Congratulations, Frances Perkins!

My hearty congratulations to Frances Perkins, winner of the Lent Madness 2013 Golden Halo!

C'mon, Fran! Give us a smile!
You've just won the Golden Halo!

Although my main man Luke made it to the finals, I can't be upset that he lost. After all, pretty much everyone has heard of Luke. All to the better that the Halo goes to someone relatively unknown.

Luke is almost finished writing
his concession speech. In two volumes.

And to those commenting "How can this be! A bureaucrat beating an evangelist! I call shenanigans!" I point you to the following:

Do you enjoy the weekend? Thank #FrancesPerkins for 40-hr. work week by voting for her TODAY in #LentMadness! bit.ly/xDYA4D
— MountHolyoke College (@mtholyoke) March 27, 2013

Pls RT! Can #FrancesPerkins win #GoldenHalo in today's final round of #LentMadness? Vote!bit.ly/xDYA4Dtwitpic.com/cerwn3
— MountHolyoke College (@mtholyoke) March 27, 2013

#FrancesPerkins is trailing in #LentMadness & needs your help, MoHos! Please vote now -- & retweet thisl!! bit.ly/xDYA4D
— MountHolyoke College (@mtholyoke) March 27, 2013

et cetera. I think evangelists can learn a thing or two from the Mt Holyoke alumnae association.

Besides, isn't there something wonderful about an Episcopal Church program reaching out waaaay beyond our walls? Who knows what seeds have been planted? I say, quit worrying about whether the right person "won" and rejoice in the fact that so many people have been part of the fun. I know I learned a lot in the process. I hope you did too.

Various & Sundry: Clearing out the pantry, both virtual and actual

Isn't that beautiful?

As of yesterday, I finished (I think) all the edits for CnC for Adults and I've gone crazy with freedom! I cleaned out the pantry and put out a bunch of canned goods for the Boy Scout collection this morning, sorted the spices, and then, because as I say, I'd gone crazy, I tidied up the tupperware. Yes, that's the kind of life I'm leading.

And now it's time to clean out the virtual pantry. Are you ready?

Are election reactions past their sell-by date? Well, I'm willing to chance it. Here's one I think is worth reading: Letter to a future Republican strategist regarding white people from an official midwestern white person who explains why he did not vote for the Republican candidate, "purely for your education, such that you might be interested in winning an election on the national level at some point in the future." Hint: it's not because he wants free stuff.

You may have heard about people signing petitions about seceding from the union. A) Didn't we try that before? Didn't work out so good. And B), this post explains exactly what that would mean. Hint: no Social Security benefits.

One could almost call that passive-aggressive behavior. I thought this post offered an excellent primer in how to be passive-aggressive.

In other news, remember how I followed the Ivory Coast election about a while ago? Almost two years ago now--wow! Well, the new president dissolved his cabinet this week. Why, you ask?

"the decision came after a dispute Tuesday during a parliamentary committee debate over a possible amendment to the country’s marriage law. The change would make the husband and wife equal heads of a household. Under the current law, the husband is the head and makes decisions in the name of the family. Ouattara’s party supported the change, but other parties within the coalition opposed it."

I have to appreciate that the conflict came to a head over women's rights. Good luck, President Ouattara.

In the obituaries this week, David Durk gets his due. Remember Serpico? Well, it was really Durk and Serpico, testifying about police corruption in NYC in 1971. “It would be fair to say that without Durk, there would have been no police corruption exposé in The New York Times, no Knapp Commission investigations into the matter,” according to one source. Impressive and brave work, and boy were the rewards in heaven. He retired with a police pension of $17K a year in 1985.

I loved this story about a homeless boy taken in by a high school football coach. Very touching.

I am also often very moved by this blog from a contractor working in Afghanistan. A recent post answers the question, "So Ryan, what are most soldiers like?" Another explains The Best Phrase They Have in Afghanistan.

Here's a practical suggestion: Let's stop calling people leaders until they actually lead.

