When life hits like a ton of bricks
Topic: Quotidiana

I moved in the nick of time.  The story of the move itself is something of a saga - things did not go as planned.  But I got here, no one was injured, and no irreparable property damage was done.  But, as I said, I moved in the nick of time, because work went insane as soon as I hit DC.  I haven't even had time to finish unpacking and the walls of my room are distressingly bare.

Then last week I found out that a friend of mine has cancer.  I feel like I've barely stopped to think about it, really, because my days have become a blur of e-mails and checking on the next deadline and trying to find out what's going on with her so I can tell all our friends. Nights have been taken up with meeting my friends here so I don't have to think about what I was doing all day.

I'm learning all kinds of things, some of which may find their way here, because I can't stand not to share information.  Like support groups for young people with cancer, and children's books about dealing with cancer in the family, and ... well, I have to feel like I'm doing something.  Even if it's something that might possibly help someone who ends up here randomly via Google and never comes back again.

Mercifully, it's not all stress and gloom.  Moments like these are what friends square off for, and so many people are stepping up.  Its wonderful to see all the concern for my friend from our college crowd - I'm getting back in touch with people I haven't heard from in years as the news works its way down the lines.  It does me good to know that there's so much support for her.  And my friends here, some of whom barely know me, are looking out for me, too.  I wish there was an easier way than major life crises to be reminded how many generous people I've been fortunate enough to have in my life.

Laugh or you might cry
Topic: Editorializing

I have to say this for Sarah Palin - her nomination has done a world of good for at least one woman.  Tina Fey's Palin impression should end up in SNL history alongside Chevy Chase's Gerald Ford and Dana Carvey's George H.W. Bush.  And I'm pleased that in their send-up of the Vice-Presidential debate the writers went after both VP candidates for the absurdity of their statements about same-sex marriage during Thursday's debate (at about 8 minutes in to the video, which I'm sending you to Diary of an Anxious Black Woman to watch because that's where I saw it, and I can't figure out how to embed the video, and she's an awesome writer who should have more traffic, even if it's only the three people who still read here, what with my repeated month-long hiatuses.  Hiati?  Whatever.  I'm trying to get back to writing, really I am, but work is a bit nuts right now).  Not that the double-speak on same-sex marriage wasn't an easy target to hit, but I'm glad they took a shot at it.  It truly was surreal to hear Biden talking about how there should be no difference in the rights of straight and gay couples and then say 5 seconds later that he opposes same-sex marriage.  This is what makes me nuts about elections - moral courage and consistency apparently render candidates unelectable.  

Good morning, Baltimore, and goodbye
Topic: Quotidiana

It figures that the day I'd pick to move would end up muggy and potentially rainy.  I sit here, surrounded by boxes, grumbling that my neighbor downstairs had the audacity to commandeer the washing machine when I wanted to use it, and waiting on my friends to show up to begin the moving.  Nearly everything is done, and with surprisingly little stress - I may finally be getting good at this moving thing. 

Wish me luck with moving truck - it's a scary thing to be driving when you barely drive at all. 

The same level of scrutiny will not be forthcoming
Topic: Editorializing

In the interests of fairness, I figure that since Obama got dragged across the coals for his association with Pastor Wright, that Palin ought to come in for some critique based on her association with a church that actively seeks the conversion of Jewish people and holds conferences for the "pray away the gay" movement.  And I'm perfectly willing to bet that this never makes the mainstream media. After all, when it comes to what we look for in a leader, membership in a church rife with anti-Semitism and homophobia is nowhere near as outrageous as attending the church of a pastor who harshly critiques institutional racism in the United States </bitter sarcasm, on a very temporary basis>. 

I want this election to be over so that (hopefully) I can stop feeling sullied by everything associated with it.  

Shenanigans at the RNC
Topic: Events

Amy Goodman got arrested for no damn good reason.

ICE agents are entering jail and pulling out arrestees with “foreign-sounding names"

 

Prophetic
Topic: Editorializing

Earlier, I quickly pointed to a recent post by Zuzu at Shakesville that I now want to return to a greater length, because she's looking downright prophetic today.

Zuzu made a really interesting case for how the choice of Palin could be a real asset to the McCain campaign if one takes a really Machiavellian perspective. What if McCain's purpose in choosing Palin was less to attract women's votes to his party, than to attempt to deny them to his opponent by waving a red flag in front of the misogynist blowhards (of both sexes) in the Democratic party?

what the Republicans will do that the Democrats will not is call out the misogyny against their candidate. I've said it before -- the Republicans would never, in a million years, stand by and let the media and the party rank-and-file treat one of their female candidates the way that Clinton got treated during the primary.

Thus, they turn a Democratic strength into a weakness. Or, rather, expose it as a weakness.

