World In Prayer prayers

World in Prayer has a spiffy new website!

It was my week to write the prayers and I simply didn't have the time I would have liked to give to them. The salt of the earth, light of the world reading from the lectionary this morning was a natural jumping off point, but my reading of the news was more of a skim of the headlines. I found myself thinking, "Blah blah blah, Syria, Russia, drought. Isn't there anything new and interesting going on?" I feel like I didn't do justice to any of the things in the news, and so I am grateful to other people for holding the prayers for me this week.

The other piece I added was about how we can be salt and light in our local situations. With all my blah-de-blah attitude, one thing I pondered was how we need to be salt and light right where we are, and that there is so much that needs salt and light that will never make it in the papers. So I wanted to bring that out. 

But as I said, these prayers were quite rushed and I feel I didn't hit the mark I would have liked. Still...here they are.


World News This Week in Prayer – Thursday, February 6, 2014

Jesus, you call us to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. May we shine the light of your peace and love to its farthest corners as we remember your world in our prayers.

We pray for Russia as it hosts the Winter Olympics in Sochi, for the athletes who have come to compete, and for those displaced from their homes to make way for the sporting venues.

We pray for North Carolina (USA) where tons of coal ash spilled into the Dan River have affected the area’s drinking water.

We pray for Pakistan and the Taliban as they enter into peace talks.

We pray for Syria where the government has reached a deal allowing civilians to leave the besieged city of Homs.

We pray for the more than 1,100 African migrants rescued by the Italian navy, and for all those fleeing their home due to conflict or lack of resources.

We pray for California (USA) as it suffers from severe drought and for other parts of the US experiencing extreme cold, and for those affected by these conditions.

We pray for women throughout the world, especially for the women of Iraq, thousands of whom are detained illegally and subject to abuse.

And we pray for those needs close to home and close to our hearts.

We pray for those areas of pain and conflict that never reach the headlines and yet are still of immense importance to us and to you, O Lord.

We pray for strength and courage to be salt, to be light, to be peace, to be love to our neighbors here at home and to our neighbors throughout the world. Amen.

Upon entering week three

Back in the days when I was a sign language interpreter, one summer I worked with a summer school class of five kids: three boys and two girls. One day, the teacher divvied them up into two teams for a Jeopardy-style lesson: boys on one team, girls on the other. And even though there were more boys than girls, and even though every time the girls answered a question, the teacher said to the boys "Get ready to steal!", and even though the girls team was in the lead the entire time, at the end of the game, when the girls' team had won, the boys yelled, "It's not fair!" And the teacher, for reasons I shall never fathom, said, "OK, let's call it a draw."

What I see with the government shutdown reminds me daily of this incident.

Picture from the rally at the WWII Memorial on Sunday

Regarding Treyvon Martin

Are you still thinking about Treyvon Martin? I know I am. But boy am I not qualified to comment. My main reaction has been to say, "That is messed up." So that's about my level of sophistication.

But here are some responses to Treyvon Martin's death, the George Zimmerman trial and verdict, and race in American generally that I thought were helpful/illuminating. Mostly, I'm just listening right now.

Ta-Nehisi Coates as always has good things to say. His first response set the stage for this longer reflection:

It is painful to say this: Trayvon Martin is not a miscarriage of American justice, but American justice itself. This is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working as intended. To expect our juries, our schools, our police to single-handedly correct for this, is to look at the final play in the final minute of the final quarter and wonder why we couldn't come back from twenty-four down.

I know I already posted this link on Friday, but it's worth posting again:

15 Things Black People Must Do In Order to End Racism

With that post in mind, this tweet struck a chord:

All this writing about how young black boys should behave to avoid getting killed = telling women how to not get raped...
— SocProf (@SocProf) July 14, 2013

An interesting perspective from Stephen Kuusisto. The kicker:

Privileged space and security guards go hand in hand. And with the travesty of justice in Sanford, Florida we're told that anyone can be a security guard. And anyone can be gunned down.

The Black Youth Project posted a heartfelt response:

As we waited to hear the verdict, in the spirit of unity, we formed a circle and locked hands. When we heard “not guilty,” our hearts broke collectively. In that moment, it was clear that Black life had no value. Emotions poured out – emotions that are real, natural and normal, as we grieved for Trayvon and his stolen humanity. Black people, WE LOVE AND SEE YOU. We mourn, but there’s hope as long as love endures.

And finally, Toure posted this beautiful and poignant article on how to talk to young black boys about Treyvon Martin. It was written in 2012 and makes even more of an impact now.

There is nothing wrong with you. You’re amazing. I love you. When I look at you, I see a complex human being with awesome potential, but some others will look at you and see a thug — even if their only evidence is your skin. Their racism relates to larger anxieties and problems in America that you didn’t create. When someone is racist toward you — either because they’ve profiled you or spit some slur or whatever — they are saying they have a problem. They are not speaking about you. They’re speaking about themselves and their deficiencies.

