i knew i hated mr. darcy for a reason.

right. from the catholic blogosphere.

If today's faithful Catholic is represented by Elizabeth Bennet, bright, hopeful, and coming of age, then the liturgical forms would have to be represented by Mr. Darcy and Mr Wickham.

Mr. Wickham is immediately accessible, loves to talk - especially about how bad ol' Darcy is - has some initial minor flash but soon proves to be tedious and unreliable.

Mr. Darcy at first glance looks stuffy and condescending, but proves over time to be noble, true, of high quality and charitable.

The ordinary and the extraordinary.

this blogger says he's a "St. Louis area Catholic who supports the Traditional Mass and Sacraments" and, as some of you know, casual usage of words like "traditional" and "orthodox" really rubs me the wrong way. [as does casual usage of words like "heresy," but that's a whole nother story] here's the thing. if you're talking about going by church tradition [oops, that is, Church Tradition with some extra-meaningful Capital Letters] or you claim to be orthodox, you should be, by definition, WITH THE CHURCH. you know. the catholic church. which has a hierarchical structure that is sometimes problematic, sure, but it's there. and if you're ignoring vatican ii, hello, you are neither traditional nor orthodox. i'm all about the protest, guys, but can you at least recognize that tradition and orthodoxy, in the roman catholic sense, are actually a thing that you don't get to just co-opt?

anyway, it was bothering me. and i get so rage-y that i thought, hey, maybe i'm just not understanding what this means. so i did some wikipedia research.

Traditionalist Catholics generally prefer to be referred to either simply as Catholics or, if a distinction must be made, as "traditional Catholics" (with a lower-case T). However, since Roman Catholics in general consider themselves to be "traditional" in the sense of being faithful to historical Catholic teaching, the term "traditionalist Catholics" is used in this article as a means of clearly distinguishing them from other Roman Catholics.

so, i don't really know what to say about this. i guess it's starting to look a little better, considering that "traditionalist" can be a subset of "other roman catholics" - they're just the roman catholics who think we should be doing things differently.

but back to you, mr. darcy.

beware of hippie modern liturgy, guys. it might seem like the kind of thing that is understandable and accessible to many people, but it will actually end up trying to steal your money and marry your teenaged sister.

okay, here's my problem.

THE FICTIONAL EXISTENCE OF MR. DARCY IS NOT A GOOD REASON TO PUT UP WITH SOMETHING YOU HATE.

in this case, the analogy's not very nice, and to this particular blogger's credit, certainly he intended to make a joke. i'm sure that, if i were of his opinion on liturgy, i'd be all, "you don't understand the liturgy i prefer, just like elizabeth bennet didn't understand mr. darcy." but seriously? darcy's still kind of an ass, and i'm tired of people suggesting [or seeming to me to suggest] that being rude, distant, and superior to others is a virtue in itself. sure, the less-than-attractive appearance might disguise something that's awesome. but it doesn't MAKE something awesome. and i'm not convinced that the old-fashioned-y inaccessibility of mass in latin, super-high liturgy, pre-vatican-ii forms, and the rest necessarily means that it's better. if that's your preference, fine. but don't compare the way i worship to skeezy mr. wickham just because i'd prefer a liturgy that people who haven't read the GIRM can appreciate.

this, plus a similar discussion [um, actually, only similar because they were both about mr. darcy] with a co-worker friend and two lovely students, has convinced me to read pride and prejudice again. so, stay tuned for further developments in my mind and heart.

in which FRB reads articles about religion to see if she likes them.

yes, again, stressing myself out on purpose while practicing my rhetorical skills.

in the case of miss california, gay marriage, and "opposite marriage," a sojo piece about culture wars. good call on re-framing the issue - i mean, we're talking people, not issues. and maybe i'm swayed by a reasonable-sounding article that actually mentions the way culture wars hurt actual people. i'm always a little suspicious about "tolerance doesn't mean condoning" line, because i think it's not very nice, when you come down to it - but, again, this article is a relatively calm spot in a mean debate.

here's a kind of bizarre article about mel gibson [with his "ultra-othodox catholicism"] getting a divorce. here's my rundown.
- mel gibson is getting a divorce, and is crazy. he's been seen with one of several women named oksana. [apparently not oksana baiul, although THAT would be a twist.]
- mel gibson has religious views that are not those of the catholic church. and i appreciate the author's treatment of this. but. then don't call him orthodox. you're actually saying he's un-orthodox. and don't call people who don't like vatican II "traditional." [also, apparently he called JPII an ass. really? an ass? i mean, of all people.]
- now, about annulment. "Most Catholics find the procedure demeaning and hypocritical." grrrrr. really? or do you think it's demeaning and hypocritical? then, more about how people getting annulments feel. and how women feel.
- even mel gibson shouldn't have to get an annulment! so the catholic church should change its beliefs. [honestly, i didn't see this coming.]

