media.
I won’t even discuss Mitt’s speech last week, or not much anyway. Suffice it to say that I know exactly what he was doing, who he was trying to impress, and I don’t think that throwing the atheists, the agnostics, and the non-monotheists under the bus in an attempt to gain the evangelical vote speaks very well for the man and his principles, especially after his line about a “symphony of faith”. Apparently he believes - or wants evangelicals to believe that he believes - that only monotheists, and preferably Christian monotheists, have a faith that is acceptable to him.
Not that it is all that easy to put your finger on exactly what Mitt believes, since he seems to change his mind so often on policy issues.
The more recent tempest in a teapot is more entertaining.
Apparently an article will appear on Sunday in the New York Times Magazine in which Mike Huckabee raises an interesting question of Mormon theology. Do the Mormons believe, he asks (rhetorically or not), that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?
Mitt has come up sputtering that he thinks its dirty pool to attack his religion, and the LDS church has come up with a non-denial denial. According to a church spokesperson:
“We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.”
All an accurate picture of LDS belief, as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go very far.
I was a Mormon for a long time. If I heard the story about Jesus and Lucifer once, I heard it a hundred times in Sunday School classes and Relief Society lessons and across the pulpit in a number of venues. It goes like this:
In the preexistence, Jesus was the eldest brother of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. Their second son (or maybe the son of Heavenly Father and another of his plural wives; anyway, Heavenly Father’s second son) was Lucifer. Heavenly Father loved both of them exceedingly, and when the planning for this earth was in progress both Jesus and Lucifer presented their schemes for the Plan of Salvation. Jesus plan was that each spirit child (by then there were hosts of them, as Heavenly Father and his wives had been very busy) would come to earth for the mortal probation and have the free will to accept God’s plan and believe in him or not. Lucifer’s plan was that mortals would be forced to accept God’s plan of salvation. That way everyone would be saved, whether they wanted to be or not.
Heavenly Father put his seal of approval on Jesus’ plan. Of course, that pissed Lucifer off and he and his followers (generally numbered as one-third of Heavenly Father’s spirit children) rebelled. This resulted in the war in heaven, and Lucifer and his followers were ejected from Heaven.
Yeah. I know. But it’s what they teach. Whether they are willing to admit it or not. Which is why I don’t get why Mitt is going around now complaining about how Mike Huckabee has attacked his religion. Yes, Mike likely asked it in order to raise doubts about Mitt’s status as a Christian, or at least as a mainstream Christian. But, since it is something that has been widely taught in the LDS church for a long time, I find it fairly disingenuous of Mitt to act all offended. He said in his speech last week that “My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.” He isn’t doing that if he isn’t willing to own all the teachings of his church.
Well, no. I do understand what is going on with Mitt’s protestations, just as I know what he was trying to do in his speech.
That story is not for the consumption of outsiders. There are a lot of things like that in Mormonism, actually. You see, Mormons, or at least the official church treasure the concept of milk before meat. That means that when someone is an outsider, or is investigating the faith, you don’t exactly tell them everything. You don’t talk too much about things like how Jesus and Lucifer are the eldest spirit children of Heavenly Father. You don’t talk about how Heavenly Father has more than one Heavenly Wife. You don’t talk about the story (a faith-promoting rumor, basically; read that as a specifically Mormon urban legend) that Jesus occasionally comes down personally to the temples to check the records and see that everything is being done correctly.
The things that fall into this category of “reserved for the believer” vary from time to time and place to place, and there are more of them now than there used to be. It has become somewhat of an in-joke among former Mormons how often the General Authorities (the leaders of the church) say, these days, “I’m not sure that we teach that.” This was famously uttered by Gordon B. Hinckley, the current president and prophet of the church in an interview with Larry King on CNN, when he was asked about the couplet that was repeated more or less constantly when I was active in the church that “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”
Well, be that as it may, now it seems that Huckabee has apologized to Romney for asking the question, which is probably a good thing. He probably shouldn’t have asked it in the first place. But he did ask it, and it managed to attract the media’s attention and, likely, caused a few headaches in the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City.
But they are…running for president and quibbling about religion…and all of this gets spread out all over the media.
I won’t even discuss Mitt’s speech last week, or not much anyway. Suffice it to say that I know exactly what he was doing, who he was trying to impress, and I don’t think that throwing the atheists, the agnostics, and the non-monotheists under the bus in an attempt to gain the evangelical vote speaks very well for the man and his principles, especially after his line about a “symphony of faith”. Apparently he believes - or wants evangelicals to believe that he believes - that only monotheists, and preferably Christian monotheists, have a faith that is acceptable to him.
Not that it is all that easy to put your finger on exactly what Mitt believes, since he seems to change his mind so often on policy issues.
The more recent tempest in a teapot is more entertaining.
Apparently an article will appear on Sunday in the New York Times Magazine in which Mike Huckabee raises an interesting question of Mormon theology. Do the Mormons believe, he asks (rhetorically or not), that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?
Mitt has come up sputtering that he thinks its dirty pool to attack his religion, and the LDS church has come up with a non-denial denial. According to a church spokesperson:
“We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.”
All an accurate picture of LDS belief, as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go very far.
I was a Mormon for a long time. If I heard the story about Jesus and Lucifer once, I heard it a hundred times in Sunday School classes and Relief Society lessons and across the pulpit in a number of venues. It goes like this:
In the preexistence, Jesus was the eldest brother of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. Their second son (or maybe the son of Heavenly Father and another of his plural wives; anyway, Heavenly Father’s second son) was Lucifer. Heavenly Father loved both of them exceedingly, and when the planning for this earth was in progress both Jesus and Lucifer presented their schemes for the Plan of Salvation. Jesus plan was that each spirit child (by then there were hosts of them, as Heavenly Father and his wives had been very busy) would come to earth for the mortal probation and have the free will to accept God’s plan and believe in him or not. Lucifer’s plan was that mortals would be forced to accept God’s plan of salvation. That way everyone would be saved, whether they wanted to be or not.
Heavenly Father put his seal of approval on Jesus’ plan. Of course, that pissed Lucifer off and he and his followers (generally numbered as one-third of Heavenly Father’s spirit children) rebelled. This resulted in the war in heaven, and Lucifer and his followers were ejected from Heaven.
Yeah. I know. But it’s what they teach. Whether they are willing to admit it or not. Which is why I don’t get why Mitt is going around now complaining about how Mike Huckabee has attacked his religion. Yes, Mike likely asked it in order to raise doubts about Mitt’s status as a Christian, or at least as a mainstream Christian. But, since it is something that has been widely taught in the LDS church for a long time, I find it fairly disingenuous of Mitt to act all offended. He said in his speech last week that “My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.” He isn’t doing that if he isn’t willing to own all the teachings of his church.
Well, no. I do understand what is going on with Mitt’s protestations, just as I know what he was trying to do in his speech.
That story is not for the consumption of outsiders. There are a lot of things like that in Mormonism, actually. You see, Mormons, or at least the official church treasure the concept of milk before meat. That means that when someone is an outsider, or is investigating the faith, you don’t exactly tell them everything. You don’t talk too much about things like how Jesus and Lucifer are the eldest spirit children of Heavenly Father. You don’t talk about how Heavenly Father has more than one Heavenly Wife. You don’t talk about the story (a faith-promoting rumor, basically; read that as a specifically Mormon urban legend) that Jesus occasionally comes down personally to the temples to check the records and see that everything is being done correctly.
The things that fall into this category of “reserved for the believer” vary from time to time and place to place, and there are more of them now than there used to be. It has become somewhat of an in-joke among former Mormons how often the General Authorities (the leaders of the church) say, these days, “I’m not sure that we teach that.” This was famously uttered by Gordon B. Hinckley, the current president and prophet of the church in an interview with Larry King on CNN, when he was asked about the couplet that was repeated more or less constantly when I was active in the church that “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”
Well, be that as it may, now it seems that Huckabee has apologized to Romney for asking the question, which is probably a good thing. He probably shouldn’t have asked it in the first place. But he did ask it, and it managed to attract the media’s attention and, likely, caused a few headaches in the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
How not to win friends and bring people into your church...
I’m puzzled.
Do the Mormons really think that the best way to get my mother and I back into the church is by telling us that we are wrong and that we need to repent?
It isn’t even just repentance that we need, according to an article that the visiting teachers* mailed to us (we asked them not to bother us in person, but said that they could mail stuff to us…I’m rethinking that decision at this point). We need, apparently, to change everything we do, think and say. Because we just aren’t good enough for God the way we are.
Great. Re-activate people by insulting them. That’ll work.
Not.