At the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative, we use the simplest definition of leader that I have come across: people follow you. This definition intentionally omits any reference to rank or role. We see leadership as behavior-based. "Leader" is not a title you are handed just because you sit in a certain spot in a hierarchy; you have to earn it from those you aspire to have follow you.

Amen to that.

And finally, Ken Levine offers a reflection on his role model: Shari Lewis, in a wonderful story of generous professionalism. May we all be so good.

Various & Sundry: Can't Touch This

It's been a while since I've had a chance to do the random round-up. Let's see what I've got here...

In tea news, you'll be glad to hear that the London-based loose-leaf brew bar, "Bringing better cups of tea to the streets of London: loose leaf, custom-brewed and served from a 1974 Citroen H van," has already been oversubscribed on Kickstarter. I definitely plan to get a cuppa if and when I get to London.

I saw the movie Argo a couple of weeks ago, and really appreciated Lance Mannion's take on it. It's less a review and more a meditation on the lessons it may have to teach us in this day and age.

There are times when there really isn’t anything we can do. There are problems that can’t be solved. There are situations where even someone as powerful as the President of the United States has no control. Under those circumstances, when success isn’t an option, despair and surrender are temptations that must still be resisted. The best thing we can do is do our jobs, to exercise what little control we have in the little sphere in which we still have it, and instead of holing up by ourselves, reach out to those nearest whom we can help. We have to take care of each other.

One person who exercised what control he had in his sphere was James R. Dumpson, who died this week at the age of 103. The headline for his obituary was "defender of the poor," and what a wonderful accolade! He was the NYC Commissioner of Welfare in the early '60's, and had a message that still needs to be heard today: that "the only test for public assistance was a citizen’s need, not morals."

I almost always find something to love in David Lose's daily blog posts, but this one, entitled Theology as Conversation, I found particularly compelling. Probably because it's exactly what we're trying to do with Confirm not Conform. "True belief," he says, "grows only in the space created by the freedom to question." Amen to that.

Meanwhile, in a less...reverent part of the blogosphere, Lent Madness mastermind Tim Schenck prepared a wonderful Litany for Diocesan Conventions.

From those compelled to speak from any available microphone even with nothing to say,
Good Lord, deliver us.

From liturgies that include the clapping of hands and hymns no one knows,
Good Lord, deliver us.

Amen again.

Oh, there was an election this week, wasn't there? In President Obama's acceptance speech I appreciated his comment that "We are not as divided as our politics suggest." One scientific study, at least, tends to back him up on this sentiment.

It was a wonderful speech. I appreciated what he had to say about democracy, about debate, about patriotism.

Then there's this. I admit I like this too.

Vote!

h/t to my Sis, and @profmichelson.

Two open letters on the topic of politicians and rape

As you no doubt know, the issue of rape and of pregnancies resulting from rape have been in the news. I've seen two truly excellent and thoughtful responses to this issue and I didn't want them to get lost in a Various and Sundry post.

These are both in the form of open letters to politicians, and both begin by warning that these are likely to be triggers for anyone who has experienced sexual violence. With those caveats in mind, I highly encourage you to read both of these:

The first, from the perspective of a rape survivor and theologian, is a compelling piece illustrating how politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are not helping the conversation and especially are not helping anyone who has experienced rape. I was especially impressed by the tone of the comments following the post. 

The second is an amazing satirical piece written from the point of view of a rapist. Trust me, it's worth a read.

Various & Sundry: Politics, Fabulous Women, and Snark

I have an ambitious Saturday to-do list, so let's get the important stuff out of the way: this week's compendium of stuff I found interesting, curated for your pleasure and edification.

I didn't watch the debate on Wednesday. Neither did Lance Mannion, which didn't stop him from posting something that I think captures the essence of the debate. Meanwhile, Brenda Peterson wrote why Romney's performance was a turn-off for women.

And the take-away image is of Big Bird getting the axe; in response, anibundel has "rounded up Exhibits ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (that’s pronounced “ab-key-deaf-gher-jeckle-mer-nop-qur-stuv-werx-yvs”, for the uninitiated) as to why Sesame Street is one of the greatest programs on television for children." Starting with Big Bird learning about the death of Mr. Hooper.