What else should I read?

Trinity Sermon tidbits, but no sharks

Mom is going to be very disappointed.

I posted this picture on Facebook yesterday, which was Trinity Sunday, as you may know since I've been talking about it endlessly, it seems. This sweet young thing is displaying her Sunday School drawing which has pink sharks, hearts, and cherries. I noted on Facebook there were three of everything and said, "You should have heard the sermon!" But there were no sharks in the Trinity Sunday sermon. Maybe next year.

Instead, I reacted to a completely different piece of art in my sermon: the famous icon of the Holy Trinity by Rublev. Because I realized, as I thought about it, that it captured something I find troubling about -- not the Trinity, but the way we talk about the Trinity: as a completely enmeshed and encapsulated system, God looking only at God's own self.

Because the God I encountered in the Scripture for last Sunday is far more interested in people than in God's own self. "What is man that you should be mindful of him? The son of man that you should seek him out?" says the Psalmist. And in the Gospel, it isn't the "I and the Father are one" that I might have expected, but instead lots of talk about stuff being given to you, the "you" being the disciples.

And as I thought about it, what I saw was a Trinity not lost in contemplation of its own Godliness, but a Trinity that attempts through every avenue possible to reach us humans, and who doesn't really seem to care what form that takes. My sense is that God really doesn't care if we understand God, because God knows we won't be able to, but that the attempt to build that relationship is all that matters.

So I talked about that a bit. Something like that. It was probably heretical. I'm certain I have that icon all wrong. But there you go. Next year, I'm swimming with the sharks. It will probably be safer.

Golden Globes as Preaching Seminar

If I were teaching a preaching class, I think I would bring in videos of the acceptance speeches given by Anne Hathaway and Jennifer Lawrence at the Golden Globes last night as an opportunity for discussion.

Why these two and not Jodie Foster's speech? Or Daniel Day Lewis? Well, for one, I think these two women are an apples-to-apples comparison. Foster is doing something completely different. And for another, these two have both strengths and flaws, great for discussion. Daniel Day-Lewis offered something damn near perfect, imo, and therefore not nearly so interesting to talk about. Except to say, "Here's why this is so good. We can aspire to these characteristics."

I'd also do these two because I've seen some pretty strong reactions to each (including my own) and I'd want to explore that subjective reaction a little more deeply. There's definitely one I "like" and one I "don't like," which may or may not have anything to do with what these women say or do.

I'd have people watch both speeches once with the sound off, and discuss that. And then I'd have them watch the speeches again with the words. It's too easy to get caught up in the words, but I think there's a lot to be learned from mere presence.

So I'm not teaching a class, but since you're here, what do you think?

Watching with the sound off:

• What was the overall impression you got from each woman through her facial expressions? Gestures? What message did you receive?
• Which one made you feel more comfortable as you watched her? Why? If you felt uncomfortable, can you pinpoint at what moment you felt uncomfortable? 
• What overall emotional impression(s) did they give? What emotions did you read?

Watching with sound:

• What was the overall impression you got from each woman through what she said?
• What parts of the message jarred you?
• At what points did you feel each woman best connected with her audience? At what points did she seem disconnected? What made the difference?
• What overall emotional impression(s) did they give? What emotions did you read?

And finally, the key questions:

• Which one did you like best? Why? And what does that say about what is important to you in communication?

Sorry these embedded videos don't work, but do watch them, if you wish. I'll put my reactions below:

Realizing that my reactions now are colored by my initial reactions yesterday, here are my thoughts, bearing in mind these are very much my personal and subjective impressions:

Anne Hathaway: reads to me as trying hard to appear humble. Very girlish. She cannot seem to settle on eye contact or looking down. Her hand gestures are large and somewhat stiff, leaving me with the strange impression that she is both very rehearsed and yet uncomfortable. Lots of tension in her neck. Her emotions seem to be fighting with one another as she seeks to control her genuine excitement. The joke about the "blunt object" fell flat as a "li'l ol' me!" piece of schtick. Due to her success, I don't think she can do a "li'l ol' me" any more. If I were to give her advice, I'd tell her to quit trying to be the Nice Girl. It's not coming off right for me. Also: quit touching your hair.

Jennifer Lawrence: Seems genuinely happy and relaxed, which makes her read as genuine, though I suspect her speech was just as rehearsed and studied as Anne Hathaway's. I liked the joke about "I beat Meryl!" which sounded like reverence and not a put-down, though I can see how it might be understood differently - which is a lesson right there. The extremism of the Harvey Weinstein line along with her deadpan delivery made the joke both obvious and very funny. The reversal of thanking her brothers for being mean makes the joke work. She's got great comic chops. If I were to give her advice, I'd say that when you need to say, "All jokes aside," it's a clue that something might not be working quite right. But I thought it was terrific.

