Statists and the Women Who Love Them
Actually, according to the scoring table, "Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on."
Especially married to me. ;-)
Come on now, "Government is eeeevvvvviillllll."
Friday, March 12, 2004
Ideological Purity and Clean Dishes
In the interest of maintaining order at the in-law's house while the parents-in-law are out of town for the weekend, we have taken next-to-youngest brother-in-law in for a few days. (They're all good kids, but four unsupervised boys between 11 and 17 are a dangerous combination no matter what their behavior.) He is doing all my housework for me so I can write thank you notes. I can't wait to have teenagers.
I also took a test of the purity of one's libertarian leanings, which is the best libertarian test I've seen so far. I came out with 75 points, which makes me a medium-core libertarian. I will get DOB to take it and see how he scores--he probably scores a bit lower, but higher than he would have a few years ago, while my score has probably come down. You see how we are corrupting each other. I even paused before answering the question "Is government inherently evil?" as "Yes." (I did mark it as a necessary evil.) I need to go read Justice Without the State and reinvigorate myself. Everyone repeat after me: "Government is eeeevvviiiillll."
In the interest of maintaining order at the in-law's house while the parents-in-law are out of town for the weekend, we have taken next-to-youngest brother-in-law in for a few days. (They're all good kids, but four unsupervised boys between 11 and 17 are a dangerous combination no matter what their behavior.) He is doing all my housework for me so I can write thank you notes. I can't wait to have teenagers.
I also took a test of the purity of one's libertarian leanings, which is the best libertarian test I've seen so far. I came out with 75 points, which makes me a medium-core libertarian. I will get DOB to take it and see how he scores--he probably scores a bit lower, but higher than he would have a few years ago, while my score has probably come down. You see how we are corrupting each other. I even paused before answering the question "Is government inherently evil?" as "Yes." (I did mark it as a necessary evil.) I need to go read Justice Without the State and reinvigorate myself. Everyone repeat after me: "Government is eeeevvviiiillll."
Thursday, March 11, 2004
New Posting
Wherein I, the affectionately-named "DOB," try to post something on this blog. I don't really have anything profound to say, it just seemed like a cool thing to try for once. The things currently pressing on my mind, as a result of this evening's leisure reading, would require too much explanation: particularly the Wall Street Journal article defending Novak in the matter of the CIA agent expose. Or the fact that the new Porsche GT3 can beat out a Ferrari that's twice the price. One day, hopefully, I'll have money for a Porsche like that... heh, and then I'll spend it on something worthwhile, like down-payment on a farm.
Okay, that's a lot of nothing. I'll go back to reading the more interesting posts on this blog ~
Wherein I, the affectionately-named "DOB," try to post something on this blog. I don't really have anything profound to say, it just seemed like a cool thing to try for once. The things currently pressing on my mind, as a result of this evening's leisure reading, would require too much explanation: particularly the Wall Street Journal article defending Novak in the matter of the CIA agent expose. Or the fact that the new Porsche GT3 can beat out a Ferrari that's twice the price. One day, hopefully, I'll have money for a Porsche like that... heh, and then I'll spend it on something worthwhile, like down-payment on a farm.
Okay, that's a lot of nothing. I'll go back to reading the more interesting posts on this blog ~
Andree Seu offers a good point: the push for bigamy is perfectly logical next since the needs of a bisexual aren't met by being married to one person of either gender. The only thing to stand in its way would be the reality that gay marriage alone will probably be enough to reduce marriage to irrelevance.
On a lighter note, another Chesterton quote I had to post:
"The woman has a fixed and very well founded idea that if she does not insist on good manners nobody else will. Babies are not always strong on the point of dignity, and grown-up men are quite unpresentable."
Yup. This means you, DOB. ;-)
On a lighter note, another Chesterton quote I had to post:
"The woman has a fixed and very well founded idea that if she does not insist on good manners nobody else will. Babies are not always strong on the point of dignity, and grown-up men are quite unpresentable."
Yup. This means you, DOB. ;-)
Tales Out of School
Options for Eating
Yesterday's copy of the local paper (the kind that reports on the table decor at the ladies' club luncheon) contained a story on the district's school breakfast program. They are quite pleased with the response, finding that not only are many students participating at free or reduced cost, but many are paying full price--in other words, their parents certainly could afford to feed them breakfast, they just don't want to bother. Full price is a dollar, which seems cheap compared to breakfast at a restaurant, but would be pretty extravagant for breakfast at home.