Hope you had your Cool Touch (TM) Kleenex handy. And if you have time, check out her wonderful compendium of Sesame Street videos.

A couple of bloggers review the Letter from 2012 in Obama's America that Focus on the Family wrote before the 2008 election -- a letter that describes the world of October 2012 in a way that, shall we say, is apocalyptically wrong. They were 0.5 for 34, getting half of one prediction right for correctly seeing that Obama would repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. A great insight:

Re-reading the Focus letter four years later, what strikes me most — besides how utterly wrong they are about everything — is how parochial their imagination is when attempting to envision a political dystopia. The horrors they predict are almost all narrowly targeted at and tailored toward them. I’ve read a ton of dystopian stories, good and bad, and this is the most cluelessly self-absorbed vision of its kind that I’ve ever seen.

For a final note in our political coverage, Patton Oswalt wonders what would happen if everyone voted. Wonderful post about, you know, participating.

In the Fabulous Women's Obituaries department, two great ones this week: first up, Lavender "Pinkie" Barnes, champion table tennis player, palm reader, and advertising copywriter ("Veet. It's always summer under your arms.")

Then there's the amazing Vanya Kewley, an utterly fearless documentarian.

"She worked from Chile to Saudi Arabia, via Vietnam, producing early profiles of controversial international leaders such as Colonel Gaddafi (Soldier for Islam) and General Ojukwu (The Man Who Made Biafra). Though she stood just over 5ft, dictators held no terrors for her.  

"She was beaten and imprisoned in Uganda when her crew were mistaken for mercenaries; clubbed unconscious when living on famine rations among the Ananaya “freedom fighters” in South Sudan; and threatened with death by North Korean soldiers."

The next paragraph then describes how she deserted a tour group to trek 4,000 miles through Tibet with a hand-held camera. Formidable would be the word that comes to mind.

Meanwhile, closer to home, Tim Schenck reminds us that October is Pastor Appreciation Month. He offers a few suggestions of what pastors might appreciate being appreciated with. As he notes,

Most pastors don’t have nearly enough crosses in their lives. Usually only fifteen or so hung up in their offices plus countless others in their homes. What they really need is one more with “Pastor” written across it to remind them of Christ’s self-giving sacrifice on Cavalry.

You know what else coincides with Pastor Appreciation Month? #snarktoberfest.

You know what else was being celebrated on Twitter? The social event of the year: the My Little Pony wedding, aka #mlpwedding. Well, all right, it happened a while back. But Nancy Davis Kho and Wendi Aarons are just getting around to apologizing to Hasbro for their inappropriate tweets.

For instance, we realize now that tweets like “CARAMEL IS ONLY MARRYING KNIGHT SHADE FOR THE GREEN CARD! #MLPWedding” and “WHEN PLASTIC HORSES CAN MARRY PLASTIC HORSES, MAN MARRYING DOG FOLLOWS RIGHT BEHIND! #FamilyValues #MLPWedding” forced you, a non-partisan toy company, into debates on illegal immigration and same sex marriage that you had probably hoped to avoid when you planned your wholesome My Little Pony Twitter Party. We thought Nancy’s contribution of “THANK YOU #VERMONT! NOW DESERT ROSE AND DAISYJO CAN MAKE IT LEGAL! #MLPWedding” added balance to the discussion, but we see now that it falls into this category as well.

I'm not sure they sound truly sorry. They still want to know why the couple registered for a whip.

Having been led from their letter to Wendi's open letter to the brand manager for Always Maxi-pads, and on to the rest of McSweeney's Internet Tendency, it is also all their fault that I am ending with this completely profane article that I am compelled to include for its timeliness and best use of seasonal vegetables. Because it's decorative gourd season, motherfuckers. And I've got things to do.

