Various & Sundry: Starting with National Hot Tea Month and ending with sloths

Let's see what's been piling up during the week that I'm bursting to share with one and all.

First things first: January is National Hot Tea Month. Well, to be honest, every month is National Hot Tea Month, as far as I'm concerned, so I don't have any special celebrations planned. I did think that these tea pods were pretty cute, though.

See how the tag is a little origami boat so it floats on the tea water?

What? Too precious for you? Fine.

How about a website that helps you plan your living wills and stuff? That real enough for you? It's called Get Your Shit Together.

I don't have all my shit together, but I did get my flu shot today, thanks in part to this old post of mine about passing the peace without spreading the flu. I kept noticing it coming up in the stats as people look for what to do in the midst of the flu outbreak. I've added a brief update, based on the comments that were made. I wish there were a perfect solution - or no flu.

After going to the meeting on Wednesday about how Washington plans to reduce gun violence, I was drawn to two articles focused on the NRA: this article traces the fairly recent history of the NRA's connection to fighting for the interests of the firearm industry as opposed to gun owners; while this article suggests the White House may just ignore the NRA. I'd be fine with that.

Lance Mannion has been writing Miserable Thoughts about Les Mis and tying them to our contemporary culture, politics, and religion. I thought his post about the character of the Bishop of Digne was particularly spectacular. Truly, I hope you'll read it. Here's how it ends:

Conservative Christian leaders are quick to tell us that every hurricane, terrorist attack, and school shooting is an angry God’s will. He’s punishing us for abortion, feminism, secularism, “the homosexual agenda,” etc. But he never punishes us for our greed and our lack of charity. We’re punished for allowing gay couples to get married but not for letting children go hungry and old people freeze or swelter to death or sick people to go without medicine or a doctor’s care.

God is always punishing us for not being mean enough to each other and ourselves and never for not doing a good enough job of loving one another.

I'd never heard it put that way. His Fifth Miserable Thought on Jalvert the Republican (French, not American) is also fantastic.

This long reflection on how we need to ask ourselves questions when we consume media was eye-opening to me. I had never thought of the Disney movie Beauty and the Beast as an abuse-apologist narrative. Now, I will not be able to see it as anything but.

I get that it’s hard to see something you love get lambasted, or tarred with a brush you’d rather not think about, or called bad names. I get that it feels like things are being ruined, like people are looking for things to hate, like people are taking things too seriously.

But consuming media critically is a skill, and in an age where media is more prevalent than ever before, it’s a skill worth having. It’s a skill worth having because you are going to continue to be exposed to media, and it is going to continue to attempt to manipulate you. It’s a skill worth having because it makes it less difficult to see people talking shit about things you like, not more. It’s a skill worth having because some of the shit being taught en masse by media is horrible scary damaging shit, and maybe you don’t think you’ve learned that horrible scary damaging shit, and maybe you don’t think you’re susceptible to that horrible scary damaging shit, and honestly? Maybe you haven’t. Maybe you’re not. I don’t know you. But I know that a classroom full of average southern Ohio state school students went silent in horror at the full realization of what Beauty and the Beast teaches kids too young to know better.

On a lighter note, I admire the chutzpah of the man who claimed he was driving legally in the carpool lane with two people because he had Articles of Incorporation in the passenger seat. Corporations are people, my friends.

And finally, because it's been a long week, slow down with some true facts about sloths.

The completely truthy account of what REALLY happened at General Convention

Hard-hitting journalism hurts, doesn't it, Episcopalians? Oh, you're denying it, I know, but the real problem with Jay Akasie's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal is that you're afraid the real truth will come out. Carnival atmosphere? Bah! It was a bacchanalia! We all know it. I mean, I left early, so I wasn't there for it, but why else would you send the Official Youth Presence home a day early?

Hey, Episcopalians. Jay Akasie is watching.

Oh, yes, I know. I have my sources. And the truth must come out. Scott Gunn and Bishop Smith can say whatever they want, claiming, you know, that they were actually there and stuff. I smell a cover-up. Either that or they never got invited to the secret lavish cocktail parties.