Don’t believe that they take this approach? Let me quote from the article, which was written by Russell M. Nelson, one of the church’s general authorities. I’d love to tell you what church publication it appeared in, but the quality of the Xerox copy is such that I can only make out a dim “May 2007” on the bottom of one of the pages. You can probably find it (it is titled “Repentance and Conversion”) if you search the church publications at the LDS church’s official website.
Among other things, Nelson writes:
“Yes, the Lord has commanded us to repent, to change our ways, to come unto Him, and be more like him. This requires a total change.” (Emphasis mine.)
There is a footnote attributing part of this statement, but the woman who sent this to us didn’t bother to copy the page that held that footnote. I guess we’re just supposed to take her, and the writer’s, word for it, get with the program, and be…somebody else.
Honestly, this was one of the (many) problems I had with the church. No one wanted me to be myself. Everybody wanted me to be someone else, namely like every other Mormon woman was expected to be: only interested in getting married and keeping house and in having children and knowing my place. I tried for years to be that person, by the way, but I finally realized that it was a losing battle and that there isn’t anything wrong with me the way I am. I should have known that I would never fit in, because there were a couple of problems there.
Problem number one: My only domestic quality, as a key chain I used to carry said, is that I live in a house. Well, this is not completely true as I can cook if need be; I can knit, crochet and do counted cross stitch; and I do keep the place reasonably clean. But cooking and cleaning are things I do because I have to, not because I love them and not because I think they are part of my "role" as a woman.
Problem number two: I’ve never been good at “knowing my place”, of sitting down, shutting up and behaving myself. Of going along to get along.
I’ve no doubt they’ll keep trying. Every month, we get a little note in the mail saying how much the miss us and love us. Which is kind of funny, since we’ve never attended that ward** and they don’t know us at all. Well, the visiting teachers came to the door once not long after we moved here, but that certainly doesn’t constitute a “knowing” extensive enough to either miss us or love us.
All of this offends me, this being told by people who don’t even know me that I must change or God won’t love me.
I know, I know. All of this will only feed into the stereotype supported by the church that people only leave because they’ve “been offended” or because they’re “too lazy” to live church standards. Or because they "want to sin".
Well, no. I did not leave because I was offended. If all it would have taken for me to leave was to be offended I would have been well and truly out years and years earlier than I was. And honestly, I’m not too lazy to live church standards. I just don’t believe that many of the “church standards” have anything to do with actually being a good person. For example, I fail to see how drinking coffee…or having more than one ear piercing in each ear…or men having facial hair…would make someone not a good person. Oh, and for the record, I don’t drink coffee and I don’t have pierced ears at all any more. Not being of the male persuasion, I don’t think the facial hair thing applies. And as for sinning: A) I know plenty of people who do plenty of sinning without leaving the church and, B) I don't do any more sinning now, out of the church, than I ever did in it.
They should probably just save their postage. The reactivation thing won’t work. I figured out some time ago that I just was not cut out to be a nice little Mormon girl.
*For the uninitiated, the church assigns women, usually in pairs, to go out and visit a certain number of women every month, ostensibly to make sure that they are doing all right and to see if they need anything. The problem with that theory is that it always seemed, when we had visiting teachers come to visit this, they were mostly busy looking at the house to see if we kept it clean enough and if there was any evidence that we had been doing anything we shouldn’t have been doing.
**That’s like a Catholic parish or a Protestant congregation.
Do the Mormons really think that the best way to get my mother and I back into the church is by telling us that we are wrong and that we need to repent?
It isn’t even just repentance that we need, according to an article that the visiting teachers* mailed to us (we asked them not to bother us in person, but said that they could mail stuff to us…I’m rethinking that decision at this point). We need, apparently, to change everything we do, think and say. Because we just aren’t good enough for God the way we are.
Great. Re-activate people by insulting them. That’ll work.
Not.
Don’t believe that they take this approach? Let me quote from the article, which was written by Russell M. Nelson, one of the church’s general authorities. I’d love to tell you what church publication it appeared in, but the quality of the Xerox copy is such that I can only make out a dim “May 2007” on the bottom of one of the pages. You can probably find it (it is titled “Repentance and Conversion”) if you search the church publications at the LDS church’s official website.
Among other things, Nelson writes:
“Yes, the Lord has commanded us to repent, to change our ways, to come unto Him, and be more like him. This requires a total change.” (Emphasis mine.)
There is a footnote attributing part of this statement, but the woman who sent this to us didn’t bother to copy the page that held that footnote. I guess we’re just supposed to take her, and the writer’s, word for it, get with the program, and be…somebody else.
Honestly, this was one of the (many) problems I had with the church. No one wanted me to be myself. Everybody wanted me to be someone else, namely like every other Mormon woman was expected to be: only interested in getting married and keeping house and in having children and knowing my place. I tried for years to be that person, by the way, but I finally realized that it was a losing battle and that there isn’t anything wrong with me the way I am. I should have known that I would never fit in, because there were a couple of problems there.
Problem number one: My only domestic quality, as a key chain I used to carry said, is that I live in a house. Well, this is not completely true as I can cook if need be; I can knit, crochet and do counted cross stitch; and I do keep the place reasonably clean. But cooking and cleaning are things I do because I have to, not because I love them and not because I think they are part of my "role" as a woman.
Problem number two: I’ve never been good at “knowing my place”, of sitting down, shutting up and behaving myself. Of going along to get along.
I’ve no doubt they’ll keep trying. Every month, we get a little note in the mail saying how much the miss us and love us. Which is kind of funny, since we’ve never attended that ward** and they don’t know us at all. Well, the visiting teachers came to the door once not long after we moved here, but that certainly doesn’t constitute a “knowing” extensive enough to either miss us or love us.
All of this offends me, this being told by people who don’t even know me that I must change or God won’t love me.
I know, I know. All of this will only feed into the stereotype supported by the church that people only leave because they’ve “been offended” or because they’re “too lazy” to live church standards. Or because they "want to sin".
Well, no. I did not leave because I was offended. If all it would have taken for me to leave was to be offended I would have been well and truly out years and years earlier than I was. And honestly, I’m not too lazy to live church standards. I just don’t believe that many of the “church standards” have anything to do with actually being a good person. For example, I fail to see how drinking coffee…or having more than one ear piercing in each ear…or men having facial hair…would make someone not a good person. Oh, and for the record, I don’t drink coffee and I don’t have pierced ears at all any more. Not being of the male persuasion, I don’t think the facial hair thing applies. And as for sinning: A) I know plenty of people who do plenty of sinning without leaving the church and, B) I don't do any more sinning now, out of the church, than I ever did in it.
They should probably just save their postage. The reactivation thing won’t work. I figured out some time ago that I just was not cut out to be a nice little Mormon girl.
*For the uninitiated, the church assigns women, usually in pairs, to go out and visit a certain number of women every month, ostensibly to make sure that they are doing all right and to see if they need anything. The problem with that theory is that it always seemed, when we had visiting teachers come to visit this, they were mostly busy looking at the house to see if we kept it clean enough and if there was any evidence that we had been doing anything we shouldn’t have been doing.
**That’s like a Catholic parish or a Protestant congregation.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Yes, as a matter of fact, I am a science fiction nerd...
I spent Thanksgiving weekend at a science fiction convention.
No, no, no...not like the one in Galaxy Quest. Well, not exactly like it. Although there were costumes, and silliness, and a good deal of fun. But as far as I am aware, there were no aliens who believe that a Star Trek-like show was real life.
As far as I am aware.
Part of the difference is that LosCon is more of a writers and artists con than a media con. That means that many of the panelists are writers and artists rather than actors or producers of science fiction and fantasy films and television shows. Although some of the writers write for those media as well as writing books and short stories, and some of the organizers and participants do sometimes act and work in other aspects of film and television. It's just that the emphasis is a little more literary.
Which makes sense. LosCon is presented every year over Thanksgiving weekend by the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society (LASFS), which bills itself as the longest running science fiction club in the world. Which it very likely is, having had its first incarnation in the 1930s. It has been operating under the current name since March of 1940. Some of the biggest names in the genre have been active in the Society, as have a few of the most infamous.
They put on a great gathering...part literary discussion, part gathering of like-minded souls, part party. This was the fifth time I have attended LosCon since 1998, and each time I have had a great time.
Some of the highlights this year for me were the panels. No mere human can get to all the panels, and no one would probably want to because they cover a wide variety of subject matter from science fiction to fantasy to horror to anime to science to...oh, to lots of things.
The first panel I attended centered on the topic of "Horror and Religion". There were interesting perspectives, especially since one panelist was a Baptist minister and another is a Buddhist...his take was that horror and Buddhism is a non-sequitor, since the most horrible thing in Buddhism is delusion. The consensus of the panel seemed to be that it isn't the gore that makes horror horror, but that what is horrifying has more to do with the violation of the moral order of the universe and the relinquishment of control. It isn't the blood that is shed, but the soul that is stolen that creates horror, at least in the Western way of looking at things. There was also some discussion of the horror of H. P. Lovecraft and his portrayal of an uncaring universe and ultimate nothingness.