grrrrrrrrr. this bothers me for two reasons. first, it doesn't acknowledge that sometimes people seek annulments because they really feel that their marriage "didn't take." and second, it doesn't acknowledge that some people actually choose to care or not care what what it means to have a sacramental marriage. i mean, it's more complicated than that, for sure, and a lot of people have been hurt in the name of church teaching, and we certainly shouldn't just blindly accept what "the church" says and move on. but i'm putting a lot of my life into convincing kids that, even if they disagree, they should look at why these teachings exist and try to see the good behind them.

this article would not receive a good grade in my class.

okay, three reasons it bothers me - i don't appreciate feeling lumped in with "most catholics" like this. i think that's what really makes me mad. you know? i just want to yell, "but I'M not like that! and i'm not really that crazy, either! i'm both catholic and relatively normal! honest."

[i misspelled catholic, and it reminded me of a one-liner my grandma made recently - "our cats were always everywhere. we even used to take them to church. we're cat-licks."]

randoms:
- for anyone else whose mom has been bugging them to check their credit, i'm inclined to trust this site.
- has everyone been listening to foy vance? just making sure. he's rockin.

FRB, gardener.

my daffodils are blooming! i bought them at trader joe's for $1.69. they were not in water when i bought them, but don't worry - there was a multicolored sign explaining why. [well, not really why. just that the farmer recommended it.] i got a bunch with all the buds closed, so that it would be more exciting. then i cut off the end of the stems and put them in a guinness glass in water. then they bloomed! and that, friends, is the limit of my gardening ability.

wait, that and the fact that i am reading animal, vegetable, miracle without a translator.

also, stumbled on [um, that's a lie, because i clicked on it on purpose] this facebook group on abbreviations, and of course, immediately checked to see about "usj." they're saying "uje" - i don't know, guys.

all googly!

i'm a top hit!


i feel proud. even though it seems like the way to get people to click on my site, then leave immediately [i'm like, stay, guys! look around!] is to name a post with lyrics from a kind of obscure indie rock song. sorry to disappoint you, google searchers.

but look! in a search that people might actually make...


are you looking for a catholic blog about faith and reason? then stay! but, apparently, beware of my sometimes-hatred for catholic bloggers.

an interesting piece on public transportation - kudos for mentions of convenience and people's assumptions of what we can and cannot do if we don't own cars. i remember overhearing a woman [with a baby in a stroller, too] asking if she could interview that day, instead of coming back the next day, because she had taken the bus [in the un-bus-friendly city where i grew up]. and, in chicago, i had a neighbor who walked with a cane who used to walk up the million steps at our non-accessible train station. and, when i scoot to my seat as the bus is already moving or climb over ice piles on the sidewalk, i think there might be other reasons that older people move to the suburbs. city life seems to demand a certain amount of health and ability to get around, especially if you're living on a budget... in a building without an elevator... commuting without a car...

FRB hates catholic bloggers.

well, i sometimes do. except this one.


yes, friends, welcome to lolsaints. [i've always thought there was something vaguely outrage-worthy about lolcats, but wikipedia tells me it's all okay - surely the best thing about wikipedia is its forced seriousness. and, did you know richard dawkins invented the word "meme" to talk about religion and such? that's a connection in this post that i did NOT see coming.]

so, anyway. moving on to more things i love and hate. i had a pretty bad day reading all this.

[the good]

i'm not sure i agree with this exercise of faith, in which a nurse is fired for offering to pray for a patient. although this is interesting...

"A sensitive inquiry as to whether a patient would value prayer may well be an appropriate part of a medical consultation especially in an NHS [National Health Service] where some NHS trusts actually pay spiritual healers as part of the care team," said Saunders.

anyway, the thing that really struck me was this string of responses.
1. bad christians are to blame for a bad perception of christians.
2. secularism is not the same as atheism.
3. "I want to be able to attend a public event without someone officially praying their belief over me."

remarkably fair and balanced, i thought. i was really surprised, coming from zenit. but separation of church and state! churchy people like it! yayyy!

[the bad]

this article, however, makes me want to say fuck you, you fucking fuck. [it's okay. i'm quoting the sidewalk.] phdork at pursuit of harpyness tipped me off to this [while also teaching me the word "limn," which i didn't know] and gives a really reasonable "maybe i don't know everything about catholicism, but" viewpoint on it. thanks for going for a little humility as far as recognizing that you're not an expert on catholicism, new blogfriend. [i don't always expect as much from "secular" bloggers. see below.] and thanks for making yourself look normal, because this guy is SO BAD. on so many fronts.

