"10 Things I like about scrabulous" written by Drew on estrip.org

10/17/07 11:07 - 58ºF - ID#41697

10 Things I like about scrabulous

1. It's playing scrabble.

2. It's playing multiple games of scrabble at once.

3. It's free.

4. It's at your own pace.

5. You can talk trash as you play.

6. You can check the dictionary and two word lists as you play.

7. I can play with friends near and far.

8. It doesn't involve my wife having simulated affairs or dieing.

9. Good feelings when I log in and see its my turn.

10. I haven't lost a game yet.

If you are on facebook, look for me (my last name is Ludwig) and start a game!

Permalink: 10_Things_I_like_about_scrabulous.html
Words: 89
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: 10 things

10/15/07 02:48 - 56ºF - ID#41661

10 Things I like about Karl Barth

1. He was a pioneer. He was trained in theological liberalism, but left that camp when it failed him and created a whole new way of doing theology.

2. He was, at the same time, humble. He realized that his theology was only for the time and place in which it was written. He knew that there would always be new questions, and theologians would always have to start over from the beginning.

3. He fought the Nazi's. Almost everyone in Germany went along with the German church in endorsing Hitler, but Barth wouldn't and got fired for it. (Bonhoeffer one-upped Barth by dieing as a resister, but Barth was still pretty cool).

4. He kept writing until he died, and still didn't finish his work.

5. He was, arguably, the first post-modern theologian.

6. Despite saying so much (his major opus, Church Dogmatics, stacks about four feet high), he also knew when to keep his mouth shut. He was able to say "I don't know" when he didn't.

7. He was cool with other people. Despite being very much a reformed, protestant, Christian theologian, he had a whole lot of appreciation/dialouge with people outside of those traditions.

8. He learned as he went. Barth had a lot to learn when he was first hired as a professor, and often had to go straight from the library to his lectures. His students loved learning with him as much as from him.

9. He reached out. Despite being very much in demand as a theologian, he made time to preach to prisoners, because he knew that God cared for prisoners.

10. His quote: "We should preach with the Bible in one hand, and the newspaper in the other."

Permalink: 10_Things_I_like_about_Karl_Barth.html
Words: 278
Location: Buffalo, NY

10/15/07 10:04 - 51ºF - ID#41658

Cable?

I got a new digital camera, but do not currently have a card reader/USB cable. My brother will give me one come thanksgiving, but I want to start posting pics now! My guess is that one of you technical people has an extra one to spare. Am I right?

Permalink: Cable_.html
Words: 50
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: religion

10/11/07 11:36 - 51ºF - ID#41596

Churches and Gay People

Last Sunday, members of my Sunday School asked me to teach a class on homosexuality and the Bible.

Which I expected would happen eventually, because really, Christians tend to talk about sex more than anything else.

But I was hoping to avoid said topic, because people tend to fight and not listen and judge when they talk about sex. And I want to avoid these things.

But they really wanted to talk about it, and promised they would be kind, and hinted that a lot of people would be interested and come to hear if I talked about what the Bible said about Homosexuality, and really, the proud part of me wanted a lot of people in my class, and I thought I could make an even handed presentation so I said, "Yes, I will do the class."

But since then I have changed my mind.

And here's why. There are no (out of the closet, at least) gay people in our church. So the class would be full of people that want to discuss an issue that DOESN'T apply to them, and that doesn't seem to be a worthwhile use of our time.

So instead, I plan on offering a class called, "Why we aren't going to talk about homosexuality for at least one year."

Points will include:

Right now, nobody (on any side of the issue) is open to change. If education does not lead to a change in heart or behavior, than it isn't really worthwhile or necessary education, in my book.

Right now, this does not (as far as I know) directly apply to anybody that will be attending the class. It is a waste of time to talk about hypotheticals when there is real stuff that we can deal with in the moment.

Christians have a reputation for being obsessed with sex and hypocritical about it. Such a class would feed into that unhealthy reputation.

Our goal for the next year is to welcome young families and people without a Christian community. Right now, we need to learn how to do this, and this class does not feed into said goal (It also does not feed into our mission of Loving God and Loving People, at least not right now).

There are right ways and wrong ways to develop any ethical position, and I would much rather teach the right ways to develop said position with a non-polarizing issue, so that those same principals can be applied to other situations.

So maybe in one year after focusing on other things, we will be ready to address this issue which I know IS important to talk about, for people of all positions.

