Homeward Bound, to Elsewhere (1)

It came to pass that the rent on our Capitol Hill apartment was increasing. The paper left on our door suggested rates that were higher than what Will and I were willing to pay, so we reconsulted craigslist to get a sense of what was out there. A friend in the sociology department recommended padmapper, which is far superior to craigslist, and so Will and I realized that our expectations were a stretch but possible. Then the stars aligned, and we found an apartment elsewhere. We're heading to Greenwood, in North Seattle.

The last time we moved it was about 2700 miles and 20 months ago. It was, for many reasons, one of the scariest things I'd ever done. My life was a culmination of calculated risks and the comfort of well-worn trails. Then threw ourselves at complete uncertainty. Will and I did not plan anything more than two days ahead, using my laptop at KOA's or other places that had free wifi to check out the next part of the route. Will's grandfather lent us a Garmin, which we programmed an address in and then watched the scenery speed by.

Not this time. We're only moving about seven miles closer to the north pole. We know exactly to where, how we're getting there, and it is costing us perhaps 3% of the expense. We're savvier. Sure, it's not a well-worn trail. Will had never been to Greenwood prior to seeing this apartment. We'll have to relearn grocery shopping, banking, and routines. It's still Seattle.

Our new apartment is nice. It has lots of windows, through which you may see the Olympics on a clear day. I told this to a friend, whose eyes lit up as she described how much joy she derives from being able to see the Cascades and Mt. Rainier from her apartment window. "You're going to love it!"   There's more space and free parking. The apartment reminds me of our one in Buffalo. With a dining area and big living room, we can finally have people over comfortably. Potluck, anyone?

(This post brought to you by: When My Blog Becomes My Family Press Release Platform, Inc. All maps are linked to eating establishments in somewhat the vicinity of where dwellings were. I never actually lived at Starbucks.)

Being a Woman These Days.

Sometimes I forget how fortunate to experience womanhood the way that I do.

An anecdote to illustrate my point: few weeks ago, on a beautiful day, I rode my motorcycle to church. This was exciting because it was the first time I had done so. I took my time, perhaps too much time because I was ended up fifteen minutes late. So I snuck in as much as I could in (second-hand) leather pants and a nylon motorcycle jacket. It is an unconventional look for church. I was unworried, and justifiably so: all comments I received were affectionate, respectfully humorous, and positive.

In fact, I do not put too much thought into what I wear for church. There's no dress code and I am unafraid of being shunned. I do not obsess about ensuring all my skin is covered, or ensuring my figure is properly shrouded, or all the other crazy stuff I am reading in the evangelical blogosphere.  In fact, I do not worry too much about my dress generally speaking. I think there are a few easy explanations:

1. I am UU, and we're not convinced that God has a legalistic code for us to live by. An awful lot of us are not even convinced of God. I am never dressing like a bad UU out in the world.
2. I am UU, and we are not really in the habit of policing each others' sexualities. Dare I say it, our approach to sexuality is delightfully holistic and healthy. (Shout out to the United Church of Christ - who collaborated on the Our Whole Lives programming.)
3. I live in the section of the Pacific Northwest that was the birthplace of grunge. It's also the retirement home for grunge.
4. I know from experience that if I am going to be street harassed, it'll happen regardless of whether my attire is high femme or lesbian chic. Both styles are awesome, by the way.

I am also in a spiritual, social and geographic place where being a woman still means I am human. I can be a wacky non-conformist, and that is OK. I can be married or not married and that is OK. My body is mine out here. My normal, lived experience is one where I am a being that does things, is not just looked at, where my existence is not just relational. It is relational, but in a connected way, not the toxic, proprietary sense defining our political discourse right now. My health decisions are mine, because I do not live in a state trying to take them away. My sexuality feels uncontested; I live in Seattle. I speak my mind and write my heart and that is fine.


So if I never read Facebook, the New York Times, Twitter or the rest of the internet, if I never leave Seattle or Washington state, if I keep my faith exposure restricted to UUs, then I will continue to exist this way unthreatened.  I cannot vote in most of these contested grounds. UU's have little to no influence in right wing Christian circles, and Washingtonians have little influence in Alabama. I feel powerful in my circles, but powerless to broaden them. I certainly hope all the anti-woman politics are just that: politics of the ephemeral and ineffective variety. I have grown accustomed to the rights and cultural changes feminism gave me.

Trade-offs of Social Media Advocacy: A Case Study

I follow a group, People of the Second Chance, whose mission is to spread "radical grace". They argue that instead of judging our fellow people for their faults, we ought to give them grace. I think the term "counter-cultural" is overused in Christian circles, but anyone who spends more than five minutes on the Internet will realize that POTSC are applying it correctly here. So many are trigger-happy with a keyboard, and kindness is not the modal disposition or behavior. Grace is a beautiful and needed message.

POTSC is hip, relevant, and in-tune with culture. Their medium of grace-diffusion is the internet: blog, twitter, facebook, and images they hope will go viral.  It is like what us UUs are trying to do.

