The Da Vinci Code

I haven't read the book. I'm working on it. But, I have seen the movie. Here are some thoughts:

Undoubtedly, it is fiction. It twists history to make a point. Mostly Brown is trying for good fiction, but I think he's scoring some political points in there as well. I don't think that's much different than the authors of Left Behind or other evangelical, apocalyptic fiction, though. They twist scripture to fit their ideological and political points of view.

I think one of the best things that could come from this book/movie is a resurgent interest in church history. Most Christians I know don't really have a solid understanding of church history. And that makes sense--it can often be a big shock, to see the power struggles, the politics, the way that things we take for granted today were socially constructed. But I think challenging and learning is part of faith. All education, good education at least, gets at the root of how and why we "know" what we "know." It always involves a good bit of shock. All good education challenges our preconceived notions, questions received wisdom. We can't sit in a bubble and have people tell us what we want to hear. How does that grow faith? How does that grow a person?

While much of Brown's "history" is not history at all (it's fiction, people!!), my hope is that it will cause interest in church history, the formation of doctrine and the canon, etc. Maybe it will cause us to reexamine our notions of "Jesus" and how he has been constructed historically. Brown's version may not be accurate, but neither is the Jesus that is dominant in today's culture. We have the filter of churches, authors, commentators, and culture telling us what Jesus should be like. Who needs the bible at all, really?

My fear is that those who might most benefit from the questioning/thinking process that could be started from this book/movie are the very ones who won't go to see it. But that's always how it is, isn't it?

judging people

Dear guy in UPS truck outside UT-Southwestern today,

I am sorry that I made a weirded-out face when I walked by you and your parked brown truck. I heard the voice of Rush Limbaugh emanating from your radio, and thought bad things about you. Through my stare and facial expressions, I didn't mean to imply that you were stupid or a mindless "ditto-head" [term for a Limbaugh admirer]. In fact, I have no clue why you were listening. Perhaps you, like I do, find right wing talk radio (well, political talk radio in general) to be interesting, fascinating, and silly. I had no right to assme that you were a conservative. People assume I'm a conservative all the time too. I often wonder what people think whenever they get an earful of Sean Hannity in my radio. I hope they give me the benefit of the doubt, as I failed to do for you today.

Sorry!
Jennifer

Quote book

Once, a long time ago, I had a quote book, where I wrote down randomly bizarre things that I or my friends said. I lost the quote book, and rather than starting up a new one, whenever I heard a funny quote, I would write it down on whatever was handy. This was a good two or three years ago. Now that I am packing up my closet, I found a whole folder of random napkins, bits of paper, church bulletins, and class handouts with quotes that are sometimes funny, sometimes funny if you know the person saying them, and sometimes probably only funny in context. And context is long gone by now. I'll post them anyway.

"It looks like a highlighter but you drink it." --Dylan on Mountain Dew
"No, more like pee." --Luke
"Dude, what does your pee look like?" --Dylan

"Bird poop isn't the same as gravy." --Travis

"I weave a mean blanket." --Jason

"The hottie, the hottie, mmm, I love the hottie." --Sarah, to the tune of "The Bunny Song."

"Eat the chicken." --Sarah

"She wants to shrink-wrap the world, but she'll go the jail first." --Lauren, on Martha Stewart

"Now our only hope is that this church bus has a head-on collision." --Sarah

"They wanna get it on." --Sarah
"Get what on?" --M., Jason's little sister

"So, going to the bathroom together is off limits?" --Sarah to Jason
"Mmmhmm. And sleeping in the same bed, as well!" --Jason

"Give it to God." --Jason

"Where do the students park??" --Jason, looking at the B. McDaniel middle school parking lot

"She made the Colt face! I heard it!" --Jason

"I so want to like your ear." [a few seconds later] "Oh, I have earwax on my tongue now." --Sarah (to Jason, presumably)

"Jason, you can bite my tongue." --Sarah

"Forget poking a dead body with a stick, I want to lick people." --Sarah

"Jason, do you want to have my babies?" --Sarah

"It feels like dog poop between my toes." --Sarah

"Clinton in the oral--I mean oval--office." --Ema

I think many of these quotes (especially the Sarah and Jason ones) were from really one night where I insisted on being annoying and writing down everything they said. Oh well.

I have gotten nothing done today.

I am amazingly lazy.

Why isn't he funny?