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

Sunday Funnies: September 30

h/t Jamelle Bouie

Various & Sundry, too random to categorize

Sorry I'm so late! Today, I was working on the revisions for Confirm not Conform Adult and came across this great TED talk of Karen Armstrong explaining the Charter for Compassion. There are worse ways to spend 20 minutes.

Anyway...let's see what else I've got here. It's fairly minimal this week. I guess I've been doing other things.

I have found a new blogger that I like a lot: one Lance Mannion by name. This week he had an interesting post proposing that "the object of liberalism is to create more conservatives." It's a fascinating argument, which you'll just have to read for yourself. I'm still pondering how this actually works in real life.

In election news, I was very glad to see Greg Sargent ask Can we please talk about torture?

The executive order banning torture was the very first one signed by Obama, to improve America’s image abroad, explicitly repudiating a major policy of his GOP predecessor. The Romney camp is internally debating whether to rescind that order, which would represent a return to those policies. There are only five weeks until the election, and we still don’t know what Romney will do on an issue with far reaching moral and international implications.

I'll be watching to see if this comes up at any of the presidential debates.

One of the people who played a role in the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act died this week. Jennifer Jaff, who had Crohn's Disease and was an advocate for the chronically ill, wrote an amicus brief in one of the cases brought to the court, arguing against insurance policies denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

After the Supreme Court ruling, Ms. Jaff told The Hartford Courant: “I live and breathe chronic-illness law, and in my estimation this is the most important civil rights advance for people with chronic illnesses ever. There can never be equality if we can’t get health insurance.”

I can't imagine what it must have felt like to her to see that law upheld before she died. She was 55.

On a completely different note, Peacebang offers some helpful suggestions for cultivating a personal sense of style, something I'm working on. Here's the essence:

Style can be beautiful, pretty, dramatic, shocking, erotic, and many other things. Whatever it is, it is mindful. It is intentional. It is knowing. The stylish person knows a few things: 

1. What they love.
2. What kind of impact they want to create with their apparel, accessories and personal grooming.
3. How to use fashion to communicate their inner vision of who they are.

She then goes on to give some exercises to help you do just that.

Here's someone with a definite personal sense of style. Well, point of view, at any rate.

And with that, I hope you have a lovely weekend.

Various & Sundry: In which I first vent about then calm myself about Mitt Romney

Boy, did Mittens get on my nerves this week. Of course, I'm not the only one, and lots of people had lots of insightful things to say about the leaked Boca Raton fundraiser video, in case anyone is still obsessing interested. Here are some of the things that I thought captured well my feelings of utter disgust some salient points.

Charlie Pierce writes, "when the One Great Scorer comes to write against Romney's name, he's going to be stumped as to whether the man was a bigger jerk than he was an incompetent. There won't be enough whiskey in heaven for the OGS to resolve this, so he'll just fill in the box marked "Both" and move right along."

Jonathan Chait writes, "the video exposes an authentic Romney as a far more sinister character than I had imagined. Here is the sneering plutocrat, fully in thrall to a series of pernicious myths that are at the heart of the mania that has seized his party."

And Ezra Klein writes, "The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it."

In the "rather laugh than cry" column, Hitler has a few words to say about the video leak, and John Oliver and Andy Zaltzman profile Empathy Magazine's 2012 Man of the Year award winner in this week's The Bugle podcast.

In the more cheerful world of obituary news, this week we mark the lives of Sister Mary Rose McGeady who resuscitated Covenant House, an organization that helps homeless youth; Joshua Morse III, the dean who integrated Ole Miss law school--in 1963; and Jerome Horwitz who created the AIDS medication AZT, and didn't get a penny for it. Makers not takers, all.

Oh, did I say that out loud?

Deep cleansing breaths.

And if there's one thing that will give me some perspective and empathy, it is reading this beautiful letter by Ted Hughes to his son about the suffering of the child within.

Usually, that child is a wretchedly isolated undeveloped little being. It’s been protected by the efficient armour, it’s never participated in life, it’s never been exposed to living and to managing the person’s affairs, it’s never been given responsibility for taking the brunt. And it’s never properly lived. That’s how it is in almost everybody. And that little creature is sitting there, behind the armour, peering through the slits. And in its own self, it is still unprotected, incapable, inexperienced. Every single person is vulnerable to unexpected defeat in this inmost emotional self.