But I have information, a source who asked to remain anonymous, who has written me an account of that terrible final day at General Convention when (forgive my French) all heck broke loose. With her permission, I print it below. Names have been redacted out of fear of retribution.

"It all started when I saw him being fitted for a purple shirt at the Almy booth. His pectoral cross glistened as he caught my eye. I returned to reading Forward Day by Day, searching for some guidance. I was still vulnerable after the death of my miniature Schnauzer, Rodrigo, and needed comfort. I know that's no excuse, but it's the only thing I have to explain what happened next.

"He walked over to me and said, 'Which shade of purple do you like best?' Shocked at his brazen approach, I cast down my eyes demurely. Perhaps he sensed he went too far because he changed course. He must have seen the cameo of Rodrigo because his next words to me were, 'Want to check out a trial liturgy? I know a quiet place where we can...pray together.'

My unimpeachable source.

"Like a fool, I went, up--up to the penthouse with its wrap-around porch. It was a quiet room, full of deputies murmuring about amendments. He introduced me to the group. 'Welcome to the Upper Lower Authoritarian Chamber of Secrets,' he said, pulling on a mask and drawing me in.

"Given the crowd, I couldn't understand the lethargy until someone passed around the myrrh. It got real mellow. Some tall guy in the corner with what looked like binder rings in his forehead kept muttering to himself, 'Call the question. Somebody call the question.'

"Waitresses wearing CleriCool II collars and very little else circulated among the crowd, dispensing drinks and gluten-free communion wafers topped with Gruyere, gold leaf and foie gras. I took a drink, hoping to counter the sweetly sickening effect of the myrrh and asked the waitress what it was. She called it a Dusty Vicar, 'very dry,' she said. The deputies around me laughed. A terrible, bitter laugh.

"'Wait a second,' I called after the waitress, but she had moved on to another knot of stoned deputies who seemed to be reading from the book of Acts. Or maybe they were just dreaming. So I turned to him and said, 'These wafers aren't...consecrated, are they?'

"'Why? Do you want them to be?' he purred. 'Go ahead. Consecrate them,' he said, forcing my hands in the orans position.

"'You're not Episcopalians!' I cried. 'You're not going to turn me into some lay presider!'

"As I ran from the room, I heard an ominous voice whisper, 'If a word of this reaches Jim Naughton, you're dead. I'll see to it that you'll never be able to serve on a respectable vestry anywhere in the Anglican Communion. Even confirmation won't help you now.'

"I fled, heart pounding, back to the safety and warmth of the casual brewpub gatherings below. But I knew I would never forget that terrible night at General Convention when the penthouse of the Indianapolis Marriott became the very pit of hell."

***
So there you have it. Disbelieve if you want, but the truth is out there. Let those who have ears to hear, and all that.

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.

Who's talking about women's issues?

No comment.

via Upworthy. h/t Dave Dickerson.

Update: OK, some comment.

After seeing this, I sent the link on to the New York Times and NPR ombudspeople, since those are the two  news sources cited that I use. I asked:

Would you care to comment on this chart? What is [your organization] going to do to increase the parity (at least) in quoting men and women -- particularly on issues with a strong women's interest? Thank you for your attention and answer.

Answer from NPR:

Dear Laura ,

Thank you for contacting the NPR Ombudsman.

As for your email, we appreciate your comments regarding the perceived lack of female voices in stories concerning women's issues. The Ombudsman has written on gender, racial and ethnic diversity, both at NPR specifically and with respect to specific issues. Below are some links that may be of interest:

Where are the Women?
Black, Latino, Asian and White: Diversity at NPR
The Contraception Mandate: Where are the Women?

And then some boilerplate about NPR.

Kudos, NPR, for at least acknowledging the issue!

Here's what I got from the NY Times:

I can't really comment on this because I have no idea how these findings were calculated. The reason I say that is that I find it incredibly difficult to be able calculate what is suggested in this article. If you can get me more information on how this calculated, or the raw data that was used, I would be much more willing to take a look.
 Best,
Joseph Burgess Joseph Burgess | Office of the Public Editor |
NYT Note: The public editor's opinions are his own and do not represent those of The New York Times.

