Thursday, I headed towards DC at the unholy hours of 6am, so that I could make it to the Capitol South metro station by 7, at which time I met up with other NRLC interns, a few staff, and the students at the NRLC academy. One of their fathers just so happened to work in Congress, and just so happened to be Representative Chris Smith.
I had prepared myself for another talk from a politician who was politicking... But we started out following him through a side door into the Capitol and onto the floor of the House of Representatives! If you've been following this blog at all, you know that when it comes to politics, I put up a cynical and thoroughly un-impressible front. Well, standing on the floor of the House, where generally only Congresspeople and pages stand, sitting in a House chair, where generally only Congresspeople sit, watching the voting wall light up as they tested it, I dropped this... I was impressed, and I know my face lit up like the voting wall.
Congressman Smith talked to us for a while, about being in Congress, the House, and other such minutia, until he sidetracked himself sharing about his own work as a public leader. He stressed human rights again and again, sharing how the two parties worked with or against him and the leverage Congresspeople have against each other. I realized that I know very little about Congressional Committees and I need to remedy this; he made their importance quite clear, something I had known, but never really hit me until that morning.
After we listened and asked questions for a while, we had a few moments to wander in awe before a group of 400 displaced us. We proceeded to the Raybourn building where donuts and coffee awaited us in the Congressman's office. We socialized with each other and spoke with Congressman Smith again. He emphasized human rights and his duty to his God and his family... and everything just seemed so consistent that I couldn't help but admire him. It also gave me hope for my friends who dream of becoming politicians: there may be hope to be a good Christian and a politician. Of course, all I know about Congressman Smith is what I heard from him, but still. It was different than what I've heard from other Congresspeople.
The only negative bit I have to say about Congressman Smith is that according to Wikipedia, he refused to appear on Stephen Colbert. Silly Congressman.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Slugs
Cute, huh?
Imagine this: You are traveling home down I-95 from DC to the southern suburbs. You crawl along in traffic with only your radio for comfort, watching the HOV lanes fly by at 65mph. The next day, as you head down 14th St on your way out of the city, you see commuters lined up to pay $4.75 to ride home. And you think, I'd pay to have one of y'all (you're from Virginia!) in my car. Meanwhile, those in line watch enviously as motorists start their trip.
This is how I imagine slug lines formed, and I have some support in this theory. (Click that link, and you can read it.) Today, as I stood in line for the bus, I watched the line depleting in front of me, vanishing into cars, whose drivers held up fingers and called out locations. People speak their own language here -- "Old Hechinger's" has not stood in the parking lot for years, but commuters still use that term. As far as I can figure out, D.C. is the only area where this form of travel exists. Much as I hate this city, I also love it.
The man in front of me obviously wanted a slug ride over the bus and got seriously ticked when drivers only went up the the requisite HOV-3, rather than filling the car. It struck me that slugging has rules, similar to walking on the left and standing on the right of the Metro escalators.
I had a few moments of wondering what I would do if I made it to the front of the line and someone called out my home. While the idea fascinates me and I have never heard of there being any danger in slugging, I still couldn't imagine getting into a car with a complete stranger.
Monday, July 27, 2009
I Feel Like I Just Did This All...
We educated our club. We mobilized to educate campus, raise awareness, and gather signatures to send to Congress so that our voice WOULD be heard. I spurred the quest of post-cards at church and empowered a stunning speaker at the pulpit. I personally fed every one of the hundreds of postcards through the stamping machine. And FOCA was not introduced.
The offending parts of this act?
*Abortion would become a fundamental right.
*Doctors/medical students would lose conscience protections.
*All restrictions on abortions would be removed.
Now, I am discovering: no rest for the weary. The health care reform bill before Congress could lead to:
*Abortion defined as "minimum care."
*Health care providers lose conscience protections.
*Tax money going towards abortions.
And although the papers which call the movement "anti-abortion" miss this, pro-life people also fear:
*Rationing of care.
*Utilitarian health care decisions.
These measures worry us on the end-of-life part of things.
Up and to arms again! Once again, the life community is mobilizing, but this time I sit in the middle of a hive of activity, with nothing I can do to see immediate results, such as a signature on a petition or thank-you's after Mass. My efforts still count, I know, but I am looking at a longer range. I have to admit, as I read emails calling this "FOCA by Stealth," and the "Worst Since Roe," there is a certain thrill to being pro-life in DC right now. And also a great deal of fear, because as much as we oppose this, it still could pass.
The offending parts of this act?
*Abortion would become a fundamental right.
*Doctors/medical students would lose conscience protections.
*All restrictions on abortions would be removed.
Now, I am discovering: no rest for the weary. The health care reform bill before Congress could lead to:
*Abortion defined as "minimum care."
*Health care providers lose conscience protections.
*Tax money going towards abortions.
And although the papers which call the movement "anti-abortion" miss this, pro-life people also fear:
*Rationing of care.
*Utilitarian health care decisions.
These measures worry us on the end-of-life part of things.
Up and to arms again! Once again, the life community is mobilizing, but this time I sit in the middle of a hive of activity, with nothing I can do to see immediate results, such as a signature on a petition or thank-you's after Mass. My efforts still count, I know, but I am looking at a longer range. I have to admit, as I read emails calling this "FOCA by Stealth," and the "Worst Since Roe," there is a certain thrill to being pro-life in DC right now. And also a great deal of fear, because as much as we oppose this, it still could pass.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Saturday Morning
The local 40 Days for Life campaign continues year-round, bolstering the efforts of the sturdy pray-ers who have been there years. I've been meaning to join for at least a little bit of time for a couple weeks, a couple weeks ago being the time when I discovered this fact. Yesterday, I finally did.
It took me until senior year of college to go to an abortion facility. Our CCM/SFL took part in the 40 Days for Life in Richmond. At that site, we stood just outside a stand-alone facility and watched cars drive past us into the parking lot, where we could see women walking into the clinic building, then being led outside to the connecting abortion room. Later, we could see them come out and stand in the courtyard behind a black fence, waiting for their rides. My first Saturday afternoon, I watched a young woman walk out to her boyfriend's car. Two things stood out sharply in the sunlight from their actions and body language: she was hurting badly, and he loved her so much.
This Saturday, we stood a further distance from the abortion facility near here. This one shares a wall with the local pregnancy resource center. The women there can hear the suction machine. We did not have that proximity; the cars on the street could see us better than anyone at the facility. Apparently in past weeks, the people on the street had made an impression, because a lone man stood across the street holding signs that read: "Pro-Choice" and "Her Body, Her Choice."
I discovered once again that after an hour had gone by, I did not want to leave. I wanted to stand on that sidewalk until that abortion facility closed its doors for good. Unfortunately, I had plans in Delaware and had to get on the road.
One comment from the road made me want to call back: a passer-by called out, "Get a life!" and I really wanted to answer, "I'm trying!"
