have seen a number of references lately to the UU World article, The liberal saints . "In 1956 Andrene Kauffman, a Third Unitarian member who was a muralist and longtime instructor at the Art Institute of Chicago, was inspired by a sermon to create the portraits. The sermon, by the Rev. E.T. Buehrer, minister at Third Unitarian from 1941 to 1969, was entitled “The Saints of Liberalism.” The sermon led Kauffman to paint twenty-four figures, many of them mentioned in the sermon. She finished the first one, of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, in 1956." I know Kauffman's high opinion of Wilson is universal amongst liberals; he is often rated in the top five US Presidents... something that is incomprehensible to me. Most particularly, I cannot comprehend UUs considering him a saint.
Liberals usually give two reasons for considering Wilson a saint- primarily for his League Of Nations, and secondarily for establishing the first federal income tax. How can I possibly dislike the man who showed such idealism in foreign policy, and gave us the mechanism to do a little social engineering and soak the evil rich? Easily... let's start with the fact that he was a virulent white supremacist that destroyed what progress we had made so far in race relations since the Civil War. Here is a quote of his that appeared in the movie, "Birth of a Nation". While president of Princeton University, Wilson discouraged blacks from even applying for admission, the first black student not being admitted until 1945. He reversed what integregation had been accomplished in the armed forces, re-segregating them. For the first time since 1863, he segregated civilian federal employees. He signed a law making racial intermarriage a felony in the District of Columbia. He aided and encouraged the creation of "Jim Crow" laws.
In view of his racial attitudes, it is no surprise that he was also a proponent of eugenics, and signed forced sterilization into law. 60,000 American citizens were subjected to involuntary sterilization- some by full castration- before the laws were overturned. He encouraged marriage laws that excluded not only mixed race marriages, but marriages to people with any of a long list of disabilities, or a family history of "criminal tendencies".
But then, respect for civil rights in general wasn't one of his long suits. He created the draft, despite the fact that there was no shortage of volunteers for military service. Then there were the Espionage, Sabotage, and Sedition acts that made it illegal to oppose WWI or the government's prosecution of it. Vigilante groups, with the approval of the Justice Dept., trashed publishers and newspapers who wrote against the war, and informed on their friends and neighbors for speaking out. Socialist Presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs was imprisoned for asking why should workers from various countries fight against each other for the interests of the wealthy and powerful. (I guess that Debs had noticed that while the war did result in full employment, CEOs did better than workers; 42,000 millionaires were created during the war, while workers actually lost ground- wages increased by only 20%, while inflation went up 37% )
Of course, the war that Debs was imprisoned for speaking against, WWI, was a war of choice. While declaring the US officially neutral, (he even ran on "He kept us out of the war"), he violated all international laws of neutrality. He participated in the embargo against Germany, halting even shipments of food and medicine, causing starvation amongst German civilians, while simultaneously not only selling weapons to England and France, but arranging sweetheart loans from American banks... and shipping those weapons on civilian ships. I'm sure you've heard of the sinking of the Lusitania- but did you know it was carrying 4.2 million rounds of ammunition? His own Secretary of State resigned over this issue, and the starvation the blockade caused- it continued even after the cessation of hostilities- was a contributing factor to the resentment that resulted in the rise of the Nazi party. In "Before the Deluge: A Portrait of Berlin in the 1920s", John Maynard Keynes cited the testimony of an observer who accompanied Herbert Hoover's mission to help the starving:
You think [this] is a kindergarten for the little ones. No, these are children of seven and eight years. Tiny faces, with large, dull eyes, overshadowed by huge puffed, rickety foreheads, their small arms just skin and bones, and above the crooked legs with their dislocated joints the swollen, pointed stomachs of the hunger edema... "You see this child here," the physician in charge explained, "it consumed an incredible amount of bread, and yet it did not get any stronger. I found out that it hid all the bread it received underneath its straw mattress. The fear of hunger was so deeply rooted in the child that it collected the stores instead of eating the food: a misguided animal instinct made the dread of hunger worse than the actual pangs."
But these weren't the only resentments Woodrow Wilson's foreign policies created. There were the invasions of Mexico, Haiti, The Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua, for example. Yeah, a lot of Presidents have abused the Monroe doctrine; but he also sent 5,000 soldiers to Russia to take sides in their civil war, tainting relations with the new Soviet union to come, and setting a fine precedent for Vietnam forty years later.
If Woodrow Wilson is a saint, call me an atheist.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
A slight misunderstanding
When my beloved said we were having a charred tart for lunch, I assumed it was an alliterative announcement that she had burned it. I wasn't too worried; her kitchen mistakes are better than most people's finest efforts. Imagine my delight when I found out it was Chard tart, complete with chevre cheese and a medium sherry!
Of themes and theology
Some themes in our lives will never go away until they're addressed- and this principle applies as much to organizations as individuals. Without anyone trying to guide the discussions, these themes will surface on their own, as Doug Muder noted in his UU World article, Message or culture? "Every year, the Unitarian Universalist Association’s General Assembly takes on some unannounced theme. Or at least I think it does. Maybe it’s just my mind’s unconscious habit of imposing order on the buzzing, blooming confusion of it all. But each year the talks I go to, the people I run into, the random blips of conversation I overhear all seem to point to some idea or issue or question that I didn’t think I was thinking about when I got there.
This year, it all seemed to point to this: At its core, what is Unitarian Universalism really about? Do we have a message we are trying to bring to the world? Or do we have a culture we are trying to preserve against extinction?" These questions are asked by Davidson Loehr's Why ‘Unitarian Universalism’ is Dying , which despite being five years old was invoked this week by Plastic Manzikert and Chalice Circle Other blogs have recently touched on similar, some more, some less directly. Like GA, the blogosphere also takes on themes, and it's hardly surprising if it's the same one.
The reason this question, also sometimes stated as "Is there a UU theology?", keeps recurring is because there has not been, to date, any answer. Or, there have been a thousand answers- one was presented in "UU University" at GA- and that's not much help; as Harry Nilsson noted, "A point in every direction is as good as having no point at all." The reason it is so difficult to develop a UU theology is that it must fit within our proud claim of being a creedless religion, a religion based on reason. We can have values, we can have principles, but we cannot have creeds.
But this claim is nonsense; it is not possible. One cannot have values without creeds, because values are not facts, they are subjective judgments that can be asserted but not proven. You can do without gods if you must, but you cannot do without beliefs. Reason, rationality, and logical syllogisms all start with a premise... and when you're dealing with the human equation, those premises are beliefs. Even the simplest "greatest good" argument stems from the belief that a great many people you don't even know being happy is "better" somehow than just you personally being happy. Try proving that to someone who doesn't already believe it. You cannot form values without beliefs; how, then, can you have shared values without shared beliefs? How, then, can you claim to be creedless if you claim shared values?
Now, regular readers will know I'm not a big fan of Rev Loehr, but he did capture this central problem. "It was time to ask hard religious questions, like ” What’s worth believing?’ ” Are there profound truths about life that make demands on people of character whether we like it or not?’ ” What beliefs can be used to fashion admirable people?” and so on. In a sentence, the question was “Are there deep and abiding truths capable of sustaining honest spiritual quests without supernatural underpinnings?"... The lack of anything worth believing was a religious crisis, which should have called for religious solutions. The mid-20th century was a time for religious liberals to claim the tradition of liberal religion – a tradition that can be traced in broad strokes back 2500 years – and educate themselves to be its new voice. It was a time to seek the legitimate heir to the form of liberal religion their parents and grandparents had inherited.
But none of this happened..."
It's easy to see why none of this happened; creeds and beliefs are things those awful fundamentalists have, so we weren't having any! Like many of the current crop of religious critics, we had fallen for the classic fallacy: we let them define our terms. For religious conservatives, the word "belief" is a prefix for "in God", and the word "God" means "the God of Abraham, as modified by John to be a triune being". Accepting their definitions, a majority of UUs figured that since they didn't buy someone who was both fully human and fully divine, and damned people for eternity, there were no gods. Since they didn't have gods, by the definition they accepted they didn't have beliefs. No beliefs, obviously no creeds. (besides, weren't creeds those things that got people burned at the stake?) We claimed to be a creedless religion. But since a creedless religion- or indeed any creedless organization- is impossible, (even a flash mob has a creed-"this is worth doing"), we were trying to live a paradox. No wonder we never developed a UU theology, despite having five decades to work on it- Hell, we haven't even come up with a decent elevator speech!
I think we should undertake the quest described by Davidson Loehr above. Not because Unitarian Universalism is dying; it isn't. As I wrote back in April, UU is a niche product ; there will always be a market for us. No, we should do it because it would be the intellectually honest thing to do. We should do it because it is a worthwhile project that would benefit all humankind- indeed, it may be the greatest service we are capable of rendering. We should do it because we are uniquely suited to the task- "because I'm the only one who can" is too noble a reason to be left only to comic book superheroes. And lastly, we should do it because it would give shape and direction to Unitarian Universalism. Yes, the UUA will continue regardless- mere inertia and endowments will see to that- but this will provide a reason for continuing.
This year, it all seemed to point to this: At its core, what is Unitarian Universalism really about? Do we have a message we are trying to bring to the world? Or do we have a culture we are trying to preserve against extinction?" These questions are asked by Davidson Loehr's Why ‘Unitarian Universalism’ is Dying , which despite being five years old was invoked this week by Plastic Manzikert and Chalice Circle Other blogs have recently touched on similar, some more, some less directly. Like GA, the blogosphere also takes on themes, and it's hardly surprising if it's the same one.
The reason this question, also sometimes stated as "Is there a UU theology?", keeps recurring is because there has not been, to date, any answer. Or, there have been a thousand answers- one was presented in "UU University" at GA- and that's not much help; as Harry Nilsson noted, "A point in every direction is as good as having no point at all." The reason it is so difficult to develop a UU theology is that it must fit within our proud claim of being a creedless religion, a religion based on reason. We can have values, we can have principles, but we cannot have creeds.
But this claim is nonsense; it is not possible. One cannot have values without creeds, because values are not facts, they are subjective judgments that can be asserted but not proven. You can do without gods if you must, but you cannot do without beliefs. Reason, rationality, and logical syllogisms all start with a premise... and when you're dealing with the human equation, those premises are beliefs. Even the simplest "greatest good" argument stems from the belief that a great many people you don't even know being happy is "better" somehow than just you personally being happy. Try proving that to someone who doesn't already believe it. You cannot form values without beliefs; how, then, can you have shared values without shared beliefs? How, then, can you claim to be creedless if you claim shared values?
Now, regular readers will know I'm not a big fan of Rev Loehr, but he did capture this central problem. "It was time to ask hard religious questions, like ” What’s worth believing?’ ” Are there profound truths about life that make demands on people of character whether we like it or not?’ ” What beliefs can be used to fashion admirable people?” and so on. In a sentence, the question was “Are there deep and abiding truths capable of sustaining honest spiritual quests without supernatural underpinnings?"... The lack of anything worth believing was a religious crisis, which should have called for religious solutions. The mid-20th century was a time for religious liberals to claim the tradition of liberal religion – a tradition that can be traced in broad strokes back 2500 years – and educate themselves to be its new voice. It was a time to seek the legitimate heir to the form of liberal religion their parents and grandparents had inherited.
But none of this happened..."
It's easy to see why none of this happened; creeds and beliefs are things those awful fundamentalists have, so we weren't having any! Like many of the current crop of religious critics, we had fallen for the classic fallacy: we let them define our terms. For religious conservatives, the word "belief" is a prefix for "in God", and the word "God" means "the God of Abraham, as modified by John to be a triune being". Accepting their definitions, a majority of UUs figured that since they didn't buy someone who was both fully human and fully divine, and damned people for eternity, there were no gods. Since they didn't have gods, by the definition they accepted they didn't have beliefs. No beliefs, obviously no creeds. (besides, weren't creeds those things that got people burned at the stake?) We claimed to be a creedless religion. But since a creedless religion- or indeed any creedless organization- is impossible, (even a flash mob has a creed-"this is worth doing"), we were trying to live a paradox. No wonder we never developed a UU theology, despite having five decades to work on it- Hell, we haven't even come up with a decent elevator speech!
I think we should undertake the quest described by Davidson Loehr above. Not because Unitarian Universalism is dying; it isn't. As I wrote back in April, UU is a niche product ; there will always be a market for us. No, we should do it because it would be the intellectually honest thing to do. We should do it because it is a worthwhile project that would benefit all humankind- indeed, it may be the greatest service we are capable of rendering. We should do it because we are uniquely suited to the task- "because I'm the only one who can" is too noble a reason to be left only to comic book superheroes. And lastly, we should do it because it would give shape and direction to Unitarian Universalism. Yes, the UUA will continue regardless- mere inertia and endowments will see to that- but this will provide a reason for continuing.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Lutherans may split, updated.
