Executive director of the National Labor Committee Charles Kernaghan has reported that crucifixes sold by the Singer Company, a member of the Association for Christian Retail (CBA), were manufactured under horrific conditions in a Chinese sweatshop. The “Christian” retail association’s response: “Nuh uh. Liar liar pants on fire.”
Bill Anderson, president of the Association for Christian Retail, a trade group, said in a statement yesterday that Mr. Kernaghan’s claims about manufacture of religious items overseas were “unfounded and irresponsible.” He said the group has never received concrete proof that items sold by its members were manufactured in sweatshops. In fact, he said, the organization’s members make regular trips to overseas factories to “ensure quality control as well as inspect working conditions.”
The CBA is most likely right. I mean, Kernaghan’s track record includes outing only Disney, Fruit of the Loom, Gap, JCPenney, Kmart, Kohl’s, Levi’s, Nike, Puff Daddy/P Diddy/Diddy, and Target, among others. Like Kathy Lee Gifford. Kernaghan has no idea what he’s talking about. CBA members sell Christian stuff, duh. Jesus would totally manufacture merchandise as cheaply as possible and then mark it way up and sell it to his followers, especially to his followers who think it’s more important to look Christian than to act Christian. As long as his name was on their T-shirts and his method of death was hanging around their necks, Jesus wouldn’t really care if they actually followed his teachings.
But I digress.
This AP article shows pictures of the crucifixes, including model number and where they were bought. A protest was held yesterday in front of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, one of the churches who sold Singer crucifixes. The article also includes pictures of the sweatshop, where Chinese women work one hundred hours a week, for seven days a week, for twenty-six cents an hour, with no sick time or vacation time. The young women’s living conditions are disgusting; the dorms are filthy and their food is slop. Another church selling the crucifixes was Episcopal Trinity on Wall Street. Both churches removed the crucifixes immediately when they were told of the merchandise’s origins. The crucifixes did not include the required “Made in China” sticker, and the churches believed that the crucifixes were made in Italy, as Singer had told them.
So if you are planning to buy Christian paraphernalia for Christmas, for Christ’s sake please make sure the vendor is not a member of the Association for Christian Retail.
The National Labor Committee’s report can be found here.
Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully.
Proverbs 28:5.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Gooder writing tip #11 (supplement)
Some instances when the passive voice is *gasp* preferred:
When the object is what's important, and the actor (subject) is not important or is unknown, as in scientific text or police reports.
Examples.
Juvenile dispersal is seen in black-capped chickadees.
That juvenile dispersal occurs among black-capped chickadees is what's important. If I write, "The ornithologist witnessed juvenile dispersal in the chickadee population," I've made the ornithologist the topic, which I did not intend.
The victim was stabbed three times in the leg.
The victim having been stabbed is the important information in this sentence. Especially because the stabber is unknown, it is best to write the sentence passively. This sentence is better than writing, "Somebody stabbed the victim three times," because, as with the ornithologist, I've placed the attention on "somebody," and this is not the sentence's focus. Later, when the stabber is discovered, feel free to give him or her credit for the acccomplishment. "Jerkhead McAhole stabbed the victim three times in the leg."
When the object is what's important, and the actor (subject) is not important or is unknown, as in scientific text or police reports.
Examples.
Juvenile dispersal is seen in black-capped chickadees.
That juvenile dispersal occurs among black-capped chickadees is what's important. If I write, "The ornithologist witnessed juvenile dispersal in the chickadee population," I've made the ornithologist the topic, which I did not intend.
The victim was stabbed three times in the leg.
The victim having been stabbed is the important information in this sentence. Especially because the stabber is unknown, it is best to write the sentence passively. This sentence is better than writing, "Somebody stabbed the victim three times," because, as with the ornithologist, I've placed the attention on "somebody," and this is not the sentence's focus. Later, when the stabber is discovered, feel free to give him or her credit for the acccomplishment. "Jerkhead McAhole stabbed the victim three times in the leg."
Gooder writing tip #11
Today's lesson: Passive voice.
The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, definition for passive regarding voice is:
"Asserting that the grammatical subject of a verb is subjected to or affected by the action represented by that verb." Meaning, the subject of the sentence is acted on instead of acting. If the subject acts, it is called the active voice.
Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, offers the following explanation for active and passive voice: "Voice shows whether the subject acts (active voice) or is acted on (passive voice)--that is, whether the subject performs or receives the action of the verb."
Subject acted on = passive.
Subject acting = active.
Examples.
A Johnny Depp movie was watched by me = passive.
I watched a Johnny Depp movie = active.
A blog entry was written by me = passive.
I wrote a blog entry = active.
A good trigger for recognizing passive voice is if the sentence contains a form of "to be," such as am, are, be, been, being, had been, has been, have been, is, was, were, will be, will have been. "To be" is usually followed by a past participle.
Past participle.
To rely on Webster's again, a participle is "a word having the characteristics of both verb and adjective; esp: an English verbal form that has the function of an adjective and at the same time shows such verbal features as tense and voice and capacity to take an object." Or, more simply put, it is a verb that ends in "ing" or "ed" (or its equivalent).
The falling leaves are dead.
The dead leaves are falling.
"Falling" is present participle.
He drank the stirred martini.
He stirred the martini then drank it.
"Stirred" is a past participle.
According to Owl at Purdue, "past participles end in -ed, -en, -d, -t, or -n, as in the words asked, eaten, saved, dealt, and seen."
You are more likely to encounter the verb version of the participle when seeking or writing passive voice.
"To be" + past participle = passive voice.