And such healthy food as they are getting, carefully designed to meet state nutrition standards: an enriched doughnut, cold cereal such as Trix, or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on graham crackers.
My mom wouldn't have let me eat that much sugar for dessert, let alone breakfast.
Options for Thinking
Secularists are gasping with horror at the new lesson plan being offered by the Ohio School Board. Not that it mentions God or creation or anything. It's not even mandated. But teachers would have the option of including a lesson that would allow for critical thinking about evolution.
Can this be constitutional? Surely the Constitution mandates that evolution be taught as unquestionable fact. Considering that Charles Darwin wasn't born when the Constitution was written, I kind of doubt it.
The insidious things students will be taught through this lesson:
* Understanding the nature of theories
* Applying the scientific method
* Distinguishing between microevolution (change within species) and macroevolution (change between species)
* Arguing whether different evidence supports macroevolution or not.
Now, what is so scary about this? Is the theory of evolution so weak that it can't handle a classroom of 16-year-olds thinking critically about it?
The secularists will compare teaching--or even hinting--about intelligent design to giving students the option of considering the flat earth theory. But come to think of it, debating the curvature of the earth, examining the evidence for and against it and allowing students to argue both sides, would be an excellent intellectual exercise. And I'm pretty sure students would come to the conclusion that the earth was, in fact, round.
So what are they so afraid of here?
Options for Eating
Yesterday's copy of the local paper (the kind that reports on the table decor at the ladies' club luncheon) contained a story on the district's school breakfast program. They are quite pleased with the response, finding that not only are many students participating at free or reduced cost, but many are paying full price--in other words, their parents certainly could afford to feed them breakfast, they just don't want to bother. Full price is a dollar, which seems cheap compared to breakfast at a restaurant, but would be pretty extravagant for breakfast at home.
And such healthy food as they are getting, carefully designed to meet state nutrition standards: an enriched doughnut, cold cereal such as Trix, or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on graham crackers.
My mom wouldn't have let me eat that much sugar for dessert, let alone breakfast.
Options for Thinking
Secularists are gasping with horror at the new lesson plan being offered by the Ohio School Board. Not that it mentions God or creation or anything. It's not even mandated. But teachers would have the option of including a lesson that would allow for critical thinking about evolution.
Can this be constitutional? Surely the Constitution mandates that evolution be taught as unquestionable fact. Considering that Charles Darwin wasn't born when the Constitution was written, I kind of doubt it.
The insidious things students will be taught through this lesson:
* Understanding the nature of theories
* Applying the scientific method
* Distinguishing between microevolution (change within species) and macroevolution (change between species)
* Arguing whether different evidence supports macroevolution or not.
Now, what is so scary about this? Is the theory of evolution so weak that it can't handle a classroom of 16-year-olds thinking critically about it?
The secularists will compare teaching--or even hinting--about intelligent design to giving students the option of considering the flat earth theory. But come to think of it, debating the curvature of the earth, examining the evidence for and against it and allowing students to argue both sides, would be an excellent intellectual exercise. And I'm pretty sure students would come to the conclusion that the earth was, in fact, round.
So what are they so afraid of here?
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Churchill
I just finished the first book of Churchill's history of World War II, which culminates with his rise to Prime Minister as Holland and Belgium are invaded by Germany. You have to love his well-deserved self-confidence, with only a hint of irritation at the stupidity of the rest of the world for not confiding in him more:
"Thus, by the afternoon, I became aware that I might well be called upon to take the lead. The prospect neither excited nor alarmed me. I thought it would be by far the best plan."
"Thus, then, on the night of the tenth of May, at the outset of this mighty battle, I acquired the chief power in the State, which henceforth I wielded in ever-growing measure for five years and three months of world war, at the end of which time, all our enemies having surrendered unconditionally or being about to do so, I was immediately dismissed by the British electorate from all further conduct of their affairs. . . . I cannot conceal from the reader of this truthful account that as I went to bed at about 3 a.m. I was conscious of a profound sense of relief. At last I had the authority to give directions over the whole scene. . . . My warnings over the last six years had been so numerous, so detailed, and were now so terribly vindicated, that no one could gainsay me. I could not be reproached either for making the war or with want of preparation for it. I thought I knew a good deal about it all, and I was sure I should not fail. Therefore, although impatient for the morning, I slept soundly and had no need for cheering dreams. Facts are better than dreams."