Attendance at that panel has spurred me to pick up Stephen King's Danse Macabre for yet another perspective on the effect of the horror genre on culture.
Another panel, a discussion of what books should be in the canon of the science fiction greats was interesting, not the least for the fact that it went from zero to argument in almost nothing flat when one gentleman in the audience took exception to the suggestion that A Canticle for Leibowitz belongs on the list. A lot of names of authors and books were presented, very few concrete conclusions were made, and I now have a much longer list of books that I need to find and read.
That is another consequence of attending these cons...I always leave with my list of books to find and read having been about doubled from what it was before I arrived.
My favorite panel of the weekend, though, was a discussion of world-building. That panel consisted of David Gerrold and Harry Turtledove riffing off each other for about an hour and fifteen minutes. I left inspired to get back to work on that novel, and with a lot of new perspectives to bring to it.
It was a good weekend. I bought a few books, I got a book I took down with me signed by the author, which is cool because he is one of my favorites. I had a lot of good conversations with interesting people.
And I came home with a cold, apparently, since I woke up with stuffed sinuses and a runny nose this morning. A souvenir of the weekend, I suppose.
No, no, no...not like the one in Galaxy Quest. Well, not exactly like it. Although there were costumes, and silliness, and a good deal of fun. But as far as I am aware, there were no aliens who believe that a Star Trek-like show was real life.
As far as I am aware.
Part of the difference is that LosCon is more of a writers and artists con than a media con. That means that many of the panelists are writers and artists rather than actors or producers of science fiction and fantasy films and television shows. Although some of the writers write for those media as well as writing books and short stories, and some of the organizers and participants do sometimes act and work in other aspects of film and television. It's just that the emphasis is a little more literary.
Which makes sense. LosCon is presented every year over Thanksgiving weekend by the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society (LASFS), which bills itself as the longest running science fiction club in the world. Which it very likely is, having had its first incarnation in the 1930s. It has been operating under the current name since March of 1940. Some of the biggest names in the genre have been active in the Society, as have a few of the most infamous.
They put on a great gathering...part literary discussion, part gathering of like-minded souls, part party. This was the fifth time I have attended LosCon since 1998, and each time I have had a great time.
Some of the highlights this year for me were the panels. No mere human can get to all the panels, and no one would probably want to because they cover a wide variety of subject matter from science fiction to fantasy to horror to anime to science to...oh, to lots of things.
The first panel I attended centered on the topic of "Horror and Religion". There were interesting perspectives, especially since one panelist was a Baptist minister and another is a Buddhist...his take was that horror and Buddhism is a non-sequitor, since the most horrible thing in Buddhism is delusion. The consensus of the panel seemed to be that it isn't the gore that makes horror horror, but that what is horrifying has more to do with the violation of the moral order of the universe and the relinquishment of control. It isn't the blood that is shed, but the soul that is stolen that creates horror, at least in the Western way of looking at things. There was also some discussion of the horror of H. P. Lovecraft and his portrayal of an uncaring universe and ultimate nothingness.
Attendance at that panel has spurred me to pick up Stephen King's Danse Macabre for yet another perspective on the effect of the horror genre on culture.
Another panel, a discussion of what books should be in the canon of the science fiction greats was interesting, not the least for the fact that it went from zero to argument in almost nothing flat when one gentleman in the audience took exception to the suggestion that A Canticle for Leibowitz belongs on the list. A lot of names of authors and books were presented, very few concrete conclusions were made, and I now have a much longer list of books that I need to find and read.
That is another consequence of attending these cons...I always leave with my list of books to find and read having been about doubled from what it was before I arrived.
My favorite panel of the weekend, though, was a discussion of world-building. That panel consisted of David Gerrold and Harry Turtledove riffing off each other for about an hour and fifteen minutes. I left inspired to get back to work on that novel, and with a lot of new perspectives to bring to it.
It was a good weekend. I bought a few books, I got a book I took down with me signed by the author, which is cool because he is one of my favorites. I had a lot of good conversations with interesting people.
And I came home with a cold, apparently, since I woke up with stuffed sinuses and a runny nose this morning. A souvenir of the weekend, I suppose.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Addicted....addicted, I say...
Yeah. It's happened again.
I found a new author.
Well, not new, but new to me.
Back in July I was in the grocery store and happened to steer up the aisle where the books are kept. I usually don't even bother, because they usually have a lousy selection. If there are five books that look interesting, it's a good day...and I've ordinarily read all five of them.
But on that day, I saw a book called Echo Park, by Michael Connelly. I'd heard of him, vaguely, and I knew that Echo Park is a section of Los Angeles, and having grown up in Southern California, I adore books that take place there. So I picked the book up and took it home.
Well, I bought it, but you know...
Once I started reading, I couldn't put it down. And once I was done with it, I had to find more of the adventures of Hieronymous (Harry) Bosch, LAPD detective. I picked up the first book in the series, The Black Echo, and it was wonderful as well. The next one I was able to find (while I've been advised that it is better to read this series in order, I've been reading them as I can find them) was The Closers, which happened to take place in parts of L.A. County that I am very familiar with. Connelly even got the street names right. If I hadn't been hooked already, that would have done it.
So, now I've read nine of the thirteen Harry Bosch mysteries and I'm in the middle of another. Well, two more...but that's a weird story. One night I was in bed reading The Black Ice and happened upon a specific reference to the cemetery in which my father and much of his side of the family are buried. Kind of freaked me out. I had to put that book down and haven't managed to finish it yet. But I will.
I haven't devoured a mystery series in big gulps this way since I discovered Travis McGee in the late 1970s. By the time I had found my way to John D. MacDonald's knight errant, all but three of the books in that series were already in print. I likely would have done the same with Faye Kellerman's Rina Lazarus/Peter Decker mysteries when I discovered them, but I think there were only two or three of them in print when I happened on The Ritual Bath at the library.
Even in my preferred genre, science fiction/fantasy, I've only rarely been driven to search out all the books in a series immediately a few times. I read the first two Thomas Covenant trilogies, by Stephen R. Donaldson (which were all that existed then), one after the other in the space of about a month when I first discovered them. And I was entranced by Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality and Bio of a Space Tyrant series when I found them (even though I thought that the last couple of the Incarnations of Immortality books weren't quite up to the quality of the earlier volumes). After I came upon the first volume of Kage Baker's Company series, In the Garden of Iden, I pestered the library ladies until I got hold of all of those, even to the point of insisting that the library system order one of the volumes when it turned out they didn't have it in their holdings. To my surprise, they actually added it to the collection. There have been other sff series that I've read in their entirety, but in a much more leisurely fashion.
Which is a really long way around of saying that I've been spending my free time (what free time?) lately reading rather than blogging.
And also a long way of saying, if you like mystery novels and haven't read Michael Connelly, you really should make his acquaintance.
So...now that you've read this...Go. Read. A. Book.
I found a new author.
Well, not new, but new to me.
Back in July I was in the grocery store and happened to steer up the aisle where the books are kept. I usually don't even bother, because they usually have a lousy selection. If there are five books that look interesting, it's a good day...and I've ordinarily read all five of them.
But on that day, I saw a book called Echo Park, by Michael Connelly. I'd heard of him, vaguely, and I knew that Echo Park is a section of Los Angeles, and having grown up in Southern California, I adore books that take place there. So I picked the book up and took it home.
Well, I bought it, but you know...
Once I started reading, I couldn't put it down. And once I was done with it, I had to find more of the adventures of Hieronymous (Harry) Bosch, LAPD detective. I picked up the first book in the series, The Black Echo, and it was wonderful as well. The next one I was able to find (while I've been advised that it is better to read this series in order, I've been reading them as I can find them) was The Closers, which happened to take place in parts of L.A. County that I am very familiar with. Connelly even got the street names right. If I hadn't been hooked already, that would have done it.
So, now I've read nine of the thirteen Harry Bosch mysteries and I'm in the middle of another. Well, two more...but that's a weird story. One night I was in bed reading The Black Ice and happened upon a specific reference to the cemetery in which my father and much of his side of the family are buried. Kind of freaked me out. I had to put that book down and haven't managed to finish it yet. But I will.
I haven't devoured a mystery series in big gulps this way since I discovered Travis McGee in the late 1970s. By the time I had found my way to John D. MacDonald's knight errant, all but three of the books in that series were already in print. I likely would have done the same with Faye Kellerman's Rina Lazarus/Peter Decker mysteries when I discovered them, but I think there were only two or three of them in print when I happened on The Ritual Bath at the library.
