From "Shelf Awareness", an insider booksellers' thing:
Speaking of the Strand, the New Yorker offers many column inches in its coverage of the store's Books-by-the-Foot service, begun in 1986 to provide "ready-made libraries for private homes, stores, and movie sets."
A current client: the upcoming Indiana Jones film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The books, for Indy's personal collection, are to cover "paleontology, marine biology, and pre-Columbian society. They had to be in muted colors and predate 1957."
"People have gotten so character-specific nowadays," Jenny McKibben, a manager at the store, told the New Yorker. "It can't just be color anymore. With high-def, they can just freeze the film and say, 'Oh, that's so inappropriate.' "
The store offers 18 basic library styles, for purchase or rent. The random hardcover bargain books version goes for $10 per foot of shelf space. For $30, clients can customize the color. For $75, they can get a "leather-looking" library.
"Character specific", cry me a freaken river- buy your library for *you*, not to match your couch.
Wow. I didn't realise I was going on 11 years of hating the Strand bookstore for their anti-bookish behaviour. True, I was leery of them when I saw an interview with one of their buyers some 8 years ago about how they will often find valuable things stuck between the pages of books, or discover that they'd drastically underpaid someone for their used books, and not contact the seller.
In the same interview, they did cover the Books By The Foot sales, admitting that they do often break up sets of books.
There's a lot wrong with this.
One- Your library is supposed to reflect you- your tastes, your passions, your hates (I'm looking at you, first edition volume of Stan Rice "poetry"). It is something which is built over the years- at which you can look and maybe chuckle at your youthful indescretions (ahm, I'm looking at you, "A Fine Old Conflict"), or rediscover a half-forgotten gem, getting even more out of it now that you have a better Understanding Of Life than you did some twenty years ago. In other words, it is a part of what you are made of.
Two- The breaking up of sets is Taboo Number One of honest booksellers. Now, if you happen to only find a volume or two of a set (thanks in part to The Strand's having broken it?), that's one thing. But if you have a set (no matter how pretty), you keep it intact. It is a single being. It travels together. Unity.
Three- I just hate them. No, wait, let me make this into a valid point. I do not appreciate their distict lack of respect for books. That they are willing to view them as "set peices", as mere objects regardless of the ideas contained therein leads me to believe they are philistines. No ofence to actual Philistines- which I know there are, because I read it in a book which I chose with care.
Actual Philistines (according to my ex-Rabbi, that would be us, the remaining ethnic Jews) like books. We are also known as "People of The Book" (I think you get to pick *which* book of which you are nowadays. I digress.)
So a better word might be "Uncouth barbarians who would destroy civilization if it meant a quick buck".
Friday, September 28, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Magazinery
For some reason, I picked up a copy of The Progressive the other day. "Letters to the Editor" has long been my favourite section no matter the publication, so I started there. Lo, and let the forehead-slapping out of frustration begin... I don't even have the energy to rant, as the letters were so consistently internally inconsistant that it would take too much typing and I have other things to do.
On to Scientific American instead. Whew.
Michael Shermer, with whom I sometimes agree, writes a generally insightful column for the mag. This one proved quite interesting (September 2007 edition).An open letter to Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, it states that, "Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance." In the short and worthwhile essay, he goes on to present what could be called a five-point guideline for arguing the cause of atheism. In brief:
"1- Anti-something movements by themselves will fail." He quotes Von Mises here, "People must fight for something they want to acheive, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be." (I chuckle a bit at this, as it proves that even Von Mises saw something with clarity.) Really, any parent who is paying attention will tell you that just saying "Stop it" will not get the results- more effective is the addendum, "do this instead."
"2- Positive assertions are necessary." How many times have I heard "Religion is just bad"? Too many. I don't really want to get into the defence of religion, but have to say, unless you can answer the question "Do you have anything better?" without the circular argument that it's better because of what it's not, you're not going to get far.
"3- Rational is as rational does." No schnitt there. Harris (here we go again) suggesting that we could ethically kill someone for holding an idea is rational how, again? Ignoring the tenets of a religion and choosing to see only the extreme elements in order to paint everyone of the beleif with the same inflamatory brush is rational how? That's not even good science, let alone good thinking. Ignore the evidence you do not like? Way to get the big picture. I'll stop now. Sagan is quoted in this; "You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." Words to live by.
"4- The Golden Rule is Symentrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the twentieth century, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic 'I have a Dream' speech: 'In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.' If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same." I think that says it all, and well.
"5- Promote freedom of belief and disbelief." Thinking, and the freedom to think must be guarded for everyone. MLK, again: "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realise that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realise that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom."
I Have a Dream speech entire. If you have never heard the whole thing, please do.
On to Scientific American instead. Whew.
Michael Shermer, with whom I sometimes agree, writes a generally insightful column for the mag. This one proved quite interesting (September 2007 edition).An open letter to Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, it states that, "Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance." In the short and worthwhile essay, he goes on to present what could be called a five-point guideline for arguing the cause of atheism. In brief:
"1- Anti-something movements by themselves will fail." He quotes Von Mises here, "People must fight for something they want to acheive, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be." (I chuckle a bit at this, as it proves that even Von Mises saw something with clarity.) Really, any parent who is paying attention will tell you that just saying "Stop it" will not get the results- more effective is the addendum, "do this instead."
"2- Positive assertions are necessary." How many times have I heard "Religion is just bad"? Too many. I don't really want to get into the defence of religion, but have to say, unless you can answer the question "Do you have anything better?" without the circular argument that it's better because of what it's not, you're not going to get far.
"3- Rational is as rational does." No schnitt there. Harris (here we go again) suggesting that we could ethically kill someone for holding an idea is rational how, again? Ignoring the tenets of a religion and choosing to see only the extreme elements in order to paint everyone of the beleif with the same inflamatory brush is rational how? That's not even good science, let alone good thinking. Ignore the evidence you do not like? Way to get the big picture. I'll stop now. Sagan is quoted in this; "You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." Words to live by.
"4- The Golden Rule is Symentrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the twentieth century, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic 'I have a Dream' speech: 'In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.' If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same." I think that says it all, and well.
"5- Promote freedom of belief and disbelief." Thinking, and the freedom to think must be guarded for everyone. MLK, again: "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realise that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realise that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom."
I Have a Dream speech entire. If you have never heard the whole thing, please do.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Coming out in paperback in October, of course
I find this out after I bought the hardcover of World War Z, by Max Brooks (son of Mel). Damn, this is a good book. Written in faux-documentary style (and subtitled "An Oral History of the Zombie War"), Max has wrought a nice piece of horror and social commentary. In vignets presented as if by various survivors of the war, we see an interesting picture of just how bad things can get if we continue on the paths we currently tread in re military unpreparedness, general unpreparedness, celebrity worship, and media deception.
I did not expect this, mind you- I expected a humourous and maybe scary bit o'fluff. I am in the middle of it, and very excited about it. That's not happened with a new fiction author in some time.
Here's a link- buy it.
Powells Books
---On the subject of links. I have decided to start linking to random (or maybe not so random) independent book stores which do business over the web. I may or may not go back and link for some other books as I feel like it. I will not link to a book I do not like, which means you'll have to do some work on your own in those cases.
I did not expect this, mind you- I expected a humourous and maybe scary bit o'fluff. I am in the middle of it, and very excited about it. That's not happened with a new fiction author in some time.
Here's a link- buy it.