All of which says to me what's important to me in communication is good humor and authenticity -- or at least a very good facsimile thereof.

Oh, and by the by: Tina Fey and Amy Poehler! Kick-ass job. I know they're waiting for my call.

Various & Sundry: Maximum Guns

As you can tell, since Sandy Hook, the issue of guns has been on my mind. Here are a few more things I've seen that I thought were illuminating, thought-provoking, helpful, or hopeful in the swirl of information.

Let me start here so it doesn't get buried: In the "but what can we do?" category, the most helpful thing I've found this week is the Children's Defense Fund's document Protect Children, Not Guns. It was written earlier this year, and is an issue they have been working on a long time, so it wasn't a rush-to-find-an-answer kind of a thing. I also like that they had calls to action for all of us, not just "them."

Knowing that you can examine any non-profit's 990 tax form, I thought I'd take a look at the NRA's, and found this post examining their finances for 2010, the year in which Wayne LaPierre, president of the NRA, made $835,469 (plus another $125K and change in "other compensation"). It's a fascinating document to dig into. You know who's on the board of directors? Grover Norquist.

If you are wondering, "How did we get to this place?", Terry Gross's interview with Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center, tracing the history of the rise of the assault-style weapon for the civilian market, may be something you want to listen to, or read the transcript. The information is disturbingly fascinating, and presented in a very matter-of-fact way.

Also looking at history, Tony Horwitz notes the similarities between the gun lobby and the slavery lobby of the 18th century. And blogger Nancy Kho found similar parallels after seeing the movie Lincoln on the day of the Sandy Hook shootings.

Lance Mannion had two posts that resonated with me. The first is the satirical Dear Gun Nuts, Uncle Sam needs you! The second, Against any grand unifying  theories explaining Sandy Hook, is one he says he's not happy with and will add to later. His summary in the comments is this: "I think rather than trying to explain anything and everything in reference to broad social issues, we'll learn more if we focus on the individual stories of the killers themselves and we're better off asking not what causes violence in general but what would have stopped this particular killer well before he got to killing people." But everything we're posting and thinking right now is a work in progress, it seems to me.

In the thought-provoking category, Mike the Mad Biologist writes that Nothing in Movement Conservatism Makes Sense Except in the Light of Creationism: The Second-Amendment Edition, which shows similar ways of thinking about gun rights and creationism, the same resentment about anyone who wants to "take them away," or not take their logic seriously. It's worth reading for the "oh" of understanding.

I'm assuming you've read Adam Gopnik's article in the New Yorker about the Simple Truth about Gun Control. I'm just not sure it will convince anyone who isn't already convinced. But it just seems to damn obvious. As tweeter Mary Matthews said, "The 'right' says to limit IN ANY WAY an American's right to drive a racecar down a suburban road at 150 mph infringes on their freedom."

After all of this, I don't know about you, but I needed to see a picture of baby hedgehogs. Here you go.

Peace be with you.

Sunday Funnies, December 9

Answering the age-old question: how to spell...ummm...the religious holiday that Jews are celebrating at this time?

On the first presidential debate

All week, and for longer than that, actually, we've been hearing about the debate and who's going to win, and the expectations game, and Mitt Romney's been practicing zingers and blah de blah de blah. I'm not planning to watch, and was feeling guilty about that, but this morning I woke up and realized that who wins the debate is completely irrelevant.

The point of the debate for me -- and what I think the point of the debate should be -- is to get an idea of what each candidate thinks about important topics and how his administration will address them. Zingers be damned. What is their approach to topics such as the economy, foreign policy, and governance? You know, things they actually would have a say about were they elected or re-elected. The "winning" thing is not actually going to make a difference when it comes to enacting policy.

So I plan to follow along via Twitter and blogs and read about their answers, examining those for the content. Not that I need help deciding who to vote for. But boy is this not about who "wins" for me.

Then again...

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democalypse 2012 - Negate Expectations - The Presidential Debates
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

#shrugging: An Ayn Rand Twitter Book Group

Well, it's not much a "group," actually; it's just me posting tweets about Atlas Shrugged as I chortle my way through it. Honestly, how anyone can take this book seriously is beyond me. I keep chuckling and laughing in a most derisive manner, and I'm only through Chapter 2. It's not the philosophy that's making me laugh; it's just the writing. The writing! Oh my. Here's a sentence just to give you an idea:

"The window frame trembled with the speed of the motion, the pane hung over empty darkness, and dots of light slashed across the glass as luminous streaks, once in a while."