There is the voice of a craftsman who knows his job well and is glad for the chance to do it. It just happens that his job is saving civilization.
I just finished the first book of Churchill's history of World War II, which culminates with his rise to Prime Minister as Holland and Belgium are invaded by Germany. You have to love his well-deserved self-confidence, with only a hint of irritation at the stupidity of the rest of the world for not confiding in him more:
"Thus, by the afternoon, I became aware that I might well be called upon to take the lead. The prospect neither excited nor alarmed me. I thought it would be by far the best plan."
"Thus, then, on the night of the tenth of May, at the outset of this mighty battle, I acquired the chief power in the State, which henceforth I wielded in ever-growing measure for five years and three months of world war, at the end of which time, all our enemies having surrendered unconditionally or being about to do so, I was immediately dismissed by the British electorate from all further conduct of their affairs. . . . I cannot conceal from the reader of this truthful account that as I went to bed at about 3 a.m. I was conscious of a profound sense of relief. At last I had the authority to give directions over the whole scene. . . . My warnings over the last six years had been so numerous, so detailed, and were now so terribly vindicated, that no one could gainsay me. I could not be reproached either for making the war or with want of preparation for it. I thought I knew a good deal about it all, and I was sure I should not fail. Therefore, although impatient for the morning, I slept soundly and had no need for cheering dreams. Facts are better than dreams."
There is the voice of a craftsman who knows his job well and is glad for the chance to do it. It just happens that his job is saving civilization.
Dying Brain Cells
While surfing around this morning I found the blog of a former fellow-student at journalism courses in summer '02. A year and a half ago I at least thought I could hold my own in intellectual debate with him, and now he writes about profound philosophical issues while I write about thank-you notes.
I had heard motherhood killed brain cells--I didn't realize it started so soon. You lose your body, you lose your mind, you lose your ability to make plans more than five minutes out. I used to think it odd that such a serious undertaking as bringing another human being into the world was not predicated by a solemn and unpleasant activity that would prove one's commitment to the task. On second thought, if it was, I'm not sure the world population would ever have reached the replacement rate.
Enough depressing thoughts. The problem is not a loss of brainpower, but a necessary diffusion of it. If I cannot be the student of philosophy I was two years ago, it is because I must also keep a house operating, cook healthy food for three very hungry people, run an office, train for a major athletic event, prepare to introduce a new person to the world, and still have the energy to make it all look like fun. It is more important, after all, to live great ideas than just to think them.
Time for another Chesterton quote:
"If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colourless and of small import to the soul, then, as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labours and holidays; to be Whitley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness."
There, I feel better now. Back to the dishes.
While surfing around this morning I found the blog of a former fellow-student at journalism courses in summer '02. A year and a half ago I at least thought I could hold my own in intellectual debate with him, and now he writes about profound philosophical issues while I write about thank-you notes.
I had heard motherhood killed brain cells--I didn't realize it started so soon. You lose your body, you lose your mind, you lose your ability to make plans more than five minutes out. I used to think it odd that such a serious undertaking as bringing another human being into the world was not predicated by a solemn and unpleasant activity that would prove one's commitment to the task. On second thought, if it was, I'm not sure the world population would ever have reached the replacement rate.
Enough depressing thoughts. The problem is not a loss of brainpower, but a necessary diffusion of it. If I cannot be the student of philosophy I was two years ago, it is because I must also keep a house operating, cook healthy food for three very hungry people, run an office, train for a major athletic event, prepare to introduce a new person to the world, and still have the energy to make it all look like fun. It is more important, after all, to live great ideas than just to think them.
Time for another Chesterton quote:
"If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colourless and of small import to the soul, then, as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean. To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labours and holidays; to be Whitley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets, cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness."
There, I feel better now. Back to the dishes.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Gasp
I was so proud of myself for finally sitting down and writing thank you notes--and only six months out, too! But I got stumped on how to write a thank you note for the sixth set of non-matching bath towels ("We'll think of you every time we use them" didn't seem quite appropriate) and started surfing wedding etiquette sites. I found one that says that wedding thank you's should be written two weeks after returning from the honeymoon.