The vote over the issue of accepting gay clergy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) I posted about Monday has been taken; gay clergy are now recognized. The vote was close- it required a 2/3 majority, and the winning percentage was 66.67% More details are available here
Many are not happy with the vote, and schism is threatened. ""The word of the Lord will endure forever," said Wayne Jacobson, of the Northeast Iowa Synod, "and this vote won't change it."" The closeness of the vote indicates the depth of feeling, but I hope they find a Modus Vivendi. I often get a feeling that from marriages to churches to political parties to old friendships we're just too quick to divide, and the center just never seems to hold any longer. It's probably just an old man's regrets and sentimentality, but I wish everyone would work harder on keeping things together- let our new motto become Veni, Vidi, Velcro.
Many are not happy with the vote, and schism is threatened. ""The word of the Lord will endure forever," said Wayne Jacobson, of the Northeast Iowa Synod, "and this vote won't change it."" The closeness of the vote indicates the depth of feeling, but I hope they find a Modus Vivendi. I often get a feeling that from marriages to churches to political parties to old friendships we're just too quick to divide, and the center just never seems to hold any longer. It's probably just an old man's regrets and sentimentality, but I wish everyone would work harder on keeping things together- let our new motto become Veni, Vidi, Velcro.
Issues of sex and gender more complex than commonly supposed
Reading the MailOnline's article Woman, man or a little bit of both? How deciding Caster Semenya's gender is more complex than you might think made me wonder... if the issue of sex is so complex that even an ordinary medical examination is not conclusive, how can it be considered so simple by the "proposition 8' crowd? If one member of a happy marriage were to discover through genetic testing to actually be a member of the other sex, would a Christian declare the marriage void? Should anyone who hasn't already proven their fertility be tested for androgen problems and genetic origin before a marriage license is issued?
You'd think that a God who made clear-cut demands about sex and marriage would have made sex more clear-cut in the first place.
You'd think that a God who made clear-cut demands about sex and marriage would have made sex more clear-cut in the first place.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Fair and balanced?
In comments to my earlier post Captain Renault is alive and well , ogre expressed an unwillingness to believe anything from the Fox network unless corroborated. Fair enough- any news story from any source ought to be corroborated. But there's a particular distrust of Fox I've seen throughout the UU blogosphere, so I thought I'd see how the more respectable, objective news desks are covering the "hatemongers at the town halls" meme.
Here's an MSNBC Morning Meeting edition talking about this very thing."...A man at a pro-healthcare reform rally just outside wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder, and a pistol on his hip....Yes, there are second amendment rights for sure, but also you have questions of racial overtones, I mean, here you have a man of color in the Presidency, and white people showing up with guns strapped to there waists..." As she speaks, there is video of the man's assault rifle, and the pistol on his hip. The panel goes on to talk about how disturbing this anger and racism is- and it is pretty evocative, take a look:
It's no wonder so many people have been blogging about it. There's just two minor quibbles I have with the story, and two bigger ones. The minor quibbles: 1.The guns were carried as a publicity stunt for a radio show. 2. The stunt was coordinated with the Arizona police beforehand. Now, ordinarily I'd give them the benefit of the doubt in missing this; the only time "journalism" and "MSNBC" have been mentioned in the same sentence was in a Dennis Miller comedy bit. But not this time, because of the two bigger quibbles: 1. Despite what the host implied, the man with the pistol on his hip is not the same man as the one with the rifle under his shoulder; he was in fact the radio personality interviewing the man with the AR15. 2. The footage was edited to conceal the fact that the man with the AR15 is African American. Here's an interview showing this from CNN, shown the day before the MSNBC panel:
And people wonder why I recommend getting your news from foreign newspapers.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
In the same boat: Alice Cooper and Harry Potter
The inspiration for that unlikely sounding comparison was this story from Finland : Alice Cooper Banned from Tampere Arena on Religious Grounds. ""The [Lutheran-based charismatic revivalist] group Nokia Mission and others use Tampere Arena for their events, so the venue's management did not want Alice Cooper appearing in the same hall. The contract which we received from Tampere Arena specifies that no artists may perform there who 'incite evil and the power of darkness'," promoter Kalle Keskinen told YLE."
The venue manager clearly does not know Alice Cooper, his stage show, or his work. Vincent Furnier (Cooper's real name) is a declared Christian whose stage act is and was taken from horror movies and literature, not from any Pagan religions or any form of Satanism. It was strictly entertainment, with stage effects provide by the likes of magician James Randi. Fans who understood his act were able to appreciate both the ghoulish I Love the Dead and the sweetly sentimental You and Me ... and those fans included Groucho Marx, Mae West, and Salvador Dali.
Vincent has been married to the same woman for more than thirty years, with never even the vaguest rumor of scandal, and has raised three children, now all successful adults. He is known for clean living, and more- from Wikipedia: "In 1986, Megadeth were asked to open for Alice Cooper for dates on his US tour. After noticing the hardcore drug and alcohol abuse in the band, Cooper personally approached them to try to help them control their demons, and he has stayed close to front man Dave Mustaine ever since; Mustaine in fact considers him his "Godfather". Since conquering his own addiction to alcohol in the mid 1980s, Cooper has continued to help and counsel other rock musicians battling addiction problems, who often turn to him for help. "I've made myself very available to friends of mine - they're people who would call me late at night and say, 'Between you and me, I've got a problem.'" In recognition of the work he has done in helping other addicts in the recovery process, Cooper received in 2008 the Stevie Ray Vaughan Award at the fourth annual MusiCares MAP Fund benefit concert in Los Angeles.” Clearly, the only way he could be considered unfit to appear on stage in Finland is if they know nothing of him.
The same thing is true of Harry Potter. Many ministers have denounced the Potter books as an introduction to the occult, teaching children magic, or being used as an introduction to witchcraft or Wicca. No one who has actually read one of the books could make any of those claims.
The sine qua non of the fantasy world Rowling has created is that witches and wizards are born, not made. If you were not born possessing the power, nothing can ever give it to you. It is strictly genetic, and sometimes the children of witches don’t have it- they’re called “squibs”, and it’s considered a tragic situation because they can never learn magic they don’t already have. Even Hogwarts School of Witchcraft doesn’t actually teach magic per se; it teaches one to control the magic they already possess as a birthright- indeed, if you didn’t demonstrate involuntary magic incidents as a child you will never be invited to Hogwarts, no matter how exalted your family. In fact, save for the emphasis on a single hero, the Potter series very closely resembles the “X Men” sci-fi series. So much for teaching magic.
In seven books, eight, if you count “Tales of Beedle the Bard”, not once in all those thousands of pages does anyone (not even a villain) invoke a Pagan god, spirit, or power. Not once is any Pagan religion named or even referred to. Not once is any kind of religious ritual performed or even referred to- the closest thing to it is a potion recipe, and that smells more of Shakespeare than Crowley. The only holy words quoted are from the Bible. The only holidays celebrated are Christian holidays. So much for the claimed introduction to Wicca.
I would make it a strict rule that one must have read a book before discussing it, let alone taking action on it. That is, I would make such a rule except that if I did, there would be only eleven people in the country who could discuss the healthcare proposals- and I’m not one of them.
Never mind.
The venue manager clearly does not know Alice Cooper, his stage show, or his work. Vincent Furnier (Cooper's real name) is a declared Christian whose stage act is and was taken from horror movies and literature, not from any Pagan religions or any form of Satanism. It was strictly entertainment, with stage effects provide by the likes of magician James Randi. Fans who understood his act were able to appreciate both the ghoulish I Love the Dead and the sweetly sentimental You and Me ... and those fans included Groucho Marx, Mae West, and Salvador Dali.
Vincent has been married to the same woman for more than thirty years, with never even the vaguest rumor of scandal, and has raised three children, now all successful adults. He is known for clean living, and more- from Wikipedia: "In 1986, Megadeth were asked to open for Alice Cooper for dates on his US tour. After noticing the hardcore drug and alcohol abuse in the band, Cooper personally approached them to try to help them control their demons, and he has stayed close to front man Dave Mustaine ever since; Mustaine in fact considers him his "Godfather". Since conquering his own addiction to alcohol in the mid 1980s, Cooper has continued to help and counsel other rock musicians battling addiction problems, who often turn to him for help. "I've made myself very available to friends of mine - they're people who would call me late at night and say, 'Between you and me, I've got a problem.'" In recognition of the work he has done in helping other addicts in the recovery process, Cooper received in 2008 the Stevie Ray Vaughan Award at the fourth annual MusiCares MAP Fund benefit concert in Los Angeles.” Clearly, the only way he could be considered unfit to appear on stage in Finland is if they know nothing of him.
The same thing is true of Harry Potter. Many ministers have denounced the Potter books as an introduction to the occult, teaching children magic, or being used as an introduction to witchcraft or Wicca. No one who has actually read one of the books could make any of those claims.
The sine qua non of the fantasy world Rowling has created is that witches and wizards are born, not made. If you were not born possessing the power, nothing can ever give it to you. It is strictly genetic, and sometimes the children of witches don’t have it- they’re called “squibs”, and it’s considered a tragic situation because they can never learn magic they don’t already have. Even Hogwarts School of Witchcraft doesn’t actually teach magic per se; it teaches one to control the magic they already possess as a birthright- indeed, if you didn’t demonstrate involuntary magic incidents as a child you will never be invited to Hogwarts, no matter how exalted your family. In fact, save for the emphasis on a single hero, the Potter series very closely resembles the “X Men” sci-fi series. So much for teaching magic.
In seven books, eight, if you count “Tales of Beedle the Bard”, not once in all those thousands of pages does anyone (not even a villain) invoke a Pagan god, spirit, or power. Not once is any Pagan religion named or even referred to. Not once is any kind of religious ritual performed or even referred to- the closest thing to it is a potion recipe, and that smells more of Shakespeare than Crowley. The only holy words quoted are from the Bible. The only holidays celebrated are Christian holidays. So much for the claimed introduction to Wicca.
I would make it a strict rule that one must have read a book before discussing it, let alone taking action on it. That is, I would make such a rule except that if I did, there would be only eleven people in the country who could discuss the healthcare proposals- and I’m not one of them.
Never mind.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Monstrous government regulations
The "cash for clunkers" program requires the dealer taking in the clunker to crush it- but it didn't specify how...
Monday, August 17, 2009
Lutherans may split
The future of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will be decided in Minneapolis this week. From the Minneapolis-St.Paul StarTrbune: "Members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America arrive in Minneapolis today to tackle the most-divisive subject in 21st century religion -- the appointment of gay clergy.
What 1,045 voting members decide by the end of the week could determine the future of the 4.8 million member ELCA, which includes more than 830,000 Minnesotans." Read more here and here .
This is worth paying attention to; given the numbers- potential voters all- the outcome could affect the future of same sex marriage laws as well as their church.
What 1,045 voting members decide by the end of the week could determine the future of the 4.8 million member ELCA, which includes more than 830,000 Minnesotans." Read more here and here .
This is worth paying attention to; given the numbers- potential voters all- the outcome could affect the future of same sex marriage laws as well as their church.
Captain Renault is alive and well
I haven't written on the healthcare debate for two reasons: First, because Pfarrer Streccius has most of what I was going to say- keep up the good work, Bill!- and second, because this is an issue that will not be settled by logic and reasoned discussion. But there is one aspect I wanted to comment on: the tone of the debate.
There has been an endless stream of bloggery denouncing the anti-crowd for the tone of their rhetoric. President Morales sent out a letter about it, with some serious charges, like "We are witnessing cynical demagoguery that plays on fear in order to defend privilege". (At first I thought he was referring to Obama claiming your trusted family doctor would saw your feet off for profit if you showed a high fasting blood sugar, but evidently he meant something else) and "There is no place for intimidation in our public discussion." (And no, he didn't mean the White House requesting that you turn in the names of friends and relatives who say something "fishy" about healthcare in casual conversation). The left, who in their youth led riots in the streets over Vietnam, trashed ROTC offices, bombed recruiting centers, and encouraged their children to shout any conservative speakers off the stage at college, assault little old ladies who wear fur, lead bullhorn fueled protests wherever the previous president spoke, form groups like "Code Pink" for the express purpose of disrupting events, are shocked- SHOCKED- to hear raised voices at Town Hall meetings. Hilary Clinton, who in a speech told the Republicans "Don't you dare call protestors un-American!", and Nancy Pelosi, who publicly praised the disruption tactics of anti-war protestors, are now calling anyone who expresses anger and frustration fascist and un-American. (Funny how UU bloggers who have in recent years been so quick and eager to shout "Godwin's Law! Godwin's Law!", like Gomer Pyle shouting "Citizen's Arrest!" have been silent in this...)
Of course, I must admit the protestors are disgusting and frightening- here are some examples: "One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Obama's assassination. The man held a large photo of Obama that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple. "OBAMA: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE." Another poster showed Obama's face with the words: "F--- YOU, MOTHERF---ER!" "...protesters were shrieking at Democratic donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!"