Hint: Make sure "been" is included with "had," has," or "have." For example, "Tara will have watched ten Johnny Depp movies by Monday" is not passive. Tara is the subject, who is doing the acting. Also make sure the participle is a past participle. For example, "Tara has been watching Johnny Depp movies all day" is still active because the participle is present. "Ten Johnny Depp movies will have been watched by Tara" is passive voice.
Another way to recognize passive voice is sentence structure.
Subject, verb, object = active.
Object, verb, subject = passive.
In case anyone tries to tell you otherwise, the passive voice is not grammatically incorrect. It is okay to use the passive voice in moderation (or less). However, passive voice can be vague and often annoying, especially when it is overused. If you want to write a bad essay/paper/thesis/book, begin most of your sentences with "There is" or "There are." If I had been paid by all of the instances of "there is" and "there are" I've had to change instead of by the hour, I could have comfortably retired long ago. Authors use these all the time. Also watch out for "it is." (In the second sentence of this paragraph I said that it is okay to use the passive voice in moderation. A more active sentence would have been "You can use passive voice in moderation.")
My advice? Be more bold, more authoritative. Tell the reader who established those laws, not just that they were established. Tell me who discriminated against the indigenous people, not just that they were discriminated against. Tell me who thinks Johnny Depp is handsome, not just that Johnny Depp is considered handsome. This requires more guts, more research, and will garner you more respect.
This passage from Capital Community College in Hartford, CT, says it well:
We find an overabundance of the passive voice in sentences created by self-protective business interests, magniloquent educators, and bombastic military writers (who must get weary of this accusation), who use the passive voice to avoid responsibility for actions taken. Thus "Cigarette ads were designed to appeal especially to children" places the burden on the ads — as opposed to "We designed the cigarette ads to appeal especially to children," in which "we" accepts responsibility. At a White House press briefing we might hear that "The president was advised that certain members of Congress were being audited" rather than "The Head of the Internal Revenue service advised the president that her agency was auditing certain members of Congress" because the passive construction avoids responsibility for advising and for auditing.
The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, definition for passive regarding voice is:
"Asserting that the grammatical subject of a verb is subjected to or affected by the action represented by that verb." Meaning, the subject of the sentence is acted on instead of acting. If the subject acts, it is called the active voice.
Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, offers the following explanation for active and passive voice: "Voice shows whether the subject acts (active voice) or is acted on (passive voice)--that is, whether the subject performs or receives the action of the verb."
Subject acted on = passive.
Subject acting = active.
Examples.
A Johnny Depp movie was watched by me = passive.
I watched a Johnny Depp movie = active.
A blog entry was written by me = passive.
I wrote a blog entry = active.
A good trigger for recognizing passive voice is if the sentence contains a form of "to be," such as am, are, be, been, being, had been, has been, have been, is, was, were, will be, will have been. "To be" is usually followed by a past participle.
Past participle.
To rely on Webster's again, a participle is "a word having the characteristics of both verb and adjective; esp: an English verbal form that has the function of an adjective and at the same time shows such verbal features as tense and voice and capacity to take an object." Or, more simply put, it is a verb that ends in "ing" or "ed" (or its equivalent).
The falling leaves are dead.
The dead leaves are falling.
"Falling" is present participle.
He drank the stirred martini.
He stirred the martini then drank it.
"Stirred" is a past participle.
According to Owl at Purdue, "past participles end in -ed, -en, -d, -t, or -n, as in the words asked, eaten, saved, dealt, and seen."
You are more likely to encounter the verb version of the participle when seeking or writing passive voice.
"To be" + past participle = passive voice.
Hint: Make sure "been" is included with "had," has," or "have." For example, "Tara will have watched ten Johnny Depp movies by Monday" is not passive. Tara is the subject, who is doing the acting. Also make sure the participle is a past participle. For example, "Tara has been watching Johnny Depp movies all day" is still active because the participle is present. "Ten Johnny Depp movies will have been watched by Tara" is passive voice.
Another way to recognize passive voice is sentence structure.
Subject, verb, object = active.
Object, verb, subject = passive.
In case anyone tries to tell you otherwise, the passive voice is not grammatically incorrect. It is okay to use the passive voice in moderation (or less). However, passive voice can be vague and often annoying, especially when it is overused. If you want to write a bad essay/paper/thesis/book, begin most of your sentences with "There is" or "There are." If I had been paid by all of the instances of "there is" and "there are" I've had to change instead of by the hour, I could have comfortably retired long ago. Authors use these all the time. Also watch out for "it is." (In the second sentence of this paragraph I said that it is okay to use the passive voice in moderation. A more active sentence would have been "You can use passive voice in moderation.")
My advice? Be more bold, more authoritative. Tell the reader who established those laws, not just that they were established. Tell me who discriminated against the indigenous people, not just that they were discriminated against. Tell me who thinks Johnny Depp is handsome, not just that Johnny Depp is considered handsome. This requires more guts, more research, and will garner you more respect.
This passage from Capital Community College in Hartford, CT, says it well:
We find an overabundance of the passive voice in sentences created by self-protective business interests, magniloquent educators, and bombastic military writers (who must get weary of this accusation), who use the passive voice to avoid responsibility for actions taken. Thus "Cigarette ads were designed to appeal especially to children" places the burden on the ads — as opposed to "We designed the cigarette ads to appeal especially to children," in which "we" accepts responsibility. At a White House press briefing we might hear that "The president was advised that certain members of Congress were being audited" rather than "The Head of the Internal Revenue service advised the president that her agency was auditing certain members of Congress" because the passive construction avoids responsibility for advising and for auditing.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
And the winner is:
The most important election day results are in. The new Capital of the Pierogy Pocket of America is....Binghamton!! Good job, voters! And the $10,000 prize money is going to CHOW. The announcement is here.