I completely understand that Mr. Thompson doesn’t like what these sisters stand for, and he has every right to address what I would guess he views as their heretical perversions of the One True Church’s teachings. But he’s not doing that. He’s bagging on nuns for their looks.

i'd guess she's right, yeah? and besides this clear anti-feminist crap, what i hate is this toxic hatred for the other side. i can't take it. i'm so done with people equating "faithful catholic" with "hierarchy lover" or "lockstep traditionalist." i mean, how can you have even a cursory knowledge of church history and ignore the fact that God is still speaking?

from the sisters...

But I think if we believe in what we are doing (and I definitely do) we just have to be peacefully about our business, which is announcing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, fostering the Reign of God in this world. We cannot, of course, keep [the Vatican representatives] from investigating. But we can receive them, politely and kindly, for what they are, uninvited guests who should be received in the parlor, not given the run of the house.

HONESTLY, damien thompson. compared to this, or compared to anything else, you look like an ass. the papacy doesn't need your help. i'm sure that the vatican can handle their own supposed problems. they are not being THREATENED by NUNS who want to HELP PEOPLE, and neither are you. it's not like they're kicking puppies or publicly denying the pope. they're expressing caution about the vatican representatives' visit and wondering if their form of religious life will be understood. which, you know, seems reasonable. and even if you feel threatened, can you bring yourself to have enough faith in the hierarchy you respect so much to let them decide about what these sisters are doing?

or, have i caught you thinking that you're the one in charge of doctrine and heresy? right.

and, for the record, "birthing" is a legitimate metaphor for creating something new. it takes work. it brings life. it's difficult and miraculous. [not that i'd know, but still.] the assumption that mother church has nothing to do with women is something i still argue about, even with my friends. the feminine images for God are there, guys! in the bible, in our tradition, even in the catechism that many traditionalists love so much. they make some people uncomfortable because we're not used to hearing them. because of years of patriarchy. because some men [and women, let's not forget] have unjustly kept God looking like a man. because of the inequality between genders, which, theologically speaking, is a result of the fall. not a result of God's creating man and woman both in God's own image.

[the untrue]

so time accused the catholic church of making up this whole FOCA thing, and jezebel's all over it. now, i usually love jezebel. but here's the thing. first of all, the headline - "Bishops Manufacturing Abortion Controversy To Keep Parishioners Engaged." seriously, WHERE do you get the bishops' motive out of this news story? i hear the politics and culture wars thing. maybe i hear the money thing, although i've never heard an abortion-related collection taken up in church for anything except pregnancy crisis centers. [usually it's just prayer and outrage. we're not actually collecting money for the republican party, guys.] but let's say you believe that abortion is murder, as they say. wouldn't you also overreact to actually hearing obama say that he wants to sign FOCA, as an astute commenter points out? [the youtube video is linked, and the same commenter writes about what she thinks he actually meant.] and, i mean, let's hold off on blaming the hierarchy for an email chain of over-reaction on a bill that's not actually being considered. that part's an overreaction to something you heard in the news. kind of like what's happening here, on the other side of the issue.

yes, i personally think the abortion issue is too high on the list of things on which many catholic people like to spend their money, time, and outrage. but if you believe life begins at conception [or might begin at conception and does begin before birth, which is the actual party line], then it's hard to get away from it. again, still important to temper all of this with care for women, actually-born babies, people who are poor, people who live in places other than america, all kinds of other things - but this is a faith-based and rights-based issue, on both sides, and we're going to need to find some other ways to talk about it. on both sides, i hope.

[reflection]

of course, i'm very lucky. i asked my students if they know any catholics who only care about abortion, and THEY DON'T. i was amazed. we pray for all kinds of things at my parish, including people who are poor, people out of jobs, politicians, soldiers, and victims of war. where i live, i hear a liberal message if i hear any slant.

but i read blogs of all catholic types, and i worry. on all sides.

twitterrific.

hi, friends. most of you know i haven't really been myself these few weeks. but i've missed you, and missed blogging. and you know what brought me back? yup, that thing that goes before and after a fall - pride.

Hi, faith.reason.etc (faithrb).

Barack Obama (BarackObama) is now following your updates on Twitter.

Check out Barack Obama's profile here:
http://twitter.com/BarackObama

Best,
Twitter

which means, clearly, that barack obama is very confused by my convoluted tweets right now.


okay, here's what it's supposed to say, from bottom to top...