Frank Dulcich, president and CEO of Pacific Seafood Group, had a cup of liquid thrown into his face, and then was surrounded by a group of menacing protesters, including several who wore masks. Donald Tykeson, 75, who had multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair, was blocked by a thug who threatened him.
Protesters slashed the tires of several state patrol cruisers and leapt onto an occupied police car, slamming the hood and blocking the windshield with placards. A female police officer was knocked to the street by advancing protesters, badly injuring her wrist." Scum like that ought to be in jail, right? Ooops... I made a little typo. Those were all from an anti-Bush protest ; I changed the name on the placards in the quotes. So, Peter Morales, and Sara Robinson, and all the rest of the bloggers who have written on this issue, I know you're people of religious principle, and not just carrying water for the Democrats; and therefore you must have written denunciations of those protests, too. Oddly enough, though, I can't seem to find them...
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Your mileage may vary
You must have seen the ads by now; they're everywhere- Chevy Volt 230 , with the zero being an electrical socket photoshopped into a smiley-face. (which drives a lot of parents up a wall) It drives me up a wall, too, even though I don't have any children... because it's bullshit.
It cannot be done in a street legal car using an internal combustion engine. Period. Yes, tissue-fragile deathtrap vehicles just large enough for a human body have gotten over a thousand miles per gallon on a perfectly level, smooth test track- but the laws of physics won't permit an automobile that meets all US regulations to reach triple-digit mileage. (I give a short explanation here ) 230 MPG? That would mean you could drive from Miami to Seattle on one 12-gallon tank, and have enough left over to drive around Seattle to the shops and dinner! If you believe that, I have a few other bargains for you as well...
But you don't have to take my word for it- you can figure it out from their own published information. The Chevrolet main site doesn't have any specs, but they have a facebook page to answer questions- just make sure your browser is gyro-stabilized to handle the spin. The battery lasts for 40 miles, after which the gasoline engine/generator supplies the electricity, for a total of 300 miles per tankfull. 300, not 2,300. Which, according to this US News & World Report article, translates to about 35 MPG. But wait, Chevy says, there is a formula to draw an energy equivalency to mileage here: "The EPA's tentative EREV testing process won't actually measure gasoline usage. Instead, it rates vehicles in kilowatt hours per 100 miles, then converts that measurement to miles per gallon. Effectively, the testing procedure doesn't give an mpg rating. It merely shows that a vehicle will use energy that equates to a certain mpg rating.
To illustrate this point, Nissan quickly followed GM's announcement with its own, claiming the upcoming 2010 Nissan Leaf electric car will earn a 367 mpg EPA rating. The rules, it seems, can generate a miles-per-gallon rating for a car that doesn't even use gasoline."
Let me propose another formula: compare costs; since one must buy both the kilowatt/hours and the gallons, that should yield an equivalent. Chevy initially said it would cost $0.40 to charge the Volt- at least until some reporter asked where one could buy 16 KW for $0.40. Now they say between $0.75 and $2.50, depending upon where you live. I live in Indianapolis, where we pay $0.08/KW; that's $1.28 to charge the Volt. That would buy just about a half gallon of gas at the national average of $2.44 the EPA uses for mileage calculations. For a distance of 40 miles, that's equivalent to 80 MPG. That's damn good, but it's NOT 230MPG.
Why the extravagant claim when the truth- 80MPG- is impressive enough as is? Maybe they knew that with a $40,000 price tag they needed to make a "not price, but value" argument. If so, it backfired; had they made a believable claim, I'd have looked no farther. As it is, I decided to run the numbers. The Volt has a maximum lifespan of 15 years- that's how long the $10,000 battery lasts. (At best; some experts say it's more like 10 years) Let's take the best possible scenario: I never drive more than 40 miles in a day, and therefore never burn a drop of gas. $1.28/day times 365 days is $467.20/year. 15 years at $467.20/year is $7,000; plus the $40,000 purchase price is $47,000 for the 17 year lifespan. If I lived where the cost of the daily charge was $2.50, it would be $13,688 for electricity, $53,688 total. How does that compare to a normal, inefficient, old-technology car?
If you go to www.fueleconomy.gov you'll find a lot of cars getting 30MPG. 40 miles per day at 30 miles per gallon is 486.67 gallons a year; at the $2.44 average price of a gallon, that's $1,187 per year; times 15 years is $17,812 for gasoline. That's more than double what you'd pay for the electricity to run the Volt at the cheapest KW price; it's even a third higher than the highest KW price. But look at purchase price- a comparably equipped four door sedan runs between $13,000 and $18,000, not $40,000. Let's say $16,000- there are quite a few at that price or less. That makes the total of purchase price and gasoline $33,812... between $13,000 and $19,000 cheaper than the Volt!
But wait- what if the price of gas goes up? Ok... in the example above, at 30MPG, same miles driven for 15 years, you've bought 7,300 gallons of gas. Say it goes up to $4.00 per gallon- that's $29,200, + the $16,000 purchase price is $45,200- still cheaper than I paid for Volt + electricity. If we went with the $2.50 cost per charge Chevy says is possible in some cities, Gas would have to go up to $5.16 per gallon to match the cost of Volt ownership. And remember that the price of electricity can go up, too. And also remember that all this is based on never driving the Volt far enough to be using the 35MPG gas engine instead of the 80MPG battery- if you start a new job commuting farther than 20 miles one way, or start having to drive the kids to all kinds of events, you could find the price tag escalating even faster. Unless the price of gasoline triples quickly, there simply aren't any scenarios in which it makes sense to buy a Volt.
That doesn't make the Volt a bad product. It's a good concept, and we have to start somewhere. And the price is bound to drop at least a bit as production ramps up. But stop the hype- it is not the salvation of the American automobile industry, or the environment.
And it does not get 230MPG.
It cannot be done in a street legal car using an internal combustion engine. Period. Yes, tissue-fragile deathtrap vehicles just large enough for a human body have gotten over a thousand miles per gallon on a perfectly level, smooth test track- but the laws of physics won't permit an automobile that meets all US regulations to reach triple-digit mileage. (I give a short explanation here ) 230 MPG? That would mean you could drive from Miami to Seattle on one 12-gallon tank, and have enough left over to drive around Seattle to the shops and dinner! If you believe that, I have a few other bargains for you as well...
But you don't have to take my word for it- you can figure it out from their own published information. The Chevrolet main site doesn't have any specs, but they have a facebook page to answer questions- just make sure your browser is gyro-stabilized to handle the spin. The battery lasts for 40 miles, after which the gasoline engine/generator supplies the electricity, for a total of 300 miles per tankfull. 300, not 2,300. Which, according to this US News & World Report article, translates to about 35 MPG. But wait, Chevy says, there is a formula to draw an energy equivalency to mileage here: "The EPA's tentative EREV testing process won't actually measure gasoline usage. Instead, it rates vehicles in kilowatt hours per 100 miles, then converts that measurement to miles per gallon. Effectively, the testing procedure doesn't give an mpg rating. It merely shows that a vehicle will use energy that equates to a certain mpg rating.
To illustrate this point, Nissan quickly followed GM's announcement with its own, claiming the upcoming 2010 Nissan Leaf electric car will earn a 367 mpg EPA rating. The rules, it seems, can generate a miles-per-gallon rating for a car that doesn't even use gasoline."
Let me propose another formula: compare costs; since one must buy both the kilowatt/hours and the gallons, that should yield an equivalent. Chevy initially said it would cost $0.40 to charge the Volt- at least until some reporter asked where one could buy 16 KW for $0.40. Now they say between $0.75 and $2.50, depending upon where you live. I live in Indianapolis, where we pay $0.08/KW; that's $1.28 to charge the Volt. That would buy just about a half gallon of gas at the national average of $2.44 the EPA uses for mileage calculations. For a distance of 40 miles, that's equivalent to 80 MPG. That's damn good, but it's NOT 230MPG.
Why the extravagant claim when the truth- 80MPG- is impressive enough as is? Maybe they knew that with a $40,000 price tag they needed to make a "not price, but value" argument. If so, it backfired; had they made a believable claim, I'd have looked no farther. As it is, I decided to run the numbers. The Volt has a maximum lifespan of 15 years- that's how long the $10,000 battery lasts. (At best; some experts say it's more like 10 years) Let's take the best possible scenario: I never drive more than 40 miles in a day, and therefore never burn a drop of gas. $1.28/day times 365 days is $467.20/year. 15 years at $467.20/year is $7,000; plus the $40,000 purchase price is $47,000 for the 17 year lifespan. If I lived where the cost of the daily charge was $2.50, it would be $13,688 for electricity, $53,688 total. How does that compare to a normal, inefficient, old-technology car?
If you go to www.fueleconomy.gov you'll find a lot of cars getting 30MPG. 40 miles per day at 30 miles per gallon is 486.67 gallons a year; at the $2.44 average price of a gallon, that's $1,187 per year; times 15 years is $17,812 for gasoline. That's more than double what you'd pay for the electricity to run the Volt at the cheapest KW price; it's even a third higher than the highest KW price. But look at purchase price- a comparably equipped four door sedan runs between $13,000 and $18,000, not $40,000. Let's say $16,000- there are quite a few at that price or less. That makes the total of purchase price and gasoline $33,812... between $13,000 and $19,000 cheaper than the Volt!
But wait- what if the price of gas goes up? Ok... in the example above, at 30MPG, same miles driven for 15 years, you've bought 7,300 gallons of gas. Say it goes up to $4.00 per gallon- that's $29,200, + the $16,000 purchase price is $45,200- still cheaper than I paid for Volt + electricity. If we went with the $2.50 cost per charge Chevy says is possible in some cities, Gas would have to go up to $5.16 per gallon to match the cost of Volt ownership. And remember that the price of electricity can go up, too. And also remember that all this is based on never driving the Volt far enough to be using the 35MPG gas engine instead of the 80MPG battery- if you start a new job commuting farther than 20 miles one way, or start having to drive the kids to all kinds of events, you could find the price tag escalating even faster. Unless the price of gasoline triples quickly, there simply aren't any scenarios in which it makes sense to buy a Volt.
That doesn't make the Volt a bad product. It's a good concept, and we have to start somewhere. And the price is bound to drop at least a bit as production ramps up. But stop the hype- it is not the salvation of the American automobile industry, or the environment.
And it does not get 230MPG.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Radical-Conservative-Liberal
Scott Wells at Boys in the Bands enters a discussion on the radical-conservative-liberal continuum, and asks for our thoughts. As this is something I've been meaning to post about for some time, I'm grateful for the invitation! Although there are some specific meanings to the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in specific vocations- judicial, for example, or theological- the general mindsets are much the same in most any arena, so I will discuss how I see the differences.
To begin with, both Liberals and Conservatives see that things need improving, and both seek the greater good for all. But...
The conservative believes that the world didn't just appear one day, with the systems and institutions we have picked at random. Things are the way there, generally speaking, because that's the way they must be- or, originally must have been- to function properly. The reasons why may not be obvious, may be counterintuitive, but the reasons do exist; and therefore the conservative will be reluctant to change unless there are clear and compelling reasons to. "Invisible hand" and "unintended consequences" are frequently heard in conservative circles.
The Liberal abhors the negative aspects of status quo more than he fears unintended consequences. While the conservative trusts the collective wisdom of those in the past who created what we have now, the liberal trusts the collective wisdom of those in the future who will administer what we create today. Thus, the liberal is more willing to create new programs with profound consequences, while the conservative would prefer to do it in reversible stages, to gauge effects and make corrections. Phrases such as "Surely in a country that can do ___, we can..." and "If we just..." are frequently heard from liberals.
The conservative sees the liberal as unrealistic, feet not on the ground. It's been tried before, it never works, climb down from your ivory tower and see the real world now and then. The liberal sees the conservative as pessimistic, or even uncaring. Can't you see it doesn't have to be this way? Don't you care? If we just... To my mind, both attitudes, forever in tension with neither side ever gaining permanent ascendancy, are necessary for survival of a person or a society. A society that never gambles never progresses; a society that gambles too much soon dies. History is replete with examples of both failings.
And the radical? A radical can come from either direction; the difference is what he is willing to do, how far he is willing to go. Rita Rudner said "”Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them. My mother cleans them.” Her mother is a radical.
Evidence that the liberal/conservative is a general mindset, rather than a specific doctrine, is amply provided by the UUA. There is no theological requirement I'm aware of that a liberal church must be liberal politically, but if you look at all the Statements of Conscience, Immediate Witness, etc., the UUA has passed, you'll never see a greater collection of (to my conservative eyes) hare-brained, ivory tower, loony-lefty schemes. I'm convinced that someday a bunch of UUs attending a séance will be accosted by the spirit of Karl Marx himself, saying, "Whoa, slow down with the wobbly stuff already, don't got carried away..." But that doesn't bother me, for rarer than the UU conservative is the UU radical. Without radicals, a society doesn't act at all, it merely discusses things. A society without radicals comes to believe that by writing a letter to their congressman or holding an after-service forum on a given issue, they have actually done something about it. A radical wouldn't be so fooled.
