« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »
A man in Demark has built a half sized replica of Noah's Ark. He was inspired to do so partly by a dream, but also because Al Gore has said much of his country will be underwater due to the effects of global warming. Now, I've gone past my days of complete Biblical literalism--stories can be true without being historically accurate. But as a former church nerd, this would be kind of cool to see.
You know things are going well when your food scene is featured in the NY Times. Wolfgang Puck gets the starring role, but personally I think Brenda Langton, who's quoted at the end, is the better representative of what's best in the cities. It has been striking how the local restaurant/food scene has grown even in my five years here. The Mill City Farmer's Market, which opened last year, is a definite highlight for me. For size, it's nothing compared to Minneapolis' main market, and smaller than St. Paul's as well. But for atmosphere, I've never seen anything better (though my experience isn't that broad). There's cooking demonstrations and a nice community vibe. And selection is good as well.
I got a chuckle out of last Sunday's "For Better or For Worse."
The reality is, of course, that most of us (even English teachers) don't use "good" grammar on a regular basis and do just fine. There are many grammars out there, and what gets labeled as "good" is only one of them. The ability to use it does bring a kind of status, but also resentment--you come across as educated, but also possibly out of touch. Grammar is related to environmental context, and the most skillful speakers know which grammar to choose for a given situation. This comic does a good job of highlighting that tension, I think.
That's a geographical quetsion posed by this piece about the effects of communiting on human happiness and community. The short answer: not good. Long commutes result in significant amounts of both. Here's a quote:
Postwar zoning laws aggressively separated living space from commercial space, requiring more roads and parking lots—known to planners as Euclidean zoning (after a Supreme Court decision involving Euclid, Ohio), and to civilians as sprawl. Putnam likes to imagine that there is a triangle, its points comprising where you sleep, where you work, and where you shop. In a canonical English village, or in a university town, the sides of that triangle are very short: a five- minute walk from one point to the next. In many American cities, you can spend an hour or two travelling each side. “You live in Pasadena, work in North Hollywood, shop in the Valley,” Putnam said. “Where is your community?” The smaller the triangle, the happier the human, as long as there is social interaction to be had. In that kind of life, you have a small refrigerator, because you can get to theBologna Italy store quickly and often. By this logic, the bigger the refrigerator, the lonelier the soul.
Part of our upcoming downsizing/relocation is an attempt to significantly shrink the size of our triangle. I don't think it's an accident that I've started to consider dropping our Costco membership at the same time--we'll be living a life of a small refrigerator. But hopefully it will be a richer life in other ways.
This week's episode of House, MD, (which my wife and I have now become hooked on) was somehow all to familiar. A major plot point involved Foreman, one of the main team of physicians, talking with another doctor about delivering a terminal prognosis to a patient. Don't mince words, he learns. Give the patient time to process. Let them know they're still human.
Fortunately, my line of work involves much less weighty matters. At the same time, I found myself faced with two "terminal diagnosis" of my own--the message that they were either consigned to a failing grade or in very grave condition academically.
This is a tough conversation, especially late in the semester. I like both students I spoke with. For one, other life commitments (some noble, others less so) got in the way. The other got started late for reasons out of her control and has never seemed to fully catch up. These are not interactions I look forward to, but they've become increasingly easier, which may or may not be a good sign for me. Yet the advice on last night's show applies well here:
Things don't always go well. I've had more than one student shed tears. Like Foreman last night, I usually feel some culpability in their academic demise. What if I had been more attentive or aggressive at inviting this student to office hours? Maybe if I had somehow made my expectations clearer earlier on? Can I bend a rule to let this student slip by? As a course instructor, I always share some blame in a students' failure, though here too I've become less self-blaming as time has gone on. I do my best, but often the prognosis may have been the same no matter who wrote the syllabus.
Learning how to be human in these moments is one of the more difficult tasks of teaching. There's so many ways to try to escape it--faceless emails or even just plain avoidance. Like doctors, though, I hope to continue improving at giving bad news a human face.