Powells Books
---On the subject of links. I have decided to start linking to random (or maybe not so random) independent book stores which do business over the web. I may or may not go back and link for some other books as I feel like it. I will not link to a book I do not like, which means you'll have to do some work on your own in those cases.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
World Without Us By Weisman
I read a review and exceprt of this in Scientific American recently, and was intrigued. Even more intriguing is the publicity this book has been getting- the author has appeared on The Daily Show, and any number of other places, and is well-spoken and calm in his presentation. So I have started reading it.
Though I am just in the first half of the book, one thing strikes me which I do not think was the author's intent. The amount of work needed to keep human society from falling into what we would call ruin (if we were still here) is astonishing. Most striking to me is the deconstruction of New York City. Were it not for the constant attention of underground crews, the subways would flood almost immediately. This would be followed by the literal undermining of the city itself, as the tunnels eroded and collapsed, and streets became rivers (some once again, in a return to their pre-Hudson conditions). I wonder if this will be brought up the next time contract negotiations come up. I hope so.
I am not saying that the author is anti-worker, just that this is not the main thrust of his work here. The main thrust is that nature can in many respects- the majority of respects, really- take back what we have been using. And that it would not take all that long.
While reading the description of what (and how) would happen to most modern houses, I was reminded of my trip through some of Detroit's harder-hit areas earlier this year. The houses I saw in a state of decay (with people still living in them) were built using older methods, which is probably what has kept them going even this long. Contrasting these houses, even in their crumbling states, to the newly-built apartment complexes in the area, it was easy to see that the newer buildings would not, even with the best of upkeep, fare as well as the former buildings.
Really, we are seldom building things to last for one human lifetime anymore, let alone something which could stand through the ages.
Anyhoo- I am in the middle of it (well, the early middle).
Though I am just in the first half of the book, one thing strikes me which I do not think was the author's intent. The amount of work needed to keep human society from falling into what we would call ruin (if we were still here) is astonishing. Most striking to me is the deconstruction of New York City. Were it not for the constant attention of underground crews, the subways would flood almost immediately. This would be followed by the literal undermining of the city itself, as the tunnels eroded and collapsed, and streets became rivers (some once again, in a return to their pre-Hudson conditions). I wonder if this will be brought up the next time contract negotiations come up. I hope so.
I am not saying that the author is anti-worker, just that this is not the main thrust of his work here. The main thrust is that nature can in many respects- the majority of respects, really- take back what we have been using. And that it would not take all that long.
While reading the description of what (and how) would happen to most modern houses, I was reminded of my trip through some of Detroit's harder-hit areas earlier this year. The houses I saw in a state of decay (with people still living in them) were built using older methods, which is probably what has kept them going even this long. Contrasting these houses, even in their crumbling states, to the newly-built apartment complexes in the area, it was easy to see that the newer buildings would not, even with the best of upkeep, fare as well as the former buildings.
Really, we are seldom building things to last for one human lifetime anymore, let alone something which could stand through the ages.
Anyhoo- I am in the middle of it (well, the early middle).
Monday, August 27, 2007
Random. Warning- swear word flippantly used
A few years back I had thyroid cancer- which was operated on, the right thyroid taken out, and I have a small scar which is fine by me because I am alive. This is a preface for:
I want to slap Norah Ephron every time I see her "I Feel Bad About My Neck" book. "Fuck you", I want to say, "your neck sags, it's not trying to kill you."
I want to slap Norah Ephron every time I see her "I Feel Bad About My Neck" book. "Fuck you", I want to say, "your neck sags, it's not trying to kill you."
Friday, August 24, 2007
Not actually a miracle, though it might look like one to some
So, Sam Harris has a letter in Nature.
The letter:
Scientists should unite against threat from religion
Sam Harris
Sir
It was genuinely alarming to encounter Ziauddin Sardar's whitewash of Islam in the pages of your journal ('Beyond the troubled relationship' Nature 448, 131–133; 2007). Here, as elsewhere, Nature's coverage of religion has been unfailingly tactful — to the point of obscurantism.
In his Commentary, Sardar seems to accept, at face value, the claim that Islam constitutes an "intrinsically rational world view". Perhaps there are occasions where public intellectuals must proclaim the teachings of Islam to be perfectly in harmony with scientific naturalism. But let us not do so, just yet, in the world's foremost scientific journal.
Under the basic teachings of Islam, the Koran cannot be challenged or contradicted, being the perfect word of the creator of the Universe. To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion.
An Editorial announcing the publication of Francis Collins's book, The Language of God ('Building bridges' Nature 442) represents another instance of high-minded squeamishness in addressing the incompatibility of faith and reason. Nature praises Collins, a devout Christian, for engaging "with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs".
But here is Collins on how he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ: "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science? The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature. Instead, they deemed Collins's efforts "moving" and "laudable", commending him for building a "bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands."
At a time when Muslim doctors and engineers stand accused of attempting atrocities in the expectation of supernatural reward, when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason.
There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.
The Link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/full/448864a.html
Now me:
Well, this is not meant to make anyone suddenly think there is a god, but I actually agree with Harris' letter here. In a science magazine or publication of any kind, SCIENCE needs to be foremost. Science arenas need to be bastions of rational thought, of evidence-gathering, not throwing up your hands and saying "God did it", which is the very antithesis of inquiry.
The question of whether science should investigate or comment of religion is a valid one, but I think it has been framed as being "don't question people's beliefs", rather than "what *is* belief and why" in most cases. A proper scientific investigation into the mechanical aspects of belief (what happens to your brain waves under the influence of religion, what actually caused the burning bush, the ins and outs of visions, etc) would be more than fair game. Where the intersection of science and religion gets dangerous (or deadly in some cases) is where it is said "Do Not Look". Kills science right there, and people actually do die of self-imposed ignorance. I agree with Harris that there has been too much willfull blindness.
Add to this- why is it that we so seldom hear about someone coming upon a sight of extreme beauty and being overwhelmed by the love of nature? Here:
When I lived in Utah I was surrounded by some rather unpleasant people (of many religious stripes, lest you think I'm about to go off on an anti-LDS tangent). But I was surrounded by some really beautiful scenery. This is where we keep the Purple Mountains Majesty, after all.
The Wasatch would almost glow at sunset, and the sun in the high desert would cast golden rays as it went down- if its rays hit me, my own skin would take on the hue of antique 18 carat and I would feel beautiful, too. These were times which brought me into a realization of my own existence in the universe as a whole- reminded me of the entirety of the solar system and our collective fate and history going back to the very first moment in time. Such times *included* me, included everyone, as part of this all, not as some specially created creatures here to do the bidding of some Other.
The beauty of which we are a part is so much better than a beauty over which we are supposedly given dominance. The potential for knowledge is so much wider than the fetters of various religions would have us realise. The more we know, the more we discover, the more we look, the easier that is to see.
The letter:
Scientists should unite against threat from religion
Sam Harris
Sir
It was genuinely alarming to encounter Ziauddin Sardar's whitewash of Islam in the pages of your journal ('Beyond the troubled relationship' Nature 448, 131–133; 2007). Here, as elsewhere, Nature's coverage of religion has been unfailingly tactful — to the point of obscurantism.
In his Commentary, Sardar seems to accept, at face value, the claim that Islam constitutes an "intrinsically rational world view". Perhaps there are occasions where public intellectuals must proclaim the teachings of Islam to be perfectly in harmony with scientific naturalism. But let us not do so, just yet, in the world's foremost scientific journal.
Under the basic teachings of Islam, the Koran cannot be challenged or contradicted, being the perfect word of the creator of the Universe. To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion.
An Editorial announcing the publication of Francis Collins's book, The Language of God ('Building bridges' Nature 442) represents another instance of high-minded squeamishness in addressing the incompatibility of faith and reason. Nature praises Collins, a devout Christian, for engaging "with people of faith to explore how science — both in its mode of thought and its results — is consistent with their religious beliefs".