Well, OK then. You do realize, Joseph Burgess, that this chart is circulating around out there. I didn't make it up.  Apparently you're not interested in learning whether this is accurate or not. Oh, heck, let's go further: apparently, the NY Times thinks the burden of proof is on me personally to fact check data about the Times.

This is as much about how you are perceived as it is about the data. I'm not sure it's my job to do your public relations for you. And for all that little note, there, I'm assuming this is the attitude of the NY Times.

I think I'll just believe this data is accurate until it's proven otherwise. By, say, a reporter. Who is willing to investigate. Because it's their job.

Whatever happened to Kony 2012?

Remember #Kony2012 that I got into such a snit about last month? Well, April 20 is the date for their Cover the Night action thingey so I was kind of curious what was up.

I was very happy to stumble across Un-Cover the Night, a Tumblr that includes a lot of great background information in an info kit, a petition to President Obama to withdraw military support from Uganda instead of increasing it, and a petition to Invisible Children to present a more complete picture of the situation in Uganda and stop using Ugandans for their own commercial ends.

As with #Kony2012, I encourage you to ask questions of these approaches and the information you have been given and then take the action that seems best to you given what you have learned.

I'll be curious what happens tomorrow night.

Martyr still means witness

Although there are lots of obits I found interesting this week, I keep thinking about Marie Colvin, a war correspondent killed in Syria.  First of all, doesn't she look ferocious?  She lost an eye covering hostilities in Sri Lanka in 2001.  That sounds like plenty to retire on, but she kept going and going. God knows there's been plenty of work for war correspondents in the past decade.

After reading more about her, the fact that she kept going despite the loss of an eye seems even more resonant.  She was resolute about the fact that she her calling as a journalist was to bear witness. How...terribly appropriate that her attacker almost blinded her.  And that as long as she had an eye to see, she kept going.

There's a beautiful reflection on her life and work in the New Yorker, which directed me to an address she gave in 2010 at service "to commemorate and honour those journalists, cameramen and support staff who have died while covering the conflicts of the 21st Century."  In it she said,

Covering a war means going to places torn by chaos, destruction, and death, and trying to bear witness. It means trying to find the truth in a sandstorm of propaganda when armies, tribes or terrorists clash. And yes, it means taking risks, not just for yourself but often for the people who work closely with you...Our mission is to report these horrors of war with accuracy and without prejudice. We always have to ask ourselves whether the level of risk is worth the story. What is bravery, and what is bravado?... 

In an age of 24/7 rolling news, blogs and twitters, we are on constant call wherever we are. But war reporting is still essentially the same - someone has to go there and see what is happening. You can't get that information without going to places where people are being shot at, and others are shooting at you. The real difficulty is having enough faith in humanity to believe that enough people be they government, military or the man on the street, will care when your file reaches the printed page, the website or the TV screen. 

We do have that faith because we believe we do make a difference.

[Emphasis mine]

I have been thinking ever since of the value of having a witness, someone who has seen with her own eyes what is happening and who takes the time to tell others about it.

Too often, I think, in our religious lives or in politics, we spend our time creating or conforming to the right propositions or theories as opposed to reporting on our experiences.  Like I'm doing right now, for example!  But I'm reminded by this that we are called to be witnesses for the gospel, not propagandists.

Living faithfully is not about acquiescing to the theoretical; it's about what we do and who we meet and what happens then. And the first meaning of martyr is not someone who is killed for what they believe, but someone who witnesses to what they believe. What do we see? And what do we say about it?

Colvin was a witness until moments before she died.  The Guardian, reporting on Colvin's death, wrote

Colvin used a web forum to make what is believed to be her last post on Tuesday. "I think the reports of my survival may be exaggerated," she wrote. "In Baba Amr. Sickening, cannot understand how the world can stand by and I should be hardened by now. Watched a baby die today. Shrapnel, doctors could do nothing. His little tummy just heaved and heaved until he stopped. Feeling helpless. As well as cold! Will keep trying to get out the information."

She and photographer Remi Ochlik were killed shortly thereafter when the house where they were staying was shelled by Syrian forces.

I have no desire to be a war correspondent--absolutely none.  I'm glad others do this work.  I can't think why they do it.  But I'm still inspired by this to be a better witness of the world around me, to try to keep my mind as well as my eyes open, to not be hardened.  