So my question, critical thinking friends, is: Am I dodging? Is this a cop-out? Will this make things better? Worse? I am I being true to my calling, both to work for justice and to preach the word faithfully?

I really want your opinion on these matters, so please don't be shy.

drew writes at 11:23:17 10/12/07 - Comment #26169: Sure enough, but as Janelle explained, its a little bit complicated.

Officially, the PC(USA), the denomination to which I belong, has barred non-celibate gay people from marriage and/or ordination. There is a large movement within the denomination to change this, and another large movement that is fighting this change.

Because the latter group thinks that the denomination as a whole is compromising, that group is leaving the denomination, and thus getting smaller.

Because the former group doesn't really do a good job of helping people become Christians, that group is also gettings smaller, but not quite as quickly.

So, from a demographic standpoint, it looks like the policies will change, but at that point we may be such a small group of people that we will be irrelevant. Calculating the rate of change: soul calculus! (that's a great song waiting to be written)

Some churches, such as First and Westminster in our neighborhood, have become aligned themselves with those in the first movement--they want the rules to change. Some churches in that movement break the rules, others ignore them, others do a semantic dance to play by the letter of the rules but not the spirit.

Others have declared themselves to be in the second group. Sometimes those in that group have organized to prosecute any rule-breakers in the first group. Lately, they have done that less and decided that they are better off forming a separate group that is not a part of the same denomination as those in the first group.

My church has made no declaration, and would have a hard time reaching a consensus, either way. We are like most Presbyterians in that way. Some people think that this throws GLBT people under the bus. Others think that this throws the Bible under the bus. A lot of us realize that this has been a battle for the church for some time and are tired of fighting. Others are too eager to fight.

In short, we don't march in the pride parade, but we don't hold up signs and shout at the parade, either.

I know that we have lost people from both sides of the aisle by not taking a firm position, and I understand how keeping quiet almost (never?) helps people move forward. These two facts mean I should probably speak up, but as soon as I give a position, it can (likely will) kill any discussion.

I find this important, because both of the groups outlined above have flaws, and both could learn from one another, but instead they blame and fear one another. Because of the way they treat their "opponents," I do not want to be a part of either group.

Anyway, the church's unwritten position is something like this.

All people are welcome. All people are invited.

All people are also sinful (gay and straight).

God forgives all (or, at the very least, all who express a desire to be forgiven--depending on who you ask).

God also calls us all to radically re-shape our lives. Everything, our time; our money; our homes; and yes, our sexuality (regardless of orientation) is changed by the new life that we discover in Christ. In short, we no longer live to please ourselves (we found that didn't work anyway) but join with Christ in expressing his love for (and therefore reconciliation with) the world. This is done through death (not attacking and killing death, but accepting our own deaths, joining ourselves with Christ's suffering on the cross) and resurrection (again, Christ's resurrection--a new life that is the same, but radically different at the same time.)

Therefore (getting more particular, again)If your sex life is more important than following Jesus, you cannot be a follower. We have to be ready to even abandon our own mothers and our own lives.

Now for some particulars, that may or may not reflect the theology outlined above, may or may not be good and faithful, but are what we do:

GLBT are welcomed into membership, and encouraged to join us in our worship and in our mission. Some in our church would consider their behavior sinful, but would likely keep their mouths shut, as they also recognize their own sinful behavior, and don't like having it pointed out, either. Extremely harmful sin, however, is dealt with by the community. We recently had to do just that, and it wasn't about sex, but I won't say anymore because we love and respect the person involved.

GLBT people are not likely to be elected as leaders (this is against our constitution, but is often ignored and rarely prosecuted). I am barred from marrying a gay couple, but allowed (by the denomination and the state) to "bless a union."

If I did bless a union, the congregation would be upset with me, and likely would not allow it to happen in our building.

paul writes at 09:57:22 10/12/07 - Comment #26158: I restored (e:janelle)'s missing comment - sorry guys.

janelle writes at 09:26:45 10/12/07 - Comment #26157: Interesting point about church members having the right to know the church's position (e:Libertad)!

In one sense, the members ARE the church. So to some extent, the members are the ones who determine what the church's position is. That's where the unity bit gets tricky, because it can be difficult for the members to find a position for the church that allows for diversity in belief on the issue instead of splitting the church.