But here is Collins on how he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ: "On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science? The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature. Instead, they deemed Collins's efforts "moving" and "laudable", commending him for building a "bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands."
At a time when Muslim doctors and engineers stand accused of attempting atrocities in the expectation of supernatural reward, when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason.
There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.
The Link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7156/full/448864a.html
Now me:
Well, this is not meant to make anyone suddenly think there is a god, but I actually agree with Harris' letter here. In a science magazine or publication of any kind, SCIENCE needs to be foremost. Science arenas need to be bastions of rational thought, of evidence-gathering, not throwing up your hands and saying "God did it", which is the very antithesis of inquiry.
The question of whether science should investigate or comment of religion is a valid one, but I think it has been framed as being "don't question people's beliefs", rather than "what *is* belief and why" in most cases. A proper scientific investigation into the mechanical aspects of belief (what happens to your brain waves under the influence of religion, what actually caused the burning bush, the ins and outs of visions, etc) would be more than fair game. Where the intersection of science and religion gets dangerous (or deadly in some cases) is where it is said "Do Not Look". Kills science right there, and people actually do die of self-imposed ignorance. I agree with Harris that there has been too much willfull blindness.
Add to this- why is it that we so seldom hear about someone coming upon a sight of extreme beauty and being overwhelmed by the love of nature? Here:
When I lived in Utah I was surrounded by some rather unpleasant people (of many religious stripes, lest you think I'm about to go off on an anti-LDS tangent). But I was surrounded by some really beautiful scenery. This is where we keep the Purple Mountains Majesty, after all.
The Wasatch would almost glow at sunset, and the sun in the high desert would cast golden rays as it went down- if its rays hit me, my own skin would take on the hue of antique 18 carat and I would feel beautiful, too. These were times which brought me into a realization of my own existence in the universe as a whole- reminded me of the entirety of the solar system and our collective fate and history going back to the very first moment in time. Such times *included* me, included everyone, as part of this all, not as some specially created creatures here to do the bidding of some Other.
The beauty of which we are a part is so much better than a beauty over which we are supposedly given dominance. The potential for knowledge is so much wider than the fetters of various religions would have us realise. The more we know, the more we discover, the more we look, the easier that is to see.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Email forward
My mom, whom I love, sent me this very long email (mostly made up of the addresses to which it had been forwarded before it reached me).
______
PHOTOS TOO GRAPHIC FOR ABC, CBS, CNN AND NBC
Pictures From Iraq That Are Too Shocking & Graphic for The Mainstream Media
Photos that will never make the news....
Please pass the pictures on. Sometimes in our everyday lives we tend to forget what's going on elsewhere in the world and that the brave men and women of the service are just like you and I. They have the family and friends back home who love them very much and are praying for their safe return.
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING EVEN IF YOU HAVE PASSED IT ON BEFORE
When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops (land, air, and sea) in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and around the world. There is nothing attached....... This can be very powerful...... Just send this to people in your address book. Do not stop the wheel, please....
Of all the gifts you could give the US Military, Prayer is the very best one.....
_______
The photo's, schocking photo's, are of US soldiers playing with kids, a kitten, Iraqis holding up signs saying "Thank you, Mr Bush", and such. Also a prayer huddle.
My reply:
Mom,
The best gift you could give our troops is to bring them home and give them the mental and physical care they need.
There is a lady on one of our baby boards who posted these some months ago. She is a military wife and at the time I was given the impression that one of the people is her husband. I am not so sure.
While the pictures surely do depict something different from what we see on the news, they in no way negate the carnage that people - even the ones so gently treating folks in these photo's- are bringing to that country. In fact, seeing that these men are so capable of kindness compounds the horror. What are *they* being turned into by being required to follow orders and kill?
-----------
Thousands, I am sure, of blogs have been dedicated to email forwards. How annoying and etc. I wonder if many have been dedicated to the uses of email as spreader of propaganda.
______
PHOTOS TOO GRAPHIC FOR ABC, CBS, CNN AND NBC
Pictures From Iraq That Are Too Shocking & Graphic for The Mainstream Media
Photos that will never make the news....
Please pass the pictures on. Sometimes in our everyday lives we tend to forget what's going on elsewhere in the world and that the brave men and women of the service are just like you and I. They have the family and friends back home who love them very much and are praying for their safe return.
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING EVEN IF YOU HAVE PASSED IT ON BEFORE
When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops (land, air, and sea) in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and around the world. There is nothing attached....... This can be very powerful...... Just send this to people in your address book. Do not stop the wheel, please....
Of all the gifts you could give the US Military, Prayer is the very best one.....
_______
The photo's, schocking photo's, are of US soldiers playing with kids, a kitten, Iraqis holding up signs saying "Thank you, Mr Bush", and such. Also a prayer huddle.
My reply:
Mom,
The best gift you could give our troops is to bring them home and give them the mental and physical care they need.
There is a lady on one of our baby boards who posted these some months ago. She is a military wife and at the time I was given the impression that one of the people is her husband. I am not so sure.
While the pictures surely do depict something different from what we see on the news, they in no way negate the carnage that people - even the ones so gently treating folks in these photo's- are bringing to that country. In fact, seeing that these men are so capable of kindness compounds the horror. What are *they* being turned into by being required to follow orders and kill?
-----------
Thousands, I am sure, of blogs have been dedicated to email forwards. How annoying and etc. I wonder if many have been dedicated to the uses of email as spreader of propaganda.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Bad Poet
Stan Rice. He was the husband of Ann Rice, now he's dead. He was the head of the creative writing department at San Francisco State University, and published before she did, so it was not a matter of coat-tails-riding.
Some of his poetry is so close to really good, then he'll throw in a line like :
The Zodiac in Haemoraging.
Or he'll write something like:
In Heaven
the roach
is a jewel....
...Which is almost good. But not quite. I have bought every one of his books. Partly to make myself feel better, partly to make myself mad. Mostly to write counter-poems in the margins.
Some of his poetry is so close to really good, then he'll throw in a line like :
The Zodiac in Haemoraging.
Or he'll write something like:
In Heaven
the roach
is a jewel....
...Which is almost good. But not quite. I have bought every one of his books. Partly to make myself feel better, partly to make myself mad. Mostly to write counter-poems in the margins.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Short and snide
Yahoo headline:
Bush Warns He'll Veto Runaway Government Spending
Like $100 Billion for the Iraq war?
Yah.....
Bush Warns He'll Veto Runaway Government Spending
Like $100 Billion for the Iraq war?
Yah.....
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Ahhh, well. ...In Memoriam of Little Dog Curly
There are times when you are reading exactly the right book at exactly the right time.
The passages by Julia Sweeney from Parenting Beyond Belief have, unfortunately, come in handy recently, as we lost our little dog. I basically cribbed from her in explaining it all to the boy (3 1/2).
So, what I said to him was a re-phrase of what she said (about the death of Julia's dad)- that when we die it means we are not there any more- we can't eat, or play, or even think. We become part of the earth again if we're buried (which is what we did), or the sea or just ashes if we are cremated. Every day our body is a little bit less and a little bit less as it breaks down into its molecules and the molecules go into the ground and some become parts of other things. But that we still have our memories of Curly, and that we still do some things because of having known Curly, like we think of Scooby Snacks, or of dropping just a little food for her to find at dinner, or other things. That when he's being Waggy The Dog, it's because Curly showed him what a dog does.
So far he's at times intrigued, and at times sad, but asking a lot of questions, so we're just answering the questions, and being sad, too.