To begin with, both Liberals and Conservatives see that things need improving, and both seek the greater good for all. But...
The conservative believes that the world didn't just appear one day, with the systems and institutions we have picked at random. Things are the way there, generally speaking, because that's the way they must be- or, originally must have been- to function properly. The reasons why may not be obvious, may be counterintuitive, but the reasons do exist; and therefore the conservative will be reluctant to change unless there are clear and compelling reasons to. "Invisible hand" and "unintended consequences" are frequently heard in conservative circles.
The Liberal abhors the negative aspects of status quo more than he fears unintended consequences. While the conservative trusts the collective wisdom of those in the past who created what we have now, the liberal trusts the collective wisdom of those in the future who will administer what we create today. Thus, the liberal is more willing to create new programs with profound consequences, while the conservative would prefer to do it in reversible stages, to gauge effects and make corrections. Phrases such as "Surely in a country that can do ___, we can..." and "If we just..." are frequently heard from liberals.
The conservative sees the liberal as unrealistic, feet not on the ground. It's been tried before, it never works, climb down from your ivory tower and see the real world now and then. The liberal sees the conservative as pessimistic, or even uncaring. Can't you see it doesn't have to be this way? Don't you care? If we just... To my mind, both attitudes, forever in tension with neither side ever gaining permanent ascendancy, are necessary for survival of a person or a society. A society that never gambles never progresses; a society that gambles too much soon dies. History is replete with examples of both failings.
And the radical? A radical can come from either direction; the difference is what he is willing to do, how far he is willing to go. Rita Rudner said "”Neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them. My mother cleans them.” Her mother is a radical.
Evidence that the liberal/conservative is a general mindset, rather than a specific doctrine, is amply provided by the UUA. There is no theological requirement I'm aware of that a liberal church must be liberal politically, but if you look at all the Statements of Conscience, Immediate Witness, etc., the UUA has passed, you'll never see a greater collection of (to my conservative eyes) hare-brained, ivory tower, loony-lefty schemes. I'm convinced that someday a bunch of UUs attending a séance will be accosted by the spirit of Karl Marx himself, saying, "Whoa, slow down with the wobbly stuff already, don't got carried away..." But that doesn't bother me, for rarer than the UU conservative is the UU radical. Without radicals, a society doesn't act at all, it merely discusses things. A society without radicals comes to believe that by writing a letter to their congressman or holding an after-service forum on a given issue, they have actually done something about it. A radical wouldn't be so fooled.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Think you know something about art?
Do you think you could separate the million dollar masterpieces of the giants of 20th century art from the fingerpaintings of a four year olds? Sure you can... Try it Don't be embarrassed; most of the experts ABC News tested couldn't, either: "One artist, Victor Acevedo, described one of the children's pieces as "a competent execution of abstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning and Jackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's a school of art."
Thanks to John Stossel's new blog
Thanks to John Stossel's new blog
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Friday, August 07, 2009
Maxie mystery explained?
Regular readers of Ms. Kitty's Saloon and Road Show know that Ms. Kitty's cat Maxie the Magnificent has the habit of disappearing without explanation, but always returns. I've just seen an article that may explain where he goes- Pet cat catches the daily bus for four years . "Casper, which is 12 years old, boards the No3 service at 10.55am from outside his home in Plymouth, Devon, and travels the entire 11-mile route before returning home about an hour later... Susan Finden, 65, a care worker who is Casper's owner, said: "Casper has always disappeared for hours at a time but I never understood where he was going. I called him Casper because he had a habit of vanishing like a ghost. But then some of the drivers told me he had been catching the bus..."
Ms. Kitty, is there a bus system on Widbey Island?
Ms. Kitty, is there a bus system on Widbey Island?
Thursday, August 06, 2009
10 Bands I've Never Seen But Would Love to See
RevThom posted his list with three rules:
1. No Resurrections- they must be alive.
2. No Time Travel. You're getting them as they are right now, not as you might remember them from days of yore.
3.Bill Clinton Isn’t Available. He's referring to negotiating skills- If a band has broken up, we need to think that there is a good chance that they might reform and tour again if they are to be included on the list.
Ok, here's my list, in no particular order. In accordance with rule 2, I've included the most recent recordings I could find of the older acts:
1. Melanie. If I have to add her last name, you're not in my generation. For those of you who remember her beautiful eyes and puckish smile, rest assured they're still there, and her music has only gotten better over the years- listen to I Tried To Die Young
2. Loreena McKennitt. She isn't Irish or Scottish- she's a Canadian... but she's no Celine Dion! Listen to The Mummer's Dance
3. The Cranberries. Ok, Dolores O'Riordan is Irish! The Cranberries aren't currently recording, but I think this quote from Dolores satisfies rule 3: "Definitely down the road, but not right now because we’ve all got kids and babies. You can’t really do both – be on the road all the time and be a good parent. To bring kids into the world, you need to be there for them. I’m really enjoying taking things at my own pace." Listen to Zombie
4. Simply Red. And I'd better hurry, because they're on their farewell tour, intending to go their own ways in 2010. Listen to Holding Back the Years
5. Evanescence. Interesting group out of Arkansas. Listen to Call Me When You're Sober
6. Yusuf Islam. He sounds a lot like Cat Stevens and Steven Demetre Georgiou, but older. Listen to Father & Son
7. Al Stewart. The hair is short, white, and not quite all there... but the voice is still there, and the guitar is, if anything, better. Listen to YEAR OF THE CAT
8.Van Morrison. In 1967 I was in love with a Brown Eyed Girl. Van is still playing- listen to Have I Told You Lately?
9. Heather Nova. There's a slew of singer songwriters out there, but a few have their own voices, and she's my current favorite. Listen to This Body
10. Weird Al Yankovic. Listen to The Saga Begins
1. No Resurrections- they must be alive.
2. No Time Travel. You're getting them as they are right now, not as you might remember them from days of yore.
3.Bill Clinton Isn’t Available. He's referring to negotiating skills- If a band has broken up, we need to think that there is a good chance that they might reform and tour again if they are to be included on the list.
Ok, here's my list, in no particular order. In accordance with rule 2, I've included the most recent recordings I could find of the older acts:
1. Melanie. If I have to add her last name, you're not in my generation. For those of you who remember her beautiful eyes and puckish smile, rest assured they're still there, and her music has only gotten better over the years- listen to I Tried To Die Young
2. Loreena McKennitt. She isn't Irish or Scottish- she's a Canadian... but she's no Celine Dion! Listen to The Mummer's Dance
3. The Cranberries. Ok, Dolores O'Riordan is Irish! The Cranberries aren't currently recording, but I think this quote from Dolores satisfies rule 3: "Definitely down the road, but not right now because we’ve all got kids and babies. You can’t really do both – be on the road all the time and be a good parent. To bring kids into the world, you need to be there for them. I’m really enjoying taking things at my own pace." Listen to Zombie
4. Simply Red. And I'd better hurry, because they're on their farewell tour, intending to go their own ways in 2010. Listen to Holding Back the Years
5. Evanescence. Interesting group out of Arkansas. Listen to Call Me When You're Sober
6. Yusuf Islam. He sounds a lot like Cat Stevens and Steven Demetre Georgiou, but older. Listen to Father & Son
7. Al Stewart. The hair is short, white, and not quite all there... but the voice is still there, and the guitar is, if anything, better. Listen to YEAR OF THE CAT
8.Van Morrison. In 1967 I was in love with a Brown Eyed Girl. Van is still playing- listen to Have I Told You Lately?
9. Heather Nova. There's a slew of singer songwriters out there, but a few have their own voices, and she's my current favorite. Listen to This Body
10. Weird Al Yankovic. Listen to The Saga Begins
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Obama debunks birther rumors
Since I've been posting videos about President Obama, I feel I owe it to post this one in which he debunks all the rumors floating around the web about him. Well, he debunks most of them, anyway.
Obama Debunks Birther Conspiracy - watch more funny videos
Update to "Obama debates Obama"
The White House is striking back at news websites and blogs criticizing President Obama's healthcare proposals- especially if they include past footage of things then-senator Obama said. Says White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass, "So what happens is that because he’s talking to the American people so much, there are people out there with a computer and a lot of free time, and they take a phrase here and there — they simply cherry-pick and put it together, and make it sound like he’s saying something that he didn’t really say.”
Fair enough. As one of the people who reproduced the cherry picked footage of then-senator Obama seeming to say he wanted single-payer coverage, let me include the context:
I'll even provide a transcript: “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
See there? Completely refuted. How could anyone accuse him of being a proponent of a single payer universal health care program?
Of UU Dodos
Many thanks to Transient and Permanent for reminding us about, and providing a link for, The Liberal Christian, edited by the excellent Scott Wells.
I was particularly struck by "Ecclesiastical Dodo Tree, A tale of growth and survival by the Rev. Derek Parker." In it, Rev Parker makes the case that growing the total number of congregations is, in the long term, "one of the most pressing growth issues for the future of Unitarian Universalism in North America." I think that while this statement is true, it is so far into the long term that discussing it today is like the parents of a baby suffering from failure to thrive syndrome worrying about whether the grandchildren will get into a good school- better you should make sure the kid grows up to give you grandchildren at all.
What is needed to plant new congregations? Many things, but enough UUs in the seats to be worth filling out the paperwork for a start. "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name" may be enough to satisfy Jesus, but not the UUA. While there is no minimum number for an "emerging congregation", experience with all other organizations tells me that fewer than a dozen are unlikely to be able to maintain, let alone grow to the thirty required to be a real congregation. Very, very few congregations can afford to lose a dozen of the kind of dedicated, energetic members it takes to build a new congregation, let alone thirty for a recognized congregation. My own congregation is 103 years old, and has only spun off two others, and both of those were in the 70s.
Why do people found new congregations- regardless of religion- anyway? There is one common reason, having moved to a location that doesn't have a church of your persuasion; I imagine most UU emerging congregations are started that way. Two reasons Evangelists have seldom apply to us, I suspect: your congregation has grown so large- 10,000 or more- that you just have to split to stay a manageable size (if that were common, we wouldn't be having this discussion); or the "if you build it, they will come" form of evangelism, deliberately moving somewhere that doesn't have a church and building one to convert the heathens. There aren't a lot of UUs with that sort of evangelical spirit; and even if there were, would it work? As I noted above, the whole discussion is occurring because we did build them, and they didn't come. Why else would someone leave their congregation, friends, and fellowship to start another? A reason common to both Baptists and UUs in my experience is having a major congregational vote, the losing faction leaving to found a new congregation of like minded. I know a Baptist church from my childhood, and at least two UU congregations in this city that were founded this way. I don't think that's necessarily a healthy way to grow.
I think we need to look at why youth raised UU don't stay, why once enthusiastic new members leave, and why visitors don't return. I think we need to face the fact that half our membership is only here for the RE, and will leave as soon as their kids are grown. I think we need to look at the public image we project with advertising like "Is God getting in the way of going to church? Come to the church that doesn't have or want one!" Once we solve these issues, we can think about growing the number of congregations; but planting new congregations without first growing the total number of Unitarians will only result in making the average congregation smaller... and as the average right now is scarcely a hundred, (if you look at the list on the official website, you'll find hundreds with membership under 75, many with membership of 50 or less), we'd risk them becoming too small to survive.
I was particularly struck by "Ecclesiastical Dodo Tree, A tale of growth and survival by the Rev. Derek Parker." In it, Rev Parker makes the case that growing the total number of congregations is, in the long term, "one of the most pressing growth issues for the future of Unitarian Universalism in North America." I think that while this statement is true, it is so far into the long term that discussing it today is like the parents of a baby suffering from failure to thrive syndrome worrying about whether the grandchildren will get into a good school- better you should make sure the kid grows up to give you grandchildren at all.
What is needed to plant new congregations? Many things, but enough UUs in the seats to be worth filling out the paperwork for a start. "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name" may be enough to satisfy Jesus, but not the UUA. While there is no minimum number for an "emerging congregation", experience with all other organizations tells me that fewer than a dozen are unlikely to be able to maintain, let alone grow to the thirty required to be a real congregation. Very, very few congregations can afford to lose a dozen of the kind of dedicated, energetic members it takes to build a new congregation, let alone thirty for a recognized congregation. My own congregation is 103 years old, and has only spun off two others, and both of those were in the 70s.