Once in a while?

I have to say, risible or no, I'm enjoying it a lot. It's just chock-full of passive-voiced pot-boilery goodness. I'm looking forward to finding out what happens.

I honestly had no preconceived notions about it going in, which is very refreshing. I'm reading it because of how much it's in the news after Paul Ryan was tapped for VP, but I didn't have a clue what it was about.

You're welcome to join me, if you wish. If you're on Twitter, use the hashtag #shrugging to add pithy comments or simply to say hello.

Review: Feed - and vague thoughts on YA dystopias

The other night I finished Feed by MT Anderson, which was a tremendous novel, if highly disturbing. I can't remember how I first heard about it, but it was already on my pile from the library when NPR published its list of top 100 YA novels (where it ranks as number 88).

It was a quick read, but I wouldn't say it was an easy one. It's an Aldous Huxley dystopia, a la Brave New World, in which control is acquired through pleasure rather than repression.

In the highly believable world Feed creates, at every moment the feed implanted in your brain from childhood is selling you things, gathering data on what you purchase to further discern your demographic, and selling you more based on that information. Each chapter ends with some of the ads coming through on the feed, disrupting your own thought processes as you watch clips of pitches of products pass by. It isn't our world, but it is way too easy to imagine a world like that. It was like looking at current society in a distorted and magnifying mirror and realizing the essential parts of you were still being reflected in it.

I looked up MT Anderson as I was reading the book and can't say I was super surprised to learn that his mother is an Episcopal priest. You know he was steeped in something when you get a sentence like this:

The sun was rising over foreign countries, and underwear was cheap, and there were new techniques to reconfigure pecs, abs, and nipples, and the President of the United States was certain of the future, and at Weatherbee & Crotch there was a sale banner and nice rugby shirts and there were pictures of freckled prep-school boys and girls in chinos playing on the beach and dry humping in the eel grass, and as I fell asleep, the feed murmured to me again and again: All shall be well...and all shall be well...and all manner of things shall be well.

In Feed, people young and old are lulled, mollified, and plied with treats. Contrast this with (or compare it to) The Hunger Games, another YA dystopian novel, only in The Hunger Games it is want and scarcity that drives the plot, and rather than being entertained, the young protagonists are to be the entertainment.

All of which has got me thinking about how many dystopian novels seem to be geared toward teens. I don't remember this being the case when I was young. Aside from The Lord of the Flies, the dystopias all involved adults--and Lord of the Flies (though we read it in school) wasn't considered a YA novel.

So why is it that there is so much dystopian literature for youth nowadays? Is it because the youth are the ones listening? Or the ones the authors think need to hear it? Or is it because that's the way to sneak this message out there to old and young alike? Because one thing's for darn sure in both Feed and The Hunger Games: the dystopia ain't the young folks' fault.

Various & Sundry, July 20

Interesting day today with lots of good conversations. The one that surprised me most, though, was the conversation I had on Twitter with someone I don't know personally who tweeted,"The only people who murder others with guns are those that already break the law. This is why gun control is not a solution. Very simple." It was one of those, "Are you seeing the world I'm seeing?" moments and I'm afraid I let my knee-jerk reactions get the best of me. Went a couple rounds based on my initial position and then, you know, actually decided to do a little research.

What I found, looking into it a titch more, is, boy, the numbers will let you argue whatever way you want. There's nothing I can even link to because the issue is so clouded that I have no idea what's a trustworthy source. One thing I found that challenges my starting point without seeming nut-jobby was this editorial, written after the Virginia Tech shooting. I can't say I like his conclusions (much preferring something that reinforces my original opinion), but it raises the question, What can we do to make our society and our particular culture as a whole less violent?

At any rate, my prayers are with the victims of the shootings in Aurora, their families and loved ones, and the shooter himself.

So let's talk about tea, shall we? Yes, let's. Because we have three tea-related items to share this week.

First, there's this gizmo that's a teapot with a timer built in. "No unnecessary bells or whistles (let alone a power cord) are needed for this elegantly simple tea timer-and-steeper to do its job. Just pour, screw, tip and wait." Nifty.

This next product makes the same mistake made by the folks who brought you the Tea Monkey Infuser. Namely, you don't want to put something that looks like a human or animal in your tea because said human or animal turns your lovely bath/tea water brown. And that's just gross.

But these folks gave it the good college try with Mr. Tea. You may not be able to see it in the small photo there, but the tag line is "throw some tea in your trousers." Really? "Throw some tea in your trousers"? That's simply unfortunate. Nice try, but no.

I keep trying to think what kind of thing you could make into an infuser where you say to yourself, "How lovely to soak this in my water! I was just hoping that it would turn clear water brown." I'm not coming up with anything. How about you?