The question of "will she come back as something else" was answered with "we don't really know, but she will not be recognizable as Curly if she does, because then she'd be too involved being whatever it was, like a bunny (his suggestion). Unfortunately, we will not have our Curly any more, and we'll miss her. But we still have our love for her."
We have also been checking out other books on the subject- Judith Viorst's The Tenth Good Thing About Barney, which is about a cat dying and being buried, and which is one of the few non-heaven-based kids' books on the subject. There's even an argument between the child who has lost his cat and his neighbour friend about it in which the final word is "we don't know".
It is good to see someone say "we don't know" sometimes- especially when we just don't. So much better than the Certain Lie which is often offered.
I think it is this aspect of religion which bothers me perhaps the most- the denial of feelings (particularly sadness). "Don't be sad, s/he's with God now" is cruel even if one does believe- s/he's not with *me* now, so I have lost someone, and so I am sad. It also does not reflect well on God that It's needs or wants would always trump the human's. Greedy greedy God. This would be, I think, especially harmfull if one were trying to teach one's kids to "be like god". Yikes. As if we don't have enough trouble at bedtime.
In any event, our house is down one dog, and we are sad about it. Boy keeps asking if I am still sad even with No Tears Right Now. I say, "Yes, I probably will be for a while." He says he is, too. Inwardly, though, I also thank Ms Sweeney for the comforting, true, words.
The passages by Julia Sweeney from Parenting Beyond Belief have, unfortunately, come in handy recently, as we lost our little dog. I basically cribbed from her in explaining it all to the boy (3 1/2).
So, what I said to him was a re-phrase of what she said (about the death of Julia's dad)- that when we die it means we are not there any more- we can't eat, or play, or even think. We become part of the earth again if we're buried (which is what we did), or the sea or just ashes if we are cremated. Every day our body is a little bit less and a little bit less as it breaks down into its molecules and the molecules go into the ground and some become parts of other things. But that we still have our memories of Curly, and that we still do some things because of having known Curly, like we think of Scooby Snacks, or of dropping just a little food for her to find at dinner, or other things. That when he's being Waggy The Dog, it's because Curly showed him what a dog does.
So far he's at times intrigued, and at times sad, but asking a lot of questions, so we're just answering the questions, and being sad, too.
The question of "will she come back as something else" was answered with "we don't really know, but she will not be recognizable as Curly if she does, because then she'd be too involved being whatever it was, like a bunny (his suggestion). Unfortunately, we will not have our Curly any more, and we'll miss her. But we still have our love for her."
We have also been checking out other books on the subject- Judith Viorst's The Tenth Good Thing About Barney, which is about a cat dying and being buried, and which is one of the few non-heaven-based kids' books on the subject. There's even an argument between the child who has lost his cat and his neighbour friend about it in which the final word is "we don't know".
It is good to see someone say "we don't know" sometimes- especially when we just don't. So much better than the Certain Lie which is often offered.
I think it is this aspect of religion which bothers me perhaps the most- the denial of feelings (particularly sadness). "Don't be sad, s/he's with God now" is cruel even if one does believe- s/he's not with *me* now, so I have lost someone, and so I am sad. It also does not reflect well on God that It's needs or wants would always trump the human's. Greedy greedy God. This would be, I think, especially harmfull if one were trying to teach one's kids to "be like god". Yikes. As if we don't have enough trouble at bedtime.
In any event, our house is down one dog, and we are sad about it. Boy keeps asking if I am still sad even with No Tears Right Now. I say, "Yes, I probably will be for a while." He says he is, too. Inwardly, though, I also thank Ms Sweeney for the comforting, true, words.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Cindy Sheehan
Well, I sometimes read the websites, and today was an interesting one. Cindy Sheehan, considered the "face of the anti-war movement", has resigned from the Democratic Party. Funny things, she seems, along with many other people, to think that the Party should act as though they had been voted into the majority because the people wanted an end to the war. I don't know why she or anyone would thing such a thing- unless it was because that was what happened after they campaigned as the Only Solution To This Mess.
Certainly, it was not based on their record. Let us review a few "high" points:
Voted to give Bush War Powers.
Repeatedly voted to fund the war despite not having an accounting of where the last enormous sums of money went.
Some sat on the secret panel overseeing the NSA wiretapping of citizens.
Ran Kerry as a hawkish presidential candidate.
Voted overwhelmingly for the Millitary Commissions Act of 2006.
Non-binding resolution.
Maleable "conditions" attached to the budget.
Dropping any timetables.
This brings us up to date. I skipped a lot here- this is all just top-of-the-head stuff.
So, Ms Sheehan got fed up. Now she is being villified as an "attention whore", among other slurs, by the very people who counted on her presence to bring attention to their cause. Only their cause was not her cause, and she finally caught on to that. Her cause is justice- though she, as many, looked to the wrong Party to gain any of that. Their cause is The Party- a capitalist party to the war. Their idea of goals? Making sure Iraqi oil fields are opened to US companies for exploitation. Her idea of goals? Stopping this war.
One mother who wanted answers- Why did my son die?
A worthy question. Deserving of an answer.
Certainly, it was not based on their record. Let us review a few "high" points:
Voted to give Bush War Powers.
Repeatedly voted to fund the war despite not having an accounting of where the last enormous sums of money went.
Some sat on the secret panel overseeing the NSA wiretapping of citizens.
Ran Kerry as a hawkish presidential candidate.
Voted overwhelmingly for the Millitary Commissions Act of 2006.
Non-binding resolution.
Maleable "conditions" attached to the budget.
Dropping any timetables.
This brings us up to date. I skipped a lot here- this is all just top-of-the-head stuff.
So, Ms Sheehan got fed up. Now she is being villified as an "attention whore", among other slurs, by the very people who counted on her presence to bring attention to their cause. Only their cause was not her cause, and she finally caught on to that. Her cause is justice- though she, as many, looked to the wrong Party to gain any of that. Their cause is The Party- a capitalist party to the war. Their idea of goals? Making sure Iraqi oil fields are opened to US companies for exploitation. Her idea of goals? Stopping this war.
One mother who wanted answers- Why did my son die?
A worthy question. Deserving of an answer.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Haiku of frustration
The pain in my ass.....
Why do I talk to these dense
Libertarians?
Seriously. I know it's good to get out and encounter different views- in some cases so as to refine your own views, in some cases in the interest of "know thine enemy", in some cases just for the sake of getting out for human contact. But, really, now. I have to wonder why I do this to myself, this trying to engage in reasoned argument or debate with some people is truly futile. Possibly they work for the aspirin company and are paid a hefty wage as Headache Farmers.
Why do I talk to these dense
Libertarians?
Seriously. I know it's good to get out and encounter different views- in some cases so as to refine your own views, in some cases in the interest of "know thine enemy", in some cases just for the sake of getting out for human contact. But, really, now. I have to wonder why I do this to myself, this trying to engage in reasoned argument or debate with some people is truly futile. Possibly they work for the aspirin company and are paid a hefty wage as Headache Farmers.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Brief History of Disbelief (2004)
I watched the three-part series by Jonathan Miller recently. Most of it was enjoyable, all of it made me realise I still have a lot of reading to do. (Hobbes, many of the Greek philosophers, etc.)Excitement built as he neared the atheism of the Russian Revolution, only to be deflated as all of three minutes (if that) was spent in (again, as usual) perpetuating the lie that Stalinism equated with communism (which is, of course, taken as an equation with socialism). I do not suppose I should have expected much, but given the intelligence and diligence of the rest of the programme, I did. This was, though a rather large letdown, the only one.