Why do people found new congregations- regardless of religion- anyway? There is one common reason, having moved to a location that doesn't have a church of your persuasion; I imagine most UU emerging congregations are started that way. Two reasons Evangelists have seldom apply to us, I suspect: your congregation has grown so large- 10,000 or more- that you just have to split to stay a manageable size (if that were common, we wouldn't be having this discussion); or the "if you build it, they will come" form of evangelism, deliberately moving somewhere that doesn't have a church and building one to convert the heathens. There aren't a lot of UUs with that sort of evangelical spirit; and even if there were, would it work? As I noted above, the whole discussion is occurring because we did build them, and they didn't come. Why else would someone leave their congregation, friends, and fellowship to start another? A reason common to both Baptists and UUs in my experience is having a major congregational vote, the losing faction leaving to found a new congregation of like minded. I know a Baptist church from my childhood, and at least two UU congregations in this city that were founded this way. I don't think that's necessarily a healthy way to grow.
I think we need to look at why youth raised UU don't stay, why once enthusiastic new members leave, and why visitors don't return. I think we need to face the fact that half our membership is only here for the RE, and will leave as soon as their kids are grown. I think we need to look at the public image we project with advertising like "Is God getting in the way of going to church? Come to the church that doesn't have or want one!" Once we solve these issues, we can think about growing the number of congregations; but planting new congregations without first growing the total number of Unitarians will only result in making the average congregation smaller... and as the average right now is scarcely a hundred, (if you look at the list on the official website, you'll find hundreds with membership under 75, many with membership of 50 or less), we'd risk them becoming too small to survive.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Rorschach issue: military suicide
There is a class of issues I call Rorschach issues; while often based on a real- or at least plausible- issue, they are sensationalized until they tell us more about the follower than the issue. Obama's citizenship is one such Rorschach issue, as are 911 truthers, grassy knollers, da Vinci codes, etc. New ones are thrown up regularly by people with an agenda, movie, or book (or all three) to sell; one such is the issue of the military suicide rate. In a recent UU A Way of Life post, David Markham draws our attention to a post in another of his blogs entitled "We don't need terrorists any more. More and more of American soldiers are just killing themselves" that shows all the earmarks of a Rorschach issue.
The first mark of a Rorschach issue is that it's based upon "facts" that were never researched because they're "common knowledge". David's portrayal of soldiers shows this: "...who for the most part have been screwed over by a capitalistic system which has left them with no jobs, a poor education, and not much of a future state side. When you figure that you best option in life is to become a professionally trained killer for a mercenary army,..." Leaving aside for the moment the "professionally trained killer for a mercenary army" sneer, it is not now, nor has it ever been true of the all-volunteer Army that it is composed of people who couldn't make it in the civilian world. In fact, actual demographics show just the opposite. Here's some stats from the article, "Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers" by Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and James Sherk, whose sources are the Dept. of defense, the Census Bureau, and other primary sources: "...Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods—a number that has increased substantially over the past four years...Every income category above $40,000 per year is overrepresented in the active-duty enlisted force, while every income category below $40,000 a year is underrepresented. Low-income families are significantly underrepresented in the military. U.S. military enlistees disproportionately come from upper-middle-class families." Nor do they have poor educations- "American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than 1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high school degree, compared to 21 percent of men 18–24 years old, and 95 percent of officer accessions have at least a bachelor’s degree..."
Another mark of the Rorschach issue is that actual facts or numbers are given with no explanation, no context, no way to judge the gravity of the issue. For example, one might say that exposure to chemical X triples the rate of earlobe cancer. Sounds horrible... if one neglected to mention that it triples the cancer rate from one per billion to three per billion. The military is justifiably concerned about an increase in suicide rates; but the raw numbers are quoted without context by people trying to get ratings or sell newspapers. From The Los Angeles Times : "The 2008 estimated rate - 20.2 suicides per 100,000 soldiers - is, for the first time, higher than the national average...The national average, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is 19.2." Let's look at this raw number- military suicide rates being 1/20th higher than civilian; does that justify rhetoric like "It is inevitable when one is engaged in immoral, homicidal behavior with no justification... you've sold your soul to the devil, and it is not a bargain in your favor because you have given up all hope of ever having any kind of a normal life ever again."? But those numbers deserve another look- is it fair to compare the military to the public at large? To begin with, despite changes allowing women into combat, the Army and Marines especially are overwhelmingly male, and majority (65%) white male. What difference does that make? At 19.5/100,000, that is the highest suicide demographic; 73% of all suicide deaths are white males. (Numbers from Suicide.org ) Many new recruits, joining before college, have never been away from home before- would they have been better off going directly to college? Suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students. Perhaps they should have stayed home and done neither? Not in Montana, with its 22/100,000 rate... that's twice as much increase over the military rate as the military is over the national average- have Montanans, too, sold their souls to the devil?
Combining those stats with another datum from the Times story above, "...one-third occur among soldiers who never deploy, Army officials said." which agrees with this one from the Air Force Times , "In a report to Congress, Craig Duehring, assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower, said, “there does not appear to be a strong correlation between deployments and suicide.” A check of deployment records found that from 2003 to 2008, only 39 Air Force suicide victims had deployed in the previous 12 months. Another 150 had never deployed." and "That’s reflected in Marine Corps statistics. Amos said the most likely Marine to die by suicide is a Caucasian male, 18 to 24 years old, between the ranks of private and sergeant. The most likely cause: a failed relationship with a woman." suggests a very obvious reason for the increase in suicide rates: the number of personnel has increased faster than the number of counselors and support structures.
A third mark of the Rorschach issue is redefining pejoratives so you can apply them to your bete noire. "Mercenary" does not mean "you get paid for your work"- if it did, then all of us are mercenaries. It means ": one that serves merely for wages ; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service" The US all-volunteer Army is not a bunch of imported Prussians earning a buck- they are young men and women serving a cause larger than themselves, people with a commitment and the courage to act on it. To again quote Dr. Watkins, "Those who argue that American soldiers risk their lives because they have no other opportunities belittle the personal sacrifices of those who serve out of love for their country." Calling them "professionally trained killer" is little better; while killing is indeed part of what they do, it is only part. It would be, by that standard, fair to describe any doctor who performs an abortion as a "professionally trained killer". Oh, wait, I bet he charged for it- make that a mercenary professionally trained killer.
David said, "For all of America's religosity, it has lost touch with its soul." I will agree that's true of some religious blogs. I just hope that anyone outside UU who reads it understands that the bitterness, contempt, and misanthropy displayed are not an inherent part of UU.
The first mark of a Rorschach issue is that it's based upon "facts" that were never researched because they're "common knowledge". David's portrayal of soldiers shows this: "...who for the most part have been screwed over by a capitalistic system which has left them with no jobs, a poor education, and not much of a future state side. When you figure that you best option in life is to become a professionally trained killer for a mercenary army,..." Leaving aside for the moment the "professionally trained killer for a mercenary army" sneer, it is not now, nor has it ever been true of the all-volunteer Army that it is composed of people who couldn't make it in the civilian world. In fact, actual demographics show just the opposite. Here's some stats from the article, "Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers" by Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and James Sherk, whose sources are the Dept. of defense, the Census Bureau, and other primary sources: "...Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods—a number that has increased substantially over the past four years...Every income category above $40,000 per year is overrepresented in the active-duty enlisted force, while every income category below $40,000 a year is underrepresented. Low-income families are significantly underrepresented in the military. U.S. military enlistees disproportionately come from upper-middle-class families." Nor do they have poor educations- "American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than 1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high school degree, compared to 21 percent of men 18–24 years old, and 95 percent of officer accessions have at least a bachelor’s degree..."
Another mark of the Rorschach issue is that actual facts or numbers are given with no explanation, no context, no way to judge the gravity of the issue. For example, one might say that exposure to chemical X triples the rate of earlobe cancer. Sounds horrible... if one neglected to mention that it triples the cancer rate from one per billion to three per billion. The military is justifiably concerned about an increase in suicide rates; but the raw numbers are quoted without context by people trying to get ratings or sell newspapers. From The Los Angeles Times : "The 2008 estimated rate - 20.2 suicides per 100,000 soldiers - is, for the first time, higher than the national average...The national average, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is 19.2." Let's look at this raw number- military suicide rates being 1/20th higher than civilian; does that justify rhetoric like "It is inevitable when one is engaged in immoral, homicidal behavior with no justification... you've sold your soul to the devil, and it is not a bargain in your favor because you have given up all hope of ever having any kind of a normal life ever again."? But those numbers deserve another look- is it fair to compare the military to the public at large? To begin with, despite changes allowing women into combat, the Army and Marines especially are overwhelmingly male, and majority (65%) white male. What difference does that make? At 19.5/100,000, that is the highest suicide demographic; 73% of all suicide deaths are white males. (Numbers from Suicide.org ) Many new recruits, joining before college, have never been away from home before- would they have been better off going directly to college? Suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students. Perhaps they should have stayed home and done neither? Not in Montana, with its 22/100,000 rate... that's twice as much increase over the military rate as the military is over the national average- have Montanans, too, sold their souls to the devil?
Combining those stats with another datum from the Times story above, "...one-third occur among soldiers who never deploy, Army officials said." which agrees with this one from the Air Force Times , "In a report to Congress, Craig Duehring, assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower, said, “there does not appear to be a strong correlation between deployments and suicide.” A check of deployment records found that from 2003 to 2008, only 39 Air Force suicide victims had deployed in the previous 12 months. Another 150 had never deployed." and "That’s reflected in Marine Corps statistics. Amos said the most likely Marine to die by suicide is a Caucasian male, 18 to 24 years old, between the ranks of private and sergeant. The most likely cause: a failed relationship with a woman." suggests a very obvious reason for the increase in suicide rates: the number of personnel has increased faster than the number of counselors and support structures.
A third mark of the Rorschach issue is redefining pejoratives so you can apply them to your bete noire. "Mercenary" does not mean "you get paid for your work"- if it did, then all of us are mercenaries. It means ": one that serves merely for wages ; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service" The US all-volunteer Army is not a bunch of imported Prussians earning a buck- they are young men and women serving a cause larger than themselves, people with a commitment and the courage to act on it. To again quote Dr. Watkins, "Those who argue that American soldiers risk their lives because they have no other opportunities belittle the personal sacrifices of those who serve out of love for their country." Calling them "professionally trained killer" is little better; while killing is indeed part of what they do, it is only part. It would be, by that standard, fair to describe any doctor who performs an abortion as a "professionally trained killer". Oh, wait, I bet he charged for it- make that a mercenary professionally trained killer.
David said, "For all of America's religosity, it has lost touch with its soul." I will agree that's true of some religious blogs. I just hope that anyone outside UU who reads it understands that the bitterness, contempt, and misanthropy displayed are not an inherent part of UU.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
This is for folk music fans who are 55+ years of age
Ok, I'm a year short, but I had a hip older brother who shared his music and music magazines. But if you're near this age and a real folk fan, you'll remember the huge controversy when Bob Dylan started using an electric guitar. Folkies saw it as a betrayal- I can't imagine a modern equivalent; society has changed. But I remember the incident described in this article ; but back then, only the first two of Dylan's three replies to the heckler shown below were reported.
Do your local police have dashboard cams?
You'll want to make sure they do after seeing this video: Officers Seen on Dashcam Video Conspiring to Frame Driver for Cop-Caused Accident
Friendship
Only once before have I posted something forwarded to me in email. I have only a few people who forward things to me in email, (No! This is not a request that you do so!), so I normally fear I'm showing something everyone has seen already... but this was cute enough to risk it:
True Friendship -- None of that Sissy stuff
Are you tired of those sissy 'friendship' poems that always sound good, But never actually come close to reality?
Well, here is a series of promises that actually speak of true friendship.
You will see no cute little smiley faces on this card -- Just the stone cold truth of our great friendship.
1.... When you are sad -- I will help you get drunk and plot revenge against the sorry bastard who made you sad.
2.. When you are blue -- I will try to dislodge whatever is choking you.
3.... When you smile -- I will know you are thinking of something that I would probably want to be involved in.
4.. When you are scared -- I will rag on you about it every chance I get until you're NOT.
5.. When you are worried -- I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse it could be until you quit whining..
6.. When you are confused -- I will try to use only little words.
7.. When you are sick -- Stay the hell away from me until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have...
8.. When you fall -- I will laugh at your clumsy ass, but I'll help you up.
9.. This is my oath.... I pledge it to the end. 'Why?' you may ask; because you are my friend.
Friendship is like wetting your pants, everyone can see it, but only you can feel the true warmth.
True Friendship -- None of that Sissy stuff
Are you tired of those sissy 'friendship' poems that always sound good, But never actually come close to reality?
Well, here is a series of promises that actually speak of true friendship.
You will see no cute little smiley faces on this card -- Just the stone cold truth of our great friendship.
1.... When you are sad -- I will help you get drunk and plot revenge against the sorry bastard who made you sad.
2.. When you are blue -- I will try to dislodge whatever is choking you.
3.... When you smile -- I will know you are thinking of something that I would probably want to be involved in.
4.. When you are scared -- I will rag on you about it every chance I get until you're NOT.
5.. When you are worried -- I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse it could be until you quit whining..