...of the supermarket that is. Michael Pollan's newest piece in the New York Times tackles the upcoming renewal of the farm bill. It's surprisingly comprehensive for its short length. Here's a representative quote:
Doing so [reforming the farm bill] starts with the recognition that the "farm bill" is a misnomer; in truth, it is a food bill and so needs to be rewritten with the interests of eaters placed first. Yes, there are eaters who think it in their interest that food just be as cheap as possible, no matter how poor the quality. But there are many more who recognize the real cost of artificially cheap food--to their health, to the land, to the animals, to the public purse. At a minimum, these eaters want a bill that aligns agricultural policy with our public-health and environmental values, one with incentives to produce food cleanly, sustainably and humanely. Eaters want a bill that makes the most healthful calories in the supermarket competitive with the least healthful ones. Eaters want a bill that feeds schoolchildren fresh food from local farms rather than processed surplus commodities from far away. Enlightened eaters also recognize their dependence on farmers, which is why they would support a bill that guarantees the people who raise our food not subsidies but fair prices.
Barack Obama gave what was billed as a major foreign policy speech yesterday. I haven't read the whole thing yet--hopefully I'll have a chance sometime soon--but this quote from Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish was impressive. Obama's great at getting the rhetoric right, at least for me. The question is still whether he has the political and administrative resources to actually lead the country. Here's the quote.
We must [lead] not in the spirit of a patron, but the spirit of a partner – a partner that is mindful of its own imperfections. Extending an outstretched hand to these states must ultimately be more than just a matter of expedience or even charity. It must be about recognizing the inherent equality and worth of all people. And it’s about showing the world that America stands for something – that we can still lead...[I]f the next President can restore the American people's trust – if they know that he or she is acting with their best interests at heart, with prudence and wisdom and some measure of humility – then I believe the American people will be ready to see America lead again.
They will be ready to show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city.
That is not who we are.
Check out this link for a side by side comparison of advertising representations of fast food vs. reality. Several of these don't come off too bad, but the Arby's sandwich at the top is pretty gross!
Last Thursday I skipped out on classes for a half day to go see Michael Pollan at the Minnesota Arboretum. I felt somewhat self-conscious in a room full of foodies, a term I'm only beginning to accept. Pollan's address was centered on the notion of sustainability as it relates to the food system. Much of it was a recap of last year's best seller, The Omnivore's Dilemma (which I've raved about in previous posts). Some interesting points:
Now there's certainly more important fish to fry in the world, but what stood out the most to me was how globalization and centralization have taken over the food supply. On a more fundamental moral and theological level, I view our task as people as being the restoration of community: relational, economic, political, etc. An unfortunate side effect of globalization has been the degredation of that--stores look the same everywhere, I don't know or talk to anyone there, and I certainly don't know the people who made the things I buy. Again, this isn't everything, but at the same time, there's something very appealing and just plain simpler about a more locally based economy. It appeals to values that resonate with my faith: simplicity, stewardship, community, concern for the dignity of people. And, as any good Marxist would point out, separating producer and consumer is a great way to extract profit from both.
I also recently listened to a podcast address from geographer David Harvey, one of the big names in the field. He made a comment toward the end of his session that he didn't think local solutions were enough--that some kind of alternative global system was needed. I just don't know enough to respond to the tension that brings up, but it certainly gives me some research questions...
Image credit to http://www.hugg.com/user/crackedfacade/history/
I submitted a letter to the editor of the Star-Trib today about Nick Coleman's recent column on a tragic shooting in our neighborhood. Here it is:
---
Does Nick Coleman ever visit north Minneapolis when there hasn’t just been a shooting? After an incident on the bus, he rides the 5. After the tragic shootings this week, he talks to workers at a neighborhood bar. Perhaps this ambulance chasing journalism is part of the reason the picture he paints of this neighborhood is so bleak. This may be a surprise to him, but many of us in this neighborhood live our lives each day without getting shot, even while riding the bus or going out to eat. People grill out for dinner, and kids play in the street, just like any other neighborhood.
North Minneapolis has more than its share of problems, but Coleman’s bleak columns do little to help solve them. Here’s a suggestion: make more visits to places not wrapped in crime scene tape, like the Bean Scene, the Cookie Cart, Juxtaposition Arts, or any neighborhood park. There’s more to this neighborhood than just what’s listed on the police blotter.
Class was cancelled today--a bomb threat resulted in several buildings being closed down. I may regret writing this, but my bet is on some student getting out of a test or just enjoying a power trip. It's obviously quite immature--people can get seriously rattled by this kind of thing, and it has a real cost both academically and economically.