• 12:00: Ask your local Starbucks guy if Via is any good. Maybe he'll be like mine and give you a FREE SAMPLE!!!
• 3:00: You know when you're at a coffee shop and a guy strikes up a conversation with you, then his smiley girlfriend comes over...
• 3:00: ...with two coffees and joins the conversation? I feel like I'm on a sitcom.
• 4:30: A coffee shop baby just ran up to another baby to chat. His message: Hi! Then, pointing: Look, my dad!
• 4:30: Both babies have frog boots.
• 8:00: Gave up meat for Lent. Living out my faith by eating a lot of sushi - although I did successfully walk by Rib-O-Rama on the way.

[the missing tweet appeared as i was writing this post. never mind that i sent it eight hours ago. for the record, i blame MY STUPID-ASS PHONE.]

classy.

b: i read in an etiquette book that a gentleman should get in the cab first and scootch over - you know, so the lady doesn't have to scootch over in a dress.
j: haha, yeah, but what if the guy leaves before the girl gets in?
b: well, then you know he's just not that into you.
everyone: [general merriment]
cab driver: you laugh, but that actually happens...

NICE. [i also like to preface things like this with, "if you're into gender roles..."]

at a recent fancypants dinner, i ordered a gin gimlet, which is delicious and very, very classy. then a guy in our group [who hadn't heard my order] said, "you know what drink is classy? the gimlet." i was like, yessss. fooled them again.

i've mentioned before that it's weird to read articles about things we do - including this one that calls us all out on our facebook habit.

you all know, though, that i ALWAYS agree with the pope. okay, not really, but i like to hear him out - especially this time. sure, facebook's not the best, but i think it's a representation of something good [our desire for human community] and not something bad [gossip, or whatever]. like any form of communication or community, it has a light and a dark side. right?

on the oscars:
i love marisa tomei's dress and amy adams' necklace.
cried a little at shirley maclain's intro of anne hathaway. what is WITH these intros? they're so sweet and heartfelt. i notice, for the first time this year, how much these people consider each other a community. i love how anne cried, and how happy she was when kate winslet won. she is a classy, classy girl. [betcha she drinks gimlets.]

"well, it's not a shampoo bottle now!" - kate winslet. omg, and getting her dad to whistle from the audience. [this is a little bit of a liveblog.]
sean penn DOES lose himself in every role. it's so true!

faster! i demand it!

many of you know that i looooove the cta. really love it. but it's made me get used to taking a long time to get places. so i leave really early if it's important, or i carefully bustrack, or i plan on being late. and i bring a book. and my ipod. and a water bottle. and a map.

so, anyway, tonight i was waiting at the bus stop and realized i'd never make it home in time for grey's. and i took a cab. i'm not sorry. but, as is my wont, i was chatty. i breezily told the cab driver that i was taking a cab because i wanted to get home before grey's. and he was like, "i'll do my best!" then i remembered that i was paying him, just as he did some illegal driving maneuvers. and it was awkward, because i was like, "oh, it'll be fine! don't get in an accident, really." but i think he just thought i was being nice about the serious demands i make on my cab drivers.

i just saw a local political ad in which two kids are, supposedly, bickering like the candidates do. [i know, it's like - get it? politicians are childish?] then the local political candidate comes in and says, "i support this message, because as president obama said, it's time to put aside childish things." gratuitous obama-quoting aside, i say - do you know you're quoting THE BIBLE, there, local candidate?

some of you will be proud to know that tonight, i learned that it can be enjoyable to walk a dog. but i also narrated the entire walk, out loud, as if i were talking to a person.

the pope loves facebook!

how did i miss this? the pope has some stuff to say about technology! [there's also a tiny ap story, if you'd prefer.]

The desire for connectedness and the instinct for communication that are so obvious in contemporary culture are best understood as modern manifestations of the basic and enduring propensity of humans to reach beyond themselves and to seek communion with others. In reality, when we open ourselves to others, we are fulfilling our deepest need and becoming more fully human. Loving is, in fact, what we are designed for by our Creator.

yeah, that's right. using technology for good. this is right up my alley, obviously, so i'm a little mad i got it off huffpost instead of finding it myself.

happy birthday, mr. darwin.

and, in your honor...