6.. When you are confused -- I will try to use only little words.
7.. When you are sick -- Stay the hell away from me until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have...
8.. When you fall -- I will laugh at your clumsy ass, but I'll help you up.
9.. This is my oath.... I pledge it to the end. 'Why?' you may ask; because you are my friend.
Friendship is like wetting your pants, everyone can see it, but only you can feel the true warmth.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Episcopal Church repudiates Doctrine of Discovery
From Indian Country Today "ANAHEIM, Calif. – In a first-of-its-kind action in the Christian world, the national Episcopal Church has passed a landmark resolution repudiating the Doctrine of Discovery and urging the U.S. government to endorse the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Organizers of the bill hope it will lead to the overturning of a 19th century U.S. Supreme Court ruling and Congress’ assumption of plenary power over Indian nations they say are illegitimate and immoral, and continue to strip American Indian nations of their inherent sovereignty."
The "Discovery Doctrine", also known as "The Doctrine of Christian Discovery", is a concept based on Papal Bulls from the 15th century giving Christian nations legal title to all parts of the world populated and governed by "saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ" This meant that land "discovered" by Christians belonged to the government of the discoverer, not the people who were already living there when it was "discovered". This doctrine was enshrined in US law by the Supreme Court decision Johnson v. M'Intosh . This decision is the legal basis for everything the US Government has done to Native Americans since 1923. An excellent article on the history of the Discovery Doctrine by Steve Newcomb can be found here
The Episcopal Church is to be commended for bringing this issue to public attention.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Sensitivity or PC nonsense?
From the Times Online: "Avon and Somerset Constabulary has begun to equip its female officers with a uniform issue hijab to wear when they enter a mosque... The scheme is believed to be a first for the British police. The Metropolitan Police, the largest and most diverse UK force, said that it issued headscarves to its Muslim female officers but not to non-Muslim officers."
It would be easy enough to write this off as merely being ultra-PC; it wouldn't be the first time for this police force. "In 2006 the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset had to apologise after it emerged that the force had used positive discrimination to try to increase the number of female and ethnic minority officers, randomly excluding 186 white male applicants during a recruitment drive on the grounds that they were already over-represented." But that's a different order of issue; in job discrimination, even if it's "reverse", someone has been harmed. Even the advocates of reverse discrimination don't deny this; they merely think it's whitey's turn for a change. But no one is actually harmed by changing uniform headgear when indicated.
It can also be argued, however, that excessive accommodation is a concession of authority to a single religion. One could argue that providing a uniform hijab for Muslim officers is a reasonable concession to that officer, but requiring non-Muslim officers to wear one is not merely pandering to a single religion, but to one given wing at that- not all Muslim women wear hijabs. Wouldn't a requirement to wear one be the government taking sides in an internal dispute within Islam? What do you think?
It would be easy enough to write this off as merely being ultra-PC; it wouldn't be the first time for this police force. "In 2006 the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset had to apologise after it emerged that the force had used positive discrimination to try to increase the number of female and ethnic minority officers, randomly excluding 186 white male applicants during a recruitment drive on the grounds that they were already over-represented." But that's a different order of issue; in job discrimination, even if it's "reverse", someone has been harmed. Even the advocates of reverse discrimination don't deny this; they merely think it's whitey's turn for a change. But no one is actually harmed by changing uniform headgear when indicated.
It can also be argued, however, that excessive accommodation is a concession of authority to a single religion. One could argue that providing a uniform hijab for Muslim officers is a reasonable concession to that officer, but requiring non-Muslim officers to wear one is not merely pandering to a single religion, but to one given wing at that- not all Muslim women wear hijabs. Wouldn't a requirement to wear one be the government taking sides in an internal dispute within Islam? What do you think?
Monday, July 27, 2009
Stick figures in peril
No, I don't mean a loose board on a fashion catwalk, I mean bizarre and confusing warning signs from around the world
The top 10 sexiest vampires
Nobody does more or better Top Lists than the Times Online, as evidenced by their latest- The top 10 sexiest vampires The Britishness of the author is clear, however- no American list would have missed Jonathan Frid as Barnabas Collins
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Random news reactions
Michael Savage is a talk show host of the obnoxious variety- but even so, it came as a shock when British Former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith publicly banned him from ever traveling to England. I'll let the Mail Online pick it up from there: "The Right-wing radio presenter, whose hardline views on Islam, rape and autism have caused outrage in the US but whose show, The Savage Nation, has eight million listeners, was identified in May by Ms Smith as one of 16 people barred due to their political views. Mr Savage, who had not even applied for entry to Britain, claimed his name had been 'plucked out of a hat' because he was 'controversial and white'. He has since served a £100,000 libel writ on Ms Smith, who announced his ban on television."
Typical right wingnut trying to play victim... except he was right! Memos obtained under the Freedom Of Information act show that the British government was worried about how it looked with all the banned lowlifes being Muslim: "We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists... with Weiner, (Savage's real name) I can understand that disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases."
"Obamacare" is really warmed-over "Hilary care". How do I know? First clue: if there hasn't been time to read the bill, I can't imagine there's been time to write it from scratch. Second clue: Even President Obama wasn't clear about all aspects of the bill in a press conference. Clincher: the bill makes special provisions for the retarded. Yes, it says "retarded" How many years has it been since anyone used the term "retarded"?
‘Triad’: Polyamorous Lifestyle of WA ‘Family’ Inspires Web Sitcom Wouldn't it be ironic if, because of shows like this, the public came to accept polyamorous relationships after we went to the trouble of ditching the entire UU Affiliates program to get rid of them because they were an embarrassment?
Women getting more beautiful, say scientists
"Evolution has led to women, but not men, getting progressively beautiful, according to scientists." Well, duh... men my age and older have been saying "High school girls didn't look like that when I was in high school!" for years. But I thought everyone knew human male evolution peaked out in 1955. And evolution of lower species has peaked out as well; after all, we have laws intended to never let any species of anything go extinct if we can help it- that must mean that no further evolution is needed or desired
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
By nerds, for nerds, about nerds
The scene: the first cup of coffee this morning; I was reading email, my beloved was playing Sims 3. "Uh oh," she says.
"What?"
"There's a ghost in the house."
From the music coming from her computer, I realized she was speaking of the Sims game. "They have ghosts in Sims 3?" I asked.
"Yes," she answered, "They're black and white and shimmery."
"What's it doing," I asked, intrigued. I haven't played Sims, but I am a fan of ghost stories; I was imagining tales of virtual vengeance, or simulated, unrequited love.
"She's playing on the computer."
"What?"
"There's a ghost in the house."
From the music coming from her computer, I realized she was speaking of the Sims game. "They have ghosts in Sims 3?" I asked.
"Yes," she answered, "They're black and white and shimmery."
"What's it doing," I asked, intrigued. I haven't played Sims, but I am a fan of ghost stories; I was imagining tales of virtual vengeance, or simulated, unrequited love.
"She's playing on the computer."
Monday, July 20, 2009
How government healthcare works
Here is a video on how the Canadian system- the one our proposals are based on- works. It's a 20 minute video, but worth the time to understand the system.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
An important technological milestone
Many people have noted that this is the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11- but there is another important anniversary this year, one that strikes every household in the civilized world: this is the 100th anniversary of The Toaster ! This milestone in civilization will be honored at this year's Comic-Con International by the introduction of the Darth Vader toaster "The device is clad in a black plastic mould that resembles Darth Vader's infamous mask. But that's not all. As it toasts your morning slice of bread, the gadget burns an image of the everyone's favourite Dark Lord of the Sith on to the side."
Laugh all you like- if I were 8 years old, I'd be making my parents' lives a living hell until I got one.
Laugh all you like- if I were 8 years old, I'd be making my parents' lives a living hell until I got one.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Bad news for Apollo conspiracy fans
The new Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter , designed to provide high-resolution photos of the Lunar surface for the planned return to the Moon, has photographed the equipment and even some of the footprints left behind by the original landings forty years ago. The final stake through the heart of the we-never-landed-on-the-Moon-it-was-faked theory.
Of course, it never made a lick of sense anyway.
Of course, it never made a lick of sense anyway.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The Anniversary of Trinity
If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky,
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...
I am become Death,The shatterer of Worlds.
The Bhagavad-Gita
Today is the 64th anniversary of the first test of an atomic bomb, known as Trinity
Were to burst at once into the sky,
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...
I am become Death,The shatterer of Worlds.
The Bhagavad-Gita
Today is the 64th anniversary of the first test of an atomic bomb, known as Trinity
Tax dollars spent at high end resorts
ABC TV Phoenix, AZ, uncovered yet another bankrupt company living off tax dollars holding a conference at a high dollar resort area. "PHOENIX ... motivational management conference held at a high-end Valley resort last week cost $700,000... Costs for the conference at the Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa included airfare, hotel entertainment, dancers, motivational speakers, and food... A spokesperson said the conference was essential, that teleconferencing was not an option, and that all 675 managers needed to meet in person... provided ABC15 with a list of courses provided at the conference, which included "Techniques to Empower You," "Mentoring the Generations," and "Emotional Intelligence."... But the information did not mention an after-hours casino trip, family members staying at the hotel, or the 20-minute dance party ABC15 observed."
So what company is being so extravagant during these hard times- some foreign owned multi-national bank, some crooked brokerage house? It's The Social Security Administration This from a organization that said in May the program will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, and the program's trust fund will be depleted by 2037... of course, the 2016 date assumes that the stimulus has already worked, the recovery begun, and businesses will resume hiring next year so that tax collections will go up; otherwise, it will go into the red sooner- and the 2037 date assumes that people will continue to die off at the current rate, that there will be no increase in the average lifespan in the next quarter century, and that the economy will continue to grow at the rate of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years for the entire time, else it goes bust much sooner; I have seen estimates, fairly conservative estimates, not worst case scenarios, that put the bankruptcy date closer to 2027. Just something to remember when the proponents of single-payer government healthcare tell you that half the costs will be paid for by the government's greater efficiencies.
Here's something else to remember- proponents of both government healthcare and a second bailout say that any untoward costs are temporary; that in the long run, it will save money. That may well be. But that was also the plan to deal with the SSI bankruptcy; the upside-down financial condition SSI will be in shortly is temporary, caused by the baby boomers retiring... as they die off and Gen X and Y become pillars of industry, earning the big bucks, it will be back in the black. The plan was to just borrow the money to pay SSI benefits until that happened. But the two rounds of bailouts- Bush's and Obama's- have consumed nearly all our credit margin; we came within an inch of having our bond rating devalued. It is just barely possible, if all goes well the next quarter century, if the economy booms, if there's not another Katrina or 911, if there's not another war, we can pay down enough debt to have the margin needed to cover the SSI shortages and avoid national bankruptcy. Every additional dollar we borrow for the next twenty years brings closer the certainty of the US imploding the way the Soviet Union did.
So what company is being so extravagant during these hard times- some foreign owned multi-national bank, some crooked brokerage house? It's The Social Security Administration This from a organization that said in May the program will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, and the program's trust fund will be depleted by 2037... of course, the 2016 date assumes that the stimulus has already worked, the recovery begun, and businesses will resume hiring next year so that tax collections will go up; otherwise, it will go into the red sooner- and the 2037 date assumes that people will continue to die off at the current rate, that there will be no increase in the average lifespan in the next quarter century, and that the economy will continue to grow at the rate of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years for the entire time, else it goes bust much sooner; I have seen estimates, fairly conservative estimates, not worst case scenarios, that put the bankruptcy date closer to 2027. Just something to remember when the proponents of single-payer government healthcare tell you that half the costs will be paid for by the government's greater efficiencies.
Here's something else to remember- proponents of both government healthcare and a second bailout say that any untoward costs are temporary; that in the long run, it will save money. That may well be. But that was also the plan to deal with the SSI bankruptcy; the upside-down financial condition SSI will be in shortly is temporary, caused by the baby boomers retiring... as they die off and Gen X and Y become pillars of industry, earning the big bucks, it will be back in the black. The plan was to just borrow the money to pay SSI benefits until that happened. But the two rounds of bailouts- Bush's and Obama's- have consumed nearly all our credit margin; we came within an inch of having our bond rating devalued. It is just barely possible, if all goes well the next quarter century, if the economy booms, if there's not another Katrina or 911, if there's not another war, we can pay down enough debt to have the margin needed to cover the SSI shortages and avoid national bankruptcy. Every additional dollar we borrow for the next twenty years brings closer the certainty of the US imploding the way the Soviet Union did.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
UUA General Assembly 2009 Evaluation
I received a GA wrap-up email advertising DVDs of the GA, and requesting feedback. I will eventually fill out their official feedback form, but I'm going to do my own version here first, because I have a lot of problems with theirs, and because I learned a lot of things about attending a GA that I had never suspected.