Now, as to why I don't think that McCain actually thinks that disaffected Democratic women will flock to him just because he picked a wingnut gun-nut creationist woman with some ethical problems as a running mate: because he doesn't have to get them to vote for him. He has to get them to stay home in swing states.

 And today, from the Associated Press (on Yahoo News):

McCain's campaign made a shrewd appeal to women by casting Palin as a victim of familiar circumstances.

"How do we balance our career, in her case a political career, with that of motherhood and continue to have a very fine family?" asked former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin, one of dozens of women dispatched to media outlets by the McCain campaign.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani toted his feminist talking points around to no fewer than five morning TV interviews.

"The scrutiny you are giving her is so darn unfair. It is really indecent," he told MSNBC's morning crew. "She is being asked questions like, can you, as a mother ... be vice president? Whoever asked a man?"

And in the New York Post:

John McCain, Fred Thompson and former Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Lieberman galloped to the defense of embattled Sarah Palin yesterday, trying to shield her from attacks that she's not veep material, as well as from the firestorm over her pregnant teenage daughter.

"Some Washington pundits and media big shots are in a frenzy over the selection of a woman who has actually governed rather than just talked a good game on the Sunday talk shows and hit the Washington cocktail circuit," said Thompson, a former presidential hopeful, "Law & Order" star and Tennessee senator.

Clearly Zuzu's analysis was sharp.  Now we have to hope the GOP strategy doesn't have the desired effect on liberal women voters. 

Very, very important
Topic: PSAs
As Gustav rolls through the Gulf, there's been a lot of talk about how much more prepared New Orleans is this time around.  But that doesn't still mean that system won't fail people, potentially a lot of people.  BfP has been doing a hell of a job making sure her readers know about these people at risk and the organizations working to protect and assist them.  Go have a look, and do what you can to offer your support. 

And so it begins
Topic: Editorializing

Well, the US has a historic race on it's hands.  Which ever team wins, we're going to have someone occupying an important national political office from a segment of our population who has never been represented in that office before.  It's going to be interesting - and by interesting, I mean disgusting - to watch the McCain/Palin campaign pander to women and attempt to counteract the sexism that's inevitably going to be thrown at Palin from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum. 

The Trentonian's (I'm not linking to the site because the image is gone and because the Trentonian is a vile rag) cover yesterday was an image of Palin with the headline "It's A Girl!"  Dear "Editor": you seem to have missed at least one crucial difference between an object and person and between a child and adult.  And it's a pretty important one, as related to this story: namely, that last time I checked, objects and children are not able to run for national office in this country.

Shakesville's Sarah Palin Sexism Watch ("defend[ing] Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works") is already up to part #4. And with the Michelle Obama Racism/Sexism Watch up to part #14 and the Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch up to part #74, I might have to opt out of media consumption entirely for next two months to preserve my sanity.      

Update: Zuzu's analysis of the Democratic Party's sexism problem and how McCain/Palin can capitalize on it is excellent:

Now, there was never a real risk that progressives would vote for McCain en masse; those Hillary supporters who show up in polls as planning to vote for McCain may very well be Republican and Independent women who were voting for Clinton, not for the Democrats.

There has been, however, a real risk that progressives who are sick of the misogyny and sick about the direction the party was taking would sit this one out. And the Republicans were counting on that continuing.

The faithful vs the fans
Topic: Editorializing

I've been turning over a post of Paul Currion's for awhile now, in which he draws an intriguing parallel between sports and religion:

In this fascinating article, Ryan Maher is talking about American football rather than real football, but I think the principles are the same. In fact he’s talking about how to discuss faith in a meaningful way with those of other faiths, in the context of his work in Doha.

This template for discussing religion and faith is fundamentally flawed. It presumes that different groups of faithful people approach their religions in the same way football fans approach their favorite teams: I cheer passionately for mine, you cheer passionately for yours, and we all agree to play by the rules and exhibit good sportsmanship. For people of faith, religion isn’t like that.

Actually, football isn’t like that either. That’s a very strange view of sport - a matter of etiquette rather than passion.

... perhaps it would be more useful to see religion as exactly like sport - pursued by different people for different ends and in different ways, and occasionally with more agreement between people of different faiths than with those of their co-religionists?

My initial reaction was that while it's an interesting proposal, it's not quite right, somehow, but I'm not sure that my reaction is accurate.  

As I was growing up religion and sports underpinned family life.  We went to church every Sunday.  Mom and Dad said bedtime prayers with us every night.  There was no meat on Fridays during Lent.  There were sports on Fridays, though - if Dad was watching something on television, it was generally sports.  In fact, if it remotely qualified as a sport, he'd watch it (though he maintained that he only watched ice skating hoping to witness a spectacular fall).  Many of my childhood memories involve running around under the bleachers at high school football games, baseball games, basketball games and wrestling matches with the other coaches' kids, because if it was a sport, Dad would coach it.  And Mom would take us to games and matches as regularly as she took us to church.