You know how to celebrate.
You know how to celebrate.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Happy birthday, Ida
Today is the birthday of fellow Allegheny alumnus and muckraker extraordinaire, Ida Tarbell, class of 1880. If you listened to the Writer's Almanac this morning, you heard from Garrison that today is Ida's birthday, that her superb journalism exposed the corruption of the Standard Oil Company, that her accomplishment was the first instance an American corporation was brought down by a journalist. Mr. Keillor, though, failed to mention the most important fact of her life--that she went to Allegheny College, of course--so I felt it important to enlighten you. Happy birthday, Ida.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Gooder writing tip #10
The correct use of only
I spend a lot of time during my workday moving the word "only" to the correct spot. "Only" is a modifier; it modifies the word that follows it. Here is my advice: when you write the word "only," take a second to read the word after it. Is it the word you want modified? I bet it's not. This is one of the most common mistakes I find.
Let's analyze.
1. I only love Hugh Jackman.
2. I love only Hugh Jackman.
1. Only love = I've belittled love! I only love Hugh, nothing more.
2. Only Hugh = Ah, this is what the writer meant. His or her love belongs solely to Hugh. (I am not the writer, of course; I love only my husband.)
The correct use of "only" is easy to achieve. It takes only awareness and a few seconds of thought. For this previous sentence most people would have written "It only takes awareness...." Luckily, the intended meaning would have still been clear, but why not just write it correctly to begin with?
For all of you future copy editors: Exceptions can be made with dialogue. Since the incorrect use often sounds more natural, it's okay to let a character use "only" incorrectly. Dialogue allows for many exceptions since it is a character speaking, not the author, so it is the character using incorrect grammar. Sometimes the incorrect grammar is intentional, and it's best to assume this (and this assumption will benefit your relationship with your author). If the character's grammar error glaringly changes the intended meaning, ask the author before you change it. You're welcome.
I spend a lot of time during my workday moving the word "only" to the correct spot. "Only" is a modifier; it modifies the word that follows it. Here is my advice: when you write the word "only," take a second to read the word after it. Is it the word you want modified? I bet it's not. This is one of the most common mistakes I find.
Let's analyze.
1. I only love Hugh Jackman.
2. I love only Hugh Jackman.
1. Only love = I've belittled love! I only love Hugh, nothing more.
2. Only Hugh = Ah, this is what the writer meant. His or her love belongs solely to Hugh. (I am not the writer, of course; I love only my husband.)
The correct use of "only" is easy to achieve. It takes only awareness and a few seconds of thought. For this previous sentence most people would have written "It only takes awareness...." Luckily, the intended meaning would have still been clear, but why not just write it correctly to begin with?
For all of you future copy editors: Exceptions can be made with dialogue. Since the incorrect use often sounds more natural, it's okay to let a character use "only" incorrectly. Dialogue allows for many exceptions since it is a character speaking, not the author, so it is the character using incorrect grammar. Sometimes the incorrect grammar is intentional, and it's best to assume this (and this assumption will benefit your relationship with your author). If the character's grammar error glaringly changes the intended meaning, ask the author before you change it. You're welcome.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Gooder writing tip #9
Punctuation and quotation marks
First tip: When in doubt, put the punctuation INSIDE the quotation marks. Inside is where those oft-used periods and commas go. Not-so-oft-used semicolons and colons go outside. Question marks and exclamation points go inside or out depending on context; with these buggers you’re going to have to make a decision—but don’t worry, I’m here to help.
Examples
Correct: The book editor said, “Johnny Depp is attractive.”
Incorrect: The book editor said, “Johnny Depp is unattractive”.
Correct: Johnny Depp has been described as “smart, funny, and handsome”; “dark and mysterious”; and “hot.”
Incorrect: Johnny Depp has been described as “dumb, dull, and ugly;” “light and fluffy;” and “fugly”.
Now onto question marks and exclamation points. These depend on whether they belong with the quoted material. Inside if the quote is a question or exclamation, outside if not.
Examples
When I asked her if I could have her Captain Jack Sparrow poster she said, “No you can’t!”
Why would she say “no you can’t”?
She asked me, “why would you want to take him away from me?”
She looked at me as if I’d said “give me your first born”!
Tell all of your friends. You're welcome.
First tip: When in doubt, put the punctuation INSIDE the quotation marks. Inside is where those oft-used periods and commas go. Not-so-oft-used semicolons and colons go outside. Question marks and exclamation points go inside or out depending on context; with these buggers you’re going to have to make a decision—but don’t worry, I’m here to help.
Examples
Correct: The book editor said, “Johnny Depp is attractive.”
Incorrect: The book editor said, “Johnny Depp is unattractive”.
Correct: Johnny Depp has been described as “smart, funny, and handsome”; “dark and mysterious”; and “hot.”
Incorrect: Johnny Depp has been described as “dumb, dull, and ugly;” “light and fluffy;” and “fugly”.
Now onto question marks and exclamation points. These depend on whether they belong with the quoted material. Inside if the quote is a question or exclamation, outside if not.
Examples
When I asked her if I could have her Captain Jack Sparrow poster she said, “No you can’t!”
Why would she say “no you can’t”?
She asked me, “why would you want to take him away from me?”
She looked at me as if I’d said “give me your first born”!
Tell all of your friends. You're welcome.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Attention church girls:
The lovely Rev. Sara Baron is hosting a workshop this Saturday for young adult women of the Methodist church (and friends) on the topic of sexuality and the church. It is from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at Centenary-Chenango UMC in Binghamton. No doubt it will be informative and interesting. Unfortunately, I've posted this info a few days after the RSVP deadline (but do it anyway!), and I can't attend (because I'll be at a three-year-old's Halloween party in Philadelphia), but I wanted to share this information with others because I think you should go. Here is the flyer:
The Commission on the Status and Role of Women
of the Wyoming Annual Conference invites
United Methodist young women (ages 18 to 35)
to an afternoon workshop on:
Sexuality and the Church
How does the UMC understand sex and sexuality?