Ha! Our gifts hadn't even arrived two weeks later. Maybe we can get an extension for having a one-day honeymoon? And another one for moving cross-country into an apartment without room for us to even see all our stuff? And another one for being pregnant? And for moving again? Please?
I was so proud of myself for finally sitting down and writing thank you notes--and only six months out, too! But I got stumped on how to write a thank you note for the sixth set of non-matching bath towels ("We'll think of you every time we use them" didn't seem quite appropriate) and started surfing wedding etiquette sites. I found one that says that wedding thank you's should be written two weeks after returning from the honeymoon.
Ha! Our gifts hadn't even arrived two weeks later. Maybe we can get an extension for having a one-day honeymoon? And another one for moving cross-country into an apartment without room for us to even see all our stuff? And another one for being pregnant? And for moving again? Please?
Tacoma Resident Begins Issuing Inter-Appliance Marriage Licenses
Tacoma resident Marcia Pritchards announced Monday that she was issuing a marriage license to her cat and her toaster, who plan to be married this Saturday.
Pritchards said she was inspired by the example of mayors around the nation issuing licenses to same-sex couples. "Then my cat and my toaster came to me, and I realized--they have a truly loving and caring relationship. How can we deny them this basic right?"
Although some have questioned her legal authority to grant such licenses, Pritchards remains adamant. "I think the laws are open to interpretation. What I go with is the Constitution, which guarantees equality. We can't deny my cat the right to marry the one he loves."
Pritchards said she would issue licenses to any other couple who requested them. "I think something's developing between my neighbor's lawnmower and the oak tree on the corner," she commented. "If they came to me I'd be delighted to marry them."
Tacoma resident Marcia Pritchards announced Monday that she was issuing a marriage license to her cat and her toaster, who plan to be married this Saturday.
Pritchards said she was inspired by the example of mayors around the nation issuing licenses to same-sex couples. "Then my cat and my toaster came to me, and I realized--they have a truly loving and caring relationship. How can we deny them this basic right?"
Although some have questioned her legal authority to grant such licenses, Pritchards remains adamant. "I think the laws are open to interpretation. What I go with is the Constitution, which guarantees equality. We can't deny my cat the right to marry the one he loves."
Pritchards said she would issue licenses to any other couple who requested them. "I think something's developing between my neighbor's lawnmower and the oak tree on the corner," she commented. "If they came to me I'd be delighted to marry them."
Monday, March 08, 2004
Legal Challenges
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels would like to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but it turns out he lacks legal authority.
Well, come on, that hasn't stopped anyone else.
(Technical explanation: Cities don't issue marriage licenses in Washington.)
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels would like to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but it turns out he lacks legal authority.
Well, come on, that hasn't stopped anyone else.
(Technical explanation: Cities don't issue marriage licenses in Washington.)
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Both DOB and I got this result, although DOB also tried answering as his "less refined" self and came up as Alexander Hamilton. Although I don't concur with the lack of creativity, the Washington answers about handling conflict fit me to a T, especially the one that said, "I never lose my temper where people will see; it's crude. Besides, well-bred people don't lose their tempers with those stupider than themselves."
Friday, March 05, 2004
Ramble on SSM
One of the best arguments against same-sex marriage from a secular standpoint is the harm it will do to children by dissasociating marriage from parenthood. Usually those arguing for SSM argue back that "gays make good parents, too" and that not all heterosexual couples want to/have children. Both of which are missing the point: a society in which marriage is only about the feelings of two people for each other is a society in which marriage is meaningless. And that is a society that is bad for children. In a recent Weekly Standard article, Stanley Kurtz demonstrates is not merely a theoretical one: This is in fact what has happened in Scandinavia, where gay marriage has been lawful for a decade.
In Scandinavia, half or nearly half of children are born out of wedlock. A decade ago the thing to do was get married when the second child came along; now it's not even worth bothering about then. And non-marital families are as proportionally unstable there as they are everywhere else in the world. Certainly this trend was already occurring, but gay marriage has been openly used to reinforce the idea that children do not particularly need both the man and woman who made them as a permanent part of their lives.
Obviously gay marriage does not even arise as an issue until social mores have already slid to a certain point. In America, we're still one step behind where most Scandinavian countries were a decade ago--it's still considered proper to marry before having children, although of course you will live together first. (DOB and I did not realize how common this assumption was in the wider culture until he started introducing me as his fiancee and people would make comments indicating this. He finally resorted to casually mentioning my residence in another state, although I'm sure this didn't change their assumptions much. Little did they know we weren't even allowed to sleep under the same roof during visits, no matter how many inquisitive siblings that roof also sheltered.)