I have seen how Maher missteps in his article when he argues that when it comes to supporting a favorite sports team "we all agree to play by the rules and exhibit good sportsmanship".  It rather makes me wonder if Maher has attended many sporting events.  There isn't much logic or rationality to my team allegiances, such as they are.  They spring largely from an accident of birth:  good = Philadelphia (although Philadelphia teams far too often ≠ "good") and bad = New York, for no other reason than that is the way it is, the way it has been, and the way it shall be, forever and ever, amen.  It's no more rational than love, which is what Maher compares religion to (although I would argue that there is no shortage of counterexamples where religious adherence is as much a matter of fear, particularly fear of the other and fear of the unknown). 

So I've learned enough about both sport and religion to be very intrigued by the question Paul poses: "perhaps it would be more useful to see religion as exactly like sport - pursued by different people for different ends and in different ways, and occasionally with more agreement between people of different faiths than with those of their co-religionists?"  And as I said, my initial reaction was that this was not inaccurate, but was perhaps a bit glib.  Then I started thinking about it some more.   

Community, identity, ritual, catharsis, rules - all of these are shared aspects of sport and religion.  But what I want to be cautious of in a way that I don't think Paul and Maher are, entirely, is conflating "religion" and "faith".  Where they are combined they gain great power from interacting, but one can adhere to religious rules and forms without believing in or exploring the mysteries of faith, and one can also have great faith in a divine power without tying that to the forms of religion.  I agree with Maher that an intellectual grasp of religions is not sufficient to fully understand what it means to live a life of faith. 

I thought that the heart of my argument would lie there.  That faith and religion are not the same, and while you can compare religion and sport without stretching too terribly, comparing sport and faith is not entirely tenable.  But then I realized that a workable analogy to the religion/faith separation would be to say that understanding the rules of a sport is not sufficient to understand why fully grown people will go half-naked in the dead of winter just so that they can paint themselves in their team's colors for a game.  I started to wonder whether Paul's not entirely right, and my initial reaction to his question is simply based in the fact that I'm not one of those people who has a deep devotion to a sports team.

However, knowing people of faith who live their faith - as expressed through religion - deeply and beautifully, there is something there that I just don't see captured in sport.  And that is the relationship between a person and the divinity that they engage with.  Although supporting a sports team can offer a sense of identity and community, I hope at least, that most fans understand that the team is not invested in their wellbeing.  And that, at least in the Christian traditions I grew up in, is exactly what I was taught about God - that God is concerned with each person's wellbeing, that God loves each individual and wants them to live a good life.  And harnessed to religion, this faith in God's love can be the source of incredible spiritual richness and reflection and growth, or equally incredible rigidity, intolerance and dogmatism, depending on both the individual and the particular strand of their religious tradition that they follow.   

I understand Maher's concern that the kind of people who pursue diplomatic careers in the US are not the kind of people who have received messages about religion that encompass the impact of "faith and its life-shaping power."  And I question what I perceive as Maher's belief that university education has the capacity to shape this.  Faith is incredibly difficult to analyse intellectually - there is much to discuss, and I would argue that faith absolutely can and should be subjected to intellectual examination, but at the core of it, there is a mystery that is not graspable by intellect alone.  So my question is, how would you teach that, in the US higher education system?  If Maher is arguing that Georgetown can't figure out how to do it, how would a secular university?  Because I don't think even Paul's reframing of the relationship between sport and religion, interesting as it is and helpful as it may be to explore, quite gives the one a solid entry point into examining the nature and impact of faith on people's lives. 

Update: Paul's response

USA: End Beating of Children in Public Schools
Topic: Incredibly Bad

I have no words for how utterly disgusting and appalling this is:

[DALLAS, 20 August 2008] – More than 200,000 US public school students were punished by beatings during the 2006-2007 school year, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union said in a joint report released today. In the 13 states that corporally punished more than 1,000 students per year, African-American girls were twice as likely to be beaten as their white counterparts.

In the 125-page report, “A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment of Children in US Public Schools,” the ACLU and Human Rights Watch found that in Texas and Mississippi children ranging in age from 3 to 19 years old are routinely physically punished for minor infractions such as chewing gum, talking back to a teacher, or violating the dress code, as well as for more serious transgressions such as fighting. Corporal punishment, legal in 21 states, typically takes the form of “paddling,” during which an administrator or teacher hits a child repeatedly on the buttocks with a long wooden board. The report shows that, as a result of paddling, many children are left injured, degraded, and disengaged from school.

 And this just makes me cry:

“What made me so angry: he’s three years old, he was petrified. He didn’t want to go back to school, and he didn’t want to start his new school. I was so worried that this was going to constantly be with him, equating going to school with being paddled.”
– Rose T., mother of a three-year-old boy in Texas who was bruised from physical punishment after he refused to stop playing with his shoes in class.