On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

this from a moderately interesting gallup poll. let's talk a little bit about religiosity, gallup. i'd rather see the correlation between "belief" in evolution [this makes at least one of my science teacher friends very angry] and views about the bible. because not everyone who is religious thinks that the bible is factual, GUYS. ask my STUDENTS. they'll tell you.

this brilliant and awesome journalist started a blog today and kicks off with darwin and colbert - recommended and on the blogroll.

and even mcsweeney's shares the love.

in THESE ECONOMIC TIMES, all kinds of things are happening, people are writing about them, and we're making fun of it. irony survives.

this just in - did everyone know that darwin and lincoln were born on the same day?! BOTH on february 12, 1809? remarkable. [literally.]

blog-worthy.

this is an interesting one on both translation and catholicism in the news...

i'm all about the blog today. one might say it's because i'm bored. i say it's because i have my priorities in order.

this new blog labels thing is tricky, though. what AM i posting about? hmm.

"the pamchenko? no way. it's too dangerous!"

someone recently asked me how often i blog. well. the answer, apparently, is that it depends on the week. so, some thoughts while i sit on the couch, watching the cutting edge. interspersed with thoughts about the movie.

first of all, how creepy is the dad in this movie? "excuse me, honey, while i pressure you and demean you and take charge of your entire life." and how blatant is the sexual innuendo? and how much of it totally passed me by when i first saw this at age ten?

TWO of my former congressmen are now working for obama. clearly, he loves me. big week big week - and i had one of those nostalgic experiences watching the inauguration on a fuzzy tv in the campus ministry office, then running down to class to listen to the rest of it on the radio. [remember the radio?] then we did this lesson from teaching tolerance about inaugural prayer. [click through for a pdf of inaugural pray-ers in history, too.]

i love that part of the movie on new year's eve when they're about to kiss, and you know it because there are SPARKLERS in between their faces. hahahahahahaha. i also love when they kiss at the end of their routine at the end. why don't we see more of that at the olympics?!

my favorite sean casey is retiring! to work for the MLB network! whoa.

no doubt, my favorite part of this movie is the part where she takes the tequila shots. i think of this literally [yes, LITERALLY] every time i take tequila shots. mostly because the first time i saw it i was like, what the hell is she doing? and why is she wearing sunglasses the next day?

a quick search reveals that i blog about misuse of the word literally all the time. seriously. [if anyone's counting, i use "seriously" much more than "literally." what, you don't spend as much time searching my blog as i do? silly.]

new under "things i like" - passive-agressive notes and the flickr page on pointless road signs. this one is definitely my favorite.

toepick!

"the pressure of language..."

so i casually read the freakonomics blog, a lot. and the other day, i casually read this article about giffen goods, i guess, and tangetially related to prostitutes and rice. and then i read feministing, and oops - i was supposed to be outraged.

interesting comments, though - i think the one i linked just now is getting right to the point. like, yes, insensitive turn of phrase. but not blatant assholery. and also, they're economists. they're the ones who [in their book, summarzied here] attribute the drop in crime in new york in the early 1990s to the drop in unwanted pregnancies after roe v. wade passed in 1972. because potential criminals aren't being born. i mean, what? i feel like that's a bigger threat to human dignity [of course, feministing doesn't get to that, but that's another post] than conjecture about the economics of the sex trade. but they go ahead and make that point, because it's supported by statistics and they're in the "hey, sorry, but we think this is causal." [that word is so awkward.] and, also, i think they're basically good people who make up statistics about college students and sweatpants. so that's why this debate was so interesting to me, i think. because i actually like the guys on the other side of the outrage, and that's not usually how i feel in this kind of situation.

i think what i originally wanted to blog about was how the language we use can change our entire meaning. how it carries implications we don't always anticipate. and how the blogosphere is CRAZY. comments are crazy. and i feel pretty open-minded [who knows what other people think of me, but i try], but i read a lot of fury out there on issues i didn't anticipate.

my employee handbook actually says something like, "communicate in person whenever possible to avoid being misunderstood." which, you know, seems sort of cumbersome in the modern world. but, point well-taken - no matter how clearly i write, how well can all of you really understand what i mean? and how many people are getting angry right now?

only semi-related - has everyone seen the multigrain cheerios commercial where the guy asks the girl if she's trying to lose weight [because she's eating mgc]? and she's all "do i look like i need to lose weight?" ahh, yes. i always try to fit the comeback, "ARE YOU CALLING ME FAT?" into conversations in which it doesn't belong. people get pretty awkward when i do that.

my current jam [and title of this post] is "the cool, cool river" by paul simon. rhythm of the saints, first of all, is an under-appreciated album. and this song is probably my favorite little-known song. give it a listen.

"i believe in the future we shall suffer no more. maybe not in my lifetime, but in yours, i feel sure..."

sigh. at present, through a glass, darkly. but then, face to face. i love that, really, that passage is about being understood...