As many of you know, I love scary conservatives. Pat Robertson and Phyllis Schlafly amuse me more than offend me. (I know, I'm evil.) But, this guy, Michael Savage, I just can't laugh at. I don't know that his words are inherently more offensive or wrong. But I just can't laugh at him. Perhaps (and I'm just thinking out loud here--I don't know my subconscious near as well as I should) it's because Robertson and Schlafly appeal to religion. Savage doesn't. I guess I credit the former two with good, but misguided, intentions; but Savage just seems kind of evil and mean-spirited. He may be religious, I don't know, and he probably is (though not in any recognizable Christ-like way). But because he doesn't really make that the basis of his appeal, maybe that's why I just don't like him rather than finding him interesting and wrong.

Anyway, listen to this clip. He is seriously getting it all in: racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. He's expertly playing on feelings of many working class white men that they are being marginalized. he uses the police department as an example, saying that because of affirmative action and subjective tests given by "lesbians and minorities" they are not getting the good jobs anymore and that unqualified "dummies" become "the white man's captain."

"Do you understand what I just said to you? You do if you're a white man."

This is "a low grade communist revolution" according to Savage.

Objectively, some of his claims are quite laughable, and, indeed, the sorts of things I generally laugh at. But something about hearing this man makes me literally nauseous. Perhaps a lot of it is that Robertson and Schlafly generally sound patently ridiculous. But Savage? I could see my dad listening to him and totally being sold on the idea that he is a victimized white male. I could see thousands of working class white men being fed the same lies.

immigration

It's really fascinating to see the two sides of the Republican party so obviously exposed and President Bush so obviously caught between them. The two sides are, of course, the social conservatives, and the big-business conservatives.

Big business is clearly in favor of a guest worker program--it gives them access to cheap labor. Social conservatives are afraid of increased immigration for more cultural reasons. John Gibson (from FOX) the other night warned white couples that they need to have more babies because hispanics are starting to outnumber them. To them, the problem with hispanic immigration is more about race and culture.

Bush has sided with the big business conservatives. And the social conservatives are unhappy. I find it truly interesting and can't wait to see how it plays out.

Many of you have asked about my own feelings toward immigration. Here's what I think: in order to deal with this problem, we have to deal with both the push and the pull factors that lead people to come here seeking a better life. No one wants to have to come to the U.S. No one wants to leave their family behind. But the lack of economic opportunities in the sending countries and employers who are willing to hire undocumented workers in the U.S. cause a massive flow.

How do we fix it? Securing the borders is important, but unless you ameliorate the flow by stemming the sending and pulling factors, people will always find a way in. We need to really enforce laws that criminalize the employment of undocumented workers. We need to invest in the economic development of the countries that send workers here, creating jobs.

And making humanitarian workers criminals? That's just idiotic.

Nooooooooooooo

Worst thing about being graduated? No longer having access to library databases.

Of course

I get ready to leave and then people start saying that Texas might be up for presidential electoral grabs.

church, state, and the public sphere

For the second time in recent days, I've found myself on the side of a debate that I'm very rarely on. I'm an Establishment Clause stickler. But I'm also a fan of freedom of religion. And while I'm opposed to excessive entanglement of religion and government, I think religion should be in our public sphere.

I have found myself busting out the argument that I generally hear coming out of the mouths of right-wingers. "The 'separation of church and state' isn't in the constitution anyway." And it's true.

Today I got into a discussion with several people about what churches should be allowed to do in the way of politics. I think churches should be able to do a lot: hold meetings, talk about political issues, drive people to the polls. Many of the people I talked to disagreed. They said that churches should be able to talk about "moral" issues that might be political issues as well, but that's about it.

First off, I think all moral issues are political issues. How can you separate them? Is it too political for a preacher to preach about racial equality? How about during desegregation? Was it too political then? Were black churches and clergy going over the line when they were organizing people and leaders during the Civil Rights Movement?

I do draw the line at endorsing candidates or telling people how they should vote on a particular issue on the ballot. But that's not a separation of church and state issue, that's a tax-exempt, non-profit issue. I don't think the United Way or the Girls' Club should be able to endorse candidates either. I don't think that, from a first amendment standpoint, there's any limit on the politicking that a church can be involved in. (Except, of course, the tax-exempt limit.)

I think that religion should absolutely be involved in the public square. I don't think it's a problem that churches drive people to the polls... I think it's important that they do. Churches (of all types) are an important part of American civil society. They are a basis for social organization and shared beliefs and values.