However, Norway was at a similar level of social mores when gay marriage was imposed by the politicians--and it thereafter rapidly overtook the other Scandinavian countries in decline of the family, as well as decline of religious influence.
Apparently, then, attempting to stop the imposition of gay marriage now is a worthwhile endeavor, at least preventing the decline of morals from accelerating. But it will only be a temporary measure unless we can also rebuild the status of marriage. Obviously this cannot be done by laws alone, or even primarily through laws, since most of it has happened independent of law.
But how do we do it? Somehow goodness isn't as contagious as badness. Sure, being married is right and benefits us and our child(ren), as did waiting to act married until we actually were. But when a friend announces he is now engaged to his live-in girlfriend, do we respond? Bragging about one's morality seems as vulgar as bragging about immorality. And if one never says anything, how does one's marriage differ from anyone else's lifestyle choices?
It is vital to upholding the proper place of marriage for people to see and know about good marriages. Living well is the greatest force for changing the world. But how do you make it apparent to people that one's marital success is not due to a fortuitous coincidence of personalities, or of an extraordinary genetic endowment of martyrdom, but because one has tapped into the power of a universal principle?
Whatever it takes to be an example of good marriage, I'm sure it takes more than a successful six months. Unfortunately, those who should be examples are not. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an article on seniors living together. If Mom and Dad are divorced and Grandma lives with her boyfriend, where do you learn? At the end, a grandmother offered her prepared answer for when her nine-year-old grandson asked why she wasn't married: "Grandmom and Grandpop love each other and love you. We're all committed to each other. We don't need that in writing to be a family."
But any nine-year-old can see through that. If you meant it, you'd be willing to cross your heart and hope to die. We all know how the promise is made--and if you won't make it, all your other words don't mean a thing.
One of the best arguments against same-sex marriage from a secular standpoint is the harm it will do to children by dissasociating marriage from parenthood. Usually those arguing for SSM argue back that "gays make good parents, too" and that not all heterosexual couples want to/have children. Both of which are missing the point: a society in which marriage is only about the feelings of two people for each other is a society in which marriage is meaningless. And that is a society that is bad for children. In a recent Weekly Standard article, Stanley Kurtz demonstrates is not merely a theoretical one: This is in fact what has happened in Scandinavia, where gay marriage has been lawful for a decade.
In Scandinavia, half or nearly half of children are born out of wedlock. A decade ago the thing to do was get married when the second child came along; now it's not even worth bothering about then. And non-marital families are as proportionally unstable there as they are everywhere else in the world. Certainly this trend was already occurring, but gay marriage has been openly used to reinforce the idea that children do not particularly need both the man and woman who made them as a permanent part of their lives.
Obviously gay marriage does not even arise as an issue until social mores have already slid to a certain point. In America, we're still one step behind where most Scandinavian countries were a decade ago--it's still considered proper to marry before having children, although of course you will live together first. (DOB and I did not realize how common this assumption was in the wider culture until he started introducing me as his fiancee and people would make comments indicating this. He finally resorted to casually mentioning my residence in another state, although I'm sure this didn't change their assumptions much. Little did they know we weren't even allowed to sleep under the same roof during visits, no matter how many inquisitive siblings that roof also sheltered.)
However, Norway was at a similar level of social mores when gay marriage was imposed by the politicians--and it thereafter rapidly overtook the other Scandinavian countries in decline of the family, as well as decline of religious influence.
Apparently, then, attempting to stop the imposition of gay marriage now is a worthwhile endeavor, at least preventing the decline of morals from accelerating. But it will only be a temporary measure unless we can also rebuild the status of marriage. Obviously this cannot be done by laws alone, or even primarily through laws, since most of it has happened independent of law.
But how do we do it? Somehow goodness isn't as contagious as badness. Sure, being married is right and benefits us and our child(ren), as did waiting to act married until we actually were. But when a friend announces he is now engaged to his live-in girlfriend, do we respond? Bragging about one's morality seems as vulgar as bragging about immorality. And if one never says anything, how does one's marriage differ from anyone else's lifestyle choices?