I found them in personal season of darkness. There they were, glowing like embers and I was drawn to them in the style of a moth and flame. The experience felt like starting a novel with a great beginning - I dove in, eager to see how the plot develops. The founder's ebook, Gracenomics, was the first book on my kindle that I actually paid for. The introduction says that it's intended for twitter users, social media junkies, and people who generally don't read. I finished the brief book in a sitting. I read their blog, which is full of redemptive stories of people who have made mistakes, and initially it was very comforting. But after a few months their blog and twitter feed reminded me of a few lines from a Dessa rap, "Matches to Paper Dolls":

It's a tired plot but we bought it /Now we're lost / Between love and cholera / Saccharine read, such a sentimental novel / Give you cavities if it doesn't drive you to the bottle

The brevity of the posts and repetitive nature of the message eventually gave me pause. It felt commercialized and shallow: maybe too relevant to a culture that relies on soundbites to make points and whose political discourse is superficial. Their poster campaigns felt jarring, but not in a good way. This one in particular felt unprocessed, relying on an assumption that everyone faults the pictured. The simplicity and lack of nuance undermined their work, in my eyes, even with all the good they do. It seems to me that there is only so much you can accomplish in 600 words or 140 characters, and that is the downfall of their methods.

People of the Second Chance, by design, have planted their ideas in a four inch clay pot. It may be the most beautiful flower, but it cannot grow much because they chose a method of cultivation that favors transportation over depth. Imagine the difference between uprooting a rose bush and giving someone a vase of roses. The former takes time, maybe too much time if you are trying to give roses to as many people as possible. The latter is more efficient. Yet roses in a vase die faster than those on the bush, and that's the trade-off made.

I tell this story not to criticize the People of the Second Chance. There are so many things they do well. They strive and succeed in being encouraging and affectionate, particularly the gal that works their social outreach. She's fabulous and patient. An anecdote to illustrate: she patiently listened and peppered with me kindness as I explained my "does-not-compute" moment with a post entitled, "I was a prostitute" written by Lauren Dubinsky (née  Lankford). I think Unitarian readers will pick up why I was appalled: I felt Dubinsky's description of premarital sex and prostitution was convicting, not grace-giving. Ashley patiently gave me a crash-course in West Coast Evangelical Protestantism, and told me I was at a different starting point than their target audience. Dubinsky wrote to an audience that's presuming prostitutes will go to Hell, and her self-comparison was designed to elicit empathy in readers for prostitutes. It failed to move me because I am UU.  Inherent worth and dignity do not require abiding by a legalistic code of conduct. Turns out, that's a big part of what POTSC is trying to advocate. Without Ashley's explanation, I would have missed their message. Outreach to their readers is something they do well. My critique comes with an acknowledgement that the clay pot model is probably the most appropriate for their goals. Exposure is their aim: clay pots travel better than gardens.

I think our push to evangelize Unitarian Universalism through social media will need to consider the same trade-offs. What exactly are we trying to accomplish? Personally, I hope we do not lose our garden in favor of clay pots.

"...and a rose in the winter time"

Becoming 26 years old was a wonderful experience. Many of my friends and I went to vegan restaurant, Araya's Place, and in between stories and laughter, we marveled at how their coconut juice comes in the coconut and planned the next party that a friend is hosting, Yuri's Night. Some of us went back to Will's and my apartment and chatted until 1AM. Will spent the day before with me cleaning the apartment. Yet another way that he's a fine partner. I am so rich - my friends and my family are such wonderful people. I could not imagine a better, happier way to spend a birthday. This is after being showered in thoughtfulness for the preceding several days and the few days afterwards. The roses are a gift from my sister. My sister is in Syracuse! She had them sent to me as a surprise. Days later, they are still so lovely.

I wrote in the invitation that I was "suspending my angst about aging long enough to enjoy dinner". This turned out to be an easy task, but it is also indicative of the turn my third-life crisis is taking. I am not sure if I have written about my current love affair with the works of the late Rev. Forrest Church. When I read Love and Death, I felt renewed, even hopeful. I am reading a biography on him now, Being Alive and Having to Die by Dan Cryer, courtesy of one of my other loves, the Seattle Public Library. I am halfway through the biography (where he is still married to  his first wife). Though I am the daughter of two fantastic people, neither of them are senators, which is to say that I relate poorly to Rev. Church's origins. At the same time, he writes about this universal human experience and struggle - meaning, purpose, and mortality.

Rev. Church argues that death is the price paid for being alive. When life is so rich and I am wealthy with love, it's easier to think of it this way. Life feels like a privilege. I feel privileged. I cannot help but wonder if I am struggling with this before my time to - I am young yet. Anyone else musing on mortality? :)

Night Ride

Photo by Frank Fani, shared under creative commons.

There is an M83 song called "Midnight City" that would apply so well to my night rides home if it were not an automobile centered song. 

"Waiting in the car / Waiting for a ride in the dark / The night city grows / Look and see her eyes, they glow / Waiting in the car / Waiting for a ride in the dark / Drinking in the lounge / following the neon signs / Waiting for a roar / Looking at the mutating skyline / The city is my church / It wraps me in the sparkling twilight / "

The bicycle is currently my favored mode of solo travel. It is just as brief as the bus with bonuses of exercises and endorphins. Ironically, after I wrote the last post lamenting Seattle's mildness, I found myself in a hail storm on the Burke-Gilman near Fremont. My headlamp was weak, and I could barely see the path. I laughed; I asked for this. My time to tough it out. It was fine for awhile. Then the front tire fell into the railroad tracks in Ballard, and the ground gave me a six-inch bruise on my leg and a bruise on my palm. I keep thinking I need to wash my hands when what I really need to do is heal. 