I do, however, love the idea behind the Universal Tea Machine, “a gargantuan cross between a tea-making device, a primitive computer and a pinball machine.” Built to mark both the London Olympics and Alan Turing's centenary,

The Universal Tea Machine will dispense up to 2,000 free, freshly made cups of tea each week from its temporary home next to a giant screen streaming Olympic coverage in Victoria Park, Hackney — but you will only receive a nice builder’s brew with milk and sugar, as opposed to a dry tea bag with three sugar lumps or a cup of hot milk and water, if you can perform binary addition...Would-be tea drinkers will have to perform five sequential additions correctly in order to produce a perfect cuppa.

I'm sure Douglas Adams would approve.

In other literary references, Mark Twain has some wise words on how he came up with his characters.

My favorite obit of the week is one that the subject, one Val Patterson, wrote himself. Here's the part that's gotten the most attention:

Now that I have gone to my reward, I have confessions and things I should now say. As it turns out, I AM the guy who stole the safe from the Motor View Drive Inn back in June, 1971. I could have left that unsaid, but I wanted to get it off my chest. Also, I really am NOT a PhD. What happened was that the day I went to pay off my college student loan at the U of U, the girl working there put my receipt into the wrong stack, and two weeks later, a PhD diploma came in the mail. I didn't even graduate, I only had about 3 years of college credit. In fact, I never did even learn what the letters "PhD" even stood for. For all of the Electronic Engineers I have worked with, I'm sorry, but you have to admit my designs always worked very well, and were well engineered, and I always made you laugh at work. Now to that really mean Park Ranger; after all, it was me that rolled those rocks into your geyser and ruined it. I did notice a few years later that you did get Old Faithful working again. To Disneyland - you can now throw away that "Banned for Life" file you have on me, I'm not a problem anymore - and SeaWorld San Diego, too, if you read this.

But the whole thing is completely delightful and truly touching. I'm sure his friends and family miss him very much.

And with that I must add: Life can be short. Tell your friends and family that you love them.

Have a great weekend.

On today's Supreme Court Ruling

When I heard the Supreme Court ruling, I said, "Holy crap!" When I heard that it was Chief Justice Roberts who had written the majority opinion, I said, "Hooooooly crap!" Strong language, I know, but that's the way I talk when I'm home alone.

Here's what was going on in my head between exclamation craps:

One day prior to Holy Craps #1 and #2: Boy, was I annoyed with all the speculation and predictions on Twitter, blogs, and in the news. Why make yourself look foolish like that? Why not just wait and see what actually happens? Well, I know why: because simply saying, "We'll find out tomorrow" isn't nearly as much fun (and won't get nearly as many hits) as wild speculation. I ignored the stores, but the speculative headlines still seeped into my brain and ratcheted up my anxiety--and I was only a half-hearted watcher!

Immediately prior to Holy Crap #1: I was sure the Affordable Care Act was a dead duck. Certain. Given what I'd heard of the arguments in March, and (especially) given all the predictions of the court watchers, I didn't think this thing had a chance.

Holy Crap #1: As I saw the NY Times headline, Health Care Law Stands, I couldn't believe how relieved I felt. Even though I didn't do a thing to get the ACA enacted, I found myself relaxing, and so happy that I didn't have to fight that battle again. As if I had done anything about it the first time. Would I have preferred a single payer system? I guess. But I'd rather have this in place than nothing. I'm just so glad for those folks who are no longer burdened by the fear of being unable to get health care.

Hoooooooly Crap #2: I saw the subhead to the same story, Roberts is Part of Majority Upholding Mandate and a jumble of things happened at once. First of all, I felt tremendously guilty for pigeonholing Chief Justice Roberts, assuming "He is a conservative; he will do X." This was an excellent reminder to me that people are individuals not types. I had been prejudiced and partial and I feel bad about that.

Secondly, oh boy (and I don't mean that in a gleeful way), what is this going to mean for the election this fall? I'll be curious to see how this all plays out.

In the car later, listening to the various reports, I have to say that I'm very pleased with the reasoning behind the ruling, insofar as I understand it. It seems fair, reasonable, and (dare I say) conservative. It makes me rest easier, thinking that important decisions such as this will be considered in a way that (to me at least) reads as prudent.

Also: I don't know what the heck I'm talking about.

World In Prayer, May 3, 2012

It was my week for the World In Prayer prayers and they pretty much wrote themselves this week.  Once I hit that line in the Acts reading for this Sunday, I knew exactly how I wanted to pray. These prayers are from my heart.  Here they are.

Philip asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 

He replied, "How can I, unless someone guides me?"   -Acts 8:30-31

Dear God,

I do not understand what I am reading.

I read news from throughout the world and I do not understand what I am reading.