"so you agree? you think you're really pretty?"

really liked this jezebel post about how to respond to a compliment. i, personally, prefer the enthusiastic thank you with unnecessary details. por ejemplo, in a recent conversation about my new earrings - "THANKS! they were a dollar. at the target dollar spot! you know, right when you walk in the door? i bet they're still there. you should TOTALLY GET THEM."

i once had a conversation with a guy about sports. i mean, about talking about sports. i don't remember what the conversation was about initially, but i suspect that i was worried about guys who don't like sports. especially in the particular corner of middle america where i was living at the time - how must that feel when someone mentions a sports statistic or piece of news that you're totally supposed to know, and you can't respond? girls tend to be able to laugh it off. you know. double standard.

but anyway, the guy i was talking to said that talking about sports is a polite way to guys to make conversation. like talking about the weather. [as my brother would say,] oh yeah? and women talk about their respective appearances?

i bring up the gender issue because it's in the article - and in several very interesting comments. i recommend.

--

have you ever noticed how much "bullish" looks like "bullshit"? as in, "The titans of corporate America were glorified on the covers of Forbes, “trickle down” economics justified obscene wealth, and a bullshit Wall Street gave even working stiffs a piece of the action." i was like, whoa, catholics in alliance for the common good blog. wild.

i got two amaaaaazing voicemails in the past two days.
1. "i'm just calling because right now... i'm watching a movie about the font, helvetica?"
2. "i think of you whenever i hear this band... hang on, i don't know the words... YOU CAN'T COUNT ON ME."
it's almost like my interests are predictable. fonts and counting crows, guys. that's what i like.

twice, writing this post, i've tried to link to previous posts that don't exist. one's about the movie helvetica and the nytimes article about obama's "change" font. [well, here's part of it, actually.] the other is about the time a stranger asked to kiss my shoe. stay tuned.

this blog post will change your life.

i had a conversation the other night in which one of my friends alluded to a comment one of HER friends made that changed her life. she very earnestly [see below] told me that it actually changed her life. i, of course, believed her.

the comment was something like, "our generation doesn't value the internal life." we're always into telling people everything we do and constructing a whole narrative [and you know how i love narrative] - but where's our reflection? or prayer, even?

i like this for two reasons:
1. the "secular ways to talk about the faith business" thing. i'd tell very few people that they'd be happier if they thought more about their prayer life, but i'd talk to a lot of people about their INNER life. like, are you taking time for yourself? do you feel like you never relax? is something bothering you, and you don't know what it is? and i'm not saying religion is the answer, but i wonder if we're wired to require some kind of... well, something more. something that makes us different than the worker bees.
2. as an over-sharer, i'm sensitive to the value of not sharing some things. if they're really important.

then, i had another life-changing conversation.

h: i always think it's so weird when i'm drunk at a bar and someone asks what i do - and i talk about working with kids.
b: try being a religion teacher. that's always a fun conversation to have with a stranger...
j: but i think that's just part of being our age, you know? trying to balance having a career with still trying to have fun and be young.

and we moved on to talk about how much people should talk about their weekend activities at work. but, how awesome is that? yes, bar conversations as a metaphor for being a 20-something and feeling like you're living a double life. well, two or more lives. i mean, that's one of the reasons i started this blog. [and maybe it ties in with the "inner life" thing more than i thought.] because, if i can't talk about the things that are important to me, how important are they? and, if i can't talk about my job at the bar, why am i in that job? [or, of course, why am i going to the bar?] let me be as authentic as i can be. yes.

then, i had another one.

m: can we blame society when we respond to sincere emotion with snark?
b: YES. please always feel free to do things WITHOUT IRONY.
m: someone once told me i was "earnest" and i didn't know what to do with that.
b: i think that's a huuuuuge compliment.

and i do. [someone once told me that something i did was "endearing." i liked that, too, and consider it somehow related.] but you know, when you have a moment of earnestness with someone, where they lean over and say something real and serious and important to you - that's what i'm talking about.

and the opposite of that, well - while i'm ethically opposed to [or, i guess, offended by] stuff white people like, i often think about the entry on irony.

Also, you might find yourself in conversation where you mention that you like something and there is an awkward silence indicating that it is not cool. In this situation, you must say “oh yeah, I also like [insert similar things]” and smile, the white people will laugh and all will be well.

again, one of those things that always sticks with me. maybe because i've spent a lot of time worrying about how to be ironic. or, you know, asking my friends whether other people were being ironic. [because you just have to KNOW.] and all along, i think, i'd rather be earnest.

oh, and my current favorite life-changing conversation? i was upset about something, and one of my favorite slightly older friends just said, "your 20s are really hard! i remember being really confused the whole time." i was like, THANK YOU. that's just what i needed.

on a related note, may i interest you in a few songs. and in seeqpod, where you can search for songs and embed them! i got this recommendation ["like youtube for songs"] in a christmas letter.

first, as always, i thank the lord for the people i have found...