Setting that aside, the series was quite good, including brief interviews with such people as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Arthur Miller, and many others- philosophers, scientists, and lay people. Jonathan Miller traced atheistic thought back to the afore-mentioned ancient Greek philosophers (Epicure among them), and did a good job of parelleling the history of disbelief with that of belief, as well as the story of his own atheism. It seems that throughout the ages, philosophers of various bents have recognised religion for what it is- (wait for it) the opium of the masses.
Speaking of which, the actor (Bernard Hill) they had voicing the quotes of such luminaries as Homer, Freud, and Thomas Paine, did an excellent reading of the entire paragraph wherein "the opium of the masses" first appeared.
This is a flawed piece, but it is a good start on the subject.
Setting that aside, the series was quite good, including brief interviews with such people as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Arthur Miller, and many others- philosophers, scientists, and lay people. Jonathan Miller traced atheistic thought back to the afore-mentioned ancient Greek philosophers (Epicure among them), and did a good job of parelleling the history of disbelief with that of belief, as well as the story of his own atheism. It seems that throughout the ages, philosophers of various bents have recognised religion for what it is- (wait for it) the opium of the masses.
Speaking of which, the actor (Bernard Hill) they had voicing the quotes of such luminaries as Homer, Freud, and Thomas Paine, did an excellent reading of the entire paragraph wherein "the opium of the masses" first appeared.
This is a flawed piece, but it is a good start on the subject.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
How things sneek into books and some other stuff
I was delighted a few years back to be reading one of the Series of Unfortunate Events books by Lemony Snicket and coming across a section wherein the pre-verbal Baudelaire child, Sunny, is heard to exclaim "Bushcheney", which is interpreted as "a person who is very bad and intentionally so" (to paraphrase, as the book is packed away). Last night I finished Peter Corris' The Coast Road, in which private investigator Cliff Hardy muses on the war in Iraq and the lies which brought it about (while being shot at, clubbed a few times, and otherwise endangered. He's a man's man, you know, but also a thinking man's man).
Evidence of thinking is very encouraging sometimes.
Speaking of thinking- I was nominated by Edie of Annotated Life for a Thinking Blog Award. Thanks, eh?!
So- here are the rules,
1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to *****5 blogs***** that make you think,
2. Link to The Thinking Blog explanation so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.
I have to say that I don't read a lot of blogs, still being new, and all, but the ones I do are:
Lloyd of DaddyLloyd . This is his "serious" blog. His other blog, which I also like, is not as serious, and downright funny. This one, though, is very personal. He's a Canadian stay at home dad, and has been amusing me for years in other places around the web (Canadian World Domination, rest in peace!). Admirable, stand-up fellow (who also does stand-up).
I am going to have to send this one back in Edie's direction- to Annotated Life. She's the one who got me into this whole blogging thing. Why? Because I could see that intelligent thought existed, and was wonderfully articulated. Thanks for the encouragement, thanks for the shedding of the light on Socialist Subjects.
Let us call her "Itty". She makes me think. Returning to art school post-baby-bearing, and showing excellent progress. A frustrated artist reloaded. We seldom agree on anything, but darn it, the woman can draw.
So....The next is a repeat from Edie's list, really, as I am travelling in similar circles.... Which may or may not remove me from the actual awarding, but hey, it was an honour to be nominated.
Pictures, Analysis, and Art, by Scott. He knows when to caption, how much, and when not to. Not an easy line, but he's always on the best side of it. I was very happy to finally find his spot.
TEXT And here we have a blank space...I will claim my award when I actually have read enough of a fifth blog to qualify. I mean no disrespect, I just need to stay in more with the computer, right?
------
I watched the first part of A Brief History of Disbelief today. It reminds me that I have to read a lot more books. But it was also comforting. Eventualy I'll write out my own story of coming to atheism. The word, "atheism", is one about which I agree with the presenter of the show in that it is an inadequate word for the state of disbelief or godlessness. It defines in a negative, when I feel quite complete without believing in god, and felt weird while trying to believe. We need a new word here.
The most comforting parts of it were the snippetts of "man on the street" interviews with people who said (presumably in answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?") "No." I paraphrase, of course and again- the variety of reasons given were straightforward, though. I am thinking that the reason this was the most comforting part is that, no matter how many Wise Men and Women of History share your view, it's always nice to know that you are not alone in the general populace right now.
Being an atheist and non-famous is a bit more difficult than being a famous atheist- you have no fame to fall back on when people suddenly do not love you because of your Heathen Ways. You are not insulated from the effects of real life coming down on you because you lose your job or have been beaten up for your "lack" of faith. Your voice does not carry the Authority of Fame- "What do you know? What have *you* ever done?" I suppose, in more extreme times and places, your disappearance would not be as noticed as, say, John Lennon's, or Richard Dawkins'. It can be lonely and a bit frightening- should I tell *this* person? What about *them*? It's ridiculous to have to weigh such things so seriously, yet here we are.
So, anonymous atheists on the street of all ages, we are not alone. Of *that* much we have proof. More than (ahem) some people can say.
Evidence of thinking is very encouraging sometimes.
Speaking of thinking- I was nominated by Edie of Annotated Life for a Thinking Blog Award. Thanks, eh?!
So- here are the rules,
1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to *****5 blogs***** that make you think,
2. Link to The Thinking Blog explanation so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.
I have to say that I don't read a lot of blogs, still being new, and all, but the ones I do are:
Lloyd of DaddyLloyd . This is his "serious" blog. His other blog, which I also like, is not as serious, and downright funny. This one, though, is very personal. He's a Canadian stay at home dad, and has been amusing me for years in other places around the web (Canadian World Domination, rest in peace!). Admirable, stand-up fellow (who also does stand-up).
I am going to have to send this one back in Edie's direction- to Annotated Life. She's the one who got me into this whole blogging thing. Why? Because I could see that intelligent thought existed, and was wonderfully articulated. Thanks for the encouragement, thanks for the shedding of the light on Socialist Subjects.
Let us call her "Itty". She makes me think. Returning to art school post-baby-bearing, and showing excellent progress. A frustrated artist reloaded. We seldom agree on anything, but darn it, the woman can draw.
So....The next is a repeat from Edie's list, really, as I am travelling in similar circles.... Which may or may not remove me from the actual awarding, but hey, it was an honour to be nominated.
Pictures, Analysis, and Art, by Scott. He knows when to caption, how much, and when not to. Not an easy line, but he's always on the best side of it. I was very happy to finally find his spot.
TEXT And here we have a blank space...I will claim my award when I actually have read enough of a fifth blog to qualify. I mean no disrespect, I just need to stay in more with the computer, right?
------
I watched the first part of A Brief History of Disbelief today. It reminds me that I have to read a lot more books. But it was also comforting. Eventualy I'll write out my own story of coming to atheism. The word, "atheism", is one about which I agree with the presenter of the show in that it is an inadequate word for the state of disbelief or godlessness. It defines in a negative, when I feel quite complete without believing in god, and felt weird while trying to believe. We need a new word here.
The most comforting parts of it were the snippetts of "man on the street" interviews with people who said (presumably in answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?") "No." I paraphrase, of course and again- the variety of reasons given were straightforward, though. I am thinking that the reason this was the most comforting part is that, no matter how many Wise Men and Women of History share your view, it's always nice to know that you are not alone in the general populace right now.
Being an atheist and non-famous is a bit more difficult than being a famous atheist- you have no fame to fall back on when people suddenly do not love you because of your Heathen Ways. You are not insulated from the effects of real life coming down on you because you lose your job or have been beaten up for your "lack" of faith. Your voice does not carry the Authority of Fame- "What do you know? What have *you* ever done?" I suppose, in more extreme times and places, your disappearance would not be as noticed as, say, John Lennon's, or Richard Dawkins'. It can be lonely and a bit frightening- should I tell *this* person? What about *them*? It's ridiculous to have to weigh such things so seriously, yet here we are.