I think it definitely can be done in time though!

libertad writes at 09:14:43 10/12/07 - Comment #26156: Most openly gay people I know want their religious organization's views about homosexuals clearly spelled out. I actually assumed that your church had already done so and thought that they were one of the many churches that march at gay pride every year. I imagine this must be a difficult situation for you. Keeping unity is important, but on issues like this I think members have a right to know their church's position.

drew writes at 12:24:16 10/12/07 - Comment #26146: Wow. Good stuff. A little more clarification:

Class would be for grown-ups, but may include some high school students.

If I did have the "Why we aren't doing the class" class, it would be advertised as such.

Bringing Christian gay people would be part of this, but not to be a part of a debate. I don't want this to turn into a "sides" issue. It would be to make a group of "them" into humans.

I would never force anybody out or otherwise violate a person's choice to participate or not. If this class did happen, there would be very clear ground rules that would have to be agreed on to even be a part of the class. I normally don't do this with other classes, but really sexuality has become THE litmus test by which churches divide. Now, there are times for division, I will admit that, but I also think that people of good faith can disagree about rules for ordination and marriage and remain in community together. In fact, I think they SHOULD remain in community together.

Janelle is right--I have big plans for this crowd. I have already pushed them a lot in just 6 months, and I think that this might put them into overload. That being said, I like the church and trust the church, and we will have to deal with these questions sometime, but I hesitate because I think the conversation will e more fruitful if we first grow even more in collegiality, generosity and trust (again--all of these things are pretty high, but I've only been part of the community for 6 months, so they aren't to the point with me that they could be.)

I really do appreciate the feedback.

jim writes at 11:20:56 10/11/07 - Comment #26144: Janelle, it looks like one of your comments got eaten, I'll email Paul about it.

janelle writes at 11:20:05 10/11/07 - Comment #26143: I take a more long term perspective. Drew has a larger vision for the church of it being a community church, which among many things also includes being welcoming to the GLBT community. When you have a vision, you have to lay a foundation. This church needs healing from is past division and a foundation of trust in one another and in its minister. Fear of the congregation fracturing from introducing the topic prematurely is IMO a perfectly legitimate reason. A fractured church is an ineffective church that will not reach its vision of being a community church that's inclusive of GLBT community, it could halt what might be an incredible ministry or at least make it significantly more difficult to accomplish.

I think the discussion strays from actual issue, which is, should the topic be addressed now, or later, when the congregation is ready. Drew never says that he WON'T address the topic, he is simply wondering if the topic should be best addressed now or later and if it's a cop out to discuss later.

I think the conversation also represents a common issue in civil rights. Both the black civil rights movement and the womens rights movement struggled internally over whether change should happen immediately at any cost or whether a long term approach has the best outcomes in the long run. There's plenty to debate on both sides with no clear cut answer in my mind.

fellyconnelly writes at 10:46:14 10/11/07 - Comment #26141: this whole thing reminds me of lauren's parents, both of whom are active members of the presbyterian (sp?) church of their town. I know that they would love to go to one of these classes. they aren't gay, but you know i bet they would take comfort in the education. I bet they would also take that information and use it to open the minds of others.

LAUREN SAYS:
but i would just like to point out that never ever should anyone be asked, outrightly or inadvertantly, to out themselves or people they know...this can put people in a very compromising position.

lauren writes at 07:29:41 10/11/07 - Comment #26133: (e:joshua) - not talking about sexuality for fear of it fracturing his congregation would indeed be a cop out. There is nothing to learn from comfort. There is no change, no movement, only stagnant self righteousness. It is highly unlikely that any discussion about homesexuality would be solely positive and if that was the only thing keeping you from discussion, you will never get anywhere.
I do however agree with you that bringing in some openly gay Christians (or reading their work) might be a good place to start. The key is to keep the discussion grounded in whatever way feels best so as not to get of topic. This could easily damage the potential outcomes.
And (e:Drew) I say dance! What else can we do? Nothing can be accomplished from the sidelines or the bleachers, the only way to live is to get out on that dance floor :)

ladycroft writes at 04:35:53 10/11/07 - Comment #26121: When you say Sunday School; is this an adult class or teens? The motive for wanting the discussion may be different for those. You mention not wanting to discuss it for several reasons and I can see where your concerns are understandable due to your church's history.

I agree with Lauren's thoughts that they may not necessarily be asking for themselves, but consider a friend or family member they may be struggling with.

I think it might be a bit to much to presume the topic does not directly apply to any of your class. Even if they are all heterosexual, how is it a waste of time to discuss it?