Monday Morning Preacher: Christmas in Chelsea Square

On Christmas Eve at 11:30 pm, there was a special on CBS featuring a service of lessons and carols from the General Theological Seminary with a sermon by the Presiding Bishop called Christmas in Chelsea Square.  You can see it here.

First of all, kudos to General for getting this on the air nationwide. Secondly, mondo kudos for starting with an image of Bishop Catherine Roskam and featuring the Presiding Bishop, showing the world all these images of women in religious leadership.

That being said, I'm afraid it was a disappointment.  There's nothing quite like yelling at the television on Christmas morning, saying, "Would it hurt you to smile, dammit?!" And a merry Christmas to you, too!

Having had a week to reflect, I would like to offer these comments both for General, whose good faith effort I truly applaud, and for others who are thinking about doing more multi-media services and outreach.

First of all, who is your audience? At the beginning of the program, it seemed it was geared toward non-Episcopalians, explaining what General Seminary is and what the Episcopal church is.  But the service itself seemed to be complete inside baseball--or inside church.  I thought it appealed to a narrow demographic: those who were already steeped in high church tradition.

Which leads to the question, what will engage your audience? If your intended audience is people unfamiliar with the Episcopal church and liturgy, what will catch their attention from the start?  A hint: singing all eight verses of O Come, O Come, Emmanuel is not going to do that.  As a friend of mine said, "That sound in verse 6 was the sound of televisions turning off all over America." Yeah, that's a real barn-burner, that one.

Here's one difference between going to a church service and watching a church service on television: once you're inside a church, there is a significant social cost to leaving, because to do so would draw attention to yourself in a very hushed environment.  Watching on TV, there is no such cost. It is very easy to leave. Therefore, you want to make it easy for people to stay by keeping their attention engaged all the time.

Also important: make sure the delivery of the message matches the message! O Come, O Come, Emmanuel already has a dirgelike quality, very at odds with the message of joy it brings.  To compound the issue, the congregation singing "Rejoice, rejoice!" looked absolutely miserable.  Eddie Izzard had it nailed:



Another difference between going to a church service and watching one on television is that on television, the congregation are also (for lack of a better word) performers.  They didn't seem aware of that--and the show was not edited in such a way to bring out what enthusiasm there was in the assembly. I feel for the guy in the red sweater who yawned. Why was that left in the final edit?  Because there's nothing that says, "Boy do I want to be part of this church!" than watching its most stalwart members exhibiting boredom.

If there's one thing that I think would have made Christmas in Chelsea Square much better, it would have been to tell the congregation, "Remember that the television viewers' eyes will be on you as much as they will be on those up in front. How you comport yourself will say a great deal to the viewers about what is going on here--whether it is joyous or dreary, whether it is a time of celebration or boredom. Be an outward and visible sign of the grace you receive here today. And make sure it's visible!"

Sarah Palin training

I'm giving in to my baser nature and writing a post on Sarah Palin. Actually, it's more on the "lamestream media" because I can't STAND how they are reacting to this situation.

They are chasing the puppy! As I recently learned, when you're training a puppy and the puppy runs away from you, if you chase the puppy, the puppy thinks this is a fabulous game and keeps running. If you want the puppy to come to you, you have to walk away from the puppy.

Let her ride on the back of a motorcycle. Let her travel in her tricked out bus. Do not send your top reporters, CNN, for God's sake! Do not have John King tracking her down. Suggest--heck, maybe even believe you have bigger news to cover. Give her 30 seconds at the end of your broadcasts as if she were some novelty spectacle. Let people tweet her location to you and pick a few of the best ones. Do NOT waste your resources on this! You're just making yourselves look ridiculous.

OK, I'm done now.

News flash: Microfinance doesn't solve everything

*sigh*

Read this article in the Times yesterday that talks about how some microfinance organizations are no better than the predatory lenders they were first developed to replace.  It gives some particularly egregious examples of microfinance institutions (MFIs) that charge outrageous rates of interest, and then says, "Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative."

Then it goes on to talk about the "fierce debate over whether microloans actually lift people out of poverty, as their promoters so often claim."  This "fierce debate" is summed up in the rather mild quote, “'It is not the single transformative tool that proponents have been selling it as, but there are positive benefits.'”