At11:30PM my bike turned homeward. The Burke-Gilman trail was wide, open, and empty. Each time I take this ride, I am grateful. Even sore and throbbing, these seem as blessed moments. Riding in the open air is the difference. The Central City, as they call downtown, glows and shimmers at night over the opposite shore of Lake Union. There is no window to keep me from feeling the night breezes. There is no engine drowning out the sound of the wind.  There's no metal frame obscuring my vision. For a moment I am a part of unfiltered urban beauty. My bike and self are components of the scene while simultaneously wrapped in it. A few moments of sacred magnificence in-spite of the ugly parts: the misfortune of those under the I-5 bridge, the fact that the sparkling lake is wretchedly polluted.

Post script. I am twenty-five a little longer than usual. The same will happen when I am twenty nine. The sun's setting on my current age and it feels as though it went so fast. They say time only speeds up as you age...

Living in Laodicea?

Last night Will and I watched a documentary that is essentially about taking slow motion cameras to see things that happen too quickly for the human eye. It was a bit dull - my curiosity was not sated by the lack of explanation of the content of these gorgeous images. Some of the scenes were about lightening.

It struck me. [/bad pun]

I miss lightening. I miss the summer storms, sitting at the window watching the lightening. The snow is an easy contrast, but the fact is that Seattle has no weather of any intensity. It is always mild. What feels cold is really forty degrees, what feels hot is sixty-five degrees. It is often cloudy, and that constitutes a bad day.

There is a section of Craig Groeschel's book Weird in which he describes a section of Revelations in which the town of Laodicea is condemned for being lukewarm. The geography of the town was such that they had neither hot springs nor cold wells, so their water was always lukewarm. The other part was the demeanor of the people - apathetic, indifferent, and ambivalent to the Lord.

Reflecting on this, it occurred to me that Seattle is a bit like Laodicea in a few ways. First, the city lacks intensity. I have mentioned the weather. I sense that I am losing some of my toughness - I used to bicycle in the rain, walk to school in cold that was in the teens, and the summers were hot. Now it starts raining and I think to myself, "Hmmmm." Perhaps I am too quick to assimilate. Second, its struggles are not as severe as my reference points (Syracuse and Buffalo). The racism is not as severe. The economy is not as bad.

Our lifestyle here, despite the high cost of living, is luxurious in some ways. Will and I can walk to anything we need to. We can take the bus to anything we want to. Good days are feasts for our eyes. Actually, sometimes it feels as though I am a monarch with an eight course meal every night: losing my perspective on what is special because my surroundings are so normally special.

It seems odd to miss struggle, but maybe I just miss intensity.

Forty Days of Sobriety

It is nice to read that I am not the only UU who practices Lent in some form. I am not fasting today, but I am abstaining from alcohol for Lent minus the day I celebrate my birthday. Otherwise Lent would be a shadow on all my birthdays. I started the abstention yesterday to "make up".

Why practice Lent? Honestly, it is just a habit that I have maintained because it seems like a good idea.

NYPD Spied on Muslim Student groups in Upstate NYS

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46440554/ns/us_news-security/t/nypd-monitored-muslim-students-all-over-northeast/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/new-york-city-council-adm_n_999808.html

The New York City Police Department was monitoring, and in some cases infiltrating, Muslim Student Associations. According to the Associated Press, their sphere of surveillance included:

• Yale (New Haven, CT)
• Columbia 
• University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)
• Syracuse University (Syracuse, NY)
• New York University 
• Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY)
• State University of New York, College at Potsdam (Potsdam, NY)
• Rugters: Newark Campus (New Jersey)
• Rutgers: New Brunswick Campuses (New Jersey)
• State University of New York at Buffalo 
• State University of New York at Albany
• State University of New York at Stony Brook
• Queens College
• Baruch College
• Brooklyn College
• La Guardia Community College

I bolded the campuses which are not located anywhere near NYC, and are in towns and cities that have police departments of their own who were apparently not investigating the students.

This strikes me as outrageous for two reasons. The first reason is that many of those campuses are not in New York City. Honestly, it hits close to home for me, being a native of Syracuse, NY and an alumna of the State University of New York at Buffalo (a student at the time of the surveillance), and my sister is an alumna of the State University of New York, College at Potsdam. Both Buffalo and Potsdam are about 300 miles away from New York City as the crow flies, albeit in different parts of the state (both are border towns to Canada, Buffalo in Western New York and Potsdam in the North Country). It seems that the NYPD interprets its jurisdiction as being everywhere.

If you are an Upstate New Yorker, you already have a bit of a chip on your shoulder because of the power difference between NYC and upstate courtesy of the population differences. Like Lola, whatever NYC wants, NYC gets legislatively speaking. Overreach is already a sore subject.

Second, these students were being investigated because they were Muslims.

That's it.

Certainly, it is not the first time a government entity went on a fishing expedition with some marginalized group to try to preempt or cause crimes to get some perceived bad guy. That does not make it right. None of these students were suspected of any crimes, nor did they commit them. Forwarding an email was enough to get one UB student on the list.

My sister and I were both students when the NYPD were doing their investigations. Had we been Muslims, we would have been monitored too. We had the luck of being of Italian Catholic/WASP ancestry, the former a group that's no longer considered undesirable in American society (well, for the most part). 

How fitting to find this out on the 70th anniversary of the Japanese Internment. It seems that we never learn.

Fighting Fairly and Reasonable Rhetoric

This post will be a rant of sorts, drawing upon my personal experiences to make the point that us, as UUs, need to take a moral stand in areas of disagreement.