What guidance can the UMC offer on living life as moral sexual beings?
How does our sexuality impact our spirituality? and visa versa?
What does it mean to be a sexual being – and a single Christian woman?
What does it mean to be a sexual being – and a married Christian woman?
We’ll gather at 12:00 with a free lunch provided by the Centenary-Chenango Street UMC, hear talks on Christian sexuality in single and partnered life, break into groups to discuss the talks, and join together again to worship as a large group.
INFORMATION:
12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
October 27th, 2007
Centenary Chenango Street UMC
438 Chenango Street
Binghamton, NY
For all United Methodist young adult women and any female friends they want to bring.
Please RSVP to s.baron@gmail.com or 607-263-5152 (Rev. Sara Baron) by October 20th.
Sexuality and the Church
How does the UMC understand sex and sexuality?
What guidance can the UMC offer on living life as moral sexual beings?
How does our sexuality impact our spirituality? and visa versa?
What does it mean to be a sexual being – and a single Christian woman?
What does it mean to be a sexual being – and a married Christian woman?
We’ll gather at 12:00 with a free lunch provided by the Centenary-Chenango Street UMC, hear talks on Christian sexuality in single and partnered life, break into groups to discuss the talks, and join together again to worship as a large group.
INFORMATION:
12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
October 27th, 2007
Centenary Chenango Street UMC
438 Chenango Street
Binghamton, NY
For all United Methodist young adult women and any female friends they want to bring.
Please RSVP to s.baron@gmail.com or 607-263-5152 (Rev. Sara Baron) by October 20th.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
NOT One Day Monday
But it is the fall fund drive for WSKG. Call 1-877-975-9754 or visit http://www.wskg.org/ and give them some money so I don't have to keep listening to them ask for it. And because you support public television and radio? But mostly so I can listen to Steve Inskeep's sweet, sweet, informative voice uninterrupted. I already gave my pledge. And I get an awesome travel mug for pledging. (Well, I'll get it next November, since my gift arrives six to eight weeks after my pledge is paid in full, and my pledge is paid monthly for a year--but good news: I should be getting my NPR laptop bag from last year's pledge any day now! Woo hoo! I hope my antiquated laptop fits in it.)
Okay, Steve's back on. Gotta go.
Okay, Steve's back on. Gotta go.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
One year
Today, besides being the anniversary of the Peronist revolution in Argentina in 1945, is the one year anniversary of my blog. My blog is a year old today. Happy birthday, blog.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Blog Action Day
I've signed up to participate in Blog Action Day, a movement to get all bloggers to blog on the same subject for one day. This year's topic: the environment. I'd like to thank Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in raising awareness for the consequences of global climate change; it makes this easy.
In preparation for this blog entry I went to Google News and typed in "climate change." Mr. Gore dominated the articles listed, which only supports how beneficial it is to have him as a spokesperson for this issue. For some reason, many, many people do not like Al. But even those trying to discredit him give him and the climate change issue publicity (Al dislikers: keep it up--and he'll continue to prove you wrong.)
New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman wrote a great article today on Al and his decractors. He notes that the Wall Street Journal didn't even mention Al Gore's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, and instead made a list of all the people who deserved it instead. National Review Online writer Iain Murray likened Al Gore to a terrorist because Osama bin Laden is also against global warming. Mr. Krugman offers analyses of why Al his so hated, and how he's overcome it all. However you feel about Al, it's an interesting read.
Sharing the prize with Al is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Al has made sure to mention this group in every public statement about the prize. So I would like to also give credit to them here. The Vancouver Sun offers an article about one of the involved scientists, Professor John Robinson, or "Dr. Sustainability" as he is called. He's been fighting to raise awareness since the early 1980s, and is happy it's finally getting the recognition it demands. Dr. R.K. Pachauri, head of the panel, has appealed to developing economies such as India and China to develop new, more environmentally friendly technology, and to stop their current consumption and pollution patterns; developed countries are not good examples to follow. The panel's report titled "The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change" can be found here. On February 2nd of this year the panel presented that global warming was unequivocally occurring, and was the result of human activity. An international, bipartisan effort, the panel finally got the world to open their eyes. On February 2, 2007. Hopefully it's not too late.
So if you don't want to listen to me, listen to the scientists. If you don't want to listen to Al Gore, listen to the scientists. What they'll say in much more elegant and intelligent ways is: Stop being so selfish and ignorant! The consequences are going to kill more than trees and animals and Democrats.
In preparation for this blog entry I went to Google News and typed in "climate change." Mr. Gore dominated the articles listed, which only supports how beneficial it is to have him as a spokesperson for this issue. For some reason, many, many people do not like Al. But even those trying to discredit him give him and the climate change issue publicity (Al dislikers: keep it up--and he'll continue to prove you wrong.)
New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman wrote a great article today on Al and his decractors. He notes that the Wall Street Journal didn't even mention Al Gore's winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, and instead made a list of all the people who deserved it instead. National Review Online writer Iain Murray likened Al Gore to a terrorist because Osama bin Laden is also against global warming. Mr. Krugman offers analyses of why Al his so hated, and how he's overcome it all. However you feel about Al, it's an interesting read.