Even in my preferred genre, science fiction/fantasy, I've only rarely been driven to search out all the books in a series immediately a few times. I read the first two Thomas Covenant trilogies, by Stephen R. Donaldson (which were all that existed then), one after the other in the space of about a month when I first discovered them. And I was entranced by Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality and Bio of a Space Tyrant series when I found them (even though I thought that the last couple of the Incarnations of Immortality books weren't quite up to the quality of the earlier volumes). After I came upon the first volume of Kage Baker's Company series, In the Garden of Iden, I pestered the library ladies until I got hold of all of those, even to the point of insisting that the library system order one of the volumes when it turned out they didn't have it in their holdings. To my surprise, they actually added it to the collection. There have been other sff series that I've read in their entirety, but in a much more leisurely fashion.
Which is a really long way around of saying that I've been spending my free time (what free time?) lately reading rather than blogging.
And also a long way of saying, if you like mystery novels and haven't read Michael Connelly, you really should make his acquaintance.
So...now that you've read this...Go. Read. A. Book.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
A limo for a 12-year-old...
Okay. Up-front admission. I am, by choice, childless. So I probably don't have any right to have an opinion on anything having to do with parenting. But still...
A couple of nights ago the Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana concert tour hit my town. I probably wouldn't have known anything about it, but I live about two blocks from the largest concert venue in town. For those of you who are also out of touch with kids' culture, "Hannah Montana" is a comedy on Disney Channel about a teenage girl who is a pop star (sort of like Britney Spears before she became a bad girl, I guess), but no one knows this but her family and a few close friends and she appears to spend a lot of time trying to make sure the kids at school don't find out so she can be a "normal" kid.
I've actually seen the show a couple of times, and it is cute for what it is, but most of the fans are in the 6 to 12 age range from what I understand. Which is fine. It is a good thing that there are touring shows for those 'tweeners, I think they're called now - the kids who aren't toddlers but aren't teens, either.
But why...please, someone tell me why...when I happened to drive by the arena during the show, there were limos lining the curb in front of the arena. More limos than I've seen for any other event there in the over two and a half years I've been living in the neighborhood. Who spends the money (and I'll bet it is a lot, although having never rented a limo myself, I wouldn't know) to rent a limo to take a 12-year-old to a concert?
I don't know how much the tickets for the concert ran, but I'm betting they were in the $40 to $50 range for the cheap seats, if you could get them. I heard news reports that this tour is so hot that scalpers are getting $1000, $2000, and more for a ticket in some cities. Which brings up another question...who would spend $2000 dollars for one ticket for a 12-year-old to go to a concert.
I wouldn't pay $1000 to see anyone, and I'm a pretty big music fan.
Heck, the most I've ever paid for a concert ticket is about $35, and that was for (separately, of course) U2 and Prince. In San Francisco and Oakland. Okay. So it was a few years ago, in both cases. I've considered paying around $100 a couple of times for a concert ticket, but I got over it in each case.
But $1000? Or more? That's just nuts.
It's even more nuts, when the concert-goer is 12 years old and probably won't care that she saw the show in a year or two. Add the cost of limo for the evening. Probably dinner out. It adds up quickly.
Well. I was a 12-year-old a long time ago. And I understand that there is inflation and all. But I nearly didn't get to go to my first concert (very teeny-bopper - that'd be about the same thing as a 'tweener - but at least the opening act was a very young Steve Martin) when I told my parents that the price of the ticket was $5. I'm pretty sure that $5 in 1970 does not translate to $1000 today. I doubt it even translates to $50 today. Actually, as of last year, with inflation, something that cost $5 in 1970 would have cost $26.56 in 2006. I looked it up.
So, maybe I'm just old and don't understand a culture in which someone would give a kid $1000 to go to a concert, who would hire a limo to take them. But it just doesn't make sense to me. Not even a little bit.
A couple of nights ago the Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana concert tour hit my town. I probably wouldn't have known anything about it, but I live about two blocks from the largest concert venue in town. For those of you who are also out of touch with kids' culture, "Hannah Montana" is a comedy on Disney Channel about a teenage girl who is a pop star (sort of like Britney Spears before she became a bad girl, I guess), but no one knows this but her family and a few close friends and she appears to spend a lot of time trying to make sure the kids at school don't find out so she can be a "normal" kid.
I've actually seen the show a couple of times, and it is cute for what it is, but most of the fans are in the 6 to 12 age range from what I understand. Which is fine. It is a good thing that there are touring shows for those 'tweeners, I think they're called now - the kids who aren't toddlers but aren't teens, either.
But why...please, someone tell me why...when I happened to drive by the arena during the show, there were limos lining the curb in front of the arena. More limos than I've seen for any other event there in the over two and a half years I've been living in the neighborhood. Who spends the money (and I'll bet it is a lot, although having never rented a limo myself, I wouldn't know) to rent a limo to take a 12-year-old to a concert?
I don't know how much the tickets for the concert ran, but I'm betting they were in the $40 to $50 range for the cheap seats, if you could get them. I heard news reports that this tour is so hot that scalpers are getting $1000, $2000, and more for a ticket in some cities. Which brings up another question...who would spend $2000 dollars for one ticket for a 12-year-old to go to a concert.
I wouldn't pay $1000 to see anyone, and I'm a pretty big music fan.
Heck, the most I've ever paid for a concert ticket is about $35, and that was for (separately, of course) U2 and Prince. In San Francisco and Oakland. Okay. So it was a few years ago, in both cases. I've considered paying around $100 a couple of times for a concert ticket, but I got over it in each case.
But $1000? Or more? That's just nuts.
It's even more nuts, when the concert-goer is 12 years old and probably won't care that she saw the show in a year or two. Add the cost of limo for the evening. Probably dinner out. It adds up quickly.
Well. I was a 12-year-old a long time ago. And I understand that there is inflation and all. But I nearly didn't get to go to my first concert (very teeny-bopper - that'd be about the same thing as a 'tweener - but at least the opening act was a very young Steve Martin) when I told my parents that the price of the ticket was $5. I'm pretty sure that $5 in 1970 does not translate to $1000 today. I doubt it even translates to $50 today. Actually, as of last year, with inflation, something that cost $5 in 1970 would have cost $26.56 in 2006. I looked it up.
So, maybe I'm just old and don't understand a culture in which someone would give a kid $1000 to go to a concert, who would hire a limo to take them. But it just doesn't make sense to me. Not even a little bit.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Real time returns
Did you remember to set your clock back last night before you went to bed?
I did. Well, one. I traditionally change on clock on the Saturday night and the rest when I get up on the Sunday morning. I guess it's kind of like opening one gift on Christmas Eve and leaving the rest for Christmas morning.
And, yes, I really do look forward to the return of standard (what I think of as "real") time that much.
I don't know why it is, but I just feel more balanced with the sun rising earlier and setting earlier than it does during Daylight Savings Time. The rhythm of the day seems more normal when the sun is at least thinking about coming up when I get up (at 6 am during the week) and when it goes down when evening comes rather than waiting until 9 p.m. or a bit later to get full dark at the height of summer (in these latitudes, at any rate...it was even worse when I visited England and the sun didn't go down until around 10:30 p.m.)
Now, of course, none of this means that my inner clock will adjust to the time change automatically just because it has gone back to the way I like it. I'll still be off-balance for at least a week, maybe two, until the inner clock gets back in sync with the clock on the wall.
Still, it's moving toward evening now, and it looks like it outside the window next to my desk. And that is a good thing.
I did. Well, one. I traditionally change on clock on the Saturday night and the rest when I get up on the Sunday morning. I guess it's kind of like opening one gift on Christmas Eve and leaving the rest for Christmas morning.
And, yes, I really do look forward to the return of standard (what I think of as "real") time that much.
I don't know why it is, but I just feel more balanced with the sun rising earlier and setting earlier than it does during Daylight Savings Time. The rhythm of the day seems more normal when the sun is at least thinking about coming up when I get up (at 6 am during the week) and when it goes down when evening comes rather than waiting until 9 p.m. or a bit later to get full dark at the height of summer (in these latitudes, at any rate...it was even worse when I visited England and the sun didn't go down until around 10:30 p.m.)
Now, of course, none of this means that my inner clock will adjust to the time change automatically just because it has gone back to the way I like it. I'll still be off-balance for at least a week, maybe two, until the inner clock gets back in sync with the clock on the wall.
Still, it's moving toward evening now, and it looks like it outside the window next to my desk. And that is a good thing.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Another (tradition) bites the dust...sort of
Sad news (with a silver lining) from Hollywood, especially for an old parade-goer like myself.
I see in an article in today's Los Angeles Times, via Yahoo!News, that after a close call the Hollywood Christmas Parade, now to be known as the Hollywood Santa Parade, will go on on the traditional Sunday after Thanksgiving.