I realize that when I say this, I'm arguing for the active engagement of, many times, homophobic and intolerant groups. I sure am! I don't care that churches preach against gay marriage. Because there are just as many out there who are preaching for equality. I believe free speech is answerable by more free speech. I don't mind that those same anti-gay churches are busing their members to the polls to vote. Because I think greater civic engagement in general will lead to more justice in the end.

Preachers used to preach in support of segregation. They eventually lost the battle of ideas. They used to preach against racial intermarriage. They used to preach against gay marriage. Good ideas will always prevail. I believe that religion should be an active participant in that national dialogue. Yes, even in our political dialogue.

I think part of the problem of politics today is that we've associated religion with "moral" issues and separated those completely from "political" issues. Thus, we see reports that the "values voters" carried George W. Bush to victory. I did not vote for Bush. Did I not vote my values? Is justice not a value? Equality? To hear these people talk, abortion and gay marriage are the only positions on which one can take a "moral" position.

I always dismissed the claim made by many on the right that people on the left are too secular and combative towards religion. But, it really does seem that there may be some truth in that. I'm not saying that people on the left need to find religion, but I do think they need to open their minds to the progressive possibilities inherent in religion. Religion has always guided us on to the greater good when it has been a part of our national conversation. When we allow the right to have a monopoly on "values" and "morals," we undercut the importance and power of our moral and value judgments.

Once and for all

Let it be known: Percy Weasley* is fundamentally, way down deep, a good guy, and will come around in the end. This statement is the end of my public discussion on the topic.

Also, wearing my "Severus Snape is innocent" shirt in public is probably not something I'll do again anytime soon. Too many random people coming up to me and arguing at me.

*I do not mean my computer here. I have given up on him.

Peace takes courage

Ava Lowry, a 15 year old girl from Alabama, has produced a series of powerful animations. One of them, WWJD?, is disturbing, but in a way that we need to face. Essentially, it has pictures of war, war on children, pictures that our mainstream media carefully shields us from, juxtaposed against children singing "Jesus Loves Me." This animation is chilling. It's chilling in the same way Stephen Colbert's routine made everyone uncomfortable. It exposes the contradictions, it unsettles our taken for granted notions of how things are, it questions our very sources of information and truth.

Here's the link to her animations. I particularly recommend the WWJD? one and the one called The 32%, which just lists some of the comments she's gotten from conservatives who don't like her movies. Warning: the first one has graphic images and the second has graphic words (the kind you expect from the same folks who send death threats to Cindy Sheehan and the Dixie Chicks; they're probably the same set who professes to be pro-life and then murders doctors).

Asking conservatives what Jesus would do is always important. No matter what you believe about the divinity of Jesus, I think we can all agree that he had some pretty powerful and important ideas. Unfortunately, mainstream Christianity, particularly conservative Christianity, has gotten away from his quite radical message. Reminding people of Jesus the man, his teachings, and the Bible itself is an important act. We must do it kindly, not straight up telling people "you are being so unChristian!" But we must challenge people to rise to their better natures, to think critically, to pay attention, to link their faith with their actions in the world, including their politics.

It's funny, because Jesus came with this radical message that upset the current, conservative religious order. His followers have today become the conservative religious order. Who will follow in Jesus' footsteps to question and challenge them?

National security?

So, turns out, Valerie Plame was working on tracking the nuclear capabilities of Iran. When her cover was blown (and that of the fake company she was working for, putting who knows how many others' lives in danger... we'll never know the true human toll of this outing), our intelligence abilities were damaged.

So, if we're really all that concerned about Iran, why was the leaking of Plame's identity authorized from high levels? Clearly, playing politics was a bit more important than, you know, national security. Lovely.

"reality has a well-known liberal bias."

That is one of the best quotes from Stephen Colbert's speech at the White House Correspondent's Dinner this weekend. I just watched the video on youtube.com, and wow. What was more fascinating than the biting and stingingly true barbs he tossed out was the total lack of reaction/hostility he faced from the crowd--the press corps and the president. Of course, he was exposing them. But wow. There was palpable discomfort.

So, it's not surprising that the mainstream media is not covering this.

Mash at dKos says, "Standing at the podium only a few feet from President Bush, Colbert launched an all out assault on the policies of this Administration. It was remarkable, though painful at times, to watch. It may also have been the first time that anyone has been this blunt with this President. By the end of Colbert's routine, Bush was visibly uncomfortable. Colbert ended with a video featuring Helen Thomas repeatedly asking why we invaded Iraq. That is a question President Bush has yet to answer to the American public. I am not sure what kind of review Stephen Colbert's performance will get in the press. One thing is however certain - his performance was important and will reverberate."