First story:

http://xkcd.com/386/

You know those awful anti-poor-person memes? There are a few going around. I saw this one yesterday:

“Put me in charge of food stamps. I’d get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Hos, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job. 

P

ut me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we’ll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your ‘home’ will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a ‘government’ job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the ‘common good..’

Before you write that I’ve violated someone’s rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be ‘demeaning’ and ruin their ‘self esteem,’ consider that it wasn’t that long ago that taking someone else’s money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people’s mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices. AND While you are on Gov’t subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov’t welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.”

This was posted by someone I am acquainted with from a forum who is a nice person, and frankly I was rather stunned that she had posted it because, as noted elsewhere, this is a pretty horrendous display of a lack of empathy, not to mention it violates a lot of the rules of rhetoric and logical consistency. The assumptions it is based upon are not true. (Especially shocking to me was the fact that the forum I know her from has several women on public assistance. I would like to think she was not arguing for our mutual friends to be sterilized.) So I replied, "As someone who has needed governmental in her life, I find this incredibly insulting." Someone else replies that the sort of caricature above is the norm, and so I whip out some of those handy social science facts that you end up knowing when you go for a PhD in sociology to illustrate that the above is a political straw person. I did not insult the poster, I did not mention that I am working towards a PhD because I realized I was speaking to someone without as much education. It would come off as condescension and disrespect.  Instead, I called out the meme for being inaccurate and immoral.

I shall admit that I do feel a bit of a moral obligation as both a person of faith and a sociologist against passively permitting these perspective to be seen as truth. It is not standing on the side of love, at all. It does not reflect science, either.

Over the course of the next few comments, I am accused of "hiding something" making up "mickey mouse statistics" (I cited a Florida newspaper and the CDC's drug stats), or misinterpreting statistics. Trust me, I was not. "If she thinks that's right" was the term used instead of, well, directly addressing me with my name. "She" was thrown around so much that I wondered if the writer felt that being female was discrediting on its own. Ultimately, the reason that I was seen as wrong was not because someone had better, irrefutable numbers, but because I disagree with them. So I must be inaccurate. (Needless to say, I immediately disengaged.)

Second Story: 

The day prior, I emailed my students about their writing. First, let me get this out of the way: my students are smart. They are attending the best public school in their state, they are passionate, and their intelligence shines brightly through during any conversation that you have with them. Their cleverness alone is insufficient for good papers, and I was emailing them because their writing used unacceptable rhetorical devices. Alas, these are the techniques acceptable today: repeating  the same idea over and over again instead of supporting it with citations, terrible sentence structure, and  writing what should be an analytic paper with a tone of outrage. The world was going to end as a result of whatever issue they wrote about and most papers paid little to no attention to the merits of the other side. They are writing as they read. If you read the internet, you find that this is how controversies are treated.

Third Story:

I went to a forum for the University of Washington regents regarding very unpopular budget cuts and tuition increases. I sat among a couple hundred students. To make comments, you needed to sign up about a week prior. Despite being present but a half and hour, I watched many persuasive faux-pas. First, half the speakers did not show up. Second, I watched as several students addressed the board in a hostile, aggressive manner, with one even turning his back to them. Third, their comments seemed to reflect a lack of preparation: weak sentences, ill-informed arguments with occasionally irrelevant support, sometimes no support, and no where near convincing. The basic rhetorical rules of... speaking... were gone. I found myself desperately hoping that the Board of Regents would take these poorly constructed arguments as a sign that they need to invest more in education. I understand that the following speakers were not universally bad. An email arrived in my inbox from my union describing this forum as a time when, "... members came out to the meeting in force and clearly and passionately communicated the need to creatively address problems..." What? I do not think my standards are that high...

Concluding Point:

These are signs of our times.  Right now there is heavy political polarization, and the tactic of ad-hominen is not just alive and well, but the primary rhetorical device. Credibility is being defined by whether or not the speaker agrees with your points. Respect is not given to those holding differing opinions, and scape-goating is alive and well. Especially if you are a woman, poor person, gay or lesbian or queer or transgendered, or unemployed.

We should advocate for a sane, respectful social discourse. I believe that our political process has become as culturally toxic as some of the proposed legislation. I would bet lots of money that the same reasons that we have terrible talking heads are the same reasons that birth control is up for debate: there is a lack fundamental respect for each other, for what we perceive as "other". 

If we, Unitarian Universalists, seek to stand on the side of love, we need to build it first on a foundation of respect. We should advocate for the inherent worth and dignity of everyone in the political process and not just seeking it in the outcomes of legislation. 

Good Eats

That spouse of mine outdid himself yesterday. Monday I made a special meal for him, and last night he made a special meal for me. Soup and Sweet Potato Quinoa burgers. I am going to share the recipes he used here because they ought to be shared.

Butternut Squash and Roasted Red Pepper Soup from Tasty Yummies


Instead of Butternut Squash, Will used a Blue Hubbard Squash and instead of roasted red peppers he used yellow peppers. He did not blend it into a bisque, and honestly, I liked it better that way. The soup was divine.

The next dish was Maple Sweet Potato Pecan Burgers from the Tolerant Vegan


Will followed this recipe exactly. It. Was. Amazing. Time consuming, but so delicious.

It's really delightful to be married to someone who is so considerate and an amazing cook!



I will share with you a pasta sauce I invented for his meal on Monday. It's a fresh sauce, no cooking (which was good because some of the other dishes were a bit labor intensive.