However, it will be much scaled back and will no longer be produced by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce after it washed its hand of the event after last year's parade lost $100,000. It has been rescued by the Los Angeles City Council, via council president Eric Garcetti, who represents the area of the parade route along Hollywood Boulevard, Highland Avenue and Sunset Boulevard. Garcetti, who got the council to act after protests from a private group which formed after it was announced that the parade would not go on this year, was quoted in the article as saying that he "couldn't in good conscience let die" at least in part because it is "one of the last free things families can do."
The plan is to build the parade back up to its former glory, but this year's parade will be just a shadow of its former self, with thirty-five bands signed up so far, plus some floats and equestrian units. Retired "Price Is Right" host Bob Barker has signed on, as has the cast of Disney's "High School Musical", slim pickings for a parade that once boasted the participation of some of the biggest stars in Hollywood. In fact, one of the reasons the parade was not able to make money recently was because broadcasters lost interest in showing the parade once ratings began to fall once "A-list" stars became more reluctant to appear in the parade. Much of the parade's revenues have come from broadcast fees.
Apparently the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce hasn't completely deserted the idea of a Christmas parade and is urging its members to support this year's parade. It is also offered use of signs and parade workers' vests if the new group putting the parade together, Pageantry Productions. Also, the Chamber has said it will consider letting the parade use the name "Hollywood Christmas Parade" in future years if this year's parade is of high enough quality.
This is all very sad for me. Growing up in Southern California, my family attended the parade several times in the early 1970s, when it was still known as the "Santa Claus Lane Parade" (which prompted Gene Autry to record the Christmas classic "Here Comes Santa Claus"...you know: "Here comes Santa Claus/Here comes Santa Claus/Right down Santa Claus Lane"). It was sort of the official end of the Thanksgiving weekend and the beginning of the Christmas Season.
I've got some lovely memories of going out on a cool (well, usually) winter evening to see the bands and the floats and the stars...who still participated in numbers at that time. There would be everyone from the old-time stars like Bob Hope to the casts of many of the network TV series then current. I'll never forget one time when the two elderly ladies next to my family on the parade route (I'd say they were probably in their seventies at the time) were there in their finest clothes, evening make-up and nicest jewelry, so excited because Cesar Romero was going to be in the parade that year. They were very cute ladies, just like a couple of teenagers. During the years I went to the parade, the tradition was that Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner (then on their second marriage to each other) and their children rode on the last float of the parade...with Santa Claus on his sleigh.
It was just a fun time. Not the big production the Tournament of Roses Parade on New Year's Day in Pasadena is, but a nice hometown Christmas parade...it's just that the hometown happened to be Hollywood and lots of the participants were very, very famous.
I hope the new version of the parade succeeds. I hope that the Hollywood community returns to participation in the coming years. I'd hate to know that this part of my growing up wasn't there any more.
I see in an article in today's Los Angeles Times, via Yahoo!News, that after a close call the Hollywood Christmas Parade, now to be known as the Hollywood Santa Parade, will go on on the traditional Sunday after Thanksgiving.
However, it will be much scaled back and will no longer be produced by the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce after it washed its hand of the event after last year's parade lost $100,000. It has been rescued by the Los Angeles City Council, via council president Eric Garcetti, who represents the area of the parade route along Hollywood Boulevard, Highland Avenue and Sunset Boulevard. Garcetti, who got the council to act after protests from a private group which formed after it was announced that the parade would not go on this year, was quoted in the article as saying that he "couldn't in good conscience let die" at least in part because it is "one of the last free things families can do."
The plan is to build the parade back up to its former glory, but this year's parade will be just a shadow of its former self, with thirty-five bands signed up so far, plus some floats and equestrian units. Retired "Price Is Right" host Bob Barker has signed on, as has the cast of Disney's "High School Musical", slim pickings for a parade that once boasted the participation of some of the biggest stars in Hollywood. In fact, one of the reasons the parade was not able to make money recently was because broadcasters lost interest in showing the parade once ratings began to fall once "A-list" stars became more reluctant to appear in the parade. Much of the parade's revenues have come from broadcast fees.
Apparently the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce hasn't completely deserted the idea of a Christmas parade and is urging its members to support this year's parade. It is also offered use of signs and parade workers' vests if the new group putting the parade together, Pageantry Productions. Also, the Chamber has said it will consider letting the parade use the name "Hollywood Christmas Parade" in future years if this year's parade is of high enough quality.
This is all very sad for me. Growing up in Southern California, my family attended the parade several times in the early 1970s, when it was still known as the "Santa Claus Lane Parade" (which prompted Gene Autry to record the Christmas classic "Here Comes Santa Claus"...you know: "Here comes Santa Claus/Here comes Santa Claus/Right down Santa Claus Lane"). It was sort of the official end of the Thanksgiving weekend and the beginning of the Christmas Season.
I've got some lovely memories of going out on a cool (well, usually) winter evening to see the bands and the floats and the stars...who still participated in numbers at that time. There would be everyone from the old-time stars like Bob Hope to the casts of many of the network TV series then current. I'll never forget one time when the two elderly ladies next to my family on the parade route (I'd say they were probably in their seventies at the time) were there in their finest clothes, evening make-up and nicest jewelry, so excited because Cesar Romero was going to be in the parade that year. They were very cute ladies, just like a couple of teenagers. During the years I went to the parade, the tradition was that Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner (then on their second marriage to each other) and their children rode on the last float of the parade...with Santa Claus on his sleigh.
It was just a fun time. Not the big production the Tournament of Roses Parade on New Year's Day in Pasadena is, but a nice hometown Christmas parade...it's just that the hometown happened to be Hollywood and lots of the participants were very, very famous.
I hope the new version of the parade succeeds. I hope that the Hollywood community returns to participation in the coming years. I'd hate to know that this part of my growing up wasn't there any more.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
What embarasses you?
Natalie, over at Trapped by the Mormons, tagged everyone who read her list of 10 things that embarrass her. Without further ado, then, here is my list:
1. Start with one that isn't too embarrassing. The Princess Diaries is one of my favorite movies, and I watch it every time I find it on TV. Yeah, I know. It's a teenager movie, and I haven't been a teenager in a very long time.
2. Sort of along the same lines: I still go back and read Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little House" books from time to time. I think I'm mostly embarrassed about this, though, because of the TV series that was very loosely based on them. The books are nothing like the series. Still, I would never use one of these books as my carry-around-with-me-everywhere books.
3. While I'm being childish: I have a stuffed crocodile named Rosey that lives on my bed. Further, I sometimes talk to Rosey as if he is a live pet...or a human being.
4. I believe in precognitive dreams. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. No such thing. You're right. Except that I've had them from time to time.
5. I'm also seriously superstitious. Maybe it's because I'm a baseball fan (everyone knows that baseball players are probably the most superstitious people in the world, and it could have rubbed off). Except that the black cat thing doesn't bother me at all. But, for instance, if I spill salt I absolutely have to throw some salt over my left shoulder. And if I'm backstage in a theater (I am a sometime props handler) and someone starts to whistle I make sure they know not to do that.
6. I know all the words to the "Green Acres" theme song. All of them. I could sit here and type them out now to prove it, but that would be too embarrassing for words.
7. I was one of those thirteen-year-olds (back in the early 1970s) who had her bedroom walls plastered with pictures of the heartthrobs of the time. Yes, for awhile the walls were literally wallpapered with glossies from 16 and Tiger Beat and similar publications.
8. Even worse than that...I went to concerts and screamed, well, like a teenage girl. I ot over this by the time I was about fourteen, but still...it's extremely embarrassing in hindsight.
9. I got a D in algebra in the 9th grade. Probably had something to do with the fact that I never did anything in class. Well, I did. I read Gone With The Wind and countless Victoria Holt gothic romance novels. I read everything but my math textbook. And I taught myself how to sleep with my eyes open. Really.
10. I used obscene mnemonic devices to memorize things for exams when I was in college. Well, not necessarily obscene. But definitely racy. It made things much easier to remember, but sometimes I could feel myself blushing when I'd be taking a test and had to run one of them through my mind to get to an answer. Before you ask...no, there is no obscene mnemonic device behind my being able to remember all the words to the "Green Acres" theme song, unless you consider it obscene that I actually watched the show enough times for that song to be imprinted indelibly on my mind.
So, you all, like Natalie said...if you read this, consider yourself tagged. Leave me a comment with a link to your blog when you post your list.
1. Start with one that isn't too embarrassing. The Princess Diaries is one of my favorite movies, and I watch it every time I find it on TV. Yeah, I know. It's a teenager movie, and I haven't been a teenager in a very long time.
2. Sort of along the same lines: I still go back and read Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little House" books from time to time. I think I'm mostly embarrassed about this, though, because of the TV series that was very loosely based on them. The books are nothing like the series. Still, I would never use one of these books as my carry-around-with-me-everywhere books.