Here's an example of a question I had problems with: "How would you rate General Assembly efforts to support greening, both in preparation for GA and at GA, including hotels, transportation, the convention center, handouts, etc.?" Now just how in the Hell could I evaluate that? I didn't survey all the hotels to see if they were compliant with all our rules. I don't know what past program formats were like, or how much paper and printing was or was not saved by this year's changes. I don't know how much effort was required to get the Salt Palace to agree to our green demands- for all I know, they were ahead of us in this regard, and we needed only countersign their existing procedures. Or maybe they were an environmental Hell that we reformed through much arm-twisting...again, how the Hell should I know?
A much better question was, "How well did GA succeed in addressing accessibility concerns?" And I'm shocked by my own answer: not very. It's an answer I wouldn't have given in any previous year, I'm sure, but recent experiences have greatly expanded my understanding of what "accessibility" means- it's a lot more than just "are the doors wide, and ramps available?"
Until recently, I would have divided the accessibility world into those in wheelchairs, and everyone else... but I've learned what a wide world "everyone else" is. Some of us (in my case because of recent illness) who walk just fine nonetheless have speed and stamina issues, and the Salt Palace is a huge place- so huge that the Palace employees routinely use electric scooters to get around. Add in lines at the restrooms, and it simply wasn't possible to get from plenary to some of the workshops in the time allotted. At every workshop there was a parade of late arrivers; many of us walking with sticks, many appearing fully able-bodied to the casual observer- but all of us unable to make the long trek in the time allowed. The same issue raised its head in registration- very long lines, with very few seats. For a number of back, hip, and knee problems, standing still is even more agonizing than walking; chairs should be provided any time one is expected to stand around for more than a few minutes. One last point along these lines: our hotel was so close that no shuttle service was provided... but "close" is a more relative term than I would have thought when I was younger. If you can trust my many years in Reserves and Boy Scouts for pacing off distances, it was 278 yards from the front door of the hotel to the front door of the Salt Palace. A meaningless distance for me normally- but in my depleted condition, a very uncomfortable walk at the end of a long day. I'll never take the independence of two feet for granted again- and I'll never plan an event without adequate benches and rest areas, either!
I learned that accessibility is more than travel, too. My eyesight isn't what it once was; I now need reading glasses. My eyes are still within "normal" for most purposes; I have no restrictions on my drivers license, for example... but I found many things at GA hard to read. PowerPoint presentations with low contrast color combinations should be avoided, as should arty fonts. If you want people to actually be able to read your posters and presentations, go with high contrast colors, plain, sans serif type fonts, sized to appear at least ten or twelve point at the maximum distance down the hall.
The survey asks about the cost of GA registration. Hey, it costs money to stage an event like that; as these things go, I didn't think the costs were outrageous. I'll tell you what IS outrageous, though- the cost of the DVDs of the GA! I can't even bring myself to type the words; I'll just cut and paste: "Best Value Bundle - complete audio plus worship video - $545" And that does NOT include the "UU University", sold separately: "This 2-disc DVD set includes four hours of the very best materials from UU University 2009 in Salt Lake City. Excerpts from over 50 hours of programming..." That's right, you get their pick of four hours out of the 50- for $45! $590 freaking dollars, and you still don't quite get everything... and they talk about oil companies gouging!
Let's see, they ask about the program book... fine, good job... orientation, quality of workshops, banner parade... all excellent... ease of making hotel reservations, fine. But about that hotel... the quoted rate was just under 2/3 of the actual cost. EVERYTHING was extra... just as an example, in the three weeks we spent on the road visiting family as well as GA, we had free internet everywhere, even in a log cabin- Hell, they have free wifi at the highway rest stops in Iowa! But not at this hotel- and they charged not just per room, but per computer! Not counting transportation, we spent more attending GA than on our last Paris vacation. Screw your "greening" rules- next time we'll get a hotel outside city limits and taxi in every day; it'll save hundreds.
They asked about UU University- I liked everything about it except for the speaker's conclusions. When the only living theologian who gets quoted is Bill Maher, I'm not likely to be happy about the content.
They ask for comments about this year's site. I must admit the choice baffled me. Salt Lake is not a central location; it is not convenient to anyone living outside Salt Lake. It's not cheap; it costs as much as cities that actually have cultural attractions. It's not full of historical meaning for UUs. Near as I can tell, the biggest thing it has going for it is that it's not Miami, so there's no Port Authority to cause ID controversies.
You know, guys, there are towns that are centrally located, that are transportation hubs, that specialize in conventions- towns like Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, St Louis, Nashville... towns that are used to running things like the Kentucky Derby, the 500, the Super Bowl; heck, here in Indy we can get 28,000 people to show up for a sci-fi convention. How about picking out of that pool for a while? Maybe save us a few bucks?
Here's an example of a question I had problems with: "How would you rate General Assembly efforts to support greening, both in preparation for GA and at GA, including hotels, transportation, the convention center, handouts, etc.?" Now just how in the Hell could I evaluate that? I didn't survey all the hotels to see if they were compliant with all our rules. I don't know what past program formats were like, or how much paper and printing was or was not saved by this year's changes. I don't know how much effort was required to get the Salt Palace to agree to our green demands- for all I know, they were ahead of us in this regard, and we needed only countersign their existing procedures. Or maybe they were an environmental Hell that we reformed through much arm-twisting...again, how the Hell should I know?
A much better question was, "How well did GA succeed in addressing accessibility concerns?" And I'm shocked by my own answer: not very. It's an answer I wouldn't have given in any previous year, I'm sure, but recent experiences have greatly expanded my understanding of what "accessibility" means- it's a lot more than just "are the doors wide, and ramps available?"
Until recently, I would have divided the accessibility world into those in wheelchairs, and everyone else... but I've learned what a wide world "everyone else" is. Some of us (in my case because of recent illness) who walk just fine nonetheless have speed and stamina issues, and the Salt Palace is a huge place- so huge that the Palace employees routinely use electric scooters to get around. Add in lines at the restrooms, and it simply wasn't possible to get from plenary to some of the workshops in the time allotted. At every workshop there was a parade of late arrivers; many of us walking with sticks, many appearing fully able-bodied to the casual observer- but all of us unable to make the long trek in the time allowed. The same issue raised its head in registration- very long lines, with very few seats. For a number of back, hip, and knee problems, standing still is even more agonizing than walking; chairs should be provided any time one is expected to stand around for more than a few minutes. One last point along these lines: our hotel was so close that no shuttle service was provided... but "close" is a more relative term than I would have thought when I was younger. If you can trust my many years in Reserves and Boy Scouts for pacing off distances, it was 278 yards from the front door of the hotel to the front door of the Salt Palace. A meaningless distance for me normally- but in my depleted condition, a very uncomfortable walk at the end of a long day. I'll never take the independence of two feet for granted again- and I'll never plan an event without adequate benches and rest areas, either!
I learned that accessibility is more than travel, too. My eyesight isn't what it once was; I now need reading glasses. My eyes are still within "normal" for most purposes; I have no restrictions on my drivers license, for example... but I found many things at GA hard to read. PowerPoint presentations with low contrast color combinations should be avoided, as should arty fonts. If you want people to actually be able to read your posters and presentations, go with high contrast colors, plain, sans serif type fonts, sized to appear at least ten or twelve point at the maximum distance down the hall.
The survey asks about the cost of GA registration. Hey, it costs money to stage an event like that; as these things go, I didn't think the costs were outrageous. I'll tell you what IS outrageous, though- the cost of the DVDs of the GA! I can't even bring myself to type the words; I'll just cut and paste: "Best Value Bundle - complete audio plus worship video - $545" And that does NOT include the "UU University", sold separately: "This 2-disc DVD set includes four hours of the very best materials from UU University 2009 in Salt Lake City. Excerpts from over 50 hours of programming..." That's right, you get their pick of four hours out of the 50- for $45! $590 freaking dollars, and you still don't quite get everything... and they talk about oil companies gouging!
Let's see, they ask about the program book... fine, good job... orientation, quality of workshops, banner parade... all excellent... ease of making hotel reservations, fine. But about that hotel... the quoted rate was just under 2/3 of the actual cost. EVERYTHING was extra... just as an example, in the three weeks we spent on the road visiting family as well as GA, we had free internet everywhere, even in a log cabin- Hell, they have free wifi at the highway rest stops in Iowa! But not at this hotel- and they charged not just per room, but per computer! Not counting transportation, we spent more attending GA than on our last Paris vacation. Screw your "greening" rules- next time we'll get a hotel outside city limits and taxi in every day; it'll save hundreds.
They asked about UU University- I liked everything about it except for the speaker's conclusions. When the only living theologian who gets quoted is Bill Maher, I'm not likely to be happy about the content.
They ask for comments about this year's site. I must admit the choice baffled me. Salt Lake is not a central location; it is not convenient to anyone living outside Salt Lake. It's not cheap; it costs as much as cities that actually have cultural attractions. It's not full of historical meaning for UUs. Near as I can tell, the biggest thing it has going for it is that it's not Miami, so there's no Port Authority to cause ID controversies.
You know, guys, there are towns that are centrally located, that are transportation hubs, that specialize in conventions- towns like Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, St Louis, Nashville... towns that are used to running things like the Kentucky Derby, the 500, the Super Bowl; heck, here in Indy we can get 28,000 people to show up for a sci-fi convention. How about picking out of that pool for a while? Maybe save us a few bucks?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Woe is me
I'm up in my hotel room, sick as a cliche, missing GA. Well, I suppose if I had to miss a day this is the one to miss, and the plenary will be streamed tonight. I'll be at tomorrow's plenary if I have to rent a wheel chair.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Some quick notes from GA
I had originally intended to blog from GA itself, during the time between programming, but they want $14/day for access there, which would be in addition to the $10/day I'm paying the hotel for internet, on top of the $13/day for parking, all of which is in addition to the room base rate- which with the GA discount is still $35/day higher than we paid for our hotel in Paris. Ok, that was the 14th Arrondissement, but it felt safer and their beggars smelled better.
You can read about the actual goings-on here , so I'll talk about the first impressions of a first time delegate/attendee instead. The people- everywhere you go, you'll find people you have something in common with; you'll never be at a loss for conversation. The exhibit hall; just like the dealers room at a Star Trek convention, even including the fact that many of them use lingo so specific to their interest that it sounds like an alien language to anyone else. (Wait, scratch "alien"- that's not inclusive enough for this venue. Make that differently genomed star travelers) The staff; so cheerful and helpful it inspires a perverse desire to stomp on their toes just to see if they're capable of losing their temper.
There's more, but it's 12:25 AM, and programming starts early tomorrow... err, later today.
You can read about the actual goings-on here , so I'll talk about the first impressions of a first time delegate/attendee instead. The people- everywhere you go, you'll find people you have something in common with; you'll never be at a loss for conversation. The exhibit hall; just like the dealers room at a Star Trek convention, even including the fact that many of them use lingo so specific to their interest that it sounds like an alien language to anyone else. (Wait, scratch "alien"- that's not inclusive enough for this venue. Make that differently genomed star travelers) The staff; so cheerful and helpful it inspires a perverse desire to stomp on their toes just to see if they're capable of losing their temper.
There's more, but it's 12:25 AM, and programming starts early tomorrow... err, later today.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
We've arrived
It's 11:21 PM, Teusday night, and we're finally ensconsed in our hotel room in Salt Lake City. Too tired to write much more; I'll pick it up tomorrow night. Tomorrow morning we'll register, and try to find some fellow bloggers!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Preparing for GA
Since the family reunion broke up, we've been preparing for GA by restoring and freshening the spirit- traveling to Salt Lake via Yellowstone Park. (which is why I'm so behind on news and commentary, as evidenced by my previous post) (Yellowstone pictures later) Just have time for a quick note while sitting in the hotel having coffee. I've noticed that some of the fumes spewing from geysers and fumaroles not only smell bad, they leave mineral deposits on metal surfaces, such as jewelry... my mother would have found it only fitting that my flaming chalice and pentacle are encrusted with brimstone.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Some thoughts on riots in Iran
We're about to hit the road for the next leg of our long way to GA, and I've been watching CNN over breakfast. While it's hard to trust the news from Iran, given the lack of international journalists permitted inside, one thing seems clear to me: Benjamin Franklin was right, that we have spawned a new people on this continent, more enterprising but more violent- the property damage and blood in the streets of Tehran so far is less than you'd expect in an American city that just won an NBA championship.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Chattering like magpies
Though I understood the phrase intellectually, I've never gotten the impact of that old saw before- we don't have magpies in Indianapolis. I've seen magpies before, but only from the window of a train- I never heard them. Where we're staying here in Utah, however, they have them by the flock.
If you've never heard a magpie, they sound a lot like their cousins, the crow; but crows are no more talkative than other birds- magpies talk like teenagers with unlimited friends and family plans. Imagine Unitarian crows in an unmoderated open debate, fueled by fair-trade espresso. Two magpies make more noise than a murder of crows.