I really think Stephen Colbert is brilliant. His use of parody to expose corruption in politics and the media is, I believe, quite effective. But, of course, it matters for nothing if no one hears about it.

Head over to www.thankyoustephencolbert.org for links to the videos.

privilege

You know, I've read this, and I've certainly experienced it, but every time I see it happening it amazes me. People really do only see their own disadvantages; privileges are hard to see. Of course this makes sense, you see what keeps you down and we don't like to acknowledge that we have had boosts along the way. But often, when those barriers act in very similar ways, it's fascinating to me how someone can acknowledge one kind of inequality but categorically deny that another exists.

For example, I was talking to someone yesterday; at first, he didn't want to believe that there was any inequality in the world. He, of working class background, was relatively quickly able to see his class disadvantage, but adamantly did not want to see inequality or believe that coming from a non-white background might hurt ones' chances to achieve the "American Dream." We won't even get into gender.

This is fascinating: we were talking about unions, and how raising the minimum wage and increasing unionization might reduce some of the pull factors that bring undocumented immigrants to be exploited by corporations who know that they can hire them cheaply. He agreed and was all for unionization. Then we were watching CNN and a union leader from the NY transit authority started speaking. He had an accent and may be an immigrant; most of the audience for the speech were people of color. Suddenly, they were "trying to make the white man give them more," not fighting for, you know, better wages or working conditions. He literally, because of the ethnicity and race of these people, was not able to see the disadvantages that he had no problem imagining when the disadvantaged people were (in his head) white.

I guess being able to ignore white privilege is a privilege in itself.

I still can't sleep.

But I'm definitely getting a haircut tomorrow.

I can't get to sleep.

Should I get a haircut tomorrow?

Oh for a pseudonymous blog!

Funny, funny stuff.

But I can't tell you.

I could possibly tell you, depending on who you are. But I cannot tell the internets.

I am finished.

But, I still have stuff to do. Grr. I don't feel like I'm finished.

I do, however, have my books packed up. I have far too many books. And I just realized that I need to get into the bottom box for a particular book. Grr again.

Still, I'm finished.

Irresponsibility

I am about to turn in a paper without proofreading it. Specifically, a paper I finished at about 4:30 this morning and about which I have no illusions as to its... coherence.

This is all the more reason that I should actually proofread the paper. If I were a responsible person. But I am not. Re-reading it will simply reinforce the utter awful-ness of it, and that's no fun. I would feel the need to re-write bits of it, and as there's no time for that at all, it would just reinforce my shame.

So, yes, here I am, at the last paper of my undergraduate career... and I am too ashamed of it to even proofread it. Lovely.

Update:
So, I just turned in the abysmal paper. As I turned it in, the professor said, "Thanks Jennifer! Good luck in graduate school." And I was heartily ashamed. This guy is going to read my paper and wonder how I ever made it into grad school.

Last week before class we were talking, and I happened to mention that I was moving to Arizona for grad school in sociology. He made some random comment about sociology as a "dying discipline," which, sad to say, may be true enough. We laughed and I thought nothing of it. But now, he's gonna read my crappy paper, know that I am going to graduate school in sociology, and assume bad things about either sociology as a whole or Arizona as a department. I would wonder at any discipline/department that would let me in, if my only exposure to me was this paper and my participation in the two classes I've taken with this professor.

He seems genuinely interesting and the classes could potentially be good (they're not--for a number of reasons). But both (non-soc) classes I've had with him have ended up being my back-burner, low time-input classes in their respective semesters. Largely this is because they require very little effort to get As.

I don't know why it bothers me that this guy who I will probably never see again will have a low opinion of me after reading this paper. Or why it somehow bothers me more because he knows my grad school plans.

It just does.

Oh well. One more thing left to do before I am FINISHED FOR GOOD. Or, at least for the semester.

I thought I was being clever.

Turns out, I was just being unoriginal.

When I heard that Tony Snow was being considered for the Press Secretary job, I thought, "haha, he'll literally be doing a Snow job..." and was all amused at my wit.

I realize that even if it were completely original, it wouldn't actually be all that funny. But, still, I thought I'd say it to someone. Who then informed me that that particular pun had been done. Had been done many times.