3. While I'm being childish: I have a stuffed crocodile named Rosey that lives on my bed. Further, I sometimes talk to Rosey as if he is a live pet...or a human being.
4. I believe in precognitive dreams. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. No such thing. You're right. Except that I've had them from time to time.
5. I'm also seriously superstitious. Maybe it's because I'm a baseball fan (everyone knows that baseball players are probably the most superstitious people in the world, and it could have rubbed off). Except that the black cat thing doesn't bother me at all. But, for instance, if I spill salt I absolutely have to throw some salt over my left shoulder. And if I'm backstage in a theater (I am a sometime props handler) and someone starts to whistle I make sure they know not to do that.
6. I know all the words to the "Green Acres" theme song. All of them. I could sit here and type them out now to prove it, but that would be too embarrassing for words.
7. I was one of those thirteen-year-olds (back in the early 1970s) who had her bedroom walls plastered with pictures of the heartthrobs of the time. Yes, for awhile the walls were literally wallpapered with glossies from 16 and Tiger Beat and similar publications.
8. Even worse than that...I went to concerts and screamed, well, like a teenage girl. I ot over this by the time I was about fourteen, but still...it's extremely embarrassing in hindsight.
9. I got a D in algebra in the 9th grade. Probably had something to do with the fact that I never did anything in class. Well, I did. I read Gone With The Wind and countless Victoria Holt gothic romance novels. I read everything but my math textbook. And I taught myself how to sleep with my eyes open. Really.
10. I used obscene mnemonic devices to memorize things for exams when I was in college. Well, not necessarily obscene. But definitely racy. It made things much easier to remember, but sometimes I could feel myself blushing when I'd be taking a test and had to run one of them through my mind to get to an answer. Before you ask...no, there is no obscene mnemonic device behind my being able to remember all the words to the "Green Acres" theme song, unless you consider it obscene that I actually watched the show enough times for that song to be imprinted indelibly on my mind.
So, you all, like Natalie said...if you read this, consider yourself tagged. Leave me a comment with a link to your blog when you post your list.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Getting cranky at lunch...
As I was reading at one of my regular stops in the blogosphere, (pilgrimgirl, and you should really stop in and read her someday…she’s a wonderful writer and a wonderful person whose posts are incisive and thoughtful), one of the comments a reader left in response to a recent post really struck me.
It was a simple thought: “It's always kind of entertaining to see what will out me as a complete crank case.”
I read that, and I thought, Yeah, rings a bell.
A case in point from yesterday, when my mother and I were out at lunch: There were two long tables of mid-to-late teens seated right next to us. About half of them, distributed among the two tables, were wearing t-shirts that said something to the effect that they were 100 percent members of the Army of the Lord. Which bothered me right there. First of all, I felt like that represented bad theology: as far as I can remember, Jesus discouraged his followers from establishing a kingdom here on earth, and armies belong to earthly kingdoms. Second of all, that sort of thing smacks of the willingness to convert by force, something I don’t approve of from any religion. And thirdly, although I’m not really a practicing anything at this point, I find it disrespectful to reduce who believers think of as God to the same level as a rock star, a football team, or a clothing label.
Still, I wasn’t going to say anything to them, although I grumbled about it to my mother all through the meal.
But then, as the group left, just as I was commenting that the whole bunch of them needed a keeper, based on their behavior, one of the girls started giggling as she took the ketchup bottle on the table and proceeded to empty about half of it into the melted remains of a bowl of ice cream that one of the other kids had left.
That was it. “Excuse me,” I said. “What are you doing wasting food like that? The t-shirts some of you are wearing indicate that you are religious, think of yourselves as godly people. But wasting food like that isn’t a very godly thing to do.” They just looked at me like I’d grown a third eye in the middle of my forehead or something and walked away.
I’m still not sure that I should have said anything. They were teenagers, for Pete’s sake, and teenagers act like that sometimes. But, you know, it seems to me that wearing a t-shirt that proclaims their religiosity like that, they need to learn at some point that such a public proclamation of specific beliefs and values carries some sort of responsibility, some sort of consequences, with it. It is something those kids need to learn.
It was a simple thought: “It's always kind of entertaining to see what will out me as a complete crank case.”
I read that, and I thought, Yeah, rings a bell.
A case in point from yesterday, when my mother and I were out at lunch: There were two long tables of mid-to-late teens seated right next to us. About half of them, distributed among the two tables, were wearing t-shirts that said something to the effect that they were 100 percent members of the Army of the Lord. Which bothered me right there. First of all, I felt like that represented bad theology: as far as I can remember, Jesus discouraged his followers from establishing a kingdom here on earth, and armies belong to earthly kingdoms. Second of all, that sort of thing smacks of the willingness to convert by force, something I don’t approve of from any religion. And thirdly, although I’m not really a practicing anything at this point, I find it disrespectful to reduce who believers think of as God to the same level as a rock star, a football team, or a clothing label.
Still, I wasn’t going to say anything to them, although I grumbled about it to my mother all through the meal.
But then, as the group left, just as I was commenting that the whole bunch of them needed a keeper, based on their behavior, one of the girls started giggling as she took the ketchup bottle on the table and proceeded to empty about half of it into the melted remains of a bowl of ice cream that one of the other kids had left.
That was it. “Excuse me,” I said. “What are you doing wasting food like that? The t-shirts some of you are wearing indicate that you are religious, think of yourselves as godly people. But wasting food like that isn’t a very godly thing to do.” They just looked at me like I’d grown a third eye in the middle of my forehead or something and walked away.
I’m still not sure that I should have said anything. They were teenagers, for Pete’s sake, and teenagers act like that sometimes. But, you know, it seems to me that wearing a t-shirt that proclaims their religiosity like that, they need to learn at some point that such a public proclamation of specific beliefs and values carries some sort of responsibility, some sort of consequences, with it. It is something those kids need to learn.
It's almost Halloween...
...and, of course, someone took a poll. The headline news in the AP article, which I came across on MSNBC's website, is that fewer minorities allow their children to trick-or-treat than white folks do, 56 percent to 73 percent.
It seems to be a mostly safety issue, and actually shakes out along economic lines. While 86 percent of those surveyed overall said they believe their neighborhoods are a safe place to trick-or-treat, 91 percent of whites and 75 percent of minorities said where the live is safe for going door-to-door to ask for candy and treats. The numbers were almost identical when broken down according to how much money people make: 93 percent of those who make $50,000 or more said they think their kids can trick-or-treat safely in their neighborhood, 76 percent of those who make $25,000 per year or less felt that their neighborhood will be safe for their kids to trick-or-treat.
But that isn't what I found so interesting.
The survey also broke down the households which indicated that they will have candy available for trick-or-treaters this year. Overall, two-thirds said they would welcome trick-or-treaters. Liberals were the most likely to give out candy: 70 percent of those who identified as liberal said they would participate in the holiday. 67 percent of moderates said they would distribute candy, while only 55 percent of conservatives said they would do so. Those are interesting numbers, I think, and probably get at something deeper than just whether or not the respondents are willing to give candy to children.
Another interesting set of numbers from the survey: Only a quarter of those who said they would not let their children trick-or-treat said they take that position because they are concerned about their kids' safety, but fully half said that they would not allow their kids to trick-or-treat because they don't celebrate Halloween at all.
One woman from Pennsylvania offered this quote, about Halloween: "It's demonic. People are celebrating the dead. I'm not into that." It's an interesting point of view, and one that I'm familiar with. When I was attending a Christian (Mennonite Brethren) university, one of my classmates (not Mennonite) accused me of supporting "baby-killing" because I wore a costume (my Renaissance Faire costume) to school on the day. I asked here where she got that idea. Her pastor had told her church that, she said.
It makes we wonder what people with this attitude would do with Dia de los Muertos ("Day of the Dead") , which originated with pre-Columbian populations in Mexico but has been taken up by the Christian population of Mexico (and some areas of the United States with large Mexican populations) and really celebrates the dead rather than just focuses on giving candy to kids. Although there is candy involved, from what I understand.
It seems to be a mostly safety issue, and actually shakes out along economic lines. While 86 percent of those surveyed overall said they believe their neighborhoods are a safe place to trick-or-treat, 91 percent of whites and 75 percent of minorities said where the live is safe for going door-to-door to ask for candy and treats. The numbers were almost identical when broken down according to how much money people make: 93 percent of those who make $50,000 or more said they think their kids can trick-or-treat safely in their neighborhood, 76 percent of those who make $25,000 per year or less felt that their neighborhood will be safe for their kids to trick-or-treat.
But that isn't what I found so interesting.