I didn't think it was an appropriate pun moment.
It took me until senior year of college to go to an abortion facility. Our CCM/SFL took part in the 40 Days for Life in Richmond. At that site, we stood just outside a stand-alone facility and watched cars drive past us into the parking lot, where we could see women walking into the clinic building, then being led outside to the connecting abortion room. Later, we could see them come out and stand in the courtyard behind a black fence, waiting for their rides. My first Saturday afternoon, I watched a young woman walk out to her boyfriend's car. Two things stood out sharply in the sunlight from their actions and body language: she was hurting badly, and he loved her so much.
This Saturday, we stood a further distance from the abortion facility near here. This one shares a wall with the local pregnancy resource center. The women there can hear the suction machine. We did not have that proximity; the cars on the street could see us better than anyone at the facility. Apparently in past weeks, the people on the street had made an impression, because a lone man stood across the street holding signs that read: "Pro-Choice" and "Her Body, Her Choice."
I discovered once again that after an hour had gone by, I did not want to leave. I wanted to stand on that sidewalk until that abortion facility closed its doors for good. Unfortunately, I had plans in Delaware and had to get on the road.
One comment from the road made me want to call back: a passer-by called out, "Get a life!" and I really wanted to answer, "I'm trying!"
I didn't think it was an appropriate pun moment.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
A Very Durkheimian Day
I will catch up my blog with my life some day. The "Durkheimian" Day was Tuesday.
Scene One: Walking up 1st St in DC towards the United States Supreme Court building. As my friend and I approach the tall gold doors that remain stubbornly closed to us a weekend ago, we realize again just how excited we are! In business dresses and power heels, we have the distinct privilege of going into one of the most sacred buildings of US civil religion (Bellah's idea, but thanks to Emile) and meeting one of the nine sacred people who symbolically live there.
Congresspeople, Senators, and the President all fall into the category of "politician" in my head, to be met with cynicism and skepticism. Supreme Court Justice, on the other hand -- sure, he's only human, but I'm still impressed! We had the honor of meeting with Justice Antonin Scalia, thanks to connections via Dr. New, via an SFLA intern.
First, came the sheer joy at merely stepping into the Supreme Court building. After we passed through the metal detector, a security guard confronted our group of young people and took us to a better place to congregate: through an "Employees Only" door to a conference room in the hidden places of the building.
We sat in a beautiful conference room, surrounded by portraits of the first eight chief justices of the United States. After a few minutes of gawking, picture-taking, and listen to the security guard's instruction, we rose to greet Justice Scalia.
He spoke to us about the framers' intent in creating a legislature and a governmental system that basically kept itself from working: a way of stabilizing the country. What we call "gridlock" today (example: the health care reform) the framers would have accepted as proof that their system worked. He explained his philosophy of interpretation: originalism. Whatever the framers mostly meant is how he ruled. He also explained trivia I did not know about the Supreme Court, such as the fact that each justice used to write his own opinion. Interestingly, he called the Court the weakest of the three branches, explaining that Congress has the money, the President has the military, and the Court merely has the cooperation of the people.
After a Q&A, we snapped a picture with Justice Scalia and people got autographs. None for me; as impressed as I am by a Supreme Court Justice, I'm not so much into collecting signed things.
Next, we got a tour of two conference rooms, the courtroom itself, and the lower level, including a giant statue of John Marshall and a spiral staircase. Sitting in the courtroom was surreal. Part of me wanted to come back some day to argue there or to sit on the bench... but it's the same way that I want to live in the Blue Ridge or get five doctorates. Realistically, it won't happen because I will be pursuing other dreams. I soaked in the sacred space though. The tour guide seemed to like the frieze around the ceiling, saying it made the room more visually interesting, but I could have done without it.
Okay, that's a long story for part one of Durkheim (sacred vs. profane). I'll keep the second one short.
Scene Two: Leaving the Metro and walking into the Nationals Park. I hadn't been to a ball game for over 2 years. Durkheim and the collective effervescence. I guess sports represent another aspect of our civil religion.
Oh yeah, and we won. I must be a good-luck charm.
Scene One: Walking up 1st St in DC towards the United States Supreme Court building. As my friend and I approach the tall gold doors that remain stubbornly closed to us a weekend ago, we realize again just how excited we are! In business dresses and power heels, we have the distinct privilege of going into one of the most sacred buildings of US civil religion (Bellah's idea, but thanks to Emile) and meeting one of the nine sacred people who symbolically live there.
Congresspeople, Senators, and the President all fall into the category of "politician" in my head, to be met with cynicism and skepticism. Supreme Court Justice, on the other hand -- sure, he's only human, but I'm still impressed! We had the honor of meeting with Justice Antonin Scalia, thanks to connections via Dr. New, via an SFLA intern.
First, came the sheer joy at merely stepping into the Supreme Court building. After we passed through the metal detector, a security guard confronted our group of young people and took us to a better place to congregate: through an "Employees Only" door to a conference room in the hidden places of the building.
We sat in a beautiful conference room, surrounded by portraits of the first eight chief justices of the United States. After a few minutes of gawking, picture-taking, and listen to the security guard's instruction, we rose to greet Justice Scalia.
He spoke to us about the framers' intent in creating a legislature and a governmental system that basically kept itself from working: a way of stabilizing the country. What we call "gridlock" today (example: the health care reform) the framers would have accepted as proof that their system worked. He explained his philosophy of interpretation: originalism. Whatever the framers mostly meant is how he ruled. He also explained trivia I did not know about the Supreme Court, such as the fact that each justice used to write his own opinion. Interestingly, he called the Court the weakest of the three branches, explaining that Congress has the money, the President has the military, and the Court merely has the cooperation of the people.
After a Q&A, we snapped a picture with Justice Scalia and people got autographs. None for me; as impressed as I am by a Supreme Court Justice, I'm not so much into collecting signed things.
Next, we got a tour of two conference rooms, the courtroom itself, and the lower level, including a giant statue of John Marshall and a spiral staircase. Sitting in the courtroom was surreal. Part of me wanted to come back some day to argue there or to sit on the bench... but it's the same way that I want to live in the Blue Ridge or get five doctorates. Realistically, it won't happen because I will be pursuing other dreams. I soaked in the sacred space though. The tour guide seemed to like the frieze around the ceiling, saying it made the room more visually interesting, but I could have done without it.
Okay, that's a long story for part one of Durkheim (sacred vs. profane). I'll keep the second one short.
Scene Two: Leaving the Metro and walking into the Nationals Park. I hadn't been to a ball game for over 2 years. Durkheim and the collective effervescence. I guess sports represent another aspect of our civil religion.
Oh yeah, and we won. I must be a good-luck charm.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
God Is in His Heaven...
... all's right in the world. Or at least that dominated as my foremost thought this weekend.