Followed by The Maccabeats who have taught me everything I now know about Rosh Hashanah. Be sure to check out the lyrics on their YouTube channel.

Who do YOU think leaked the Mitt Romney tape?

Could it have been...Eddie Murphy?

Various & Sundry: The Political Edition

I'll be doing 2 V&S posts today (depending on how much work I get done--it may be tomorrow for the second one). Here for you political junkies are the various posts I've seen during the political conventions that I thought were most interesting.

First of all, if you've ever wondered what it was like to be on one of those Sunday morning political shows, you should read Dan Drezner's Diary of a Wimpy Sunday Morning Pundit. Actually, you should read it anyway because it is hilarious.

Responding to the Republican National Convention, Lance Mannion writes about a Nation of little would-be Mitts on the make and Ta-Nehisi Coates sees something different in the chair that Clint Eastwood addressed.

Responding to the Democratic National Convention, aribundel shares How to Wear Pink High Heels.

Responding to how people respond, Scientific American looks at the Unconscious Reactions that Separate Liberals and Conservatives.

And finally, in case you missed it last night, The Onion shares highlights of President Obama's speech. Screenshot below:

Isn't that what you heard?

The conventions of rhetoric: Bill Clinton's seductive speech

Leaving aside politics for a moment as best I can (probably "not very"), I wanted to talk a little bit about the rhetoric being used at the two political conventions before the last speeches tonight, in hopes of keeping an eye/ear out for them.

I wish I were an expert at rhetoric instead of merely an interested observer, and a fairly ill-informed one at that. But let me explain that what I mean by rhetoric is the classic dictionary definition: the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing.

In fact, I think saying "inflammatory rhetoric" or "divisive rhetoric" is an inaccurate use of the word. Mostly, I'm interested in what makes speeches (and sermons) persuasive. If all you're able to do is confirm the previously held beliefs of your listeners, you are not good at rhetoric. Good rhetoric changes people's minds, or at least opens them to new perspectives.

That's what I found so compelling about Bill Clinton's speech last night. It was designed to persuade. It was, dare I say, seductive.

If you look at the transcript, you'll see how he pulled listeners in deeper and deeper, and how very geared this was towards Republicans and undecideds.

He starts by talking about how grateful he was to Eisenhower, Reagan, and both Presidents Bush. He told listeners that Democrats are not always right ("nobody's right all the time and a broken clock is right twice a day"). He explained how Republicans devour their own who disagree with them. And he showed how Obama included Republicans--and former competitors--in his cabinet. That "Heck, he even included Hillary" line? That's an implicit, "Boy, do I understand that you didn't get the person you wanted to be president." All of this sets him up in the listener's ears as a friend and ally, not foe. It softens the listener up to receive the arguments that follow.

[an aside: look at how often he says "grateful" at the beginning of the speech. That is a modest word, putting him in the one-down position, a receiver of good things.]

His next move is to point out the good things about the Republicans and what they said at the previous week's convention:

They looked good, they sounded good. They convinced me that they all love their families and their children, and we're grateful they've been born in America, and all -- really, I'm not being -- they did. And this is important. They convinced me they were honorable people who believe what they've said and they're going to keep every commitment they've made.

Note the "really, I'm not being..."  First of all, if you saw it, that little phrase came across as (and I think it was) an unscripted remark--responding to the reaction of the crowd at that moment. (Update: That whole thing about how they love their families was ad libbed.) That's a good public speaker: able to take in the crowd's reactions and incorporate it into the moment. Secondly, what's the word after "being"? Sarcastic? Disingenuous? Dishonest? That, my friends, is a brilliant public speaker who can in the instant leave the perfect gap for listeners to fill in.

Note too how he repeated his point in new words: "They convinced me" and again with the positive take-away "they were honorable people who believe what they've said and they're going to keep every commitment they've made."