To be very frank, if I were in the class and we talked about having a session on this topic,then you agreed to it, and then showed up with "here's a class on why we AREN'T going to talk about it"...I'd be pissed. That's just me. Maybe I'm just a hard ass and hold people accountable for meaning what they say and saying what they mean.

Perhaps you can use some experiential exercise circles to create an agreement as part of the class. (I can explain in more detail privately if you're interested.) It can help to keep people focused on the real purpose of your discussion and not get lost in judgements. Not everyone will agree with what you have to say, but you already know that.

joshua writes at 02:29:53 10/11/07 - Comment #26115: They want to talk about homosexuality and church. The first question for me is, to what end? If it can't be assured that the discussion would be positive, the whole thing could be self-defeating. There is no point in fracturing your congregation. This could also slip into politicization of religion, which is terrible destructive and serves no appreciable purpose. If an approach like advocating for gays brings about some derision amongst your congregation, its simply not worth it. Its nice to be idealistic about rattling cages, but if it is going to cause chaos it shouldn't be done.

If I were in your shoes, I'd approach it very, very delicately. Its my belief, anyway, that as Christians its not our job to be the judge and jury of our fellow man. I've always felt that if it is indeed wrong and sinful to be gay, then God can sort it out. For the time being I'd rather encourage people to be happy, good neighbors and not have to feel marginalized within the context of religion. Unfortunately, there may be some at your church that don't see things that way.

Maybe an approach that might help is to have some gay, committed Christians participate in the discussion so that your congregation can see what its like to struggle with religion and have the shoe on the other foot. There are people out there that happen to be gay but are devoted to God. If I'm talking about religion and homosexuality, for me anyway, I would really want to hear what they have to say.

Ultimately though, I would say that the needs of your congregation come first, so whatever you do I'd consider that obligation first and foremost. If you choose not to discuss it, that is no cop out... wipe that idea out of your head.

drew writes at 01:49:29 10/11/07 - Comment #26113: yeah. Here's a couple more issues:

Not too many years ago this WAS made an issue in an exclusionary way. At the same time, several churches made it clear that they were open and affirming. So the population has already shifted, even though we do have people that think differently in this community.

Lauren, I totally hear what you are saying, which is why I wonder if I am being a wimp. And I don't want to perpetuate an "otherness," either.

I hope I haven't underestimated the people here. To be honest, so far they have done nothing but impress me.

Maybe I will teach the class after all, but if I do, it will be a dance.

james writes at 01:05:28 10/11/07 - Comment #26108: Lauren has a lot of good points.

But if you really feel that the group wont learn from the conversation, then it really isn't worth having.

jason writes at 12:57:42 10/11/07 - Comment #26107: Without going too long here -

Identity politics, sadly, rule the day, and there is a certain level of rigid ideological orthodoxy that unfortunately goes along with that. If you step out of line, you risk being crushed by people who want to control messages and minds.

I think you have a fantastic opportunity to smash that mentality into pieces, and I hope you do. I understand the apprehension, and I could be wrong here, but I think it is quite possible your message about how to approach ethical issues could be more effective with a polarizing issue than with some vanilla no-brainer. Whether that means they need pre-reqs or not is up to your discretion - you know them better than we do.

lauren writes at 12:01:36 10/11/07 - Comment #26104: Hmm...ok. Where to start?
First of all, I think it is dangerous ground to say that since there are no homosexuals, you needn't talk about homosexuality. What if someone is closeted in your community? What if someone has a brother, sister, aunt, uncle, child, etc...who is gay or who they think might be gay...? Furthmore, I would argue that not talking about one group because you aren't in that group creates an otherness...and can perpetuate a reliance on the other to teach you about them. Should it always be up to the marginalized group to educate the priveleged? This is indeed how it has been in the past, but I think a progressive politic would include educated yourself, not relying on "them" to do it for you. Finally, homosexuality is never a hypothetical...it is real and alive and moving forward always. Just because you (not YOU Drew, but the communal "you") are not gay does not mean that you are in any way immune to the influences and effects of homosexuality.
However, I do agree with you that it is indeed possible that your congregation is not looking to learn, but rather reinvest in their already made assumptions about what the Bible says about sexuality. But perhaps you are not giving them enough credit, or the benefit of the doubt.
Will they ever be "ready"? If you are indeed looking for young families without a Christian community, and you wish to include homosexuals in that category...don't you think your community should be ready for them? If you do indeed wait to talk about the subject and by then have a homosexual in your congregation...will they become the "token" gay person who is expected to explain his/her position to the whole?