[later ed: apparently seeqpod is now defunct. you'll have to provide your own elton.]

and, "fill it up again" by the indigo girls. from a relatively recent album. and ROCKIN, especially for the new year. the new road is an old friend...

[later ed: guys, when the album all that we let in came out, i was very "this is my LIFE" about it. kind of still am.]

so what i'm saying is, get the whole song. right now.

haters?

"Here’s to humility and equanimity everywhere in America, starting at the top, as we negotiate the fierce rapids of change awaiting us in the New Year." some interesting reading on whether obama really loves gay people or not. at the very least, lots of links.

okay, so, i freaked out with happiness when obama included gay and straight in his categories of people on election night. i really did. because he didn't have to, and it's still a rare shoutout, and i thought it meant something.

rick warren - sigh. is a critic of gay marriage. but which religious leader do you pick to pray at your inauguration? especially when you've had problems with your favorite ministers in the past? and you got some crap for the pray-er at the dnc, too? i don't know what to say about who obama should have picked. really, really don't. who's not controversial? [unless my "keep religion out of politics" idea might work. hmm?]

i read the purpose-driven life. i don't recommend it unless you subscibe to a bible-based, protestant view of religion. and i guess i feel the same about rick warren, himself, at least what i've read of his stuff. he's narrow-minded, yes. has done a lot of good, for sure. and here are his comments that have been so controversial - judge for yourselves. [i didn't find a lot of commentary on this issue that actually quoted him. i think it's important to read, though, yeah?]

you all know i don't agree with his "sin" talk, but here's something - how about his warning about judging others before we judge ourselves?

So why do we hear so much more - especially from religious conservatives - about gay marriage than about divorce?

Oh, we always love to talk about other sins more than ours. Why do we hear more about drug use than about being overweight? Why do we hear more about anything else than about wasting time or gossip? We want to point that my sins are perfectly acceptable. Your sins are hideous and evil.

again, i don't appreciate his "sin" language. his point, though, makes me at least give him a nod. if you're all bible-based and can't get past it and believe homosexuality is a sin, well, at least realize that you have some sins to deal with, yourself, before you start condemning everyone else. [i wouldn't use a phrase like "your sins are hideous and evil" saracastically in public, though.] i'd also like to talk with him about whether religious leaders' obsession with rules about sex has a little more of a freudian origin...

anyway, check out the man's comments. i'm pretty sure that he's trying to do good - of course, you could say the same for a lot of people with a lot of harmful biases. and he can talk about "the 5,000 year old definition of marriage" all he wants, but i won't listen to him until his government and religious leaders won't let him marry someone HE loves. i've had enough of straight people thinking everyone would be happy if they were straight. because, you know, it feels so good to us! wheee! aren't we awesome?

"it's jimmy 'santa' clausen and golden 'frankincense and myrrh' tate..."

watching the game, playing around on my laptop [three laptops and four family members in here], waiting for brother to get home from the base so christmas can start...

--

if you've got some time, i'm kind of into this new yorker article about elevators. introduced to me, randomly in the middle of a gchat, with "this article is FASCINATING." i was like, really? but it IS.

In the old system—board elevator, press button—you have an illusion of control; elevator manufacturers have sought to trick the passengers into thinking they’re driving the conveyance. In most elevators, at least in any built or installed since the early nineties, the door-close button doesn’t work. It is there mainly to make you think it works. (It does work if, say, a fireman needs to take control. But you need a key, and a fire, to do that.) Once you know this, it can be illuminating to watch people compulsively press the door-close button. That the door eventually closes reinforces their belief in the button’s power. It’s a little like prayer.

ohhhh. this is totally up my alley. i took a social psychology class once. i KNOW.

and now, an overview of my favorite and least favorite elevators.
1. the elevator in pip's old building. too fast. made me want to puke. thanks for moving, pip.
2. the elevator in the library in college also made me want to puke. not as much when i used to take it from the first to the second floor. WHAT? that was a really, really long staircase.
3. the elevator in my dorm in college. SO FREAKING SLOW. i moved to the top floor just so i could take it without guilt. [on rereading - does that make sense? we'd all glare at the non-top-floor girls who took the elevator, because it took forever to open and close.]
4. the adventure i had in the sears tower, trying to get to an office on the 60-somethingth floor. first, you have to get on the right elevator on the first floor. then, you have to take three different elevators. they're all around corners. you have to keep getting off one elevator and getting on another one. it's really difficult. possibly to keep the rifraff out?

on the moth podcast recently, there was a really sweet story on the moth podcast that involved an incident of making out in a stopped elevator, which stopped all the other elevators in the building and showed the maker-outers on elevator cam in the lobby. so awesome. [looked it up - the story is "what goes up," by katherine russell rich, and it was on the podcast on 12/01/08. and you can still get it! go!]

