Of all the things that surprised me, I think the fact that the article is from the Seattle Times may be on top of the list. Though my memory of the incident is referred, I am -told- that when someone once asked about newspapers in the Seattle area, I responded, "Well, there's the conservative paper ... and the Hearst paper." If the Times is reporting things such as this, I think I'm gratified; it means that the present administration has gone farther than even I had thought in pissing off a significant segment of the people.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden writes:
"Psst! Loren! It wasn't an 'encyclical.'"
Er ... um ... yeah, I mean, no, it wasn't ... but I couldn't think (and cannot think) of the proper name for the ... brief? I thought it reasonable to call it an "encyclical" because it appeared to be the closest word at hand to the elusive word I was seeking. I was using (sort of) the second definition below, and the following quote from an "It's Catholic!" page (at which point Loren cheats and introduces "the dictionary citation" gambit):
Definition:9 9
1. [n] a letter from the pope sent to all Roman Catholic bishops throughout the world
2. [adj] intended for wide distribution; "an encyclical letter"
"An official letter from the pope which lays out Catholic teaching in a particular area. It might be addressed to fellow bishops, to all the faithful or to all people of good will."
That latter seemed pretty close to what was issued.
The NYT seems to agree with you and does not appear to think of the Pope's message as an encyclical:
"The document, published in several languages, including English, was presented as a set of guidelines for Catholic bishops and politicians and as an attempt to sway public debate, not as a fresh, revelatory examination of Catholic theology."
So I'm not arguing here, but I'm simply at a loss as to what to call the document, other than "sadly mistaken."
-- LJM
Yonmei writes, '[The pope] is telling MPs and MSPs that I should not be regarded as a full citizen of the country in which I live, because I'm a lesbian. I should not be treated as equal under the law. That is what the Pope is saying: and Doug, I can't solve that by just "not being a Catholic". Your "easy answer" is no answer at all, if you're one of the people that the Pope is fulminating against. It works only if you're straight and don't give a damn about anyone who's not."
Ringing in with my own experience, I am now in a monogamous relationship with a woman -- a typical heterosexual marriage, in fact. However, before I married Lauryn, I was in several committed, monogamous relationships, some with men, some with women. I, along with many gay, bi, lesbian and transgender people I know, get involved in personal relationships with -people-, not advertising slogans or political agendas. It is often the case that political agendas and personal desires meet in the middle, but not always.
If I were to follow the Church's ruling in this, I would turn my back on my friends and my family, and that I cannot do.
There is the problem that occurs whenever one discusses human relations. Yes, there are poor lesbian and gay parents, just as there are bad priests, because lesbians and gays and priests are -human beings- and include all the foibles of humanity in the collective description. There are bad plumbers, electricians, writers, basketball stars and politicians, and "bad" in this case does not describe their abilities in their chosen office. It is when we say that, -because- there are bad gay men (in the sense of being abusive parents, for example), -therefore- gay parents are bad, that we fall into a trap that is of our own making.
This is what the Church has done, and I cannot even think that it is well-meaning, because there is no possible effect of this encyclical that is not pernicious.
I have to recall my wedding, when I talked Lauryn into accepting a Catholic priest as minister of the ceremony, only to find that he was enthusastic about it -only as long- as he believed the wedding would be held hundreds of miles away from his local parish. He was thrilled by the idea of the two lesbian and one transvestite bridesmaids, and the fact that the "best man" was a female friend of mine ... until he learned it would be held in Marin County, his own neck of the woods. Then you could have heard the door slam three counties over.
Hypocrisy, not gender preference, is the tool of the devil.
-- LJM
Bill Altreuter said, "Perhaps I am slicing the distinction too fine, but I don't think it was the Vatican which was actively concealing the sex crimes of American priests-- this was something that was done parish by parish, dioceses by dioceses."
Actually, the Vatican has been actively involved in the suppression of information regarding potential and actual sex crimes by priests (and others), and has certainly been involved in the decisions to downplay and trivialize such events. (I'm using "trivialize" in the sense of minimizing their importance.) There are Catholic doctrinal reasons for this, on some level. As I've written before, there is an underlying and basic assumption of the Church that, once you have committed your life to Christ as a priest, nun, or other member of the "Community of Christ," you and the Church have entered into a lifelong commitment that cannot be severed, and the Church is obligated to take care of you no matter what the circumstances. In short, the Church cannot reject one that has become one of Her own.
However, while I agree with the basic premise, the interpretation of this relationship in action has frequently been wrong, wrong, wrong. And, whether or not anyone believes that homosexuality is a sin, the Church has now made the distinction -- which I believe doctrinally indefensible -- that some sins are "wronger" than others. To put it another way, while child abuse is a sin, it is a "normal" sin, and gay marriage is a worse sin because it is an "abnormal" sin.
There is no way that such a conclusion can be doctrinally supported -- much less supported through any pattern of morals or ethics. I do not believe that the ethical structure of my chosen religion should be based on the model of a game of Twister.
-- LJM
Terry and Xopher, I am aware of the differing meanings of "expendable"; I just don't agree.