Oh dear...I have ranted! Surprise surprise :) I hope I have sparked some ideas for you Drew... I know you have the best intentions and I wish you luck...I wouldn't want to be in you shoes!

Permalink: Churches_and_Gay_People.html
Words: 498
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: religion

10/05/07 08:50 - 81ºF - ID#41512

A tale of two perspectives.

Here's a great quote on where I see my faith moving in the coming years. It was written by, of all people, a Chaplain to the Senate, Richard Havelerson. He said:

Dogmatism and faith are not identical! Dogmatism is like stone. Faith is like soil.

Dogmatism refuses to admit doubt. Faith often struggles with doubt.

Dogmatism is brittle . . . cracks under pressure. Faith is resilient, malleable, teachable.

Dogmatism is a closed system. Faith is open to reason.

Dogmatism fills one with pride. Faith inspires awe and reverence.

Dogmatism generates bigotry. Faith stimulates understanding

This is what I would call the old perspective--rational dogmatism is really foriegn to the Bible. Contrast this with the new perspecitve, the one that is in the majority today, but will more than likely go away within a generation or two.

First of all, I have a confession to make. I post on crosswalk.com's forums. This is a forum made up of mostly right-wing Christians. It is entertaining to read the arguments over relatively pointless things, and the conservative take on politics and current events. It reminds me of the world in which I grew up. It also reminds me of this new perspective that I speak of, which is currently dominant. I offer my last experience with crosswalk as a contrast to the humble, generous, trusting and life-giving faith illustrated in the first quote and discovered in scripture.

So, in a recent discussion on crosswalk, the opening post said that many republicans are unsatisfied with the recent crop of candidates because they are not pro-life.

Someone quickly pointed out that Mike Huckabee was pro-life.

Being the trouble maker that I am, I pointed out Mike Hucakabee's position on the Iraq war, and suggested that, while he may be "pro-american-life," he is definitely not "pro-life."

This bothered the other person who replied, "more like pro-innocent life."

Now, internet discussion boards are made for snarkyness right? So I ask.

"Are the Iraqis that we have killed guilty? What are they guilty of?"

Apparently the other person did not have a good answer to this question, because I got a quick response from the moderator asking me to stay on topic.

Now, I must admit that my common sense told me to leave well enough alone, but I just wasn't in the mood for that, so I carefully worded a post about what I believed "pro-life" to mean. I did not mention the war, only that "pro-life" ought to include life before and after birth, in our country and outside of it.

Well, that got me banned. The board called me out publicly and asked me to email the administrator. So I did. This is what I got in reply.

Thank you for taking the time to request a review of your status with our Community.

I have reviewed the post and have concluded that the moderator took the appropriate action. Your post ignored the instruction. Before progressing further, I would like to ask you a few questions.

1. What have you learned during your absence from our Community, and how do you hope to apply it in any future participation?

2. Do you agree to refrain from participating in any thread having to do with the topic of abortion?

3. Do you agree to immediately comply with Moderator instructions?

4. Have you reviewed our Terms of Service, and do you promise to conduct yourself in our Community in a manner that conforms to the rules of conduct as outlined therein? (http://l.salemweb.net/CommunityTermsofService)

5. Specifically, do you agree to #19 of the Terms of Service?

Thank you for taking the time to respond to these questions. Your responses will assist me in reviewing your status and determining your future participation in our Community.

To clarify, this email does not guarantee your return to the Community. However, we are hopeful of a positive resolution and complete restoration.

Sincerely,

Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network

Isn't question 1 funny? So I am in full-on snarky mode now (I know, not the most Christian of attitudes, but then again maybe it is--Jesus was snarky with Pharisees, and these guys definitely fit in that category), but I will confess that I wasn't being as kind as I could to Fritz when I replied, as follows:

1. What have you learned during your absence from our Community, and how do you hope to apply it in any future participation?

I have been gone for maybe one day. What did you expect me to learn? I have been reading "The Church on the other side," and that has taught me many things, but I don't think any are applicable to this situation.

2. Do you agree to refrain from participating in any thread having to do with the topic of abortion?

No. I suppose this means I won't be re-instated, but I also suspect that you can sympathize with my decision. How can I remain silent about such an important topic?

3. Do you agree to immediately comply with Moderator instructions?

It depends on the instructions, but if they are reasonable and in accordance with the TOS, I will.