Lemon-Garlic Sauce

Juice of one lemon, plus pulp
8 cloves of garlic, minced
1/4 cup extra virgin olive oil
pinch of salt
pinch of pepper
1/2 teaspoon basil
1/2 teaspoon oregano
1/4 teaspoon tarragon

Mix together and let sit for about 20 minutes.

Toss over 1/2 pound (dry weight) freshly cooked linguine. It makes a great side dish.

Gay Marriage Signed into Law in Washington State

from http://www.tvw.org

To quote http://www.tvw.org/capitolrecord/index.php/2012/02/governor-signs-same-sex-marriage-bill/:

"Gov. Chris Gregoire said today “is a proud day that historians will mark as a milestone for equal rights.” She told stories of several people who had contacted her during the debate about same-sex marriage, including a teenage girl who had considered suicide because of her sexual orientation, but said the debate had changed her mind. 

Gregoire teared up when thanking the younger generation for speaking up, gesturing to her two daughters standing on the side."

There's a possibility it will go to referendum. I suspect the law will stand if it does.

Transitions

Monday's Prompt:

Prayers can take different forms. They can be addressed to a deity, an idea, for guidance, or simply to express your thoughts or emotions.

Yesterday, a friend that I deeply respect lost someone very close to him. The news came via a very moving email, and as my eyes moved from word to word I could them welling with water. I can only imagine the pain he's in, and frankly I try not to: death of a close loved one is the thing I am afraid of most. I cannot bear the thought of losing my husband, parents, family or friends. It is a futile dread; I am fearing the inevitable. I prayed (to whom or whatever would listen) that he and his family would find comfort and strength.


The weather was beautiful so I left my computer and walked outside. The air was so still. The sky had no clouds and the mountains stood crisp and clear on the horizon. Breath-taking.

At the same time, the world felt empty and ephemeral. Thought again of my friend, thought of my mother, my husband and everyone that I love. They are here, on this planet, in this life, for now but not for always. Some have already left. Nothing - not the trees, the grasses, the people, the animals, mountains, or water stay where they are, as they are, forever. In a time frame beyond what I can perceive, even the Earth shall be gone.

Have you ever had a moment where you felt so fundamentally temporary?

I struggle to keep a healthy perspective on mortality, oscillating between forgetting and obsession, trying to find that delicate balance between risking for living and avoiding risk to keep life. I have been reading Forrest Church's Love and Death, and about how death is the price one pays for this great opportunity to be alive. He says somewhere in the book that grief is the evidence you have loved. It may be accurate, though it is not consoling. I study social problems for a living, and every time I read or hear of some tragedy, all I can think of is that it was that person's only chance on this earth.

It always seems so brief.

Musings on that "religious movement" question

A couple brief thoughts regarding Rev. Morales' working paper:

Being a collection of congregations is static, unless you're in the business of church planting (we're not). Being a movement, by definition, requires motion. It means we need to step out of a complacent belonging. There is nothing wrong with having a goal of creating an accepting community. In fact, I would argue that successfully creating that is a piece of social change in and of itself. But for that to be successful, we need a reputation and to have a reputation we need to be known. To be known means that one needs to reach out.

It is my strong suspicion that meaningful leadership towards progressive social change is going to come from faith groups. The current of political ideas is a stream of money; practices of the economy are notoriously self interested. Change to further "good", or collective good, is likely going to come from the ideas of religious leaders: Jesus, Buddha, ministers, etc. The common good does not always fit in the categories of "efficient" and often does not comply with self-interest. Something that appeals to the good of everyone is going to need to come from a moral grounding elsewhere.

Granted, fewer people are embedded in religious communities in the US than they ever were. So we'll see.

Aiming for a Compassion Driven Economy and Politic

30 Days of Love, Day 15. The Task: Make this video viral:

Um, I doubt I have enough readers to make a video viral - heck, I probably barely have enough readers to pass the common cold. But while I'm sharing inspirational videos with you in false hopes of making something go viral, let me share this one from Rev. Dr. Leslie Braxton at the MLK rally:

The email prompt, written by Meredith Lukow, asks us to consider this:

As I’ve watched the presidential campaign season unfold around me these past few weeks, I can’t help but notice that the underlying themes of fear, of scarcity, and of “the other” permeate every discussion. Our political culture has become toxic on both sides. We have become obsessed with ensuring specific benefits for ourselves, our subset of society, and even our country at the expense of others instead of creating solutions that make our global community as a whole better, stronger, and more just.

In a sermon yesterday at University Unitarian Church, Rev. John Luopa gave a sermon saying nearly the same thing! It was followed by a teach-in on economic justice (a very successful one courtesy of our awesome social justice coordinator and a super active member of the young adults group.

The point is this: our political discourse values being right, it values being efficient, it values lots of things that are not people. Rev. Luopa argued that we, as a society, as liberals and conservatives, have lost our moral grounding by either walking away from the ideas in faith groups or by co-opting them under this misguided idea that Jesus likes capitalism.

Let's not pretend that liberals do not engage in ad-hominen politics as conservatives do. This morning, I was reminded of this courtesy of one of Seattle's free papers, The Stranger. I respect Dan Savage's work in mainstreaming gay and lesbian relationships, and the "It Gets Better" campagin. His response to Rick Santorum's politics was wrong. I also find Santorum's attitudes towards women's bodies and rape to be abhorrent. However, Savage's tactics in this case are not conducive to creating a society of respect and compassion in the same way that a society which takes away rape victims' ability to self-determine their bodies is also not one of respect and compassion. They may stand on opposite sides of one issue but contribute to the same problem. (Savage has done a lot for LGBTQ groups in ways that are helpful; I am not discounting that. I am criticizing the tactic not the person.)