Sharing the prize with Al is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Al has made sure to mention this group in every public statement about the prize. So I would like to also give credit to them here. The Vancouver Sun offers an article about one of the involved scientists, Professor John Robinson, or "Dr. Sustainability" as he is called. He's been fighting to raise awareness since the early 1980s, and is happy it's finally getting the recognition it demands. Dr. R.K. Pachauri, head of the panel, has appealed to developing economies such as India and China to develop new, more environmentally friendly technology, and to stop their current consumption and pollution patterns; developed countries are not good examples to follow. The panel's report titled "The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change" can be found here. On February 2nd of this year the panel presented that global warming was unequivocally occurring, and was the result of human activity. An international, bipartisan effort, the panel finally got the world to open their eyes. On February 2, 2007. Hopefully it's not too late.
So if you don't want to listen to me, listen to the scientists. If you don't want to listen to Al Gore, listen to the scientists. What they'll say in much more elegant and intelligent ways is: Stop being so selfish and ignorant! The consequences are going to kill more than trees and animals and Democrats.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Let's go Mets!
At trivia last night we talked briefly about post-season baseball, and how much we cared. None of our teams are in it. Everyone’s go-to the Cubs are out. Well, what about Boston? Some said yes. I said no.
Why? The Red Sox new curse: they are becoming just like the Yankees. In the past few years since the “curse” was lifted, Boston and their fans have left a progressively sourish taste in my mouth. I still choose the Red Sox over the Yankees, but I think it's because I choose anybody over the Yankees, even the Braves.
To justify all I say on the matter: I have both Yankee-fan friends and Red Sox–fan friends. (This makes what I say okay, okay?) But, Boston’s argument about the Yankees being the evil empire is bordering on hypocritical. Boston is second in payroll only to the Yankees; they are the second highest paid team in Major League Baseball according to 2006 statistics, higher paid than 28 other teams. And maybe it’s just me, but when I think of the Yankees, I don’t immediately think of Boston. However, when I think of Boston, I immediately think of the Yankees—their team identity is so dependent on the Yankees.
Many times I’ve walked the streets of Boston and have seen “Jeter Sucks” T-shirts. Never have I seen anyone selling or wearing “[Boston player] Sucks” T-shirts. (The brackets are because Boston has a high player turnover rate—the Yankees have more continuity. Sox fans can wear their Jeter shirt for years. Because Yankees are well paid, yes, but so are Boston players....) Maybe I need to get out more. I don't know.
The history of the rivalry is deep, and begins with the cities themselves: Boston vs. NYC. Patriots vs. Tories, which city is the intellectual/art/cultural center of the United States, etc. In the Boston vs. NYC argument, for me, Boston clearly without a doubt wins. I would pick to live in Boston over NYC in a heartbeat, maybe in even less time. I have many reasons for this, which I'll spare you. Moving on. In the beginning of the league, Boston was clearly the superior team. Then, as we all know, Babe Ruth got traded to the Yankees, and thus the curse was placed. The Yankees went on with their lives. The Red Sox did not.
So, help me out, Red Sox fans. Give me some non-Yankee reasons why I should like your team and why your abundant arrogance is justified. The Sox are good, yes, just as the Yankees have been year after year after year. What if the Yankees were to leave the league next year? Would you still love your team as much? I truly want to know; I'm not poking or picking. So enlighten me and bless me with understanding. Because right now, when someone asks me, Yankees or Red Sox? I'm likely to say neither.
Why? The Red Sox new curse: they are becoming just like the Yankees. In the past few years since the “curse” was lifted, Boston and their fans have left a progressively sourish taste in my mouth. I still choose the Red Sox over the Yankees, but I think it's because I choose anybody over the Yankees, even the Braves.
To justify all I say on the matter: I have both Yankee-fan friends and Red Sox–fan friends. (This makes what I say okay, okay?) But, Boston’s argument about the Yankees being the evil empire is bordering on hypocritical. Boston is second in payroll only to the Yankees; they are the second highest paid team in Major League Baseball according to 2006 statistics, higher paid than 28 other teams. And maybe it’s just me, but when I think of the Yankees, I don’t immediately think of Boston. However, when I think of Boston, I immediately think of the Yankees—their team identity is so dependent on the Yankees.
Many times I’ve walked the streets of Boston and have seen “Jeter Sucks” T-shirts. Never have I seen anyone selling or wearing “[Boston player] Sucks” T-shirts. (The brackets are because Boston has a high player turnover rate—the Yankees have more continuity. Sox fans can wear their Jeter shirt for years. Because Yankees are well paid, yes, but so are Boston players....) Maybe I need to get out more. I don't know.
The history of the rivalry is deep, and begins with the cities themselves: Boston vs. NYC. Patriots vs. Tories, which city is the intellectual/art/cultural center of the United States, etc. In the Boston vs. NYC argument, for me, Boston clearly without a doubt wins. I would pick to live in Boston over NYC in a heartbeat, maybe in even less time. I have many reasons for this, which I'll spare you. Moving on. In the beginning of the league, Boston was clearly the superior team. Then, as we all know, Babe Ruth got traded to the Yankees, and thus the curse was placed. The Yankees went on with their lives. The Red Sox did not.
So, help me out, Red Sox fans. Give me some non-Yankee reasons why I should like your team and why your abundant arrogance is justified. The Sox are good, yes, just as the Yankees have been year after year after year. What if the Yankees were to leave the league next year? Would you still love your team as much? I truly want to know; I'm not poking or picking. So enlighten me and bless me with understanding. Because right now, when someone asks me, Yankees or Red Sox? I'm likely to say neither.
Friday, October 05, 2007
The Church Has Left the Building
Below is an article I wrote that will be appearing tomorrow in the local Press and Sun Bulletin. (Update: you can find it here.) It can also be found on the Wyoming Conference Web site.