4. Have you reviewed our Terms of Service, and do you promise to conduct yourself in our Community in a manner that conforms to the rules of conduct as outlined therein? (http://l.salemweb.net/CommunityTermsofService)

Yes.

5. Specifically, do you agree to #19 of the Terms of Service? (Included below for your review)

Yes.

As I guessed, they did not re-instate my account. After I dried my tears, I decided to ask "Would you please do me the courtesy of outlining how my second post was in violation?"

And this was the reply:

Hello there!

Thank you for taking the time to write us with your question.

Unfortunately, I'm not going to discuss this with you further.

Please do not email me further until you are willing to agree to the restriction.

Sincerely,

Fritz
Manager of Communities
Salem Web Network

Do you see the difference? The world today is filled with stories of people who were turned off by attitudes like that of Firtz. Salem communications is a for profit company, exercising control, and refusing discussion. They literally questioned me as if I was a child, and while it is their right to do so, it makes me sad because this is the way that so many who call themselves Christians behave.

But this attitude does not come from faith. It comes from dogmatism.

And the Apostle Paul said that when everything else goes away, faith, hope and love will remain. This is a good thing. Thanks for being patient with this long rant.

Permalink: A_tale_of_two_perspectives_.html
Words: 1109
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

10/04/07 11:11 - 66ºF - ID#41502

Things I am going to do on my day off

Not that you care, but I feel like posting and don't really have any interesting thoughts right now.

1. Vacuum (just one room)

2. Clean a toilet and a sink

3. Laundry

4. Work (I know it's a day off, but somebody can only meet on Friday)

5. Fax our old insurance agent (is it getting interesting yet?)

6. Water our newly planted lawn (you can take the boy out of the suburbs . . .)

7. Read.

Wow. I am boring. Well, things should get more interesting in the evening. We are hosting a guy named Doug Tilton at my house, and he is speaking at my church on Saturday morning (10am, with a free continental breakfast, for any that may be interested!). He has been working in South Africa since 1992, and seems to be dong good stuff. Here's a link to his bio

Now you know why I am cleaning. Guests.

Permalink: Things_I_am_going_to_do_on_my_day_off.html
Words: 143
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: 10 things

10/02/07 02:48 - 64ºF - ID#41455

10 Things I like about TMBG

TMBG = They Might Be Giants, a great band, for those uninformed.

1. The live shows. I've never been in a happier place.

2. They are Geeky. So geeky.

3. They are pop, but not lame.

4. Multiple instruments are utilized, and even the weird ones fit perfectly.

5. Dial-a-Drum solo.

6. Dial-a-song.

7. Unconventional song topics, that aren't unconventional to them.

8. The ability to write a catchy song in nearly any style and still be able to transcend said style.

9. Tight harmony.

10. Songs that I can sing a long with.

The list was so easy. There are probably 100 things I like about They Might be Giants, and after that, I could just list songs, 'cause I like each of them, too. Videos and Children's books should be the list, but I just went with the first 10 I thought of.

Permalink: 10_Things_I_like_about_TMBG.html
Words: 132
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: 10 things

09/28/07 11:11 - 58ºF - ID#41377

10 Things I like about estrip

1. I can see who's online.

2. People aren't really shy here.

3. It's an online community that also has a real community.

4. It's just about the right size (although more (e:peeps) would be nice).

5. It's mostly personsonal, but also cultural and political and other -als.

6. There's almost always something new.

7. Easy help is available, simply by asking.

8. The statistics. Its fun to count things, even if they don't matter (that Count von Count certainly influenced me as a child, didn't he)

9. When it tells me not to forget my umbrella.

10. When a picture or sound surprises me in the chatter.

Permalink: 10_Things_I_like_about_estrip.html
Words: 99
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

09/27/07 08:36 - 59ºF - ID#41350

I am a one-issue voter . . .

. . . much to my surprise. I also never thought I would be in agreement with so many celebrities, but they are right on this one:

Some people are tired of Bono preaching, but he's a really good preacher!

Permalink: I_am_a_one_issue_voter_.html
Words: 46
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: 10 things

09/26/07 07:47 - 71ºF - ID#41335

10 Things I like about Ahmadinajad

Another challenging one. I'm not sure I can come up with 10, but I'm going to try.

1. Courage of conviction. Sure, he's wrong on just about everything, but he had to know he would get laughed at for saying that there aren't gays in Iran, and he said it anyway.