So, anonymous atheists on the street of all ages, we are not alone. Of *that* much we have proof. More than (ahem) some people can say.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Prayer Surge Part Two
I do not only blog, o, no, I also take part in a variety of forums (by variety, I mean three). I posted the article about the Prayer Surge at two of them, and the replies were largely positive. To the idea of praying, that is. Well, a lot of people pray, we all know that, but I wondered for a couple of days if I was just a weirdo for being annoyed/angered by the very idea. I held off of posting about it on one particular forum for a while, but finally could not stand it any more and so....
I am trying to decide what bothers me most about this so as to compose a coherent reply to the majority (overwhelming) saying that "It couldn't hurt" and "Well, obviously humans are doing a *great* job solving the problem". I think that the very idea is just absurd, of course, but I should be used to the absurd, so why am I so angry about it this time? I mean, really, roll-my-eyes-and-gnash-my-teeth angry.
Maybe it has to do with people dying and the obscenity of praying for the safety of the very people these Praying Soldiers are there to bomb, shoot, and make disappear. Maybe it's the over 3,000 dead US soldiers and how young the vast majority of them were (most younger than me, most young enough to have been a child of mine) and how they were trained (badly) to shoot people before themselves being blown up or shot or however they died too young and for a lie.
Maybe it's the prayer itself and the blindness of people not seeing that when they say "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets," they could well be taliking about the wicked who lied and got us into this mess, them into this mess, that *they* are now the destructive forces at work in the city, and that further threats and lies are forthcoming every time I open the paper.
A combination? Is this just a straw too heavy on top of so many other bales?
------
So, that's what I wrote, and still there is the feeling that I am sort of alone on this one. Well, at least one person objected, let history show.
I am trying to decide what bothers me most about this so as to compose a coherent reply to the majority (overwhelming) saying that "It couldn't hurt" and "Well, obviously humans are doing a *great* job solving the problem". I think that the very idea is just absurd, of course, but I should be used to the absurd, so why am I so angry about it this time? I mean, really, roll-my-eyes-and-gnash-my-teeth angry.
Maybe it has to do with people dying and the obscenity of praying for the safety of the very people these Praying Soldiers are there to bomb, shoot, and make disappear. Maybe it's the over 3,000 dead US soldiers and how young the vast majority of them were (most younger than me, most young enough to have been a child of mine) and how they were trained (badly) to shoot people before themselves being blown up or shot or however they died too young and for a lie.
Maybe it's the prayer itself and the blindness of people not seeing that when they say "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets," they could well be taliking about the wicked who lied and got us into this mess, them into this mess, that *they* are now the destructive forces at work in the city, and that further threats and lies are forthcoming every time I open the paper.
A combination? Is this just a straw too heavy on top of so many other bales?
------
So, that's what I wrote, and still there is the feeling that I am sort of alone on this one. Well, at least one person objected, let history show.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Prayer Surge- Some remarks
Oregonian 4/27/07
'Prayer patrol' for Baghdad pastor enlists others in a "prayer surge" to entreat God for peace in Iraq's troubled capital
Friday, April 27, 2007
NANCY HAUGHT
Wayne Dillard believes that one surge deserves another. President Bush ordered a surge in U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and now Dillard is calling for a surge in prayers on behalf of Baghdad, once known as "the city of peace."
Dillard, an ordained minister in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and a founder of Prayercentral.net, has launched the Baghdad Prayer Patrol at www.prayercentral.net/baghdad. As of this week, he's enlisted about 300 people who have agreed to spend at least one minute a day praying for the city where death and violence are daily occurrences.
Each day, an e-mail goes out to subscribers, focusing on a particular need of U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and police and the residents of the city. Each e-mail includes a Scripture passage and a recommended prayer. A satellite map highlights one of seven Baghdad neighborhoods identified by the U.S. military as a "hot spot," Dillard says.
"People have different ideas about whether we should be in Iraq or not, about bringing the troops home now, whatever," Dillard said in a telephone interview from Virginia Beach, Va.
"I'm not interested in those issues. We've got a conflict in Baghdad that needs a godly solution, a peaceful solution. That's not going to be fully accomplished through just military effort, or political effort or social effort," he said. "There are spiritual forces at work that need to be addressed."
Since the project began in March, prayers have been offered for Iraqi leaders, whose lives have been threatened; fathers who struggle to protect their families; and troops, who may need the gift of compassion, Dillard said.
Recently the prayer of the day quoted Psalm 55: "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets."
The heart of the prayer is this request: "Lord, with all my brothers and sisters praying this prayer today, I am asking you to break this stronghold of violence over the city of Baghdad and its people. Honor your word, Lord, and strip Baghdad from the hands of the violent and give it to those who love peace."
There is no cost to subscribe and no requests for donations, Dillard says. Though he asks for a six-month commitment, it's possible to unsubscribe at any time. Subscribers can post their own prayers and comments, too.
"All of Iraq needs prayer," Dillard says, "and people are praying for all of Iraq. But the military has identified Baghdad as an area that needs concerted effort right now. As the troops are surging, we need prayers to surge behind them."
-------
This was in yesterday's "Technology" section- presumably because they have a website.
There's a lot wrong with this, so pardon if I go a bit rambly in spots. Wait- better idea- allow me to parenthesize:
Wayne Dillard believes that one surge deserves another. President Bush ordered a surge in U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and now Dillard is calling for a surge in prayers on behalf of Baghdad, once known as "the city of peace." (A better idea, on behalf of Baghdad, would be to resist orders and not bring the violence to the people there. Earthly action for Earthly problems.)
Dillard, an ordained minister in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and a founder of Prayercentral.net, has launched the Baghdad Prayer Patrol at www.prayercentral.net/baghdad. As of this week, he's enlisted about 300 people who have agreed to spend at least one minute a day praying for the city where death and violence are daily occurrences. (Or maybe that minute would be better spent writing to the Congressmen or the UN.)
Each day, an e-mail goes out to subscribers, focusing on a particular need of U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and police and the residents of the city. Each e-mail includes a Scripture passage and a recommended prayer. A satellite map highlights one of seven Baghdad neighborhoods identified by the U.S. military as a "hot spot," Dillard says.
(Body armor is a particular need. As would be PTSD treatment, and a return home for the soldiers. The people would probably appreciate electricity and running water in what's left of their homes. A real miracle would be nice- say, the return to life of some 700,000 people. These have not made the list.)
"People have different ideas about whether we should be in Iraq or not, about bringing the troops home now, whatever," Dillard said in a telephone interview from Virginia Beach, Va. ("whatever.")
"I'm not interested in those issues. We've got a conflict in Baghdad that needs a godly solution, a peaceful solution. That's not going to be fully accomplished through just military effort, or political effort or social effort," he said. "There are spiritual forces at work that need to be addressed." (We have a man-made conflict for which we are passing off responsibility to a non-existant being sonce it has become clear that the Powers that be on Earth are going to do nothing to make it stop. In other words, we are traumatised and will hide our heads in fairy tales out of desperation.)
Since the project began in March, prayers have been offered for Iraqi leaders, whose lives have been threatened; fathers who struggle to protect their families; and troops, who may need the gift of compassion, Dillard said. (The gift of proper medical and mental health care would be better for the returning troops- come to that, a *return* would be better for the troops. Not having to worry about your family being blown to bits would be great for the fathers of Iraq.)
Recently the prayer of the day quoted Psalm 55: "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets." (The "wicked" are already confused. It is the destructive forces of their lies which got you into this situation in the first place.)