HERE IS THE KEY TURNING POINT IN THE SPEECH--do you remember what he said next? Here it is:

"We've just got to make sure the American people know what those commitments are."

That is the turn. He's made nice, he's gotten people to believe he is a fair actor, he has been reasonable, grateful, friendly, and sincere. And now he is going to spend a great deal of time unpacking the policies set forth during the Republican convention.

Note the "we." It's not "I've got to make sure." He has seduced you, hasn't he? He's brought you right in next to him. Up until this moment it was "I want to nominate," "I'm grateful," "Did you watch the convention? I did." And now it's "We" and you're right there next to him.

I won't go through the rest, though it's also fascinating. But for anyone in a public speaking role, please note how much time Clinton spent getting the crowd on his side--and that the crowd includes people who detest him. You can't just make your case and expect people to agree with you. Woo them, people. Use your words.

#shrugging Reading Atlas Shrugged with the RNC

I watched the Republican National Convention through the filters of Twitter and blogs, and then I read a little of Atlas Shrugged. And I have to say, it was illuminating to juxtapose the two.

Here's the thing: reading Atlas Shrugged has helped me understand why Obama's line "You didn't build that" touches a very raw nerve in the Republican party. At least in this first part of the book, our heroine Dagny Taggart's whole goal is to build something--a railroad--that everyone around her is trying to stop her from building. And though I find the descriptions of her single-handedly building a railroad with apparently unlimited financial resources on an impossible schedule completely preposterous, the point Rand makes is that you can build it; it's just that the government won't let you.

Last night, I got to the point where the John Galt line has been completed and will run for the first time (chapter 8, if you're wondering). Here's the line that leapt out at me:

"[T]he sight of an achievement was the greatest gift a human being could offer another."

The greatest gift! No wonder the convention highlighted the theme.

More thoughts on this as I continue, but Shrugged has been worth reading so far just for that.

Sunday Funnies, August 19

Something to get you ready for the political conventions in a couple of weeks.

Various & Sundry: Dairy Products for President

Is it nice to be nice? The Dish offers several points of view on the subject, including noting that "nice" used to be an insult. I especially appreciated Edward Champion's perspective: "If you’re 'being nice' to someone, you’re not being honest. You’re humoring a person you don’t want to be with and I don’t think I can trust you."

Meanwhile, on the nasty side of the ledger, Jamelle Bouie suggests that the mudslinging of this presidential campaign is actually a good sign.

If this were truly a trivial contest over inconsequential things, the campaigns would be less vitriolic in their approach. But because it isn’t, and so much rides on this election, it’s only natural that both campaigns would eventually fight it out in the gutter. Or, put another way, the negativity of this election is simply a sign that both sides are deeply serious about the consequences of victory or defeat.

Hmm...I'm willing to consider that.

One thing's for certain: no one is electing this clown mayor of Alameda any time soon. Not after this story came out:

"Families waiting for San Francisco's cable cars on a recent morning couldn't help but notice Kenny the Clown, who wore a curly rainbow wig as he twisted brightly colored balloons into animal shapes for visitors, blasting Michael Jackson's "Smooth Criminal" from an iPad at his feet.

"Little did the clown know that the tablet doubling as his stereo would turn out to have been stolen from the home of the late Steve Jobs."

Of course it might be better to simply let the yogurt take over, as John Scalzi wrote in an older post I only just discovered. No one argues with the yogurt.

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.

4 things I learned about elections from Lent Madness

Lent Madness was a much better spiritual discipline than I had imagined.  After a week of being aggravated at the stupidity of people who didn't vote for the saints I thought should move forward, I learned to laugh at myself because--hello!--this doesn't actually count for anything.  Except the glory of the Golden Halo, of course.

And so I started to watch with some fascination what kinds of things seemed to lead to one saint's victory over another.  It wasn't always clear, but there were a few things that seem like practical tidbits as we enter into the slavering maw of a presidential election year.