While I was student teaching, about eight years ago, on one of the days my teacher took off, I can remember being pulled out of a classtime. The message: "Someone's called in a bomb threat, but we don't want students to know. Look around your classroom to see if there's any suspicious or new packages lying around." I walked back in and tried to act normal, all the while awaiting the explosion that would tear everything apart. This was the same time as Columbine, so fear was in the air, just like today.
I've gotten more perspective since then. The fact that this threat targeted primarily administration buildings is a telltale sign of a prankster to me--it's that power trip thing. Still, my heart did beat a little faster as I and the other building refugees clustered on a grassy slope while news helicopters buzzed above us.
A lego enactment of a play from a recent Twins game. Wow. Batgirl's motto is "Less Stats, More Sass." It's got to be one of the most entertaining blogs of any kind I've read. It probably helps to be a fellow parent.
Tom Friedman's essay yesterday in the NY Times magazine is lengthy, but accessible and a good read. His basic argument is that environmentalism is at heart a national security issue. When oil producing countries can't count on oil for funding, they're more reliant on the needs and desires of their people. Yet the costs of energy efficiency remain high. So, ultimately, Friedman concludes that we need to make the cost of carbon emission a real economic force in the marketplace, taxing carbon emissions and letting markets do the rest.
I'm not enough of an expert on the issue to comment, but it's a compelling argument. Given my family's current downsizing campaign, any move toward decreased consumption of anything sounds good. And the economic consequences of our current oil dependency are undeniable. In any case, it's worth the time to read this piece, I think.
Today's "Get Fuzzy" strip pulls no punches commenting on an almost century of baseball futility. For the record, the Cubs last won it all in 1908. I actually have several comics with a similar theme on our fridge. It's always fun to laugh at losers, right? I actually wonder what it would do to the mentality of Cubs fans to actually win a world series. It hasn't destroyed the Red Sox, I guess...
From a Sleep Number Bed radio commercial (paraphrased):
"Sure, you can drink some caffiene and get enough energy to tie your shoes. But then tired is back two hours later, and this time, it's mad."
Yesterday was the U's first Public Engagement Day. Between teaching and other commitments, I had only time for one breakout section, but it was a good one, on local food. Participants talked in part about various ways that the U has helped support local and sustainable agriculture, partnering with farmers to build the economic and distribution infrastructure needed.
The best part? Every chair in the room had a plate of goodies. Locally made parmesan and soft cheeses. A crunchy whole wheat bread. Butter. Grapes. Granola. Why can't every conference be this tasty???
Kurt Vonnegut dead at the age of 84. Slaughterhouse Five was his masterwork, but I also liked Cat's Cradle, an apocalyptic novel that ends with the whole world encased in ice. He's not at the top of my list of favorite authors, but he was a unique literary voice and a fellow Iowa alumni. His passing is a sad one for American literature.
In an all too brief moment of repose last night, I channel flipped past a CNN interview with Jerry Falwell. For those not familiar with the man, he's in the Pat Robertson school of evangelical right-wing leaders. He's strongly conservative, both theologically and politically. I'm not a big fan of talking head TV, since too often it's about the volume of the argument rather than the quality of the conversation. But what stopped me here was the interviewers question: essentially, why Falwell has spoke so often about homosexuality and abortion and not about poverty and injustice, arguably just as important (I would claim much more so) in Scripture.
His response was telling. He said that some people have a special calling in life, such as Pope John Paul II when it comes to abortion. He seemed to imply that the two issues listed above were his special calling. He also said that his church has had "homes" for single moms and homeless people for over twenty years. But the press doesn't cover that, he claimed, because it's just not controversial. Nobody disagrees with helping poor people.
Falwell is just the kind of guy who tends to get under my skin. Yes, he's technically my brother in Christ, but there's times I'd like to call him a second cousin three times removed. He's the symbol of what turns so many off about our faith--the kind of smug self-righteousness and outright militancy about social issues. So I was intrigued to hear an answer to the very question I would have asked.
Is charity as controversial as abortion? No. Certainly no one's bombed the free lunch program recently. But it was interesting to me that he framed the issue in that way. "Homes" for those down on their luck aren't controversial, since they don't really challenge the way things are. Yet when we look at Scripture, particularly at the prophets and at Jesus' ministry, we find out that dealing with those at the margins can be VERY controversial. That's because, in those cases, it's not just charity--a helping hand. Both Jesus and the prophets challenged the larger social system that marginalized those folks. They advocated for a more just society, one where everyone could share more equally of society's resources. When you ask the rich young rulers to give away all their possessions and call religious leaders "whitewashed tombs" due to their economic exploitation of widows, that's what gets you into trouble.