--

from slate, in my browsing tonight:
- have you all seen this guy, who writes about "bogus trends"? i feel like he's actually writing about, you know, bad writing. not checking your facts, using lots of generalizations - i'd like to use it in class, actually. [none of my reporter friends would ever write something like this.]
- a little action about the name of jesus. lots of talk about greek and aramaic and the difference between i, y, and j. nicely done.
- related to a previous post, from dear prudie - "According to sociologist Kathleen Bogle, author of Hooking Up, once people who've only hooked up graduate from college, they do start dating one person at a time, but since some have never even been on a single date, they're as clumsy at it as high-school freshmen." [she's giving advice on a girl who's been hooking up with a friend - should she tell him how she feels? should they stop hooking up? wow, what a new and interesting situation! BOGUS.]

--

and now, a heartwarming christmas story.

brother and i went out to get some groceries for tomorrow. discovered that all the grocery stores are closed here in middle america. hmmm. we needed ingredients to make appetizers. [oh no! a christmas crisis!] so we went to the convenience store and, just for you all, had an awkward conversation with the [female, 20-ish] cashier.

b: [checking out with hot dogs, pita chips, cream cheese, and sam adams] yeah, we're playing a game called "what real food can we make out of things we can buy here."
c: have you ever played the game circle of death? with drinking?
b: ... YES.
c: yeah. that's fun.

i had to pause a minute to collect my thoughts. i said something about the random food i was buying, and she asked me about a drinking game? that i might play later, with my sam adams? she wanted to suggest a drinking game i could play, while eating hot dogs with pita chips and cream cheese?

maybe she didn't understand the "we're playing a game called..." turn of phrase. do i use that too much? hmmm.

also, one of the other guys working there [they had way too many people working for christmas eve, i'll tell you what] let me try the difference between "egg nog" and "holiday nog." as far as i can tell, the difference is that the holiday nog tastes sort of like banana.

"Think of it as a one-night stand with someone you know."

hey, guys! we're famous. some interesting stuff in the new york times...

first, this one on how the delay in adulthood affects organized religion. [i found one of those "note to self: find this article" things on my computer recently, and hey, it's really interesting.]

Today, many young people spend more than a decade between high school and marriage “exploring life’s many options in unprecedented freedom.” And, it should be added, in great uncertainty.

and this one on how we don't date anymore.

Under the old model, you dated a few times and, if you really liked the person, you might consider having sex. Under the new model, you hook up a few times and, if you really like the person, you might consider going on a date.

it's weird to read about this stuff in the paper, hmm?

i was talking to my dad on the phone about how i bought myself a new ipod today [yellow! nano!] and felt kind of bad buying something big for myself at christmas. [even though i waited until my old one really, really died.] then he told me a story about one time in the eighties when they were all going to buy stuff for themselves for christmas, or something - and i was like, "wait, 'greed is good' was real? i thought it was just something people wrote about in the paper!"

it's almost like these columnists are really on to something.

yes, yes, i know.

to tide you all over until i'm together enough to post more creatively, google's life photo archive. this is very, very, very cool.

1. has a feminist agenda.

from feministing, mccain on palin - "she is a direct counterpoint to the liberal feminist agenda for america." i mean - what? "vote for me, i'm against women's rights"? i know it's old news, but i canNOT get used to feminism being used as an insult.

also, if you really want to feel some impending doom, check out mccain's use of air quotes when he talks about women's health. i mean, he has a point that, if you're hardline anti-abortion, "health of the mother" is kind of a trap. perhaps people who are talking about the health of the mother might trick you into being secretly pro-choice in some cases. that is true. however, you can NOT AIR QUOTE things like women dying in childbirth. i would never air quote "military service," you know? it's a real thing that people go through. and also, you try getting pregnant, asshole.

okay, so then, the ad on the top of the page said, "your life is all over the place." i was like, WHAT? so you KNOW? then, it was all, "luckily, so are we." it was for a doctor's office. i looked them up, though, i'm not going to lie. might as well go to a doctor who KNOWS me.

i let a relative stranger listen to my ipod, and he was all, "hey, this is really loud." i wanted to be like, my LIFE is loud. i feel like i often can't really hear my ipod, even when it's turned up all the way. anyone think it's a metaphor for my life?