The survey also broke down the households which indicated that they will have candy available for trick-or-treaters this year. Overall, two-thirds said they would welcome trick-or-treaters. Liberals were the most likely to give out candy: 70 percent of those who identified as liberal said they would participate in the holiday. 67 percent of moderates said they would distribute candy, while only 55 percent of conservatives said they would do so. Those are interesting numbers, I think, and probably get at something deeper than just whether or not the respondents are willing to give candy to children.
Another interesting set of numbers from the survey: Only a quarter of those who said they would not let their children trick-or-treat said they take that position because they are concerned about their kids' safety, but fully half said that they would not allow their kids to trick-or-treat because they don't celebrate Halloween at all.
One woman from Pennsylvania offered this quote, about Halloween: "It's demonic. People are celebrating the dead. I'm not into that." It's an interesting point of view, and one that I'm familiar with. When I was attending a Christian (Mennonite Brethren) university, one of my classmates (not Mennonite) accused me of supporting "baby-killing" because I wore a costume (my Renaissance Faire costume) to school on the day. I asked here where she got that idea. Her pastor had told her church that, she said.
It makes we wonder what people with this attitude would do with Dia de los Muertos ("Day of the Dead") , which originated with pre-Columbian populations in Mexico but has been taken up by the Christian population of Mexico (and some areas of the United States with large Mexican populations) and really celebrates the dead rather than just focuses on giving candy to kids. Although there is candy involved, from what I understand.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Did you know...?
Did you know that football stadium full of screaming fans sounds very much the same as a jet flying over very, very low?
It's just amazing. I live about two blocks from a university football stadium that holds something more than 40,000 people. There's a game tonight. And every time the home team does something they like it sounds like there's a plane flying over my apartment at roughly rooftop level.
It's an easy comparison to make, since I also live a couple of miles from the local airport, right under the take-off pattern, and have the opportunity to hear all kinds of planes go over...all the way from one-engine puddle jumpers to fairly large passenger and cargo planes to Air National Guard jets. In fact, a jet just flew over a couple of minutes ago and it took me a couple of seconds to figure out whether it was the crowd or a plane. Then, I realized that it's halftime and there was very little chance that the marching band was getting that sort of a reaction.
The other weird thing is that tonight's game is being carried on ESPN 2, and it seems odd to be able to hear the crowd (and the refs over the public address system) direct from the stadium and also, if the television is tuned to the game, to hear them there, after the signal has bounced around a couple of satellites and back down to my cable provider.
It's probably just a function of my age...I can remember, when I was about 7 or 8 years old, watching the old Ed Sullivan tv show on a Sunday night and them making such a huge deal about the fact that they were carrying a performance by the Rolling Stones via satellite link-up from London. That was a very big deal then, brand-new technology that was rare and expensive and hardly ever used. Now, satellite link-ups are the bread and butter of broadcasting, especially for news networks, and most people rarely give them a second thought.
Oh, and no...I don't really care about the game. I'm not a football fan, and especially not a college football fan...I just like listening to the roar of the crowd.
Yeah, I guess I'm pretty much a nerd.
It's just amazing. I live about two blocks from a university football stadium that holds something more than 40,000 people. There's a game tonight. And every time the home team does something they like it sounds like there's a plane flying over my apartment at roughly rooftop level.
It's an easy comparison to make, since I also live a couple of miles from the local airport, right under the take-off pattern, and have the opportunity to hear all kinds of planes go over...all the way from one-engine puddle jumpers to fairly large passenger and cargo planes to Air National Guard jets. In fact, a jet just flew over a couple of minutes ago and it took me a couple of seconds to figure out whether it was the crowd or a plane. Then, I realized that it's halftime and there was very little chance that the marching band was getting that sort of a reaction.
The other weird thing is that tonight's game is being carried on ESPN 2, and it seems odd to be able to hear the crowd (and the refs over the public address system) direct from the stadium and also, if the television is tuned to the game, to hear them there, after the signal has bounced around a couple of satellites and back down to my cable provider.
It's probably just a function of my age...I can remember, when I was about 7 or 8 years old, watching the old Ed Sullivan tv show on a Sunday night and them making such a huge deal about the fact that they were carrying a performance by the Rolling Stones via satellite link-up from London. That was a very big deal then, brand-new technology that was rare and expensive and hardly ever used. Now, satellite link-ups are the bread and butter of broadcasting, especially for news networks, and most people rarely give them a second thought.
Oh, and no...I don't really care about the game. I'm not a football fan, and especially not a college football fan...I just like listening to the roar of the crowd.
Yeah, I guess I'm pretty much a nerd.
Progress? What Progress?
Can someone please explain to me how these two things are different?
I read two stories yesterday, one from the San Francisco Chronicle (and in this link, covered by Yahoo!News), concerns a teacher kidnapped and murdered in Iraq by Shiite Muslims because he was Sunni Muslim. The other, from Newsweek, is about a case in Los Angeles in which Latino gang members stand accused of targeting not only African-American gang members but any random African-American in what looks very much like homegrown racial cleansing.
I don't see any difference at all here, other than the fact that in one case the targeted characteristic was religion and in the other the targets were chosen because of their skin color. It is just unacceptable that in the 21st century people would even think about acting in such a...oh, I hate to use the word, but it is the only one I can think of...tribal manner, being willing to kill members of another group just because they look different or because they believe differently. Religion against religion, ethnic group versus ethnic group...it goes on and on.
It is especially interesting to me that, in the case of the L.A. gangs, the point is made that this sort of "brown-on-black" crime, as they characterize it, is still considered an "anomaly", but two paragraphs later the writer reports that the most recent case is the third such case in the past two years.
In the case of the Iraq killing, the linked article makes the point that these sort of sectarian killings are becoming less common. Well, that might be true, but the article also points out that the killing of this teacher is "unremarkable" among all the violence Iraqis see on a daily basis.
Which is another place where the commonalities between the two cases come in. Living as I do in an area where gang activity is not uncommon, it frightens me sometimes that it seems like every time there is a gang-related shooting or killing, the general attitude seems to be, well, it's just the gangs. What can you expect. That sort of violence, whether aimed at other gangs of the same ethnic background, at gangs members of a different ethnic background, or at random victims, just seems to have become an accepted part of 21st century American life. Just as it seems to be expected...and accepted as a reality...that individuals can be targeted because of their religious beliefs in the Middle East.
I read two stories yesterday, one from the San Francisco Chronicle (and in this link, covered by Yahoo!News), concerns a teacher kidnapped and murdered in Iraq by Shiite Muslims because he was Sunni Muslim. The other, from Newsweek, is about a case in Los Angeles in which Latino gang members stand accused of targeting not only African-American gang members but any random African-American in what looks very much like homegrown racial cleansing.
I don't see any difference at all here, other than the fact that in one case the targeted characteristic was religion and in the other the targets were chosen because of their skin color. It is just unacceptable that in the 21st century people would even think about acting in such a...oh, I hate to use the word, but it is the only one I can think of...tribal manner, being willing to kill members of another group just because they look different or because they believe differently. Religion against religion, ethnic group versus ethnic group...it goes on and on.
It is especially interesting to me that, in the case of the L.A. gangs, the point is made that this sort of "brown-on-black" crime, as they characterize it, is still considered an "anomaly", but two paragraphs later the writer reports that the most recent case is the third such case in the past two years.
In the case of the Iraq killing, the linked article makes the point that these sort of sectarian killings are becoming less common. Well, that might be true, but the article also points out that the killing of this teacher is "unremarkable" among all the violence Iraqis see on a daily basis.
Which is another place where the commonalities between the two cases come in. Living as I do in an area where gang activity is not uncommon, it frightens me sometimes that it seems like every time there is a gang-related shooting or killing, the general attitude seems to be, well, it's just the gangs. What can you expect. That sort of violence, whether aimed at other gangs of the same ethnic background, at gangs members of a different ethnic background, or at random victims, just seems to have become an accepted part of 21st century American life. Just as it seems to be expected...and accepted as a reality...that individuals can be targeted because of their religious beliefs in the Middle East.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
And the war of words goes on...
Updating yesterday's post on testimony before a Senate committee by CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding, on the health effects of climate change:
There have been a few developments in this controversy.
First of all, according to AP reports White House press secretary Dana Perino said that the CDC testimony was "not watered down" but that in an interagency review "a number of agencies" had "some concerns" about the contents of the written version of Dr. Gerberding's testimony and that some reviewers did not think the testimony matched up with a report on the same subject by the UN's Ingergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The White House also said that Dr. Gerberding doesn't think her testimony was censored. And, indeed, Dr. Gerberding is quoted as saying today that she is "absolutely happy" with her testimony and that she could and did depart from the written version of the testimony.