Falwell may very well have a special calling on the abortion issue, though I don't know personally how much good he's doing. But I'd disagree with him on the church's role of poverty. The best agencies I've seen on this issue mix both charity and activism--addressing the current need while also pushing for larger reforms. Honestly, maybe it doesn't get the same publicity as abortion, but not for the reason Falwell says. It's not a comfortable word, and something most of us (myself included) would prefer not to hear.
The fundraising totals are now in, and it looks like more or less a tie among the top two Democractic presidential candidates. Hillary announced earlier this week that she had $26 million in the coffers. Now Obama's campaign today says he has $25 million. More notably, Obama's number of contributors doubles Clintons--100,000 to 50,000. One piece I read yesterday (which I can't find now) suggested that's a better predictor of long term fund-raising success.
Obama's certainly got some momentum, even though he's consistently lagging behind in the polls. I still have a bad feeling about the lack of specifics his campaign has given about policy plans. It's nice rhetoric, but he'll need to take a stand for something at some point. There's things I like about Edwards, though he can be a bit of a demagogue at times. I'm sure there will be plenty of news to follow on what looks to be a very long campaign.
Over the last two or three years I feel I've been processing the implications of my evangelical upbringing. While we still go to a church that's evangelical in many ways, I also feel that a little distance has grown between myself and the evangelical mainstream. Or at least enough to have some perspective on it.
Here's one example: As a college freshman, I can remember my distinct disdain for liberal religion. I'd make snide comments about the "social gospel" and a faith that was all love and no rules. Yet more recently, particularly as I've been in a work environment that highly values accessibility (basically the virtue of hospitality) I've thought more about the role rules play in evangelical faith. While we may preach grace, there are lots of ways that legalism can sneak in. For example, I can remember ruling out at least one potential crush in middle school after I heard her swear. "She must not be a Christian," I thought. Now language is important, but there can be a little bit of straining the gnat and swallowing a camel in that one. It reminds me of Tony Campolo's famous line: "While you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Most of you don't give a shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night." There's a level of priorities here.
As a principle oriented person, I think the attraction to these kinds of intricate rules and social conventions can be attractive, but in the end, those laws exclude more than they include. They provide a framework in which church can be, as our pastor said last weekend, a country club, not a community.
I got a taste of that in extreme yesterday when we sent out an email to the college community for a new home for our pet. One response suggested that we find housing that would accept her, rather than essentially tossing her out on the street. After a rather upset reply from Sarah, this person wrote back that "speaking up for those who cannot speak for themselves should arguably be an aspect of every person who cares about justice in general, and since i was a recipient of your mass email, about justice for your dog in particular...i see someone acting 'responsibly' irresponsible and i called you on it. i trust your dog would genuinely thank me; maybe you should take a lesson from her. "
What's going on here? Obviously this person feels like he is acting righteously. Yet these rather harsh statements about us without any contextual knowledge of our situation got me pretty steamed. Who is he to say this? Why should he impose his values on us? I began composing quite sarcastic and spiteful replies in my head.
Then it struck me--this is precisely what many people say about evangelicals, those of us who make statements about how people should live and love without any real knowledge of the people we are speaking to. The shoe was, for awhile, on the other foot.
Is this what Jesus came to create? A community of shouters? Now, certainly, Jesus gave his share of harsh words, though those were particularly for a judgmental religious leadership. And the prophets of the Old Testament didn't exactly tone things down for their audience. Yet if the kingdom is characterized first of all by love and grace, I've been increasingly convinced that those "social gospel" folks might have been on to something. Like all such dichotomies, it's not an either or, but there's a synthesis there that the church badly needs.
Today's opening day, and while I'll confess to having more enthusiasm for the Twins than I have in years past, the Cubbies are still my team. It's now been 99 years since the North Siders have won a World Series. They spent $300 million this off season to try to fix that, though according to prognosicators, we shouldn't bet on it. On top of that, news comes out this morning that the Cubs will have a new owner next year. As one of the best sports franchises out there (financially speaking), I'm guessing a pitched battle will ensue. We can only hope that it's a fan who finally poinies up.
Good luck to both the Cubs and Twins today!