The Stranger also notes that what changed Washington Senator Mary Margaret Haugen's mind on marriage equality was her constituents' kind, heartfelt outreach. That's more like it. That is the sort of method that will last.

The ends do not justify the means, because the means create the circumstances of the ends. How political and economic goals are achieved, in my mind, is just as important as what one is working towards.

A Unitarian Univeralist Movement? (working out ideas here)

This is the pier at on the West Shore Trail of one of my favorite places. When I was a youth, I would take my bicycle and ride to Onondaga Lake Park.  My day did not feel complete without my bicycle and my solitude and the quiet time to think that I found in this place. I generally went around sunset. 

Sometimes I would sit on the recycled benched on the pier by the Salt Museum and stare at the city of Syracuse. Even now, the ghost in my mind, it is a soothing image. Sometimes I would go to the West Shore, and walk on a wooded trail, listening to the rumble of the highway (I-690). I remember one time in particular, I was 15, and walking through the section of Long Branch Park where the amusement park was sixty years before. I was by myself. Maybe not. It felt like there was some presence there. Being Catholic at the time, I presumed that it was God with me. (Was it? Adult Agnostic Me says - who knows? I am OK with the mystery.) I felt absolutely at peace in that moment.

This is South Dakota in 2010, on our drive from Buffalo to Seattle. Sometimes it surprises me that Will and I successfully trekked across the country on the slight amount of planning that we did. One day in advance. That. Was. It. In retrospect, we were fine, but I remember being scared. I was moving to the West Coast. I had no idea what awaited us in Seattle. Lots of things, some very important to me, felt like they were dangling in the air, waiting to crash. I struggled with the uncertainty. It is also a time that I felt, dare I say it, close to God, should there be one. I felt like I belonged to the Earth. That connection brought me peace, in the same way it did at 15.

Rev. Peter Morales published a paper about the relationship between the identity of Unitarian Universalism and affiliation with congregations. He argues that Unitarian Universalism should think of itself more as a religious movement instead of a collection of congregations.

I agree with him 100%. I also share a lot of the reaction that various other UUs have - this is not exactly earth shattering. In fact, I am already active with many of the suggestions that Rev. Morales gives. Being somewhat uninterested and somewhat ignorant of UUA politics, I already thought of UUism as a religious movement. Imagine my surprised when, in the ensuing discussion, I discovered that I had the wrong idea the entire time.

I do not experience my faith as my membership in my congregation. I would still call myself UU even if I had not found University Unitarian Church when I moved to Seattle. Of course, many do feel closest to their congregation and there is nothing wrong with this. A movement is something that flows. A congregation is based around something, usually a geographic place, that is often stable. Flowing can surround stability. I think what Rev. Morales is identifying, though in different words, is that the UUA's focus on congregations means that we have a faith that thinks of itself through these reference points. They are scalars on a raster plane. (What? GIS terms?) We experience the world beyond our congregations, so it makes the most sense of think of the faith community as beyond them.

There is a broader challenge with this, and that is understanding what makes us UUs. Our elevator speeches are long enough. We struggle with our identity. I suspect a reason the congregational point of reference is so useful is because the buildings, even if they house people whose ideas differ extensively from one another, give some sort of commonness not found in our theology. We need to understand our coherence better. Otherwise, we are a movement with a name but a thin description. We would be a movement of smoke.

A Christian is a Christian because they believe in Jesus Christ, not because they subscribe to the Southern Baptist Convention. A Unitarian Universalist is a Unitarian Universalist because they... 

...

Believe in the seven principles?

Seriously. I have my answer to why I am UU, but that answer is mine. What is the commonality that keeps us naming ourselves the same way?

I come at this as an outsider to some parts of UU culture. I am active in my congregation, but I was raised Catholic. I have no experience with the "con" culture, I have no experience with GAs, my religion was inherited with my Italian ancestry. I did not stop being Catholic when I left my home church for college. I stopped being Catholic when I stopped seeing Christ as a form of God. I think of my chosen faith in the same way. It is an attribute of me. I did not stop being a UU in South Dakota, when I left my beloved church in Buffalo. If the Pew data is to be believed, UU's self-identification does not require a congregation. The UUA should mirror this perspective, obviously.

Same-Sex Marriage in Washington? There's Enough Votes (!!!!)

I have never written a thank you note to a politician before. In fact, I feel a little awkward admitting that I have now. One is to my governor, Chris Gregoire, and the other is to my state senator, Ed Murray. The occasion that has inspired me to do that gay marriage has enough votes to pass in the state of Washington. Our governor had changed her mind, and cites the perspectives of my generation in part of the reaon her perspective changed.

This thrills me. This legislation is not just about the legality of marriage - that focus is too myopic. The controversy is because this is about the types of relationships that our society legitimates and accepts. Beyond types of relationships, it's also about the types of people that we say are OK. There is absolutely no reason that lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual, queer or anyone else should be treated as second class citizens.