It is vital to upholding the proper place of marriage for people to see and know about good marriages. Living well is the greatest force for changing the world. But how do you make it apparent to people that one's marital success is not due to a fortuitous coincidence of personalities, or of an extraordinary genetic endowment of martyrdom, but because one has tapped into the power of a universal principle?
Whatever it takes to be an example of good marriage, I'm sure it takes more than a successful six months. Unfortunately, those who should be examples are not. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an article on seniors living together. If Mom and Dad are divorced and Grandma lives with her boyfriend, where do you learn? At the end, a grandmother offered her prepared answer for when her nine-year-old grandson asked why she wasn't married: "Grandmom and Grandpop love each other and love you. We're all committed to each other. We don't need that in writing to be a family."
But any nine-year-old can see through that. If you meant it, you'd be willing to cross your heart and hope to die. We all know how the promise is made--and if you won't make it, all your other words don't mean a thing.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
The Cake Is Made
And it is very good. Since I only had one layer and it looked rather flat, I decided to cut it in thirds and make a three-layer cake. This worked quite well, except that it looks like I quietly ate two-thirds of a triple-decker cake this afternoon. Really, I didn't. Even pregnant I couldn't do that.
And it is very good. Since I only had one layer and it looked rather flat, I decided to cut it in thirds and make a three-layer cake. This worked quite well, except that it looks like I quietly ate two-thirds of a triple-decker cake this afternoon. Really, I didn't. Even pregnant I couldn't do that.
Essential Recipes
I had plans this week to make spice cake with penuche icing. We're not big sweets eaters, but I like to fix a dessert for the weekend.
I found a recipe for spice cake, but then discovered none of my cookbooks had the right penuche icing recipe. (For those who don't peruse the cookbooks of a bygone era, penuche icing is a kind of creamy brown-sugar icing.) There were similar recipes, but they were not the recipe.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized I had to have the right recipe. That my day would not be complete without licking the leftover penuche icing in the pan. So I called my younger sister and had her find the page in the right recipe book (no doubt marred permanently by my adolescent cooking endeavors) and give it to me. Now all is well, except that I have to wait until the cake is all baked and cooled to make the frosting.
My sister also announced that she thinks the cat is expecting again. Do pregnant cats get cravings? "I've just got to have a little mole. No, a shrew will not do."
I had plans this week to make spice cake with penuche icing. We're not big sweets eaters, but I like to fix a dessert for the weekend.
I found a recipe for spice cake, but then discovered none of my cookbooks had the right penuche icing recipe. (For those who don't peruse the cookbooks of a bygone era, penuche icing is a kind of creamy brown-sugar icing.) There were similar recipes, but they were not the recipe.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized I had to have the right recipe. That my day would not be complete without licking the leftover penuche icing in the pan. So I called my younger sister and had her find the page in the right recipe book (no doubt marred permanently by my adolescent cooking endeavors) and give it to me. Now all is well, except that I have to wait until the cake is all baked and cooled to make the frosting.
My sister also announced that she thinks the cat is expecting again. Do pregnant cats get cravings? "I've just got to have a little mole. No, a shrew will not do."
And so the breakdown of law spreads.
I don't want same-sex marriage to be the battle of our times. I don't like this issue. It's gooky. I'm not satisfied with the secular arguments that can be made, and I don't want to make the religious ones.
But I don't think it's a side issue I can ignore, either. We don't always get to choose where the battles of our times will be.
Even if right now I'm not doing much besides trying to take over the world by numbers . . .
I don't want same-sex marriage to be the battle of our times. I don't like this issue. It's gooky. I'm not satisfied with the secular arguments that can be made, and I don't want to make the religious ones.
But I don't think it's a side issue I can ignore, either. We don't always get to choose where the battles of our times will be.
Even if right now I'm not doing much besides trying to take over the world by numbers . . .
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
The Morning Newslinks
DOB: Great, now they're going to pass an anti-spam law.
QOC: That's stupid. If they wait a year or two the private sector will take care of it.
DOB: How?
QOC: I was reading about it. A bunch of the big email providers are working on stuff like requiring verification of email addresses so spammers can't get around blocks by spoofing addresses.
DOB: Well, if the private sector was about to solve it, no wonder the government had to act fast.
DOB: Great, now they're going to pass an anti-spam law.
QOC: That's stupid. If they wait a year or two the private sector will take care of it.