The Church Has Left the Building
If you intended to attend Sunday morning worship at
On her table are a list of projects: yard cleanup, handicap ramp building, home rehabilitation, child care, sewing walker bags for a local nursing home, visiting nursing homes, feed-the-hungry, planting a flagpole garden at a fire station, baking cookies for soldiers, painting, and a bottle drive to raise money to help train landmine sniffing dogs. So much for remembering the sabbath and keeping it holy.
But wait—aren’t these services holy too? Does holiness occur in only church sanctuaries? The Pharisees confronted Jesus with a similar question regarding proper observation of the sabbath, to which he replied, "Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and life it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath" (Matthew 12: 11-13, NRSV).
One hundred and one Park Terrace congregation members tried to help pull sheep out of a pit on Sunday September 23. From
Each group began their project with a common devotional, focusing on Matthew 25: 34-45. Pastor Nick Keeney asked the groups to focus on missions being about people, not production, asking how our work would focus on people, how does reaching out to neighbors affect our relationships with God, why were participating.
The ramp and home rehab projects began the Saturday before. Along with the yard cleanup, these opportunities for service were discovered through Tioga Opportunities, Department of Aging Services. Roger Kinney, team leader for the ramp building, explained that Tioga Opportunities has an unlimited number of projects available for the service-minded, but that most of all they are need of funds. So if nail gunning is not your thing, a monetary donation is just as welcome. Tioga Opportunities Department of Aging Services is located at
Cooking at First Methodist in
The yard cleanup project took place a few miles from the church, and was being done for a lifelong firefighter who, due to health problems, could no longer perform maintenance. This was the task of on grandest scale of the day, with brush removal, gutter cleaning, tree limb removal, and general lawn care. When I asked seventh grader Stephen Lewis, who was helping with the yard cleanup, what he thought about canceling worship, he said he was okay with it, explaining, “I got to skip church to cut stuff up.” But he returned to heart of the matter by also saying, “I think Jesus would be proud of us.”
Back at the church groups were busy baking cookies for soldiers and jailed youth, sewing walker bags for local nursing homes, and sewing potholders for Sky Lake Camp and Retreat Center. Others were donating their time offering child care. Another group was sorting bottles collected from a bottle drive. Not only were these bottle drivers raising money to train landmine sniffing dogs, they were raising awareness. The group handed out flyers to those who, after hearing what the bottles were for, asked “huh?” The flyers explained that landmines currently litter the Angolan countryside, an estimated about one to eight million mines in an area the size of
Two groups went to nursing homes during the day, organizing worship services and visiting with residents. Another group painted a rundown shed in
Pierogy capital: Binghamton
Mrs. T's is holding a competition for the Capital of the Pierogy Pocket of America, and Binghamton is in the running. Go here and vote every day. If Binghamton wins, it will bring world peace. Your vote is important.
Voting lasts until October 23.
Press & Sun article
P.S. Binghamton will get a sweet banner and win $10,000, which will be donated to C.H.O.W.
Voting lasts until October 23.
Press & Sun article
P.S. Binghamton will get a sweet banner and win $10,000, which will be donated to C.H.O.W.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Absolutely nothing.
Seven active-duty soldiers wrote an article for the New York Times titled
"The War As we Saw It," which appeared on August 19. What a revolutionary concept to ask the opinion of people who are actually fighting the fight (and not riding a scooter on a ranch vacation or sitting at a fancy desk). You may have already read the article, and if you have, you know that one of contributors was shot in the head a week before the article came out. He is currently recovering. You may have also heard by now that two of the contributing soldiers were killed a week ago in a vehicle accident in Iraq.
Here is an excerpt from the op-ed:
To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.
You can read the article here. Whatever your stance on the war, this is an insightful and smart commentary that should be listened to. It would be nice to hear more calm, researched soldier commentary. It’s too bad they are all busy at the moment.
"The War As we Saw It," which appeared on August 19. What a revolutionary concept to ask the opinion of people who are actually fighting the fight (and not riding a scooter on a ranch vacation or sitting at a fancy desk). You may have already read the article, and if you have, you know that one of contributors was shot in the head a week before the article came out. He is currently recovering. You may have also heard by now that two of the contributing soldiers were killed a week ago in a vehicle accident in Iraq.
Here is an excerpt from the op-ed:
To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.
You can read the article here. Whatever your stance on the war, this is an insightful and smart commentary that should be listened to. It would be nice to hear more calm, researched soldier commentary. It’s too bad they are all busy at the moment.
Friday, September 14, 2007
No, really—what is is good for?
Last night as excerpts from the president’s speech were replayed on our television, my husband directed at the television his frustrated counterargument. I turned it off. I didn’t want my husband to get upset. I was tired. I am tired.
I’m glad the situation pisses my husband off. I’m glad I’m still pissed off. But I feel the lull of apathy setting in, and I wonder if it was this apathy that turned off my television last night instead of concern for my husband’s blood pressure.
But what can I do now? I can’t keep screaming: It’s not working! Start listening to the advice of others! My opinion is out there. The Bush administration knows how I feel—it’s echoed by many writers, lobbyists, Congress, and by more than half the country in polls. They don’t listen. The people who can actually change the situation aren’t listening. And the administration has put enough of “their people” into right positions so that all “news” we receive is Bush administration propaganda. Luckily, nobody believes it. Unluckily, they still get to decide and implement policy. My generation, American, Iraqi, and other, is being killed off because the Bush administration is too immature and selfish to admit they are wrong. And the soldiers are honorable enough to continue to serve this president, even if he serves only himself. Très frustrant.