The heart of the prayer is this request: "Lord, with all my brothers and sisters praying this prayer today, I am asking you to break this stronghold of violence over the city of Baghdad and its people. Honor your word, Lord, and strip Baghdad from the hands of the violent and give it to those who love peace." (So, God, send the troops home so they will stop killing people?)
There is no cost to subscribe and no requests for donations, Dillard says. Though he asks for a six-month commitment, it's possible to unsubscribe at any time. Subscribers can post their own prayers and comments, too. (I disagree- the cost of self-delusion is pretty high. In thinking that you are *doing something* by praying, you are subtracting energy you could have given to actually doing something. You are also mentally absolving yourself from actually working toward a solution "It's in God's hands" is the biggest, worst cop-out we have going for us.)
"All of Iraq needs prayer," Dillard says, "and people are praying for all of Iraq. But the military has identified Baghdad as an area that needs concerted effort right now. As the troops are surging, we need prayers to surge behind them."
------
What Iraq needs is to not be subjected to bombings and the proposed usurping of their natural resources as a "benchmark". They need to be safe from no-knock raids, rapes, and shootings. They need to not be walled into their neighbourhoods, to be able to go outside in safety, to have their lives secure. They need to not be occupied by military forces representing the same government which installed their "evil dictator whom they should be glad we got rid of for them".
Finally, a word from Trotsky: Those who believe in another world are not capable of concentrating on changing this one.
'Prayer patrol' for Baghdad pastor enlists others in a "prayer surge" to entreat God for peace in Iraq's troubled capital
Friday, April 27, 2007
NANCY HAUGHT
Wayne Dillard believes that one surge deserves another. President Bush ordered a surge in U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and now Dillard is calling for a surge in prayers on behalf of Baghdad, once known as "the city of peace."
Dillard, an ordained minister in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and a founder of Prayercentral.net, has launched the Baghdad Prayer Patrol at www.prayercentral.net/baghdad. As of this week, he's enlisted about 300 people who have agreed to spend at least one minute a day praying for the city where death and violence are daily occurrences.
Each day, an e-mail goes out to subscribers, focusing on a particular need of U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and police and the residents of the city. Each e-mail includes a Scripture passage and a recommended prayer. A satellite map highlights one of seven Baghdad neighborhoods identified by the U.S. military as a "hot spot," Dillard says.
"People have different ideas about whether we should be in Iraq or not, about bringing the troops home now, whatever," Dillard said in a telephone interview from Virginia Beach, Va.
"I'm not interested in those issues. We've got a conflict in Baghdad that needs a godly solution, a peaceful solution. That's not going to be fully accomplished through just military effort, or political effort or social effort," he said. "There are spiritual forces at work that need to be addressed."
Since the project began in March, prayers have been offered for Iraqi leaders, whose lives have been threatened; fathers who struggle to protect their families; and troops, who may need the gift of compassion, Dillard said.
Recently the prayer of the day quoted Psalm 55: "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets."
The heart of the prayer is this request: "Lord, with all my brothers and sisters praying this prayer today, I am asking you to break this stronghold of violence over the city of Baghdad and its people. Honor your word, Lord, and strip Baghdad from the hands of the violent and give it to those who love peace."
There is no cost to subscribe and no requests for donations, Dillard says. Though he asks for a six-month commitment, it's possible to unsubscribe at any time. Subscribers can post their own prayers and comments, too.
"All of Iraq needs prayer," Dillard says, "and people are praying for all of Iraq. But the military has identified Baghdad as an area that needs concerted effort right now. As the troops are surging, we need prayers to surge behind them."
-------
This was in yesterday's "Technology" section- presumably because they have a website.
There's a lot wrong with this, so pardon if I go a bit rambly in spots. Wait- better idea- allow me to parenthesize:
Wayne Dillard believes that one surge deserves another. President Bush ordered a surge in U.S. troops sent to Iraq, and now Dillard is calling for a surge in prayers on behalf of Baghdad, once known as "the city of peace." (A better idea, on behalf of Baghdad, would be to resist orders and not bring the violence to the people there. Earthly action for Earthly problems.)
Dillard, an ordained minister in the Vineyard Christian Fellowship and a founder of Prayercentral.net, has launched the Baghdad Prayer Patrol at www.prayercentral.net/baghdad. As of this week, he's enlisted about 300 people who have agreed to spend at least one minute a day praying for the city where death and violence are daily occurrences. (Or maybe that minute would be better spent writing to the Congressmen or the UN.)
Each day, an e-mail goes out to subscribers, focusing on a particular need of U.S. troops, Iraqi leaders and police and the residents of the city. Each e-mail includes a Scripture passage and a recommended prayer. A satellite map highlights one of seven Baghdad neighborhoods identified by the U.S. military as a "hot spot," Dillard says.
(Body armor is a particular need. As would be PTSD treatment, and a return home for the soldiers. The people would probably appreciate electricity and running water in what's left of their homes. A real miracle would be nice- say, the return to life of some 700,000 people. These have not made the list.)
"People have different ideas about whether we should be in Iraq or not, about bringing the troops home now, whatever," Dillard said in a telephone interview from Virginia Beach, Va. ("whatever.")
"I'm not interested in those issues. We've got a conflict in Baghdad that needs a godly solution, a peaceful solution. That's not going to be fully accomplished through just military effort, or political effort or social effort," he said. "There are spiritual forces at work that need to be addressed." (We have a man-made conflict for which we are passing off responsibility to a non-existant being sonce it has become clear that the Powers that be on Earth are going to do nothing to make it stop. In other words, we are traumatised and will hide our heads in fairy tales out of desperation.)
Since the project began in March, prayers have been offered for Iraqi leaders, whose lives have been threatened; fathers who struggle to protect their families; and troops, who may need the gift of compassion, Dillard said. (The gift of proper medical and mental health care would be better for the returning troops- come to that, a *return* would be better for the troops. Not having to worry about your family being blown to bits would be great for the fathers of Iraq.)
Recently the prayer of the day quoted Psalm 55: "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets." (The "wicked" are already confused. It is the destructive forces of their lies which got you into this situation in the first place.)
The heart of the prayer is this request: "Lord, with all my brothers and sisters praying this prayer today, I am asking you to break this stronghold of violence over the city of Baghdad and its people. Honor your word, Lord, and strip Baghdad from the hands of the violent and give it to those who love peace." (So, God, send the troops home so they will stop killing people?)
There is no cost to subscribe and no requests for donations, Dillard says. Though he asks for a six-month commitment, it's possible to unsubscribe at any time. Subscribers can post their own prayers and comments, too. (I disagree- the cost of self-delusion is pretty high. In thinking that you are *doing something* by praying, you are subtracting energy you could have given to actually doing something. You are also mentally absolving yourself from actually working toward a solution "It's in God's hands" is the biggest, worst cop-out we have going for us.)
"All of Iraq needs prayer," Dillard says, "and people are praying for all of Iraq. But the military has identified Baghdad as an area that needs concerted effort right now. As the troops are surging, we need prayers to surge behind them."
------
What Iraq needs is to not be subjected to bombings and the proposed usurping of their natural resources as a "benchmark". They need to be safe from no-knock raids, rapes, and shootings. They need to not be walled into their neighbourhoods, to be able to go outside in safety, to have their lives secure. They need to not be occupied by military forces representing the same government which installed their "evil dictator whom they should be glad we got rid of for them".