I say I read “news,” but the truth is; I read headlines, sometimes a few paragraphs, sometimes a whole article. I get glimpses into conflicts and cultures and circumstances, but I do not understand what I am reading. How can I understand, unless someone guides me?

Help us, God, to listen to those whose experience informs them. Help us to listen to others throughout the world, to those who have lived in the conflict and the culture and the circumstances. Help us to gain perspective. Help us to have insight. Help us to understand.

Help us to understand what is happening in Mali where a recent coup and counter-coup are being discussed by leaders of West African States at a meeting in Senegal.

Help us to understand what is happening in France where voters will decide on Sunday between current President Nicholas Sarkozy and challenger Francois Hollande.

Help us to understand what is happening in Burma where Daw Aung Yan Suu Kyi and other recently elected members of the National League for Democracy took their seats in Parliament.

Help us to understand what is happening in Brazil where more than 8,500 troops have been deployed in the Amazon to tackle drug trafficking, logging, and illegal mining.

Help us to understand what is happening in Nigeria where gunmen armed with explosives set fire to a cattle market, burning it to the ground, killing over 30 people as well as many of the cattle.

Help us to understand what is happening in Serbia where presidential and Parliamentary elections on Sunday may decide whether or not the country joins the European Union.

Help us to understand what is happening in China where the United Statesand China are in conflict over the future of dissident lawyer Chen Guangchen, who is seeking to travel to the United States after escaping house arrest.

Help us to understand what is happening in Syria where security forces have stormed student dormitories in Aleppo in response to anti-government protests.

Help us to understand the world you made, the world you love, the world you redeemed.

Help us to understand. Help us to abide in you. Help us to love. Amen

Various & Sundry, October 7

Anyone who has read this blog for a while knows of my adoration of The Bloggess. I spent much of last night watching the developing story of The Bloggess's pwning of a PR firm--my my my.  I'm sure the PR firm was glad to see the debacle featured on Business Insider this morning. Killer line expertly deployed: "Please stand by for a demonstration of relevancy." Oh man! AWESOME!

Also awesome? This memo Gov. Jerry Brown sent to the legislature:

(h/t Passive Aggressive Notes)

In light of the controversy over the name of Rick Perry's family hunting grounds, I thought Ta-Nehisi Coates, as usual, offered light where many provided only heat. His thoughts on racism are, in my opinion, very important and get at something very deep. I cannot encourage you enough to read these posts.  On the same topic, I thought The Daily Show's take on the controversy was fantastic.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Amazing Racism - Geographical Bigotry
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

In the ongoing story about Uganda Little League, there's now a feature film about it, called Opposite Field. I've signed up to receive updates about it; the video is a killer. I hope the film turns out well.
 


ESPN Feature Opposite Field from Jay Shapiro on Vimeo.

In the meantime, go Milwaukee! Go Cards!

Tuesday book blogging

Not a lot of reading happening these days for whatever reason, so I'm glad for a book with lots of pretty pictures.   Namely, Everyday Icon: Michelle Obama and the Power of Style, written by the former editor of Harpar's Bazaar.

I'm actually reading it thoroughly, however. The text is insightful. As a severely fashion-impaired person, I find the argument that "style" does not negate "substance" very compelling.

Here's a teaser:

The fact that Michelle Obama does not see style and substance as an either/or choice is a powerful indication that the underlying assumptions about women's roles and images have changed. Embodying the confluence of substance and style, she has reconciled the long-standing antagonism between them. She has, in some sense, made them one and the same.

A bit over the top, I know, but it is making me rethink my own assumptions. It's also a fascinating look at the peculiar role of the First Lady, and the kind of messages that fashion conveys.

It seems silly to post this without another picture. The caption, in case you can't read it, says:

The right to bare arms: When Michelle Obama revealed her sculpted biceps in Congress in February 2009, she prompted New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks to write, "Put away Thunder and Lightning." But when Jackie Kennedy wore a similar sleeveless shift to her husband's State of the Union address in January 1963 (above) it was no big deal--perhaps because her arms didn't convey the same message of strength and power.

You can see Jackie seated on the aisle in the lower right corner of the top picture.

(Teaser Tuesday is sponsored by MizB at Should Be Reading where you can find the details of this weekly event.)

***

In other book news, Ta-Nehisi Coates, whom I cannot go a week without referencing, had a kick-ass response to the Esquire list of 75 books men should read--a list that includes only one book by a woman author.

Put bluntly, if you call yourself a reading man, but don't read books by women, you are actually neither. Such a person implicitly dismisses whole swaths of literature, and then flees the challenge to see himself through other eyes.

This is not a favor to feminists. This is not about how to pick up chicks. This is about hunger, greed and acquisition. Do not read books by women to murder your inner sexist pig. Do it because Edith Wharton can fucking write. It's that simple.