1. You can't change votes that are already cast.  Over and over, I saw people writing agonized comments wondering how on earth more people could vote for that other saint than the saint of their choosing.  Well, water under the bridge, people. You may never know why, but it also doesn't matter.  Those votes are already in! Moving on.

2. It is easier to recruit new voters than to persuade current voters (who may have already decided).  With Lent Madness this was particularly stark.  All due credit to Lent Madness for drawing a couple of thousand votes each day--but that's still only a couple of thousand votes out of a much, much larger potential pool. If you're only advocating among the faithful voters, boy are you missing a huge opportunity.

3. People are partisan, so find a way to make your team their team.  Emma of Hawaii's triumphant march to the finals was an excellent example of this.  The "of Hawaii" part was important as the Hawaiian vote turned the tide on several apparent shoo-ins. Big Pineapple or no, Emma got votes for being Hawaiian--as well as being a worthy saint.

4. People vote for weird reasons.  I know I did.  I voted for Jerome because I liked the lion puppet. I would have voted for Enmegahbowh because of his awesome wife, had I not been the writer for David Oakerhater (I voted for St. E. in the next round). I voted for some saints because I liked one write-up over another, with nothing to do with the saint at all! People voted because they liked the name, or because their saint day was their birthday, or because the icon was cool.

Are we "voting against our interests"? Maybe, but we have our reasons. I can tell you one thing that didn't help, though, is being told I was voting the wrong way.  It would just get my back up. Or shrug and say, "You don't understand."

Lent Madness made clear to me that if I want to make a difference in the November elections, I shouldn't bother arguing with people whose minds are made up. Instead, I should look for the pockets of people who have a strong interest in one thing or another, make the case why my candidate is their candidate, and make sure they are able to vote. And then let it go, knowing that people do what they do. People. That's democracy for you.

Various & Sundry

Whew! Lots to share.  Let's get to it.

The voting continues at Lent Madness, but more pressing matters are at hand: The Peeples Choice Awards for the Washington Post Peep Diorama Contest is on, and there's still time for you to vote for your favorite!

I saw this article courtesy of Word Boy Dave: memoirists' mothers review the memoirs written by their children! Brave mothers and children both.  And such good motherly advice, too! For example, when asked, "Any advice for Sara [Benincasa] about writing her next memoir?" the answer was, "I think she needs to put in more vulgarity in the next one; this one was way too innocent!" Coming right up, I'm sure.

If the book The Righteous Mind is anywhere nearly as informative as this review of The Righteous Mind, then I think it's something I'm going to have to read. Here's one snippet from the review:

To the question many people ask about politics — Why doesn’t the other side listen to reason? — Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they’ve decided.

Here's another: "The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours."  Isn't that amazing? And so obvious when you think about it. It makes me wonder what other insights I'll get if I read the whole book. And if it will change the way I talk and listen to others.

Speaking of reviews, PeaceBang wrote a perceptive review of the new Muppets movie this week that is worth a read for the critique that begins about a third of the way in.

In my ongoing resolution (now Lenten discipline) to give up shame, I appreciated this blog post on Perfectionism and Claiming Shame from Brene Brown from a few years back.  She defined perfectionism thusly:

Perfectionism is a self-destructive and addictive belief system that fuels this primary thought: “If I look perfect, live perfectly, and do everything perfectly, I can avoid or minimize the painful feelings of shame, judgment, and blame.”

Well, when you put it that way...

In contrast, take a look at 43 lessons from 43 years.  For example, lesson 31: "The perfect is the enemy of the good. Too many people never get started toward their goals because they don’t know that the “best” first step is. Don’t worry about getting things exactly right — just choose a good option and do something to get started."

Finally, for your viewing pleasure, here is the Red-Tailed Hawk Cam from Cornell University. I find it very soothing to keep this up on my computer screen for a quick break during the day. Enjoy.

Watch live streaming video from cornellhawks at livestream.com

The first of Kenyon's goodly race...

...was that great man Philander Chase.

And today he's up against Thomas Merton in the first round of Lent Madness.

I'm not saying how you should vote.  I'm just saying Thomas Merton doesn't have a theme song, does he?