Finally, a word from Trotsky: Those who believe in another world are not capable of concentrating on changing this one.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Blackwater- a chapter and some thoughts
I picked up Blackwater, by Jeremy Scahill (Nation Books, Hardcover, $26.95) yesterday at a new book store. Though I plan to read the whole thing, I skipped ahead to almost the last chapter, which deals with New Orleans and the use of mercenary military personel in that area.
The use of this, and other guns-for-hire companies, in New Orleans is certainly cause for alarm. These people are heavily armed, and not subject to the same regulations (such as knowledge of Constitutional law) as regular law enforcement. This is in itself a sign of trouble- that they are hired by private individuals as well as by the US government adds to the concern. Their guns will be pointed in whatever direction benefits the person paying them. And they do not hesitate to pull the triggers.
An aspect not touched on in this is the future of their recruiting patterns. Though made up primarily of former military veterans from many places, not just the US, they will have a growing pool of potential employees as people come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and attempt to re-enter an economy which is in decline. Given the increasing number of "moral waivers", and exeptions for psychiatric troubles now used by US military recruiters, questions of the stability of these future guards for hire need to be asked.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Associations, bad and good- more a ramble than a post
Not book related.
Since becoming involved with a party, I have lost a couple of friends. One in particular is tender and sad to think about.
My Lost Friend was a very good friend (typing "was" in terms of of talking about her is painful). She's involved with a group which requires a security clearance. Our last talk included this:
She:"I don't know what talking to you is doing for my security clearance." Sorta laugh.
Me:"Well, I don't know what talking to you is doing for my Socialist Street Cred." Sorta laugh.
Nothing since. My only hope, really, is that she's alive.
I kind of thought, maybe, that this sort of dis-association only happened in the movies. Naive, perhaps.
Since becoming involved with a party, I have lost a couple of friends. One in particular is tender and sad to think about.
My Lost Friend was a very good friend (typing "was" in terms of of talking about her is painful). She's involved with a group which requires a security clearance. Our last talk included this:
She:"I don't know what talking to you is doing for my security clearance." Sorta laugh.
Me:"Well, I don't know what talking to you is doing for my Socialist Street Cred." Sorta laugh.
Nothing since. My only hope, really, is that she's alive.
I kind of thought, maybe, that this sort of dis-association only happened in the movies. Naive, perhaps.
Friday, April 20, 2007
On the subject of Critical Thinking
I bought a book today for my boy- The Emperor's New Clothes, as retold by Marcus Sedgewick with illustrations by Alison Jay. It's a good story, well-known to most, but not yet to him. I remember it being a favourite when I was a child.
What I liked best then and like best now about the story are the lessons- first, Speak Up, and second, Emperors are not infallible. Now I sort of view it as a primary lesson in questioning authority and not believing everything you hear- trust your eyes and the evidence you gather. I am surprised the story is not banned more often, quite frankly.
It is my hope that this will be a sort of introduction to Critical Thinking skills.
This particular edition is charming- the tailors are weasles (not subtle, sure, but funny), the Emperor a lion, and the illustrations are lovely. The story os told in rhyme, which is generaly a dicey proposition, though this edition is lacking the forced feel that often comes from that form.
MY review of it is positive. We will find out tonight what HE thinks of it- which is the important part.
What I liked best then and like best now about the story are the lessons- first, Speak Up, and second, Emperors are not infallible. Now I sort of view it as a primary lesson in questioning authority and not believing everything you hear- trust your eyes and the evidence you gather. I am surprised the story is not banned more often, quite frankly.
It is my hope that this will be a sort of introduction to Critical Thinking skills.
This particular edition is charming- the tailors are weasles (not subtle, sure, but funny), the Emperor a lion, and the illustrations are lovely. The story os told in rhyme, which is generaly a dicey proposition, though this edition is lacking the forced feel that often comes from that form.
MY review of it is positive. We will find out tonight what HE thinks of it- which is the important part.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
So far...
Parenting Beyond Belief is made up of a wide variety of views. The common thread is parenthood, with a mostly-common thread being atheism. So far my favourite essay is by Julia Sweeney (of SNL fame) about her daughter and their discussions on faith as it relates to Big Things like death. Her honesty with her daughter, and her frank writing style are warm and engaging. It is interesting to see not only what she says to her daughter ("what happens when we die?" "Frankly, darling, we decompose.") but how she follows this up in regular life. As she notes, some people look aghast at the idea of telling a child such a truth. ("Horrible truth" is the actual phrase used).
I wonder, though, about the horror voiced by people about telling kids the truth. While I agree that the truth should be put into terms the child can understand, I also think that many times the intelligence of children is underestimated. I am not saying "my child is a genius and so all children are", or anything of the sort. I do say, though, that they understand a lot more than we think. Their capabilities are often given short shrift.
Also given short shrift is the effect of "white lies" meant to comfort. Santa Claus, Heaven, and the Easter Bunny all spring to mind. Most of us have come to terms with the non-existance of Santa Claus. Many people remember the disappointment in finding out that no, indeed, there is no such person. I don't think anyone has totally lost faith in their parents on finding this out, but some sense of betrayal might well be there. We do get over it.
But what is the point in the first place? Why do we choose Santa Claus and Heaven to put forth as truth, and not, say, Sleeping Beauty?
The thing about Sweeney's presentation of the truth is not just the words she uses, it is also the attitude with which she speaks those words and the way she lives her life which will teach. A bird dies in their back yard, and they watch it for days, every day a little bit less of it remains. They talk about the breakdown of the material, what happens to the material. It is done without fear. It is presented as fact (and it is), but not as a warning, nor as a means of keeping the child in line.
Sweeney's father, who had been very close with the child, dies. Sweeney illustrates to her daughter how he lives on in their memory- in things they do either consciously remembering him, or as a result of his influence on their lives.
It is very clear in her writing, that Julia Sweeney loves her child, has an open and honest relationship with her, and thinks deeply about her welfare. It is her clarity which convinces.
Her atheism is presented without condemnation of religion (her family is religious, Catholic) or excoriation thereof. It is what it is. Clearly, she is at peace with letting go of god. This peace is transmitted to her child.
I wonder, though, about the horror voiced by people about telling kids the truth. While I agree that the truth should be put into terms the child can understand, I also think that many times the intelligence of children is underestimated. I am not saying "my child is a genius and so all children are", or anything of the sort. I do say, though, that they understand a lot more than we think. Their capabilities are often given short shrift.
Also given short shrift is the effect of "white lies" meant to comfort. Santa Claus, Heaven, and the Easter Bunny all spring to mind. Most of us have come to terms with the non-existance of Santa Claus. Many people remember the disappointment in finding out that no, indeed, there is no such person. I don't think anyone has totally lost faith in their parents on finding this out, but some sense of betrayal might well be there. We do get over it.
But what is the point in the first place? Why do we choose Santa Claus and Heaven to put forth as truth, and not, say, Sleeping Beauty?
The thing about Sweeney's presentation of the truth is not just the words she uses, it is also the attitude with which she speaks those words and the way she lives her life which will teach. A bird dies in their back yard, and they watch it for days, every day a little bit less of it remains. They talk about the breakdown of the material, what happens to the material. It is done without fear. It is presented as fact (and it is), but not as a warning, nor as a means of keeping the child in line.
Sweeney's father, who had been very close with the child, dies. Sweeney illustrates to her daughter how he lives on in their memory- in things they do either consciously remembering him, or as a result of his influence on their lives.
It is very clear in her writing, that Julia Sweeney loves her child, has an open and honest relationship with her, and thinks deeply about her welfare. It is her clarity which convinces.
Her atheism is presented without condemnation of religion (her family is religious, Catholic) or excoriation thereof. It is what it is. Clearly, she is at peace with letting go of god. This peace is transmitted to her child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