One such raucous caucus right outside the window gave me a lesson in the universality of life experience. There were two magpies, one slightly larger than the other... the smaller one would run in front of the larger one, tilt his head back, and open his beak wide. The larger one would make a cutting remark, turn, and walk the other way. The smaller one would gave a shriek of outrage, and run around to stand in front of the larger again... rinse and repeat. Is their a parent alive who doesn't empathize with the beleaguered magpie?
If you've never heard a magpie, they sound a lot like their cousins, the crow; but crows are no more talkative than other birds- magpies talk like teenagers with unlimited friends and family plans. Imagine Unitarian crows in an unmoderated open debate, fueled by fair-trade espresso. Two magpies make more noise than a murder of crows.
One such raucous caucus right outside the window gave me a lesson in the universality of life experience. There were two magpies, one slightly larger than the other... the smaller one would run in front of the larger one, tilt his head back, and open his beak wide. The larger one would make a cutting remark, turn, and walk the other way. The smaller one would gave a shriek of outrage, and run around to stand in front of the larger again... rinse and repeat. Is their a parent alive who doesn't empathize with the beleaguered magpie?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
On the road to GA
The long way, via visiting family. It's 9:15 pm; we just got back from dinner at 1880 Coco in Rawlings, Wyoming... yesterday morning at 10:00 am we were just pulling out of Indianapolis. I'm beat. More later.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Why "civil unions" don't cut it
The majority of those who oppose same sex marriage offer civil unions as a substitute, saying that this negates the equality argument. The problem with that solution is that laws are enforced as written. There are literally tens of thousands of situations in civil law and common custom that involve marriage, from those of crucial import down to simple common courtesy, such as this story: Same sex couple, kids denied family rate at pool .
The only way civil unions can be equal is if they are declared legally to be identical to marriage in all circumstances, criminal and civil, and enforced... which would then put us in the untenable position of claiming that a union that is identical to marriage, was called a marriage by the church that married them, and was registered by the same county clerk as a marriage, is not in fact a marriage. Anyone who can do that has a promising career in theology or political science in front of them!
The only way civil unions can be equal is if they are declared legally to be identical to marriage in all circumstances, criminal and civil, and enforced... which would then put us in the untenable position of claiming that a union that is identical to marriage, was called a marriage by the church that married them, and was registered by the same county clerk as a marriage, is not in fact a marriage. Anyone who can do that has a promising career in theology or political science in front of them!
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
More on torture
A few weeks ago, I argued against CIA torture by speaking about The trickle-down effects of torture , how once one agency is permitted to torture, all lesser levels down the line feel justified in doing so. I gave examples of beatings and tazing, but here's a clearer example: London's Metropolitan Police accused of waterboarding suspects
Friday, June 05, 2009
There's an interesting discussion going on
at the always excellent Elizabeth's Little Blog on the subject of my previous two posts. It's worth a look.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
More on "Something clicked"
In a comment to my previous post , Diggitt said, "That world is out there whether we like it or not, and focusing on our own small selves will only delay that examination." That was not what I meant, although rereading the post, I can see where one might come to that conclusion. My meaning was closer to the warning one receives on an airplane, "Should the oxygen masks deploy, secure your own before attempting to help others."
Why have our numbers dropped despite our advertising, our "bring a friend to church" programs, and all other efforts? It is clear- at least to me- that the problem is not the lack of exposure, it's that the visitors aren't finding anything that makes them want to stay; we simply aren't relevant to their lives. I'm sure that this is why our church is statistically Lilly-white, despite all our AR/AO efforts.
Have you ever attended an African American or mixed race church? Not just once for a RE project, but really attended, spent some time there? I have; in my youth I went to a Baptist church that was mixed, and it was a very different experience from what one finds in a UU church. They, like us, are heavily into social justice and activism- look at the controversy over the social commentary at then-candidate Obama's church! But they, unlike us, also preach sin and personal redemption; they, unlike us, teach to look within for the causes of evil, and how to fight it, how to be on constant guard against it. they, unlike us, are speaking of personal issues relevant to the daily lives of the butts in the pew.
Why has religion been so central to humankind since time immemorial? Because we are addicted to sin, and we know it; church is our rehab. If an alcoholic goes to an AA meeting and finds nothing but faxes firing off letters to congressmen, he'll leave and find a chapter that actually discusses alcoholism- that is why we don't retain those visitors. This doesn't mean that we stop our social activism; again, look at the African American churches- but it does mean that we have to start addressing personal, spiritual issues if we ever want to be relevant.
Read that sermon on sin that Diggitt referenced in the comment. It says many of the things I said in my previous post, things that need to be said over and over, and yet she also said, "I ran through our congregational archives and realize it's not a sermon the minister has chosen to post online. That's interesting in itself." It sure is. To me, it says that the minister was afraid of how it would be received, despite a parishioner having paid $125 to hear it. It says that a UU minister can't talk about our darker selves without being accused of preaching the Christian "inherent depravity" doctrine, that he can't speak of sin without being accused of believing in (cover your children's ears!) God. That is what must be changed if we are to be relevant, or even survive, let alone grow. I don't know that either of the candidates for UUA president can facilitate this change- or even wants to. But the only one who gives any evidence of even understanding it is Laurel Hallman.
Why have our numbers dropped despite our advertising, our "bring a friend to church" programs, and all other efforts? It is clear- at least to me- that the problem is not the lack of exposure, it's that the visitors aren't finding anything that makes them want to stay; we simply aren't relevant to their lives. I'm sure that this is why our church is statistically Lilly-white, despite all our AR/AO efforts.
Have you ever attended an African American or mixed race church? Not just once for a RE project, but really attended, spent some time there? I have; in my youth I went to a Baptist church that was mixed, and it was a very different experience from what one finds in a UU church. They, like us, are heavily into social justice and activism- look at the controversy over the social commentary at then-candidate Obama's church! But they, unlike us, also preach sin and personal redemption; they, unlike us, teach to look within for the causes of evil, and how to fight it, how to be on constant guard against it. they, unlike us, are speaking of personal issues relevant to the daily lives of the butts in the pew.
Why has religion been so central to humankind since time immemorial? Because we are addicted to sin, and we know it; church is our rehab. If an alcoholic goes to an AA meeting and finds nothing but faxes firing off letters to congressmen, he'll leave and find a chapter that actually discusses alcoholism- that is why we don't retain those visitors. This doesn't mean that we stop our social activism; again, look at the African American churches- but it does mean that we have to start addressing personal, spiritual issues if we ever want to be relevant.
Read that sermon on sin that Diggitt referenced in the comment. It says many of the things I said in my previous post, things that need to be said over and over, and yet she also said, "I ran through our congregational archives and realize it's not a sermon the minister has chosen to post online. That's interesting in itself." It sure is. To me, it says that the minister was afraid of how it would be received, despite a parishioner having paid $125 to hear it. It says that a UU minister can't talk about our darker selves without being accused of preaching the Christian "inherent depravity" doctrine, that he can't speak of sin without being accused of believing in (cover your children's ears!) God. That is what must be changed if we are to be relevant, or even survive, let alone grow. I don't know that either of the candidates for UUA president can facilitate this change- or even wants to. But the only one who gives any evidence of even understanding it is Laurel Hallman.
Something clicked...
When I read UUA Trustee Linda Laskowski: Why I Support Morales I had been strongly leaning for one of the candidates for UUA President, but without strong conviction, or even understanding why I felt that way. This endorsement clarified my thoughts and feelings; the race was not about who was the best choice to attain our goals, but about what those goals were- the basic philosophy of religion.
The sentence that made the penny drop was, "I believe we do offer much to a hurting world, and through working with like-minded individuals and alliances can be part of “saving” it — and in the process save ourselves and this faith we love." I know that many UUs agree with this, perhaps a majority... but my reverence for the democratic process doesn't blind me to the fact that the majority can be wrong- they have this exactly backwards.
Saving the world is the province of governments and political movements, and Goddess knows we've had quite a few of those! We've tried clans and kings, direct democracy and representative, theocracies and dictatorships, and none have managed to establish justice or end misery. The problem lies not in the institution, but in the fact that institutions are run by people. Millennia of evolution made us the most dangerous and aggressive species on the planet; we were already the keystone species long, long before the first civilizations began. The instincts that served us so well in the struggle of Man Vs. Jaguar are the very ones that create the struggle of Man Vs. Man, the ones that turn man into monster. We can't save the world as long as it's being run by killer apes.
This is where religion comes in. Religion isn't about changing the world; it's about changing the man in the mirror- if you can save him, the world will follow. If we loved our neighbors as we love ourselves, the problems we're trying to save the world from largely wouldn't exist in the first place. If we save ourselves, we will save the world in the process. Of course I don't mean saving us from Hell, I mean saving us from our follies, our petty vanities, our unthinking angers. Of all the sermons preached in all the UU congregations last year- tens of thousands of sermons- I'd bet you could count on one hand the number of sermons on sin. Don't roll your eyes at me; I'm not talking about preaching a vengeful God- the Seven Deadly Sins are just as deadly even absent a god, you know.
The world needs a church that teaches that spirituality is not the exclusive province of the true believer; one that teaches that the words of the prophets are true not because of which god inspired them, but because they point the way to a better life; one that teaches that right and wrong are valid concepts not because it will save your soul, but because wrong thoughts and wrong actions cause the misery we see around us. The world needs a church that can help the individual deal with the insanity he sees all around him, help him find meaning in a world that tells him individuals are meaningless without telling him to wait for the pie in the sky. The kind of message that mainstream religions, by their very nature, cannot deliver. Whether we can- or even want to- remains to be seen.
Linda said, "...if this faith is saved from irrelevance it will be because most of our 1000+ congregations are able to perceive the need for change and move in the direction that keeps us relevant." Too true. But I feel the only change that can return us to relevance is to return to the things that a church does. The certain path to irrelevance is to continue our headlong rush towards becoming just another political action committee. Spending all your time and money trying to grow the church when you don't understand why it exists in the first place is another path to irrelevance. And for these reasons, I will be voting for Laurel Hallman for UUA President. I believe that Laurel's decades as a minister and her "Living By Heart" show the instincts and temperament of a church leader. I don't know that we can become a relevant church again, but I believe she's our only hope.
The sentence that made the penny drop was, "I believe we do offer much to a hurting world, and through working with like-minded individuals and alliances can be part of “saving” it — and in the process save ourselves and this faith we love." I know that many UUs agree with this, perhaps a majority... but my reverence for the democratic process doesn't blind me to the fact that the majority can be wrong- they have this exactly backwards.
Saving the world is the province of governments and political movements, and Goddess knows we've had quite a few of those! We've tried clans and kings, direct democracy and representative, theocracies and dictatorships, and none have managed to establish justice or end misery. The problem lies not in the institution, but in the fact that institutions are run by people. Millennia of evolution made us the most dangerous and aggressive species on the planet; we were already the keystone species long, long before the first civilizations began. The instincts that served us so well in the struggle of Man Vs. Jaguar are the very ones that create the struggle of Man Vs. Man, the ones that turn man into monster. We can't save the world as long as it's being run by killer apes.
This is where religion comes in. Religion isn't about changing the world; it's about changing the man in the mirror- if you can save him, the world will follow. If we loved our neighbors as we love ourselves, the problems we're trying to save the world from largely wouldn't exist in the first place. If we save ourselves, we will save the world in the process. Of course I don't mean saving us from Hell, I mean saving us from our follies, our petty vanities, our unthinking angers. Of all the sermons preached in all the UU congregations last year- tens of thousands of sermons- I'd bet you could count on one hand the number of sermons on sin. Don't roll your eyes at me; I'm not talking about preaching a vengeful God- the Seven Deadly Sins are just as deadly even absent a god, you know.
The world needs a church that teaches that spirituality is not the exclusive province of the true believer; one that teaches that the words of the prophets are true not because of which god inspired them, but because they point the way to a better life; one that teaches that right and wrong are valid concepts not because it will save your soul, but because wrong thoughts and wrong actions cause the misery we see around us. The world needs a church that can help the individual deal with the insanity he sees all around him, help him find meaning in a world that tells him individuals are meaningless without telling him to wait for the pie in the sky. The kind of message that mainstream religions, by their very nature, cannot deliver. Whether we can- or even want to- remains to be seen.
Linda said, "...if this faith is saved from irrelevance it will be because most of our 1000+ congregations are able to perceive the need for change and move in the direction that keeps us relevant." Too true. But I feel the only change that can return us to relevance is to return to the things that a church does. The certain path to irrelevance is to continue our headlong rush towards becoming just another political action committee. Spending all your time and money trying to grow the church when you don't understand why it exists in the first place is another path to irrelevance. And for these reasons, I will be voting for Laurel Hallman for UUA President. I believe that Laurel's decades as a minister and her "Living By Heart" show the instincts and temperament of a church leader. I don't know that we can become a relevant church again, but I believe she's our only hope.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Those of you who don't live with cats
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)