The seminarian who served his pastoral year partly at the College received his ordination to the transitional diaconate on Saturday. I rode down first to Madison, in the middle of nowhere Virginia, with a couple of great guys. In Madison, we switched cars and flew down winding country roads with a native. We ended up in Farmville, still in the middle of nowhere, at the small parish where he was being ordained.
Driving down the country roads, our windows down, music up, the smell of country around us, I could breath deeply and relax fully in a way I cannot during my days in the city here. It broke my heart to know that I will not live out that part of Virginia, when I love best of all, because my work will keep me tied to civilization.
The actually ordination brought me in touch with God as little has this summer. The deacon-t0-be walked in looking serious and thoughtful, very unlike the last ordination I attended, where the seminarian looked bridal during the procession. When he was presented to the Bishop, however, he began to glow. His joy was beautiful and infectious. I couldn't stop smiling and I didn't want to. The ordination and Mass proceeded that way: his face alternated between serious and engrossed in the depth of the moment and complete, abandoned joy.
The ordination itself consists of a rite that includes the seminarian prostrating himself, being vested in deaconly garments, and being handed the Book of Gospels, which he is to learn, believe, and spread. Then the new deacon hugs all the priests and deacons who attend, and Mass proceeds with the deacon on the altar with the other ordained people, rather than in the congregation with the laity.
I watched our new deacon and thought how utterly right it looked as he stood distributing the Precious Blood on one side of the church while the other seminarian who spent time at the College stood on the other, mirror images of newly ordained deacons.
On the way home, we stopped in Madison and looked at the Milky Way. The stars also felt right in my life, and the whole trip had a retreat feel.
The seminarian who served his pastoral year partly at the College received his ordination to the transitional diaconate on Saturday. I rode down first to Madison, in the middle of nowhere Virginia, with a couple of great guys. In Madison, we switched cars and flew down winding country roads with a native. We ended up in Farmville, still in the middle of nowhere, at the small parish where he was being ordained.
Driving down the country roads, our windows down, music up, the smell of country around us, I could breath deeply and relax fully in a way I cannot during my days in the city here. It broke my heart to know that I will not live out that part of Virginia, when I love best of all, because my work will keep me tied to civilization.
The actually ordination brought me in touch with God as little has this summer. The deacon-t0-be walked in looking serious and thoughtful, very unlike the last ordination I attended, where the seminarian looked bridal during the procession. When he was presented to the Bishop, however, he began to glow. His joy was beautiful and infectious. I couldn't stop smiling and I didn't want to. The ordination and Mass proceeded that way: his face alternated between serious and engrossed in the depth of the moment and complete, abandoned joy.
The ordination itself consists of a rite that includes the seminarian prostrating himself, being vested in deaconly garments, and being handed the Book of Gospels, which he is to learn, believe, and spread. Then the new deacon hugs all the priests and deacons who attend, and Mass proceeds with the deacon on the altar with the other ordained people, rather than in the congregation with the laity.
I watched our new deacon and thought how utterly right it looked as he stood distributing the Precious Blood on one side of the church while the other seminarian who spent time at the College stood on the other, mirror images of newly ordained deacons.
On the way home, we stopped in Madison and looked at the Milky Way. The stars also felt right in my life, and the whole trip had a retreat feel.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sarah Bunch
Sarah Bunch is my boss, or at least the person immediately above me in the hierarchy of SFLA. We sat back to back, but now I am leaving her. I will miss her.
She wanted a shout-out. Here you go, Sarah Bunch. This post is for you.
She wanted a shout-out. Here you go, Sarah Bunch. This post is for you.
Vocations and Vacations
I want both of them. The end.
Kidding (about the "the end" part). I had the distinct privilege last Thursday of having dinner with Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life. He's one of those people someone in my line of work/interest hears a lot about, and someone my mother was extremely jealous that I got to meet. We headed out to the restaurant at little before the work day ended. I had a truly Biblical experience: I had learned from SFL speaker dinners that most often the person of importance sits towards the middle of the table, but the way the table filled in, I could sit in a way that would leave us awkwardly arranged or sit by the end of the table, sitting far from where I assumed Father Pavone would sit. I sat at the end, and to my surprise and joy, one of the other interns declared that he should sit at the "head" of the table. Hence, I ended up sitting right next to him.
The other interns asked question after rapid question, so I said little, but soaked it all up. Two thing stuck out to me. First, Father Frank told us that the Church resembles a golden coin held in a dirty hand. Beautiful. Golden -- created by God, and perfect. In a dirty hand -- safeguarded by humans.
Second, he told us pro-life work is a vocation -- a special calling from God with a particular shape and form. We are characterized by compassion, because this is the business of love, and even the "enemy" is not our enemy. The Enemy holds our ideological foes captive. We are also characterized by courage, because by His cross and resurrection, we have already won. I never thought of it that way before. Ultimately, in all of life, we cannot not triumph, because Christ's triumph has already happen. We are, Father Pavone said, working for and from victory.
The idea of pro-life as a vocation was very liberating. It justified my giving my life to the movement and also freed me to consider other vocations, something that proves hard when you have a cause to which to give your life. But if God has called me to work to end abortion, He can take care of married life, religious life, or single life as part of that. They are part of the same call, and God can and will take care of it all.
Before he left us for his next meeting, Father Pavone gave one of the interns a birthday blessing. We decided that to one-up this one, she has to spend next birthday with the Pope.
Vacations, I suppose, will have to appear in one of the next few entries...
Kidding (about the "the end" part). I had the distinct privilege last Thursday of having dinner with Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life. He's one of those people someone in my line of work/interest hears a lot about, and someone my mother was extremely jealous that I got to meet. We headed out to the restaurant at little before the work day ended. I had a truly Biblical experience: I had learned from SFL speaker dinners that most often the person of importance sits towards the middle of the table, but the way the table filled in, I could sit in a way that would leave us awkwardly arranged or sit by the end of the table, sitting far from where I assumed Father Pavone would sit. I sat at the end, and to my surprise and joy, one of the other interns declared that he should sit at the "head" of the table. Hence, I ended up sitting right next to him.
The other interns asked question after rapid question, so I said little, but soaked it all up. Two thing stuck out to me. First, Father Frank told us that the Church resembles a golden coin held in a dirty hand. Beautiful. Golden -- created by God, and perfect. In a dirty hand -- safeguarded by humans.
Second, he told us pro-life work is a vocation -- a special calling from God with a particular shape and form. We are characterized by compassion, because this is the business of love, and even the "enemy" is not our enemy. The Enemy holds our ideological foes captive. We are also characterized by courage, because by His cross and resurrection, we have already won. I never thought of it that way before. Ultimately, in all of life, we cannot not triumph, because Christ's triumph has already happen. We are, Father Pavone said, working for and from victory.