Quite the expose.

Here's the thing: microfinance is a tool.  That's all it is.  Some people use it well and rightly, and some use it poorly, and some use it greedily.  I hate seeing ALL microfinance tarnished as evil and a failure when --aha!--it is discovered that some people have evil motives.  It's like arguing, dare I say, that journalism is a failure when some people use it for propaganda.

I am tremendously sorry that the implication is that people should stop participating in microlending unless they want to be an unwitting accessory to loan sharking.  One of the comments on the article said

Thank you for enlightening me about Kiva. I saw some American asking for a loan for her clothing design business on there, lol. Does anyone have suggestions as to what they consider a good micro-lending org to donate or lend to? Ideally, one that helps poor entrepreneurs start a business, but doesn't make them functionally existant on greater and greater loans?

Which shows me that this article did not enlighten this reader at all.  Kiva is not in itself a microlending organization; it partners with other MFIs, some better than others. 

So how do you know?  Personally, I would loan to any BRAC, knowing their mission statement and how they operate.  Also, if you are loaning through Kiva and have this concern, go to the Field Partner page and check out the different organizations.  You can  take a closer look at their practices through their MIX (Microfinance Information Exchange) profile--and I probably wouldn't loan to any MFI that didn't have one.

And sometimes you just do the best you can with the information you have.  The organizations we depend upon to do good don't always do so.  You do your research; you hold organizations accountable as best you can; if you find they aren't able to accomplish what you want them to do, you find someone else who can.  And don't be surprised when you discover that even the best and most noble enterprise is not the savior of the world.

Reconciliation

I've grown more skeptical of media narratives about sports personalities since reading Andre Agassi's memoir. One person who seems to have gotten marked with a certain story is Shani Davis, the speedskater, who was touchy and aloof and not part of the team, at least according to the stories we saw.

One thing Davis did do on record was call Stephen Colbert a jerk. Colbert, as you may know, rounded up financial support for US Speedskating when one of their corporate sponsors went belly-up. Before the Olympics, Colbert talked with Al Michaels and asked him what it would take to get him to say again, "Do you believe in miracles?" A la doubting Thomas, Michaels said, "If Shani Davis thanks you for getting him a gold medal, then I'll say I believe in miracles."

Voila:
[It's a long clip, so you might want to skip to 6:10--or the very end from 8:08, which is what I really hope you'll see.]

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Freud Rage - The Iceman Counseleth - Shani Davis
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

In case you didn't get to it, what I loved was that Colbert invites Davis to say, "Stephen, you're a jerk!" and in so doing takes away any sting those words might have had. I thought that was such a beautiful moment, turning what had been divisive upside-down into an opportunity for reconciliation.

It also, for me, changed the narrative about Davis from a cold and prickly person into merely a normal one, human and unscripted. And in what was clearly a planned moment, to me it appeared that Davis was set free from the story the media has created for him.

The future isn't what it used to be

Loved this blog entry this morning from Obsidian Wings. It starts by linking to a news article that announces Iran will have a nuclear weapon within 10 years. And then points out the article was written in 1995.

Chronicle blues

After reading today's article in (yes) the New York Times, I don't see how the SF Chronicle will be able to continue. I thought the Times did a great job of capturing how the Chronicle is different from other major market newspapers. They wrote about the Chronicle I know and the Bay Area I recognize. I was pleased about that.

But it's very sad, too, to think this newspaper will very likely go under. I think it will be a huge loss to the Bay Area and to newsgathering in general.

I'm with Armistead Maupin whose quote ends the article: “I read it every day — I’d hate to go without it,” said Mr. Maupin, who left The Chronicle staff years ago. “But by way of confession, I should add that I read online. I’m part of the problem.”

On sources

There is an editorial by E.D. Hirsch, Jr. in the Times today about standardized testing. I think it caught my eye because of the baseball bit, but I thought this was interesting. The writer reports on a study from 1988:

Experimenters separated seventh- and eighth-grade students into two groups — strong and weak readers as measured by standard reading tests. The students in each group were subdivided according to their baseball knowledge. Then they were all given a reading test with passages about baseball. Low-level readers with high baseball knowledge significantly outperformed strong readers with little background knowledge.