DOB: How?
QOC: I was reading about it. A bunch of the big email providers are working on stuff like requiring verification of email addresses so spammers can't get around blocks by spoofing addresses.
DOB: Well, if the private sector was about to solve it, no wonder the government had to act fast.
The Passion
After much careful deliberation, DOB and I overcame our natural skinflintedness (compounded by trying to simultaneously pay for a new business, new house, and new baby) and general inbred prejudices against movie theaters and determined to go see The Passion. It probably helped us in this decision that we are rather out of mainstream evangelical culture and nobody tried to talk us into going. So we could satisfy our contrarian tendencies and go to it to defy the critics and naysayers.
I was a little nervous because I'd never seen an R-rated movie before and I kept reading reviews by all these movie reviewers saying they found it overly gory--so if people who watch this stuff all the time were grossed out about it, how would I handle it? But the conclusion I have come to is that the people who complain about the violence are those who don't get why. Yes, you sit there and wonder, "Why don't they stop doing this to him?" but if you are expecting to be reminded of the magnitude of Christ's suffering, you get what you are looking for. It is too much violence to be entertaining (unless you are a Roman soldier) but not too much to be devotional.
Some reviewers have complained that Pilate was portrayed too sympathetically, in contrast with the portrayal of the Sanhedrin. But Pilate's portrayal was one of the most powerful and convicting parts of the film. You feel convinced that you have met Pilate somewhere, at a conference or something. And gradually it dawns on you--Pilate is us. Pilate is a modern American. Most of us don't think of ourselves as the sole representatives of the One True God, nor are we debauched hereditary monarchs or trained sadistic brutes. We would have little identification with the Sanhedrin or Herod or the foot soldiers however they were portrayed. But Pilate is a businessman. A businessman with a crummy assignment in middle management and a pointy-wreathed boss breathing down his neck. In person, he wouldn't hurt a fly. But when faced with the choice between saving his skin and condemning a man whom he knows to be innocent and suspects to be divine, he chooses the expedient option. He feels bad about it, but what can he do? Who really knows the truth, anyway?
And as you watch him, you know that you could do the same.
After much careful deliberation, DOB and I overcame our natural skinflintedness (compounded by trying to simultaneously pay for a new business, new house, and new baby) and general inbred prejudices against movie theaters and determined to go see The Passion. It probably helped us in this decision that we are rather out of mainstream evangelical culture and nobody tried to talk us into going. So we could satisfy our contrarian tendencies and go to it to defy the critics and naysayers.
I was a little nervous because I'd never seen an R-rated movie before and I kept reading reviews by all these movie reviewers saying they found it overly gory--so if people who watch this stuff all the time were grossed out about it, how would I handle it? But the conclusion I have come to is that the people who complain about the violence are those who don't get why. Yes, you sit there and wonder, "Why don't they stop doing this to him?" but if you are expecting to be reminded of the magnitude of Christ's suffering, you get what you are looking for. It is too much violence to be entertaining (unless you are a Roman soldier) but not too much to be devotional.
Some reviewers have complained that Pilate was portrayed too sympathetically, in contrast with the portrayal of the Sanhedrin. But Pilate's portrayal was one of the most powerful and convicting parts of the film. You feel convinced that you have met Pilate somewhere, at a conference or something. And gradually it dawns on you--Pilate is us. Pilate is a modern American. Most of us don't think of ourselves as the sole representatives of the One True God, nor are we debauched hereditary monarchs or trained sadistic brutes. We would have little identification with the Sanhedrin or Herod or the foot soldiers however they were portrayed. But Pilate is a businessman. A businessman with a crummy assignment in middle management and a pointy-wreathed boss breathing down his neck. In person, he wouldn't hurt a fly. But when faced with the choice between saving his skin and condemning a man whom he knows to be innocent and suspects to be divine, he chooses the expedient option. He feels bad about it, but what can he do? Who really knows the truth, anyway?
And as you watch him, you know that you could do the same.
Monday, March 01, 2004
We have a playpen in our living room. Somebody at church gave it to us and I'm leaving it out partly because I mean to take it out and wash it down the next dry day and partly because I'm trying to adjust to the mental shock. It seems like it should belong to a visitor who will take it away. Or that it should be in someone else's house. The thought of us with a real, live, squirmy baby is still beyond comprehension.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)