The idea of pro-life as a vocation was very liberating. It justified my giving my life to the movement and also freed me to consider other vocations, something that proves hard when you have a cause to which to give your life. But if God has called me to work to end abortion, He can take care of married life, religious life, or single life as part of that. They are part of the same call, and God can and will take care of it all.
Before he left us for his next meeting, Father Pavone gave one of the interns a birthday blessing. We decided that to one-up this one, she has to spend next birthday with the Pope.
Vacations, I suppose, will have to appear in one of the next few entries...
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
DONE With Eagle Forum
A week later, I finally will finish covering the Eagle Forum. After Mark Krikorian, Dr. Benjamin Wiker spoke on "The Darwin Myth." I went into this session very wary of what he would say -- and he surprised me by speaking of how Darwin wrote his Origin of Species to exclude God, while other scientists of the time saw evolution as demonstrative of God's hand. Dr. Wiker spent most of his time pointing out the ways in which the philosophical idea of Darwinism has taken over the scientific theory of evolution. He compared it to the way Marxism could have taken over economics.
I admired not only his presentation of the facts, but also the careful way he skirted around the divisive issue: whether or not evolution happened. From a couple remarks, I garnered that he gave credence to the theory, but he did not focus on it. Unfortunately, during the Q&A, rather than focusing on the main point of his lecture, the conflation of atheism and science, his questioners zeroed in on evolution. As we had with global warming, we ended up a number of non-scientists feeling qualified to make a definitive judgment on science.
Next, Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America, and my summer boss, spoke about pro-life issues. As enthusiast as ever and speaking faster than her words could come out, she gave the crowd a talking-to about their own apathy. She's my boss, so no critique coming here. My favorite thing that she said: "For $300 I could've never been here. And the same goes for everyone in this room." A very chilling thought.
Next, we had a variety speakers, none of which caught me quite as much as the first three. How to use the internet for networking, the specifics on Cap and Trade (based on someone's "evolving feelings on global warming"), missile defense ("it's probably the only system the Pentagon makes that doesn't kill life forms"), grassroots activism.
Robert Rector spoke on marriage as a "remedy for poverty." Long and short of it, 39% of children are born out of wedlock and most of these to uneducated, minority women. If single mothers married the fathers of their children (one per single mother!) the rate of poverty would drop by 60%. In answer to a question from yours truly, Rector added that this decrease is not simply due to dual income: men earn more when they are married with children. We need to teach young women the value of having children within marriage. Again, I learned that liberals hate marriage and so enforce policies to break it down. My problem: as a sociological phenomenon, it interests me and certainly shows how the morally upright path can be best for society (imagine that!); however, to make policy based on these facts seems similar to saying, "Marry for money." Also, if we're placing such high value on the male income, it supports homosexual marriage between two men, something Rector would not advocate.
Finally, we had another student panel. It consisted of three students, two of whom were good speakers, but all of whom spoke to a crowd that did not include me, mocking liberal policy (allowable) and the underlying values (the bit that irked me).
However, one of the students gave me the best quote from the weekend. Yes, even better that liberals are "exquisitely selfish." One of the young ladies stated, in reference to the "Vote for Jesus" posters:
"I love Jesus. He's King of the world. But He's never going to be president of the United States."
I admired not only his presentation of the facts, but also the careful way he skirted around the divisive issue: whether or not evolution happened. From a couple remarks, I garnered that he gave credence to the theory, but he did not focus on it. Unfortunately, during the Q&A, rather than focusing on the main point of his lecture, the conflation of atheism and science, his questioners zeroed in on evolution. As we had with global warming, we ended up a number of non-scientists feeling qualified to make a definitive judgment on science.
Next, Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America, and my summer boss, spoke about pro-life issues. As enthusiast as ever and speaking faster than her words could come out, she gave the crowd a talking-to about their own apathy. She's my boss, so no critique coming here. My favorite thing that she said: "For $300 I could've never been here. And the same goes for everyone in this room." A very chilling thought.
Next, we had a variety speakers, none of which caught me quite as much as the first three. How to use the internet for networking, the specifics on Cap and Trade (based on someone's "evolving feelings on global warming"), missile defense ("it's probably the only system the Pentagon makes that doesn't kill life forms"), grassroots activism.
Robert Rector spoke on marriage as a "remedy for poverty." Long and short of it, 39% of children are born out of wedlock and most of these to uneducated, minority women. If single mothers married the fathers of their children (one per single mother!) the rate of poverty would drop by 60%. In answer to a question from yours truly, Rector added that this decrease is not simply due to dual income: men earn more when they are married with children. We need to teach young women the value of having children within marriage. Again, I learned that liberals hate marriage and so enforce policies to break it down. My problem: as a sociological phenomenon, it interests me and certainly shows how the morally upright path can be best for society (imagine that!); however, to make policy based on these facts seems similar to saying, "Marry for money." Also, if we're placing such high value on the male income, it supports homosexual marriage between two men, something Rector would not advocate.
Finally, we had another student panel. It consisted of three students, two of whom were good speakers, but all of whom spoke to a crowd that did not include me, mocking liberal policy (allowable) and the underlying values (the bit that irked me).
However, one of the students gave me the best quote from the weekend. Yes, even better that liberals are "exquisitely selfish." One of the young ladies stated, in reference to the "Vote for Jesus" posters:
"I love Jesus. He's King of the world. But He's never going to be president of the United States."
Colorblind
In the same week that one of Bill's regulars admitted on The O'Reilly Factor that a race-based double standard does exist, Stephen Colbert gave a brilliant and punny summary of whiteness in our society.
Do I really need to add anything? I will just say that I get my news, in order throughout the day from: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (yesterday's), The Colbert Report (yesterday's), The Washington Post, WMZQ and WTOP, Google Alerts on select issues, the full-time staff and fellow interns, and The O'Reilly Factor. A healthy, balanced, bipolar diet.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Colbert Report: The Word - Neutral Man's Burden | ||||
| ||||
Do I really need to add anything? I will just say that I get my news, in order throughout the day from: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (yesterday's), The Colbert Report (yesterday's), The Washington Post, WMZQ and WTOP, Google Alerts on select issues, the full-time staff and fellow interns, and The O'Reilly Factor. A healthy, balanced, bipolar diet.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Transnationalism Appears Again!
We next heard from Mark Krikorian, from the Center for Immigration Policy, author of The New Case Against Immigration. Of all the speakers, he presented the most academic sounding case, although I may only believe this because he cited my favorite sociologist, Peggy Levitt, and her book that I've used in several projects, The Transnational Villagers. In general, he seemed to pull from a data bank with which I am familiar, which gave him credibility in my mind. Even though we interpreted the facts differently, we seemed more or less to agree on the facts about immigration.