I used to try to believe that the administration really did believe they were doing what was best. Even if it wasn’t working at the moment, they really did believe that the occupation would be good for both our country and for Iraq (although more for our well-being than for Iraq’s). Now I think they “stay the course” only because they don’t want the other side to be right, like an argument on the playground in fourth grade. In his speech last night (that I didn’t watch, obviously, but did read excerpts from, of course), Mr. Bush said the plan was evolving, that the “surge” is ending, that troops will be coming home, some big number by Christmas. The truth is (I learned on NPR this morning) all of these troops were scheduled to come home anyway, they just won’t be replaced now. Whoopee.
I suppose if I were a soldier, I would continue to do my duty in earnest hope that it would make a difference. As a citizen I guess I still garner some hope that this can happen, even in the mess we've made. I’d want to try to establish a healthy infrastructure for Iraq, train protective police forces, give their government time to get over their incompetence and get their act together. I’d have to believe this. I’d do it for my country, and my country is NOT my government. I admire all of the soldiers who haven’t gone AWOL. (But I hate guns and question authority, so I’d be a sucky soldier. And desert camo is, like, so not my color.)
We can’t leave yet; this I know. But we can establish a political dialogue, somehow, with all of the other countries Bush has pissed off and alienated. Iraq has oil, an interest for many countries, so that can be motivation #1. But oil or not they are not going to try to work with a man who doesn’t listen and does what he wants anyway, so a Bush apology would be motivation #2. But, obviously, this is a pipe dream. A little more peace in the Middle East can be motivation #3. Iraq’s conflict now is essentially a political one, so a political solution is needed. Really. A more realistic solution may be to call Mr. Peabody and jump in wayback machine and not invade Iraq at all. This would arguably be the most successful strategy.
Admitting we were wrong for invading Iraq would do more at this point to honor those who've died than to continue to send men and women to slaughter for lies, because any “good” reason for invading Iraq at this point will be believed a lie. This too is sucky.
Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up an Iraq will be stable, homes will have plumbing and electricity, Sunnis and Shiites will be working together on establishing a democracy, and the Iraqi army will be so well-trained, powerful, and fair that the so-called insurgents would take up knitting instead. Then I'll very, very gladly admit how wrong I was to doubt the Bush administration.
I’m glad the situation pisses my husband off. I’m glad I’m still pissed off. But I feel the lull of apathy setting in, and I wonder if it was this apathy that turned off my television last night instead of concern for my husband’s blood pressure.
But what can I do now? I can’t keep screaming: It’s not working! Start listening to the advice of others! My opinion is out there. The Bush administration knows how I feel—it’s echoed by many writers, lobbyists, Congress, and by more than half the country in polls. They don’t listen. The people who can actually change the situation aren’t listening. And the administration has put enough of “their people” into right positions so that all “news” we receive is Bush administration propaganda. Luckily, nobody believes it. Unluckily, they still get to decide and implement policy. My generation, American, Iraqi, and other, is being killed off because the Bush administration is too immature and selfish to admit they are wrong. And the soldiers are honorable enough to continue to serve this president, even if he serves only himself. Très frustrant.
I used to try to believe that the administration really did believe they were doing what was best. Even if it wasn’t working at the moment, they really did believe that the occupation would be good for both our country and for Iraq (although more for our well-being than for Iraq’s). Now I think they “stay the course” only because they don’t want the other side to be right, like an argument on the playground in fourth grade. In his speech last night (that I didn’t watch, obviously, but did read excerpts from, of course), Mr. Bush said the plan was evolving, that the “surge” is ending, that troops will be coming home, some big number by Christmas. The truth is (I learned on NPR this morning) all of these troops were scheduled to come home anyway, they just won’t be replaced now. Whoopee.
I suppose if I were a soldier, I would continue to do my duty in earnest hope that it would make a difference. As a citizen I guess I still garner some hope that this can happen, even in the mess we've made. I’d want to try to establish a healthy infrastructure for Iraq, train protective police forces, give their government time to get over their incompetence and get their act together. I’d have to believe this. I’d do it for my country, and my country is NOT my government. I admire all of the soldiers who haven’t gone AWOL. (But I hate guns and question authority, so I’d be a sucky soldier. And desert camo is, like, so not my color.)
We can’t leave yet; this I know. But we can establish a political dialogue, somehow, with all of the other countries Bush has pissed off and alienated. Iraq has oil, an interest for many countries, so that can be motivation #1. But oil or not they are not going to try to work with a man who doesn’t listen and does what he wants anyway, so a Bush apology would be motivation #2. But, obviously, this is a pipe dream. A little more peace in the Middle East can be motivation #3. Iraq’s conflict now is essentially a political one, so a political solution is needed. Really. A more realistic solution may be to call Mr. Peabody and jump in wayback machine and not invade Iraq at all. This would arguably be the most successful strategy.
Admitting we were wrong for invading Iraq would do more at this point to honor those who've died than to continue to send men and women to slaughter for lies, because any “good” reason for invading Iraq at this point will be believed a lie. This too is sucky.
Maybe tomorrow I'll wake up an Iraq will be stable, homes will have plumbing and electricity, Sunnis and Shiites will be working together on establishing a democracy, and the Iraqi army will be so well-trained, powerful, and fair that the so-called insurgents would take up knitting instead. Then I'll very, very gladly admit how wrong I was to doubt the Bush administration.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The New England Cheetahs
(Sorry, I'm keeping the title.)
So far I’ve heard it called “Cameragate,” “Spygate,” “Videogate.” It’s all speculation now—nothing has been proven—but New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick did offer an apology yesterday “to everyone who has been affected” by his “interpretation of the rules.” A vague apology at best, with no clear admission of guilt, but the sports world has certainly addressed the hot topic of the Patriots being caught illegally videotaping the Jets play signals.