2. He called the US hypocritical for having nukes but asking other nations not to. He isn't wrong about EVERYTHING.

3. His name is fun to say. Especially if you imagine Adam Sandler tilting his head back, chin out, eyes closed, and stuttering slightly as he says it.

4. His "openness" to study the Holocaust, if applied to other disciplines, will allow for a much more progressive system of Education in Iran.

5. His country has healthcare for everybody written into the constituion (my guess is that he has something to do with its implimentation).

6. I think he actually wants peace.

7. He gently reminded the guy that introduced him at Columbia that they practice hospitality differently in Iran.

8. Before doing that, he smiled through a litany of attacks.

9. He desired, for whatever reason, to show sympathy for victims of 9/11, and did not protest when told he could not, at least not publicly.

10. He's stayed alive during his visit. Conspiracy-theory Drew was worried that he was brought here so that he could be hurt or killed in such a way that would start a chain reaction that would end in war. As dumb as the guy is, the world will be much better off if he keeps breathing, at least until he is home.

I did it!

fellyconnelly writes at 10:07:25 09/26/07 - Comment #25265: drew i think this list is awesome. thanks for bringing it to the attention to everyone that no matter how much somebody is hated - there is still good points!

drew writes at 03:31:01 09/26/07 - Comment #25235: related, and thoughtful. I like Jim Wallis, the guy that wrote it:
:::link:::

brit writes at 03:17:11 09/26/07 - Comment #25234: I meant that if he really wanted to challenge him, instead of calling him names he should have had an academic and informed head to head with him, challenged his views then allowed him to respond. Inviting a despicable human being to speak at Columbia then allowing the president of said institution to make himself look like a completely uneducated fool was a mistake. He should have listened to him rant then responded with intelligent rebuttals and a debate about the nature of democracy. We need to know what these people are thinking before we can do anything about them. Personally, I would have been extremely interested in how Hitler viewed the world a couple of weeks before he started loading the camp trains up, but maybe that's the woolly academic liberal in me....

jason writes at 02:57:37 09/26/07 - Comment #25233: I loved how Bollinger laid into him a little. Of course, he did not bring out any of the real big guns. Instead of denying Ahmedinejad, he was allowed to come, and had his ridiculous ideas challenged firmly. The thought of him just being up there, not being challenged, being given deferential treatment just because we do not want to be "rude" - well, it is a little vomit-inducing, so I'm glad he was given a little "rough" treatment, if we really want to call it that.

I respect the idea of trying to come up with something you like about someone who is, by most accounts, impossible to like. It's an exercise almost nobody is willing to go through, so I really do give you a lot of credit, Drew. Well done.

drew writes at 02:45:38 09/26/07 - Comment #25232: thanks for the compliment, I think. Really, I am often tempted to say "there is nothing good about (x)," and that is why every once in a while I challenge myself to make a list like this--because I do believe that if I can find good in the people I am more likely to hate, it will be good for me and the world in some way.

joshua writes at 02:31:23 09/26/07 - Comment #25231: Trying to pick this guy's brain is akin to being interested in how Hitler views the world. I can't even come close to be bothered, and to be honest he's a puppet anyway. A puppet who jails and tortures his political rivals, denies the holocaust, wants to kill Americans and Jews, insists on nuclear proliferation (remember, its only bad when the USA proliferates!), is cracking down on personal freedoms in his own country on behalf of his Islamic masters and sponsors acts of terror. What a fascinating individual - I wonder who would be more welcome on the Columbia campus, based on the reaction to how Bollinger behaved - Ahmedinijad or Bush?

We should invite Kim Jong Il to speak next! Congratulations (e:drew), by writing this list you accomplished something that I wouldn't even bother trying... the man has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

james writes at 01:57:50 09/26/07 - Comment #25229: Ya, the introduction was lame "you show all the signs of cruel and petty dictator. He was though democratically elected, and the office of the Presidency acts as like an economic guide. Real political power is in the hands of the religious leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

But I like your list. It was a tough task to do.

brit writes at 10:20:22 09/26/07 - Comment #25220: That guy who introduced him (pres of Uni) was a cowardly douche bag....if you invite someone to talk you introduce them then listen. What a cheap shot to introduce him by insulting his country and his beliefs whilst the over privileged Columbia frat boys cheered......

That was unbelievable when he denied the gays though.....he's right that there aren't any in Iran principally because he had them all stoned to death!