Most of the attendees who had trouble with his speech disliked his first point: as far as impact on society goes, documented or undocumented status. (Well, he used the terms "legal" and "illegal," but the "illegal" comes from the manner of entry: a person cannot be illegal. Only an action can.) According to Krikorian, low-skilled immigration provides the real threat. Low-skilled immigrants come into a modern society and they are farther behind this society than their 19th and 20th century counterparts. On a federal level at least, documented immigrants "cost" the government 3x as much as undocumented, because of taxes withheld and services not available.
At this point, I felt like cheering. I was sitting with people who thought that pressing 1 on the phone for English was a hardship imposed by illegal immigration -- something I had thought was a joke made only by Stephen Colbert, funny due to hyperbole.
Next, Krikorian explained why mass immigration proves a problem. Our society can no longer absorb immigrants the way it used to. He did not make a distinction between the types of people or their attitudes in modern versus historical immigration -- also points in his favor. The first reason he gave for an immigration problem was my favorite concept in immigration: transnationalism! He transported me momentarily back to some of my favorite sociology classes as he explained how modern technology provides the opportunity for immigrants to live in two worlds. The idea behind transnationalism is that immigrants, or rather migrants, belong to both the sending and the receiving communities and are shaped and shape both. Krikorian argued that modern technology which allows transnationalism to happen changes the experience of immigration.
Next, he claimed that our society as changed towards "multiculturalism," and thus it is "unsuited" to assimilate people. We have lost our self-confidence as an American people. We no longer say the Pledge in school. We celebrate cultures, but no Americana. This means immigrants will, as far as I could tell, make our culture fall apart.
Here, I found nativism couched in the clothes of modern understandings of immigration. He sounded good, but he made the mistake of assuming that we have an ideal "American" culture, which is by default good and worthy of protection. Who can define this culture? If you can, explain to me why immigrants threaten it.
Finally, Krikorian advocated against "comprehensive immigration reform." We do not need to grant amnesty, nor do we need to increase legal routes for immigration. Instead we should ask "who should we allow into America?" what he called "zero-based budgeting." And he told us who: families (spouses and children of citizens only), a certain number of high-skill immigrants, and humanitarian refugees who have no other location to go and no chance of resettlement in their home. These groups would bring 400,000 immigrants a year to the United States.
Most of the attendees who had trouble with his speech disliked his first point: as far as impact on society goes, documented or undocumented status. (Well, he used the terms "legal" and "illegal," but the "illegal" comes from the manner of entry: a person cannot be illegal. Only an action can.) According to Krikorian, low-skilled immigration provides the real threat. Low-skilled immigrants come into a modern society and they are farther behind this society than their 19th and 20th century counterparts. On a federal level at least, documented immigrants "cost" the government 3x as much as undocumented, because of taxes withheld and services not available.
At this point, I felt like cheering. I was sitting with people who thought that pressing 1 on the phone for English was a hardship imposed by illegal immigration -- something I had thought was a joke made only by Stephen Colbert, funny due to hyperbole.
Next, Krikorian explained why mass immigration proves a problem. Our society can no longer absorb immigrants the way it used to. He did not make a distinction between the types of people or their attitudes in modern versus historical immigration -- also points in his favor. The first reason he gave for an immigration problem was my favorite concept in immigration: transnationalism! He transported me momentarily back to some of my favorite sociology classes as he explained how modern technology provides the opportunity for immigrants to live in two worlds. The idea behind transnationalism is that immigrants, or rather migrants, belong to both the sending and the receiving communities and are shaped and shape both. Krikorian argued that modern technology which allows transnationalism to happen changes the experience of immigration.
Next, he claimed that our society as changed towards "multiculturalism," and thus it is "unsuited" to assimilate people. We have lost our self-confidence as an American people. We no longer say the Pledge in school. We celebrate cultures, but no Americana. This means immigrants will, as far as I could tell, make our culture fall apart.
Here, I found nativism couched in the clothes of modern understandings of immigration. He sounded good, but he made the mistake of assuming that we have an ideal "American" culture, which is by default good and worthy of protection. Who can define this culture? If you can, explain to me why immigrants threaten it.
Finally, Krikorian advocated against "comprehensive immigration reform." We do not need to grant amnesty, nor do we need to increase legal routes for immigration. Instead we should ask "who should we allow into America?" what he called "zero-based budgeting." And he told us who: families (spouses and children of citizens only), a certain number of high-skill immigrants, and humanitarian refugees who have no other location to go and no chance of resettlement in their home. These groups would bring 400,000 immigrants a year to the United States.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Eagle Forum, Day 2
Day Two, Phyllis finally brought out the intellectuals. After a brief speaker from Clare Boothe Luce, who emphasized the bias of institutions of higher education with the confidence of a person who knows her audience supports her, we had a host of speakers who, while supporting different views and agendas than me, at least engaged us intellectually. I would have enjoyed sitting down with each of them of a conversation, which unfortunately, was not possible, because I always wanted to hear the next speaker.
First, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (Ph. D Econ.) spoke about traditional marriage. I agreed with and respected the first part of her speech, other than a slip up where she implied that the "alternative to marriage" is worse than an abusive relationship. (It was just a misphrasing. She clearly meant that there is a greater chance of being abused in cohabitation than marriage.) She explained that marriage has an "integrative function": it joins men to women and children; it joins the functions of biological, emotion, social, and legal parenthood; and it joins love, sex, and child-rearing. The man and woman come together naturally to make babies. Once there is a baby, the woman is "naturally" bonded and "the father is the problem." Essentially, marriage makes men stick around.
Okay, I'm following you thus far, Dr. Morse. She touched briefly on two "organic" functions of sexuality, the unitive and procreative aspects, and explained how contraception and IVF each separate these functions. In a bit of humor, she added that in her opinion, IVF is "a bit like skipping dessert and going straight for the brussel sprouts." I'm not sure how pro-life it is to compare children to brussel sprouts, but it got a laugh.
Next, she tackled "their" point of view. The left apparently wants to take over private lives. Marxism, in its creation myth, harkens back to primitive communism and communal marriage, and the left wants to bring us into a socialist age by bringing about the downfall of marriage.
At the center of this evil, she narrowed in on two threats: no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage. No fault divorce, Dr. Morse explained, gives the government control of our lives. It functions to separate someone from their family, and, since 75% of no fault divorces are unilateral, this separation occurs against someone's will, often the father. Furthermore, the state becomes involved in minute decisions: instead of being in the bedroom, as feminists feared, it sits "at the kitchen table."
If no fault divorce starts the alienation of men from their families, "same sex marriage completes the project of separating men from their families." She lost me here -- she never made a clear connection about how two men who adopt a child might find same-sex marriage an impediment to connecting to their family.
The next bit enraged me. She compared no fault divorce, same sex marriage, and Roe. Regardless of the relative moral and legal bases for each of these issues, only one of them authorized the murder of millions of people.