What he said.

Egypt

I was taken by surprise this morning both by the news that Mubarak had stepped down, and also that I found myself in tears when I heard. I'm watching the livestreaming video from Al Jazeera English, which you can find here. Below is a screencap.

 

Do I understand what's going on there? Do I have even the slightest inkling what ought to happen? That's a big old no. But I'm still moved by these scenes of jubilation after such valiant and overwhelmingly peaceful protest. A transfer of power without war--imagine. Well, I don't need to, do I? Let us pray for Egypt in the hard work and changes that will follow.

By the way, if I haven't mentioned it before, here's a link to demand Al Jazeera English on cable providers in the U.S. AJE has the best coverage of Africa I've seen (in my opinion, anyway) and generally has a very interesting slant on world news, one that's worth hearing.

Monday Morning Preacher: the dreaded children's sermon

After yesterday's illustration, I thought I'd give my thoughts on children's sermons which, as you see from the title of this entry, are not my favorite things.

I remember very clearly one poor woman trying so hard to give a children's sermon on Christmas Eve. It went something like this:

Preacher: Who's the most powerful superhero you can think of?
Children: GOD!
Preacher: No, I mean, you know, superheroes.
Children (muttering): Superman, Spiderman, blah blah blah.
Preacher: OK, now think of a tiny baby...
Children: JESUS!
Preacher: No, just wait a minute...

I misrepresent, but not by much.

I'm not a big fan of the "ask the adorable children a question" school of children's sermons. I'm also not really a huge fan of "have the adorable children come up front and sit around the preacher" school of children's sermons. When it's about being able to see and hear--fine. When it's largely about the "awww" factor, I'm a mite concerned. So often it seems like this is putting kids on the spot at their expense and sharing with the adult congregation the "adorable" things they say.

Yes, he's my favorite superhero. 

So?

The other things that gets me is how this lets adults off the hook. How would that sermon have been different if the preacher had asked the whole congregation, "Who is your favorite superhero?" and expected adults to answer too? I mean, would you like it if people said, "Awww!" when you said your favorite superhero was Danger Mouse? My feeling is that having everyone participate in the sermon means that children can see adults modeling an active faith. Having them not participate models that when you're grown up, your job in church is to sit quietly and not say anything.

What the example above says to me is that children learn very quickly what is the "right" answer--even though the question was the kind of open-ended question you think would appeal to a child on a subject with which they are familiar. Learning church lingo starts awfully early. One of the things I fear is that the dreaded children's sermon conveys more than anything the message that in church you must know your proper place and play your proper role.

I do think there are ways to have a sermon that engages children. I'm big on telling stories, for example.

All these illustrations are in the same pose; did you notice?

But there's just something about the way the "traditional" children's sermon is presented that rubs me the wrong way. I think there's something in many of the children's sermons I've heard that suggests a nicey-niceyness. And nicey-niceyness isn't true to anyone's experience, I don't care how old you are.  Just because there's a rainbow doesn't mean it's a nice story. Just because it's a children's sermon doesn't mean it needs to be pablum.

More on teaching

Last Friday, I posted a link in which someone opined about changing the way we compensate teachers, with a smattering of thoughts on teacher training as well. There was some really good stuff in the comments about this (including this very compelling and scathing review of Waiting for "Superman") which made me think a little more about how I've come to my own opinions on the subject of teaching and teacher training, and I thought that would be worth repeating here.

I would especially love to hear more from people who have been teachers and can speak personally about what helped and what didn't and what they think would work. I know my own opinions are ill-informed, especially when it comes to credentialing requirements, so take what you read here with a very large grain of salt.

My perspective, however, is somewhat unique. I spent one year as a notetaker for Deaf students and five years as an Educational Interpreter. For a few of those years, I was the staff substitute, which meant that I saw lots and lots and lots of classrooms. I saw them on a day to day basis, not just when they were preparing for evaluation. And I saw them without the investment of being a parent or particularly worrying about how a child was performing in the classroom.

Now, this was over 10 years ago, but from what I remember the vast majority of the teachers I saw ranged from good to excellent. Excellent teachers could be found in every community and at every level. I remember one spectacular fourth grade teacher who dressed like an executive lawyer with four-inch heels. I remember one amazing 7th grade science teacher in an inner-city school who brought incredible energy to her class. I remember one suburban high school social studies teacher who caught my interest so much that I forgot to interpret.

From what I saw there were two things that made some teachers more skilled at teaching. One thing that seemed to make for a compelling teacher was their own interest in the subject matter. And the other thing that made a classroom teacher more effective was experience.

The teaching itself was both a gift that they had and a skill that could be learned, but I'm not sure any credential program can make you love history so that you want to share that love with your students.