Washington has a lot of problems, especially economic ones. Some people would argue that gay marriage is relatively trivial in these times. I disagree. I cannot think of anything that impacts my life in the day to day as much as my marriage does. It is not just the fact that I have an amazing spouse. I have done the cohabiting thing, and I am doing the married thing. It is different. It is different to introduce Will to strangers as my husband instead of my boyfriend. It is different legally too. In the few occasions that we applied for social services for example, our marriage is taken into consideration because we were seen as a unit. If you are in the military, it impacts your pay. I have a suspicion being married positively impacted our ability to find housing too. Being heterosexual, I experience my relationships with the support of society. I have the privilege of my union being seen as normal, perhaps even desirable, in the eyes of those around me. Yet my spouse's and my love and commitment  for each other is no different than those of the LGBTQ couples I know. It is wrong that we get extra support. Our marriage is not exactly traditional, but because of our sex, we do not have to defend it. I am delighted that odds are good this privilege will be extended to others willing to be in committed relationships.

 I suspect my grandchildren, should I be lucky enough to have them, will probably look with pity upon the years of my youth for how backwards we were when gay people could not marry.

(This is partially in response to Standing on the Side of Love's Day 9 Prompt: What does your local community struggle with? and partly because I am too excited to do any other work).

ETA: Hat tip to the Rev. "Ms. Kitty" for the initial news!

Snowed-In In Seattle

The blog title is not entirely true. While the City of Seattle municipal agencies asked everyone to stay inside, most people took this to mean "off the roads". I had three snow days in a row.  However, people in my neighborhood (including my husband) walk everywhere. My husband, who is impressive in many ways but one of them is his work ethic, has been one of the few people to show up to work for the entire time. A friend of mine skiied to work. People may not have driven to work, but they did wander out to parks, friend's homes, and other forms of winter fun.

So, my neighbors made do. They sled down the hill with whatever they could find, which includes sleds, signs, baking sheets, pizza pans, and kayaks.


Denny Hill . Capitol Hill . Seattle . 2012 from randall statler on Vimeo.

(credit to Randall Statler, who shared this on Capitol Hill Seattle.)

They turned the snow into humorous art.

Car Stegosaurus, one of many, in Capitol Hill

Snowman on a mailbox on South Jackson Street (Pioneer Square area)

Coca-Cola Polar Bear in Cal Anderson Park (Capitol Hill)

The buses added chains and kept running, albeit on snow routes.

Sound Transit 545 to Redmond

And most people stayed off the roads.

A Generally Busy Intersection: Broadway and Pine

In my fine native city, which has not received much snow, this amount changes almost nothing. You drive with snow tires and a little more caution on well-plowed streets. Here it means reading Cliff Mass' blog, and slowing life down, way down. I will take any opportunity to slow life's pace and to savor it a bit more. Not to mention that I do love winter.

The storm was bad. It was much more intense than last season's snow. It knocked down power lines and trees and people got hurt. Ice is now falling from radio towers and tall buildings. Gov. Chris Gregiore declared a state of emergency for all of Washington. The airport canceled all its flights, though I guess they are back up now. According to meteorologist Jim Cantore, we had record snowfall.

Today's prompt for 30 Days of Love was to "Come Out" about personal struggles for the purposes of inspiring others. The story posted is certainly inspiring. I will admit it, even if I could fill a drawer with index cards of such stories, I do not want to share them. It is not an issue of shame, but of boundaries. So take instead this story of how everyone around me dumped their creativity into difficult circumstances and had fun among the caution.

Day 2 of 30 Days of Love

Description: To know the story of us and the story of now, we must know the story of self. Powerful actions emanate from profound self-reflection. Join us in introspective love by answering crucial questions this week.

Today’s question: How is love part of your personal identity?

In some ways, it is all of it.

Cornel West said that "justice is what love looks like in public". I do sociology in hopes that my work would contribute to a more just world.  The organizations I am involved with do the same things.

I am currently married because I love my husband, and decided that love often comes in the form of commitment and trust. Will makes it fairly easy as he is an impressive person in all ways which are important, and I am grateful and blessed by his companionship.

I call my mother every Sunday because I love her, I am grateful to her, and I really appreciate her! She also happens to be a fabulous person and great conversationalist... but still.

I do my best to keep in contact with my friends because I care for them. 

I contribute some efforts to my church's community because I love it, and helping out is how I express that.

My identity is what I do; love informs how I choose what these actions are.

Thirty Days of Love, Day 1 (MLK Rally)

Well, why not. Thirty days of love are meant to be an inspirational practice. I cannot post every day, but this is worth trying.

Today's prompt suggested sharing one's favorite Rev. Dr. King quote. I should choose one? He's like Cornel West, in that he spoke in lots of delicious sound-bites.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I attended the MLK Day at Garfield High School. The turn out was impressive, considering the snow that Seattle is experiencing. A workshop on non-violent techniques filled with friendly, inspirational people started the day. The rally programming included one of the most captivating speakers I'd ever heard - Rev. Dr. Leslie Braxton. AND! It turns out he spent 12 years in my former home, Buffalo, NY doing a slew of good there. His voice boomed over the loud speaker with a combination of prosaic poetry and rhetoric that filled the drained well of inspiration in me. He spoke at the Working Washington rally in November too.

Rev. Dr. Braxton argued that, "When young people take serious issues seriously while they are still young, history changes." He gave illustrative examples of people in Seattle and of took my generation for task for consuming the fluff and "garbage" in our media. There was faith in his voice, but the sort of faith that flows into the people who hear him. I think that people need to hear that. People my age need to hear that. I needed to hear it. I am aging out of the part of youth where you are seen as having potential, and aging into the part where it's expected that at least some of that potential would be realized.