In the Q&A two interesting points came up. First, someone asked more about same sex marriage and she pointed towards her lecture series, "Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone." I, of course, thought of the commercial and my ever-beloved Colbert. She pointed out that same sex marriage changes the motivation for marriage. Women will one day be having children via IVF without needing men. People marry people of the same gender for immigration purposes. And this is only the chip of the iceberg.
As the polite, under the radar liberal that I was, I did not tell Dr. Morse that people marry people of the opposite gender for immigration purposes. Not to mention political, financial, and lustful marriages. Heterosexual marriages have their fair share of problems.
I did ask how adoption of orphans, divorce due to abuse, widowhood, etc. affect her idea of the supremacy of a biological basis for bonding. She replied that these cases are exceptions, but should not prove the rule. I should have asked why she assumed the supremacy of biology for bonding. I don't necessarily disagree -- but I don't necessarily agree and definitely do not know the rationale behind it.
First, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse (Ph. D Econ.) spoke about traditional marriage. I agreed with and respected the first part of her speech, other than a slip up where she implied that the "alternative to marriage" is worse than an abusive relationship. (It was just a misphrasing. She clearly meant that there is a greater chance of being abused in cohabitation than marriage.) She explained that marriage has an "integrative function": it joins men to women and children; it joins the functions of biological, emotion, social, and legal parenthood; and it joins love, sex, and child-rearing. The man and woman come together naturally to make babies. Once there is a baby, the woman is "naturally" bonded and "the father is the problem." Essentially, marriage makes men stick around.
Okay, I'm following you thus far, Dr. Morse. She touched briefly on two "organic" functions of sexuality, the unitive and procreative aspects, and explained how contraception and IVF each separate these functions. In a bit of humor, she added that in her opinion, IVF is "a bit like skipping dessert and going straight for the brussel sprouts." I'm not sure how pro-life it is to compare children to brussel sprouts, but it got a laugh.
Next, she tackled "their" point of view. The left apparently wants to take over private lives. Marxism, in its creation myth, harkens back to primitive communism and communal marriage, and the left wants to bring us into a socialist age by bringing about the downfall of marriage.
At the center of this evil, she narrowed in on two threats: no-fault divorce and same-sex marriage. No fault divorce, Dr. Morse explained, gives the government control of our lives. It functions to separate someone from their family, and, since 75% of no fault divorces are unilateral, this separation occurs against someone's will, often the father. Furthermore, the state becomes involved in minute decisions: instead of being in the bedroom, as feminists feared, it sits "at the kitchen table."
If no fault divorce starts the alienation of men from their families, "same sex marriage completes the project of separating men from their families." She lost me here -- she never made a clear connection about how two men who adopt a child might find same-sex marriage an impediment to connecting to their family.
The next bit enraged me. She compared no fault divorce, same sex marriage, and Roe. Regardless of the relative moral and legal bases for each of these issues, only one of them authorized the murder of millions of people.
In the Q&A two interesting points came up. First, someone asked more about same sex marriage and she pointed towards her lecture series, "Same Sex Marriage Affects Everyone." I, of course, thought of the commercial and my ever-beloved Colbert. She pointed out that same sex marriage changes the motivation for marriage. Women will one day be having children via IVF without needing men. People marry people of the same gender for immigration purposes. And this is only the chip of the iceberg.
As the polite, under the radar liberal that I was, I did not tell Dr. Morse that people marry people of the opposite gender for immigration purposes. Not to mention political, financial, and lustful marriages. Heterosexual marriages have their fair share of problems.
I did ask how adoption of orphans, divorce due to abuse, widowhood, etc. affect her idea of the supremacy of a biological basis for bonding. She replied that these cases are exceptions, but should not prove the rule. I should have asked why she assumed the supremacy of biology for bonding. I don't necessarily disagree -- but I don't necessarily agree and definitely do not know the rationale behind it.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Leftist Agenda of Our Schools
During Day 1 of the Eagle Forum, we watched a screening of Indoctrinate U, a short film about the leftist agenda of our public institutions of higher education. It covered the bias found in the classroom regardless of subject, although Women's Studies and Sociology departments were among the worst offenders. Next, a group of men searched various campuses for a "men's studies" department and examined the ways in which Title IX hurts men. Finally, students spoke out about the banning of the American flag at schools.
The creators of the video used mostly anecdotal and subjective "evidence" to back up these claims. It resonated with people who had had experiences similar to those documented in the film, but not with me. As a good sociologist, I recognize it as the beginning of a case study on some universities, but deny the generalizability of the results.
I wish it had done a better job covering the effect of Title IX on male athletics, and non-mainstream athletics in general. They did not mention the word "football" at all, which factors into the funding of athletics under Title IX.
I also wanted to hear more about the claims that schools do not allow the US flag to be displayed. The film focused on post-9/11, which gets a nice visceral reaction from people, but the whole idea that at any point in time, students at a public school are told that they cannot display the flag of their country, there is something terribly twisted. Conservatives do not get the monopoly on patriotism.
The creators of the video used mostly anecdotal and subjective "evidence" to back up these claims. It resonated with people who had had experiences similar to those documented in the film, but not with me. As a good sociologist, I recognize it as the beginning of a case study on some universities, but deny the generalizability of the results.
I wish it had done a better job covering the effect of Title IX on male athletics, and non-mainstream athletics in general. They did not mention the word "football" at all, which factors into the funding of athletics under Title IX.
I also wanted to hear more about the claims that schools do not allow the US flag to be displayed. The film focused on post-9/11, which gets a nice visceral reaction from people, but the whole idea that at any point in time, students at a public school are told that they cannot display the flag of their country, there is something terribly twisted. Conservatives do not get the monopoly on patriotism.
Eagle Forum
This past Thursday and Friday, I learned that liberals 1) are destroying America; 2) hate marriage -- except between 2 men; and 3) are "exquisitely selfish." I also learned that "I'm not a scientist, but..." qualifies anyone with a microphone and a business suit to offer their opinion on global warming.
After the Conservative love-fest of Wednesday, when my boss set up a meeting with smorgasbord of organizations and Congresspeople, I had pretty much figured out that I'm not a Republican. But I had more lessons to learn on the front: the next two days, I attended the Eagle Forum annual collegian conference. It meant another bout of Congresspeople and conservative leaders, and this time instead of smiling and shaking hands with them as they walked in, I had to listen politely as they spoke.
Phyllis Schlafly ran the whole thing, since Eagle Forum is her brainchild. Among many contributions to the "conservative movement," she gave the impression of having single-handedly killed the Equal Rights Amendment. While I am leery of the implications of the ERA for abortion and enjoy the privilege of being undraftable, I do not understand why she considers it as evil as Democrats. Much as I disagreed with her political philosophy and her scorn for political, scientific, and philosophical facts to which I subscribe, I admired her energy, vivacity, and dedication to her beliefs. I hope to be that intense when I am her age.