I honestly don't know what teaching credentials offer. If you know, please enlighten me!

One of the reasons I question credentialing programs is because private schools don't require them and yet people clamor to get into them. If the credentialing confers such great benefits in teaching, why would people want to leave the public schools that require it to go to the private schools that don't?

So why are so many public schools doing so poorly on tests that measure their performance? I wish I knew. But I don't think it's because the teachers are "bad teachers." Whatever that means.

I thought this story about a large high school in Massachusetts was very intriguing. I really don't know how much to believe about anything I read regarding education, but I want to keep an open mind. What this school discovered seems at least worth exploring.

Here's the story: in 1999, after reviewing their dismal test scores, the leaders of Brockton High set up a restructuring committee.

The committee’s first big step was to go back to basics, and deem that reading, writing, speaking and reasoning were the most important skills to teach. They set out to recruit every educator in the building — not just English, but math, science, even guidance counselors — to teach those skills to students.

The rest of the story is a compelling account of overcoming resistance, bucking the received wisdom, and stick-to-it-iveness. I really don't know if this is a viable general model, but it's a great story. Here's hoping their success can be replicated.

Churches and charity, part 1

A couple of days ago, I posted a quote from an article that basically says people in the U.S. can be more generous; non-profits should take a look at how churches do fundraising because religious services are really a form of marketing.

Hmmm...

OK, so my reaction is colored in part because I was laid off from a church position when the pledges from our annual appeal didn't cover my salary, so my appreciation for the church's fundraising abilities is somewhat tainted. But aside from that, this raises some questions. I'm still pondering all of this. I meant to write something today but still don't have it straight in my mind.

However, at the Anonymous Historian's urging, I will start by posting the comment I left on the article itself. Tell me if this sounds right to you:

As an Episcopal priest and someone who has worked both in non-profit development and microfinance, I thought I would respond. I'm still thinking about this, though, and know that this response is incomplete, to say the least.

I have to say, I'm not sure what a good job churches are doing at our marketing if the message you perceive we are sending has nothing to do with--you know--God. I was kind of hoping that "Love God and love your neighbor" would be our take-away. I don't think "be charitable" (in terms of money) ought to be the primary message of churches, but what's sad as I think about it is how clearly I can perceive this has been the case. Take, for example, the 700 club whose very name refers to the amount of money one contributes to belong.

One advantage I think churches have over most humanitarian organizations is that church leaders can claim, "God wants you to give money to this cause." The Bible in all its authority can be used, often in negative ways, to urge members to contribute their financial support. "God loves a cheerful giver" can be used to guilt trip (or "encourage" depending on your perspective) people not only to give money, but to be happy about it--with the implicit suggestion that God isn't pleased if you aren't happy about forking over the dough. We are told almost every year as pledges are collected that giving a tenth of one's income is the expectation God has of us.

In a lot of ways, the church has been incredibly abusive in its fundraising techniques. Just look at indulgences. Look at the popular prosperity gospel churches today.

Don't get me wrong: churchgoers are generous people and the church does train people in generosity. Lots of good organizations and worthy causes have benefited from this. Churches do a lot of good work. That said, as an insider and as a fundraiser, I think churches do a lousy job in fundraising, per se. I'm not sure that looking to churches as a good model is really how you want to go.

More when I have more.

"They want to hand this country over to foreign terrorists."

No, that's not a TeaPartier, or a blogger, or a pundit, or a Fox news analyst. It was, in fact, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, the president of Somalia, speaking in response to an attack by Al Shabab rebels that killed at least 32 people, including 6 members of Parliament. This is the same group that staged the bombing in Kampala during the finals of the World Cup.

I heard the story yesterday on the Africa Today podcast from the BBC, and was struck by this quote from President Ahmed (through an interpreter (I doubt the President actually said, "these guys")):

The fact that they think of such an atrocity and attack fellow-Muslims in this holy month of Ramadan, it shows that this group has nothing to do with Islam. I call on the Somali people to be aware that these guys are not religious as they say. The group's aim also is to prevent Somalis from having peace, and they want to hand this country over to foreign terrorists.

I guess the point being that, yes, there is indeed Muslim extremism, but the victims of it are just as likely to be fellow Muslims as they are to be either Christians or Westerners. It is worth understanding the difference between Islam and Islamists, but that will require some real effort.

Believe me, I am among the ignorant. I mean, think of all the Anglican/Episcopal tribes just in the U.S. I'm sure there must be distinctions like that in the Muslim world too. I vaguely know that there is Sufi Islam...and some other kinds. Hardly a basis for making rational distinctions, much less showing any real understanding.

Oh, how it aggravates me that we--and I mean me--I have no nuances in my understanding of the world. It may be simpler that way, but it's also wildly inaccurate.