It seems hard to believe that 35 years have gone by since I attempted to enlist because many of my friends and acquaintances were using dubious excuses to stay out, and while I agreed with the idea that "the war" was wrong (and for us, then, there was only one "war," and that was Viet Nam), I had a very basic belief that before I criticized the military, I should understand more about it. (Also, with a brother in the Navy on a nuclear sub, a brother in the Air Force, and a sister in the Army, there was some expectation that I would either be a priest or a soldier.) For reasons too long and weird to explain (for example, I got discharged by accident), I served a bit more than two days of military service, so I can't say I really got much indoctrination. But even that was enough to make me consider "expandable" the type of word that does no more than make it easier for those higher up the food chain to distance themselves from the events of the battlefield, much like "outsourcing," "redundancy" and "creating efficiencies" are words and phrases that allow senior management to skate over concepts like "taking away the sole support of a family."
"Intelligence" in the terms of "useful information" is not inherently a damaging concept; "expendable," at its base, IS.
Tery Karney wrote:
"Yes, I signed up. Yes, I am expendable. I don't want to think I am something to be tossed away cheaply, and that is how I felt when I heard those words [of GWB]."
No, you are not expendable. As far as I can tell, the military at most levels are trying to do a good job in an impossible situation, and it is unfortunate that an offhand, ill-considered comment potentially puts you and everyone in the field at greater risk.
Irrelevantly, I am reminded that Bob Hope said similar things many times ... from stages at or near the battlefield. If Bush had been on a walking tour of Iraq at the time, I would have a very different sense of the meaning of his message.
John M. Ford writes:
"I am also fascinated to read that Toole's suicide 'put a final cap on the tumultous Sixties.' Just think, if he'd gotten therapy, they might still be here."
On reflection, it occurs to me that this might be absolutely correct. Let's posit, as many have, that "those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." And, further, "Anyone who claims to remember the 60s didn't live through them." So if those who DID live through the 60s do NOT remember them -- or remember them, as it were, through a pipe darkly -- we may be cursed to live through them over and over again.
This may explain the popularity of some radio stations.
Stefan: I had thought that "Neon Bible" was the filmed version of COD, but I see that you're right. It does have one heck of a cast, though.
John: Yes, that would be "malice aforethought" on my part and on the part of those literary detectives who live a catch-a-penny life inside my head. I am pleased to say I labored hard to find -exactly- the right phrase that an over-the-top reviewer might use to equate Toole's life and the "crimson and clover" (or is that "strawberry alarm clock?") world of the 60s. We, of course, know that the 60s will never die as long as I'm alive. Here, have a flower, man. Groovy.
"The literary world is attempting to evaluate claims that a second novel by John Kennedy Toole -- who has been dead for more than 30 years, from a suicide which put a final cap on the tumultous 60s -- has been found and is circulating on the internet. 'A Conspiracy of Lorens,' said to be a sequel to 'A Confederacy of Dunces,' takes place not in the New Orleans that Toole knew so well, but in the far more sedate streets of Seattle, Washington.
"'Literary detectives,' whose business is to analyze a writer's work by breaking down sentence structure, levels of sophistication, use of metaphor and other hallmarks of 'style,' have concluded that the work is a forgery -- not least because the protagonist of the novel, a skeletally-thin women whose episodes of bulemia form a substantial part of the plot, works briefly in tech support for Microsoft Corporation, a company which was not yet in existence when Toole took his own life.
"However, the story, as is common on the internet, seems to have taken on its -own- life, and many critics are quick to point out Toole's inventiveness, and to state that the name 'Microsoft' is obvious once the idea of 'personal computers' and of 'software' has been conceived. Some even go so far as to say that the young Bill Gates somehow had access to the manuscript and that it is from Toole's own work that Gates forged the company that was to become the largest software producer in the world."
Heh. I'm assuming that the obvious spam trap in your email address, Ulrika, is an obvious spam trap and if I do a 3d transform on the earth link, I'll have a net gain, or not.
Yes, I'll be in touch. Remember, I'm Loren, she's Lauryn, my niece is Lauren, and Lauryn's uncle is Lawren, and you'll be fine.
I, on the other hand, am bouncing around, and I bruise easily.
The gentleman who has been asked to host "the official Mardi Gras web site" for Seattle is interested in partnering with Lauryn for masks and costumes. This ... just ... might ... work!
(Patrick, we'll relinguish control of your blog any moment now.)
-- LJM
As it happens, I was in Seattle this past week, too, and was invited to listen to Patrick's Tuesday night talk -- but as I had gotten up at 3:00 in the morning to make it to the airport in time for the flight, I opted for staring blankly at the wall and muttering to myself instead, which I did until 1:00 Wednesday morning. I then got up at six to go to a job interview.
I don't recommend this as a procedure, but in this case it seems to have worked. At least I am gainfully employed as of Monday, August 4, and will soon be living in Seattle again.
Is blogspam blam?
Apropos of nearly nothing, Lauryn and I have been attending some therapy sessions, largely because the stress of pennilessness has been getting to us. The experience is somewhat surreal, because we were assigned to a very nice young woman whose clientele are generally at each other's throat, and we're not. She likes us, she really likes us!
She is also of Hawaiian background, and travels frequently for business and school reasons. As a result, she is frequently on airplanes -- and always, apparently, "randomly checked." She explained this with humor and gusto when Lauryn and I reacted with -- surprise? No, not really, because it is not unexpected. Say rather, "Disfavor."
"Look at me," she said. "Of course they're going to pull me out of line and search me."
Dark skin. Dark hair. Young. Obviously a threat to our national security.
Aargh.
-- LJM
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2003 | 13 |
Total: 13 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Loren MacGregor:
Show all comments by Loren MacGregor.