I’m not a Patriots fan. I skirted fandom when Drew Bledsoe was their quarterback (but only after Buffalo was totally out, of course), but with the departure of Drew my apathy toward Bill Belichick changed to dislike. Besides my distaste for Bill’s disrespectful sideline attire (he looks like he just woke up, and not in the hot Colin Farrell way), I in spite of myself respected his decision making and coaching abilities, even if he was wearing sloppy gray sweatpants. Perhaps his talent is the root of my dislike, since the Patriots are the Bills’ AFC East conference mates and we more often than not lose to them.
In the past couple years opposing teams have been amazed by the Patriots and the quarterback Tom Brady’s ability to read the defense and defy it. Players and fans alike have been astounded by New England’s superb play calling. Belichick has been called “genius.” The Patriots did their homework and were a worthy adversary.
Fortunately, unlike war and love, not all is fair. The NFL has rules, and is a strong proponent of “equal opportunity.” The salary cap, the draft process, the constant drug testing, all attempt to give each team and equal chance every season to make the Super Bowl. New England, like Dallas before them, has been so celebrated because winning a Super Bowl more than one year in a row is a difficult accomplishment (as is winning the AFC championship four years in a row, going to the Super Bowl four years in a row, but I digress). It’s more often the case that the team who won the Super Bowl the year before doesn’t even make the playoffs the year after. And in the NFL, you are not allowed to set up a spy camera on the opposite team's sidelines.
Unfortunately, the NFL has had a rough beginning to the season: the suspensions of Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, the Patriot’s own Rodney Harrison, Wade Wilson, etc. And the Bills lost their first game by one point (but on a happier note Kevin Everett’s doctors are convinced he’ll walk again). Now all-star coach Bill Belichick is caught cheating. Has he been doing it all along? What kind of anger will mount if this is the case?
How do you defend this? As a fan, how do you react to this?
Confusion and disappointment? This article is especially interesting since the writer points out that current Jets coach Eric Mangini was a former protégé of Belichick, a member of his inner circle, so who better to know Belichick’s tricks? Coincidence?
Shock? This one is especially important to read since the title, "A Big Fumble," is a sports metaphor.
One writer offers that Bill is the only one who has been caught. So goes the theory that he's the smartest coach in the league.
Here is an article that has compiled the opinions of many sports writers.
Tony Dungy, longtime Belichick rival, is currently mum on the topic. He’s a classy guy.
Even if the cheating can be proved for only this one time, won’t we always wonder? It’s unfortunate—and by unfortunate I mean stupid—for the Patriots if they truly have spied this one time, because we always will wonder. They’ve now tainted all they’ve earned.
I wonder how much the players knew.
So far I’ve heard it called “Cameragate,” “Spygate,” “Videogate.” It’s all speculation now—nothing has been proven—but New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick did offer an apology yesterday “to everyone who has been affected” by his “interpretation of the rules.” A vague apology at best, with no clear admission of guilt, but the sports world has certainly addressed the hot topic of the Patriots being caught illegally videotaping the Jets play signals.
I’m not a Patriots fan. I skirted fandom when Drew Bledsoe was their quarterback (but only after Buffalo was totally out, of course), but with the departure of Drew my apathy toward Bill Belichick changed to dislike. Besides my distaste for Bill’s disrespectful sideline attire (he looks like he just woke up, and not in the hot Colin Farrell way), I in spite of myself respected his decision making and coaching abilities, even if he was wearing sloppy gray sweatpants. Perhaps his talent is the root of my dislike, since the Patriots are the Bills’ AFC East conference mates and we more often than not lose to them.
In the past couple years opposing teams have been amazed by the Patriots and the quarterback Tom Brady’s ability to read the defense and defy it. Players and fans alike have been astounded by New England’s superb play calling. Belichick has been called “genius.” The Patriots did their homework and were a worthy adversary.
Fortunately, unlike war and love, not all is fair. The NFL has rules, and is a strong proponent of “equal opportunity.” The salary cap, the draft process, the constant drug testing, all attempt to give each team and equal chance every season to make the Super Bowl. New England, like Dallas before them, has been so celebrated because winning a Super Bowl more than one year in a row is a difficult accomplishment (as is winning the AFC championship four years in a row, going to the Super Bowl four years in a row, but I digress). It’s more often the case that the team who won the Super Bowl the year before doesn’t even make the playoffs the year after. And in the NFL, you are not allowed to set up a spy camera on the opposite team's sidelines.
Unfortunately, the NFL has had a rough beginning to the season: the suspensions of Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, the Patriot’s own Rodney Harrison, Wade Wilson, etc. And the Bills lost their first game by one point (but on a happier note Kevin Everett’s doctors are convinced he’ll walk again). Now all-star coach Bill Belichick is caught cheating. Has he been doing it all along? What kind of anger will mount if this is the case?
How do you defend this? As a fan, how do you react to this?
Confusion and disappointment? This article is especially interesting since the writer points out that current Jets coach Eric Mangini was a former protégé of Belichick, a member of his inner circle, so who better to know Belichick’s tricks? Coincidence?
Shock? This one is especially important to read since the title, "A Big Fumble," is a sports metaphor.
One writer offers that Bill is the only one who has been caught. So goes the theory that he's the smartest coach in the league.
Here is an article that has compiled the opinions of many sports writers.
Tony Dungy, longtime Belichick rival, is currently mum on the topic. He’s a classy guy.
Even if the cheating can be proved for only this one time, won’t we always wonder? It’s unfortunate—and by unfortunate I mean stupid—for the Patriots if they truly have spied this one time, because we always will wonder. They’ve now tainted all they’ve earned.
I wonder how much the players knew.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