Day One, she brought in mostly politicians: Michele Bachmann from Minnesota, Steve King from Iowa, Jason Chaffetz from Utah, Jim DeMint from South Carolina, and Tom Price from Georgia before my migraine sent me home. I enjoyed the personal stories and anecdotes from most of the politicians, but the alarmist rhetoric overshone the reasonable points they made about the shortcomings of the current administration. I am perfectly willing to believe that Cap and Trade will have a negative effect on our economy if you give me details as to why; I'm less willing to believe it if you tell me that if CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to heat, we will have more rain equally distributed across the planet to allow desert regions to bloom.
Tom Price impressed me the most and I don't think it's simply because I had a migraine and didn't listen as closely as I would have liked. Not only did he offer hard numbers to back up his anecdotes about the negative impact of government health care, but he offered an alternative. I need to learn more about both the current plan and his proposed patient-owned, tax incentive-based system before I judge if it is a good alternative, but at least he had a suggestion.
We also discussed the liberal agenda of higher education and the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, but those shall be separate topics for separate posts.
After the Conservative love-fest of Wednesday, when my boss set up a meeting with smorgasbord of organizations and Congresspeople, I had pretty much figured out that I'm not a Republican. But I had more lessons to learn on the front: the next two days, I attended the Eagle Forum annual collegian conference. It meant another bout of Congresspeople and conservative leaders, and this time instead of smiling and shaking hands with them as they walked in, I had to listen politely as they spoke.
Phyllis Schlafly ran the whole thing, since Eagle Forum is her brainchild. Among many contributions to the "conservative movement," she gave the impression of having single-handedly killed the Equal Rights Amendment. While I am leery of the implications of the ERA for abortion and enjoy the privilege of being undraftable, I do not understand why she considers it as evil as Democrats. Much as I disagreed with her political philosophy and her scorn for political, scientific, and philosophical facts to which I subscribe, I admired her energy, vivacity, and dedication to her beliefs. I hope to be that intense when I am her age.
Day One, she brought in mostly politicians: Michele Bachmann from Minnesota, Steve King from Iowa, Jason Chaffetz from Utah, Jim DeMint from South Carolina, and Tom Price from Georgia before my migraine sent me home. I enjoyed the personal stories and anecdotes from most of the politicians, but the alarmist rhetoric overshone the reasonable points they made about the shortcomings of the current administration. I am perfectly willing to believe that Cap and Trade will have a negative effect on our economy if you give me details as to why; I'm less willing to believe it if you tell me that if CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to heat, we will have more rain equally distributed across the planet to allow desert regions to bloom.
Tom Price impressed me the most and I don't think it's simply because I had a migraine and didn't listen as closely as I would have liked. Not only did he offer hard numbers to back up his anecdotes about the negative impact of government health care, but he offered an alternative. I need to learn more about both the current plan and his proposed patient-owned, tax incentive-based system before I judge if it is a good alternative, but at least he had a suggestion.
We also discussed the liberal agenda of higher education and the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, but those shall be separate topics for separate posts.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Chivalry Isn't Dead
Less than three hours after I scribbled the lines for my last post into a notebook on the bus, the world decided to prove to me that just as sexism is not dead, neither is chivalry.
It start Wednesday when one of my fellow interns (who makes me look chubby) walked a block and a half to get a case of bottled water for our meeting. On her way back to the building we were in, a man on the street offered to carry it for her and proceeded to do so.
Then, yesterday we attended a conference in DC. I left early, floored by an impressive migraine. Upon reaching the elevator at the same time, Congressman Price ushered me in first despite his obvious hurry and two (male) interns held doors open as we left. On the Metro, a man offered me the empty seat ahead of him.
These are mostly $15 stories, not worthy of blogging, but after yesterday's post, I figured I should mention them.
It start Wednesday when one of my fellow interns (who makes me look chubby) walked a block and a half to get a case of bottled water for our meeting. On her way back to the building we were in, a man on the street offered to carry it for her and proceeded to do so.
Then, yesterday we attended a conference in DC. I left early, floored by an impressive migraine. Upon reaching the elevator at the same time, Congressman Price ushered me in first despite his obvious hurry and two (male) interns held doors open as we left. On the Metro, a man offered me the empty seat ahead of him.
These are mostly $15 stories, not worthy of blogging, but after yesterday's post, I figured I should mention them.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Warning: Satire
Lake Ridge is a strange place. It sprang up as a suburb of Washington, DC at a time when suburbs were springing up and successful yuppies saw the hills and trees and single through-street as a blessing compared to the metaphorical constipation of the nation's capital (or Capitol, as the case may be). In the time since its birth, Lake Ridge has grown by leaps and bounds, removing its hills and trees and stubbornly reaffirming the beauty of its bumper to bumper single through-street.
Another startling phenomenon of the community finds its roots in Lake Ridge's roots: coming of age in an age where a "car in every backyard" meant one to stay at home in the backyard while the master and the mistress took to the roads for their separate and lengthy commutes, Lake Ridge was built for cars. As the world goes green, Lake Ridge recycles and buys organic food and insists that walking is for exercise and "Mexicans" (mostly from El Salvador). Public transit? The community kindly looks the other way as business men and military personnel board the commuter bus, ignores the local bus that spread from Woodbridge, and wonders when MetroRail will extend to Potomac Mills.
Because the only way to get anywhere in Lake Ridge (especially if one happens to be white) is a car, motorists do not know how to react when they see a pedestrian, even if she is headed towards, or waiting at, a bus stop. Struck by this unusual sight, drivers lose control of their hands, flailing them about until they make contact with the horn. The sound brings them to their senses again as they pass the pedestrian, and they carry safely on their way.
At least, this is the only reason I can discern as to why a young woman in a business dress would have such an experience. After all, we live in a post-feminist world where men view women as equals and do not objectify them. By some evaluations, sexism has gone the way of racism and the Kennedy half dollar, views that are only exacerbated by a few back-sassing women who refuse to see any changes in the female situation since we won the vote in 1920. The reality is, we've grown in leaps and bounds -- but as long as women still get honked at multiple times in the 30 seconds they stand at a bus stop near the single through-street of a D.C. suburb, we still have some distance to go.
It's a good thing I know some really quality men, or I might lose hope for this world.
Another startling phenomenon of the community finds its roots in Lake Ridge's roots: coming of age in an age where a "car in every backyard" meant one to stay at home in the backyard while the master and the mistress took to the roads for their separate and lengthy commutes, Lake Ridge was built for cars. As the world goes green, Lake Ridge recycles and buys organic food and insists that walking is for exercise and "Mexicans" (mostly from El Salvador). Public transit? The community kindly looks the other way as business men and military personnel board the commuter bus, ignores the local bus that spread from Woodbridge, and wonders when MetroRail will extend to Potomac Mills.