I thought, Wow! That's really important! And the conclusion Hirsch draws is that "The experiment confirmed what language researchers have long maintained: the key to comprehension is familiarity with the relevant subject. For a student with a basic ability to decode print, a reading-comprehension test is not chiefly a test of formal techniques but a test of background knowledge." Which neatly supports some of my own prejudices.

So I thought I'd write about this on the blog and say, "See?" But there was a problem: there's no link to the study. There's no reference or footnote to find it. There's no actual way of telling exactly what that study shows, or if it even exists.

So I did what anyone would do: I googled. And I found something that might be the study referenced, but a) I can only get to the abstract; and b) there are some very pertinent differences.

Here's the abstract:

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of expert knowledge and metacognitive knowledge on strategy acquisition using an ecologically valid task. Fourth- and fifth-grade boys were poor readers and baseball experts were trained in the use of a reading strategy (asking why questions), with instruction being embedded in either baseball or nonbaseball stories. The boys were tested for strategy use, recall, and accuracy of monitoring 1 to 3 days after training, then again after 2 to 3 weeks later. Boys trained using baseball stories demonstrated greater strategy use at both post-tests than boys trained using nonbaseball stories, indicating that knowledge base aided in the acquisition of a reading comprehension strategy. Boys with higher declarative metacognition scores demonstrated better strategy acquisition and increased literal recall. All types of recall were higher for baseball stories.

[emphases in bold mine]

So, similarities: an experiment on reading comprehension involving baseball. Differences: a different grade level, only poor readers, using baseball stories for instruction on strategy, rather than using the baseball story as the test story itself.

All of which casts doubt for me on the validity of this editorial.

Where is this study? What does it say? What was its methodology? And have there been follow-ups? One study over 20 years ago does not a scientific conclusion make.

I hate feeling that I have to be skeptical of everything I read in the papers.

You remember that thing I was saying about experts?

Jon Stewart, you are my god. Or at least one kick-ass prophet.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

God on Nightline

Yawn. Stayed up late last night to watch "Nightline" for the first time ever because our dear PeaceBang of "PeaceBang's Beauty Tips for Ministers" was featured as a Sign of the Times. Not that she knows that she is "Our Dear PB" in my mind because I am a total lurker on her blog, but there you are. She's special to me. She made me get rid of all my jumpers--now that's love. And that's power because I loved my comfy jumpers.

(She's also the one who inspired me to start this blog--that and blogger's tempting little "create a blog" link in the upper right hand corner. Who knew it was so easy to spout ignorant opinions in a public forum?)

Of course PB's segment was on last, requiring me to stay up until midnight, if you can believe it. The first segment was on a project called "The GodMen," trying to reclaim the masculinity of Christianity. The announcer kept referring to "muscular Christianity," which has historical resonances thta I don't think he quite understood.

And so in a 30-minute program, we saw two segments on two extremely different slices of Christianity, and I've got to tell you, I think both of them made people of faith look a little ridiculous to people outside the charmed circle. They fed into stereotypes I suspect people already hold about Christianity in this country.

The Godmen seminar was meeting in a mall in Tennessee. The part of the presentation we saw was very conservative in flavor and suggestively patriarchal, meeting in a dark room, high tech, multimedia, drums. They particularly focused on a presentation about pornography, because of course those conservatives are totally obsessed with sex. And then, on the other hand, you've got the UU minister in Massachusetts, and they showed a large whitewalled church that was largely empty, I was so sorry to see. Stodgy mainline is what it projected. And the suggestion that all PB is interested in is how she looks, which is not what she's about at all.

I suspect the non-religious watching either one of those would see them and say, "Thank God I'm not like these people." And settle back into the couch, congratulating themselves on their wisdom.

The comments on PB's blog today included a couple of people saying, "Godmen--creepy." Well, guess what? The Godmen folk were watching the segment on PB and criticizing her, which makes me sad. Hellooo people! Let's not cast stones. Neither one of you appeared as you truly are because hellooo! the Nightline people decided how you would look. Pray that God will use this for good and move on.