Despite this, California Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee (the committee in front of which Dr. Gerberding testified on Tuesday); Tennessee Representative Bart Gordon, chair of the House Science and Technlology Committee; and North Carolina Representative Brad Miller, chair of the House Science subcommittee on investigations and oversight, have all expressed concern over the changes in the written testimony and have requested copies of all versions along with all comments made on the drafts. All also asked for an explanation from the White House chief science advisor, John Marburger, concerning how the drafts of the testimony were handled.
In addition, Senator Boxer's staff evidently questioned the characterization that some parts of the written testimony did not match the IPCC report, and Representative Gordon claimed that some of the deleted sections of the testimony were similar to the IPCC report.
And so it continues. Of course, the climate change skeptics will call this a partisan attack on the White House because all three members of Congress who have called the administration to account on this are Democrats. As far as I'm concerned, that is pretty much beside the point. This concerns every person in the US, every person in the world, and we deserve to hear all sides of the question, not just the side that the Bush administration wants us to hear. If the White House really wants us to get a balanced view of the issue, then it wouldn't be going around changing testimony that doesn't match its own view.
There have been a few developments in this controversy.
First of all, according to AP reports White House press secretary Dana Perino said that the CDC testimony was "not watered down" but that in an interagency review "a number of agencies" had "some concerns" about the contents of the written version of Dr. Gerberding's testimony and that some reviewers did not think the testimony matched up with a report on the same subject by the UN's Ingergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The White House also said that Dr. Gerberding doesn't think her testimony was censored. And, indeed, Dr. Gerberding is quoted as saying today that she is "absolutely happy" with her testimony and that she could and did depart from the written version of the testimony.
Despite this, California Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee (the committee in front of which Dr. Gerberding testified on Tuesday); Tennessee Representative Bart Gordon, chair of the House Science and Technlology Committee; and North Carolina Representative Brad Miller, chair of the House Science subcommittee on investigations and oversight, have all expressed concern over the changes in the written testimony and have requested copies of all versions along with all comments made on the drafts. All also asked for an explanation from the White House chief science advisor, John Marburger, concerning how the drafts of the testimony were handled.
In addition, Senator Boxer's staff evidently questioned the characterization that some parts of the written testimony did not match the IPCC report, and Representative Gordon claimed that some of the deleted sections of the testimony were similar to the IPCC report.
And so it continues. Of course, the climate change skeptics will call this a partisan attack on the White House because all three members of Congress who have called the administration to account on this are Democrats. As far as I'm concerned, that is pretty much beside the point. This concerns every person in the US, every person in the world, and we deserve to hear all sides of the question, not just the side that the Bush administration wants us to hear. If the White House really wants us to get a balanced view of the issue, then it wouldn't be going around changing testimony that doesn't match its own view.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Don't confuse them with the facts...
The Bush administration is at it again, editing out real science from reports and congressional testimony when it doesn't fit "the national priorities of the administration." That quote is from an AP story as carried by Yahoo!News* and is credited to Office of Management and Budget spokesman Sean Kevelighan. Yes, he actually admitted that "lining up well" with the goals of the administration is one of the considerations involved when the OMB reviews reports written by government offices.
If you've read The Republican War On Science by Chris Mooney (and if you haven't, you should), you won't be surprised that this has happened again, this time in a report from the Centers for Disease Control on the effects of global climate change on human health, about which CDC director Dr. Julie Geberding testified before a Senate committee today. According to a CDC official familiar with the report, it was originally fourteen pages long. By the time the White House, via the OMB, was done with it, it was four pages long. As finally presented to the committee, it was six pages long.
What was missing? Specific examples of how climate change will impact on the health of Americans. A CDC spokesman (not the same person, presumably, as the official who commented on the various forms the report took) minimized the importance of the administration cuts in the report and said that most of the information that the CDC wanted to have heard was presented in the course of Dr. Gerberding's testimony. Things like the effects of increased heat on health; injuries and deaths that can be expected from an increase in severe weather events such as hurricanes; and an increase in water-borne and vector-borne diseases such as cholera and malaria respectively.
That's just great. They're finally realizing that they can't deny that the global climate is changing, so now they've decided that they'll just play down the effects the changes will have on the human population. Because if people realized what global warming will do to them, to their children, and to their grandchildren, they might demand that something be done to try to stop...or at least moderate...it. Which might inconvenience some of the administration's rich corporate friends.
Well, for awhile now the right wing has been making snide remarks about the "reality-based community", making it clear that they themselves are not a part of that. I guess they really believe that all they have to do is say something...something, oh, like that global warming doesn't really exist and even if it does it just means more warm weather - "And how can that be a bad thing?"...and it will be so.
I guess they don't want to be confused by the facts.
*As so often happens with Yahoo!News, the link I originally included didn't work. I'd try to fix it but I'm tired, I think I'm coming down with a cold, and I just don't feel like doing it right now. Maybe tomorrow. If the story hasn't completely disappeared into cyberspace by then, as this sort of story so often seems to do. Sorry.
If you've read The Republican War On Science by Chris Mooney (and if you haven't, you should), you won't be surprised that this has happened again, this time in a report from the Centers for Disease Control on the effects of global climate change on human health, about which CDC director Dr. Julie Geberding testified before a Senate committee today. According to a CDC official familiar with the report, it was originally fourteen pages long. By the time the White House, via the OMB, was done with it, it was four pages long. As finally presented to the committee, it was six pages long.
What was missing? Specific examples of how climate change will impact on the health of Americans. A CDC spokesman (not the same person, presumably, as the official who commented on the various forms the report took) minimized the importance of the administration cuts in the report and said that most of the information that the CDC wanted to have heard was presented in the course of Dr. Gerberding's testimony. Things like the effects of increased heat on health; injuries and deaths that can be expected from an increase in severe weather events such as hurricanes; and an increase in water-borne and vector-borne diseases such as cholera and malaria respectively.
That's just great. They're finally realizing that they can't deny that the global climate is changing, so now they've decided that they'll just play down the effects the changes will have on the human population. Because if people realized what global warming will do to them, to their children, and to their grandchildren, they might demand that something be done to try to stop...or at least moderate...it. Which might inconvenience some of the administration's rich corporate friends.
Well, for awhile now the right wing has been making snide remarks about the "reality-based community", making it clear that they themselves are not a part of that. I guess they really believe that all they have to do is say something...something, oh, like that global warming doesn't really exist and even if it does it just means more warm weather - "And how can that be a bad thing?"...and it will be so.
I guess they don't want to be confused by the facts.
*As so often happens with Yahoo!News, the link I originally included didn't work. I'd try to fix it but I'm tired, I think I'm coming down with a cold, and I just don't feel like doing it right now. Maybe tomorrow. If the story hasn't completely disappeared into cyberspace by then, as this sort of story so often seems to do. Sorry.
Monday, October 22, 2007
True confessions time...
I hate infomercials.
I want to say that right up front. An infomercial comes on the tube, the channel gets switched. I think the things should probably be illegal.
Except...
Except if they are selling CD compilations, especially of music from the sixties, seventies, and eighties, I'll sit there and watch the stupid things all the way through. And not in the casual, watching while I"m doing something else way I usually watch TV. No, I sit there and watch the things like they are a real TV show.
I probably should be ashamed of myself.
I think I know why I do it, though. It certainly isn't because I'm planning on buying the CDs...I can't afford 5 equal payments of $29.99 or whatever they usually are. That's a lot of money.
No. I do it because I like the old clips they show of the bands back in the day. Before all the artists got fat or bald...or dead. It's like watching videos from before MTV was even a glint in some TV executive's eye. Not that most of them are even vaguely video-like in the way someone born after the advent of MTV would recognize them. Mostly they're performance clips from the various network shows that featured bands and singers.
But, you know, I'm getting old, and that nostalgia thing is very powerful.
And I've been thinking...if they would package and sell a set of DVD's of the performance clips, I just might buy those.
I want to say that right up front. An infomercial comes on the tube, the channel gets switched. I think the things should probably be illegal.
Except...
Except if they are selling CD compilations, especially of music from the sixties, seventies, and eighties, I'll sit there and watch the stupid things all the way through. And not in the casual, watching while I"m doing something else way I usually watch TV. No, I sit there and watch the things like they are a real TV show.
I probably should be ashamed of myself.
I think I know why I do it, though. It certainly isn't because I'm planning on buying the CDs...I can't afford 5 equal payments of $29.99 or whatever they usually are. That's a lot of money.
No. I do it because I like the old clips they show of the bands back in the day. Before all the artists got fat or bald...or dead. It's like watching videos from before MTV was even a glint in some TV executive's eye. Not that most of them are even vaguely video-like in the way someone born after the advent of MTV would recognize them. Mostly they're performance clips from the various network shows that featured bands and singers.
But, you know, I'm getting old, and that nostalgia thing is very powerful.
And I've been thinking...if they would package and sell a set of DVD's of the performance clips, I just might buy those.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