Because the only way to get anywhere in Lake Ridge (especially if one happens to be white) is a car, motorists do not know how to react when they see a pedestrian, even if she is headed towards, or waiting at, a bus stop. Struck by this unusual sight, drivers lose control of their hands, flailing them about until they make contact with the horn. The sound brings them to their senses again as they pass the pedestrian, and they carry safely on their way.
At least, this is the only reason I can discern as to why a young woman in a business dress would have such an experience. After all, we live in a post-feminist world where men view women as equals and do not objectify them. By some evaluations, sexism has gone the way of racism and the Kennedy half dollar, views that are only exacerbated by a few back-sassing women who refuse to see any changes in the female situation since we won the vote in 1920. The reality is, we've grown in leaps and bounds -- but as long as women still get honked at multiple times in the 30 seconds they stand at a bus stop near the single through-street of a D.C. suburb, we still have some distance to go.
It's a good thing I know some really quality men, or I might lose hope for this world.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Yah, Papa Benny!
I haven't had time to look at the story in depth, but Pope Benedict released an encyclical that criticizes capitalism. He also offers a new vision of the purpose and make-up of the economy. From what I have read, Benedict XVI gives a very idealistic and beautiful picture of what the world could be. It resonates well with my own idealistic heart, and I hope to find out more specifics about it/read it in the relatively near future.
I don't mean "idealistic" as a criticism either. Catholicism is inherently idealistic. What else could we do with a religion that tells its adherents to "be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect"?
I don't mean "idealistic" as a criticism either. Catholicism is inherently idealistic. What else could we do with a religion that tells its adherents to "be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect"?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
God Bless America
On the Fourth of July, I wore blue jeans and a white tank top and got my cheeks sunburned red, and that is about the beginning and the end of my patriotism. I realized this as I walked through Harris Teeter on Friday and saw the paraphernalia on sale for the holiday. I realized it when I saw one of my fellow interns in red, white, and blue, a very nice 4th of July outfit. I realized it when I stood with my family in a Kmart parking lot watching fireworks.
I appreciate the 4th of July because 1) holidays that get people out of work are fun; 2) I like the excuse to see family and/or friends; and 3) fireworks make my day. As I delve into feminist and abortion history, I appreciate our country and what we have here. But I have a severe lack of patriotism.
At Mass this morning, we sang as the recessional "America the Beautiful." The choice disappointed me until we reached the end of the second verse:
America, America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw
Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law!
The next verse ends with a similar request:
America, America! May God thy gold refine
'Til all success be nobleness and ev'ry gain divine!
Contrast this with something we here a lot around the 4th of July -- "God Bless the USA," for instance:
I'm proud to be an American!
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died,
Who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up next to you,
And defend her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land --
God bless the USA!
Both invoke the same God to bless the same country. One, however, begs God to make this country everything it can be. It recognized its roots (O beautiful, for heroes proved, in liberating strife. Who more than self, their country loved, and mercy more than life) and asks the Lord to make it better. The other praises the nation and presents its virtues as reason for God to bless it. If we can't make this argument as persons, how can we expect to make it as a nation?
I appreciate the 4th of July because 1) holidays that get people out of work are fun; 2) I like the excuse to see family and/or friends; and 3) fireworks make my day. As I delve into feminist and abortion history, I appreciate our country and what we have here. But I have a severe lack of patriotism.
At Mass this morning, we sang as the recessional "America the Beautiful." The choice disappointed me until we reached the end of the second verse:
America, America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw
Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law!
The next verse ends with a similar request:
America, America! May God thy gold refine
'Til all success be nobleness and ev'ry gain divine!
Contrast this with something we here a lot around the 4th of July -- "God Bless the USA," for instance:
I'm proud to be an American!
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died,
Who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up next to you,
And defend her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land --
God bless the USA!
Both invoke the same God to bless the same country. One, however, begs God to make this country everything it can be. It recognized its roots (O beautiful, for heroes proved, in liberating strife. Who more than self, their country loved, and mercy more than life) and asks the Lord to make it better. The other praises the nation and presents its virtues as reason for God to bless it. If we can't make this argument as persons, how can we expect to make it as a nation?
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Ok, God, You Win
I boasted too soon and too often about escaping the problem economy with my year of service. Ever since 6th grade when I realized I could have a career besides writer or teacher, I expected not to end up in a school. And as I kept growing, I agreed with a priest who once suggested putting all 12 year old children into glass jars until they were old enough to think again.
Only months after I agreed with the priest, I became a counselor at a Girl Scout camp. Working with middle schoolers. Surprise! I hoped for mostly high school students. Ditto for the summer with YouthWorks -- I didn't realize until after I applied that middle schoolers were a possibility. And then, we had mostly middle schoolers.
I now have a placement for next year: a Catholic K-8 school, working with grades 6-8. Okay, God, you win. Most students come from at or below the poverty line, few are Catholic, and only 230 are enrolled. The school aims to break the cycle of poverty by placing these students on college-bound tracks. I will help with writing skills.
The idea of working with writing and helping people write excites me. Also, one of the other VSC women will work there with me, which should make the adventure more fun. It's just another case of God throwing the unexpected at me.
Only months after I agreed with the priest, I became a counselor at a Girl Scout camp. Working with middle schoolers. Surprise! I hoped for mostly high school students. Ditto for the summer with YouthWorks -- I didn't realize until after I applied that middle schoolers were a possibility. And then, we had mostly middle schoolers.
I now have a placement for next year: a Catholic K-8 school, working with grades 6-8. Okay, God, you win. Most students come from at or below the poverty line, few are Catholic, and only 230 are enrolled. The school aims to break the cycle of poverty by placing these students on college-bound tracks. I will help with writing skills.
The idea of working with writing and helping people write excites me. Also, one of the other VSC women will work there with me, which should make the adventure more fun. It's just another case of God throwing the unexpected at me.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Commuting Strategy, Take 2
Working just outside the confines of the normal 9-5 hours means that 1) I miss the commuter bus to Arlington and 2) I miss rush hour (kind of). Therefore, I eschew public transit in favor of the temporally and economically wise drive of my own. While I enjoy the flexibility in the margin of error (one minute late means one minute late, not half an hour), I miss the time on the bus and train to read and pray and let my mind wander. You have to pay attention when you drive!
I get an odd feeling every time I exit the highway on the way home. I can take the HOVs partway there and back, since you don't have to be a HOV outside of the delineated rush hour hours. Thus, I enter the highway in the morning and exit in the evening in the exact same lane. Traveling 65 miles per hour in opposite directions.
I get an odd feeling every time I exit the highway on the way home. I can take the HOVs partway there and back, since you don't have to be a HOV outside of the delineated rush hour hours. Thus, I enter the highway in the morning and exit in the evening in the exact same lane. Traveling 65 miles per hour in opposite directions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)