As someone who writes, I listened in awe of the hours he must have spent crafting the perfect flow of words that greeted my ears, and the heart and spirit it takes to write them in the first place. If I had to choose the one word to describe those moments listening to Rev. Braxton, it is summed up in awe. These rallies will not change the world. I gathered that many of the people around were families of people who are already activists. The calls to action were greeted with emphatic agreement. This is a community aware. What these rallies do is reignite those of us whose candles have burned out that pursuing the light is not a lost cause. The world can change. 

I used to write (though not in this blog) about critical theory and emancipatory theory and I dropped it. I lost it. I burned out. Occupy rolled around and... yeah. I am still conflicted, as the voices surrounding me talk in support of it. Time to re-engage those old ideas, perhaps these older eyes will see something new.

These rallies are useful because they drive some light into intellectual and spiritual darkness.

The Overexamined Life Is Not Worth Living - Rev. Church

I am currently reading Rev. Forrest Church's Love and Death (published by Beacon Press). I am not finished with it yet, but so far it is a nourishing read.

One section sticks out to me. Rev. Church writes that

...So let me argue against myself. Let me confess how pleasent it is to go through days, even weeks, without thinking about death, our own death or the death of our loved ones. A master of rationalization, I know full well how functional it is to worry only about little things, little failures and successes, to be nettled only by little envies and grudges, and to indult lots of little pleasures: watching a game; reading a good book; taking in a show. Even coming to church. 

An overexamined life is not worth living. I know that. ... The harder we work to get things exactly right, the  more cautious we become, the more careful not to fail. Risking nothing, we stand to gain little beyond the security of a battened-down existence. We miss the sea breeze and the ball. We will know little failure, or only little failures, but consider the cost. 

... So if you are struggling with a relationship, out of touch with an old friend, unsure of whether to risk a new job, uncomfortably estranged from your father; if you are hiding to be safe, taking care not to be wrong, I suggest that you take a chance. Don't wait until you are sure. Don't wait until you have it right. Though waiting till we have it right works for some things - mostly little things- often our most important decisions and actions are so fraught with danger that we will never surely get them right. If we don't fire before we take perfect aim, we may never fire at all. 

Life is filled with danger. That's just the way it is... Dare to live before you die. (p47-49)

I dumped my motorcycle on Sunday. For getting tossed off around 15-20 MPH, I walked away pretty much unscathed - my shoulder is sore and that's it. No bruises. No broken bones. No concussions. For the terrible choice I made on turning angle, I apparently made the best ones on gear. Greater injuries were sustained the last time I crashed my bicycle. The damage to the motorcycle was something I could fix mostly on my own - straightening the handlebar, and I'll have to replace a peg. The accident was entirely my fault, reflecting a desperate need for more practice.

I am incredibly guilt of overthinking. It's partly responsible for why I dumped the motorcycle. It's responsible for why I have a blog filled with existential concern (example here). Yet, while I get Rev. Church's call to worry less and do more, I should admit some concern that I may cross that thin line from bravery into stupidity - to my peril. The past year was unusually cautious for me - the year before that was unusually stupid, though I thought it was brave. One of my resolutions for this year is to get it right - be brave enough to keep life rich, though practice due caution.

Do you ever struggle with the balance between paying enough and paying too much attention?

 

I could live here

We were in a table in Lagniappes - Will and I, our friend M and his fiancee, Sare. We were talking about a million things, and Sare made a comment that in every place she's visited, she thought, "I could live here..." I think she meant it as commentary on how she liked all the places. It occurred to me later that perhaps that is a state of mind, being comfortable anywhere.

Her comment stayed with me for awhile. Happiness, for about a week and a half, came in the form of sitting in the homes of family and old friends. It was laughing with my mom. It was listening to Dan's observations of the world. It was skating with Will's family, after driving through countryside that we used to frequent all. the. time. I kept thinking to myself, "I could live here" and then thought of Seattle, with our cats there, and it seemed so far away. I got to Seattle, and thought, "I could keep living here."

Will found this map of migration that uses IRS data. Can you say "snazzy"?  All of those people, moving all over the place. I seem to keep coming back to this idea of location. It's not just a matter of channeling my inner Richard Florida. My mortality seems more vivid to me lately, and with that comes the question of "What type of life do I want?" The quiet one in Western New York, or the fast one in Seattle?

Today a friend of mine comes to Seattle to seek apartments. He's moving here, in hopes of redirecting his life.

The process of discernment this friend went through was thorough and deliberate. It reminded me of how Thoreau valued deliberate living. I remember reading Walden and having the impression that Thoreau was the sort of person who I would not like had I met him. I remember feeling as though his self-reliance was a masculine trait, that he was downplaying the experience of women's interconnectedness. It is also very likely that my memory fails me, or that I was wrong. (At least I read it.)

His call for deliberateness stuck with me. Especially as I am in an occupation that promotes inertia and can easily become a black hole that sucks away all of your life. I could live at Walden Pond, that quiet place. At the same time, I could live anywhere.

The scary thing about life is the amount of control you simultaneously have and do not have. The decision to move to Seattle was made on a track of life that I chose and felt pulled by. Inertia. I am going to think more about that.

Back from Syracuse and Buffalo

I did not write about leaving for fear someone might break into my apartment. Last night at 2AM my spouse and I returned from a great trip to visit our friends and family "back East". I spend nearly two weeks very happy.

It was wonderful. If you have the opportunity to take a trip to see your easy-to-love family and discover that a slew of your friends are so happily coupled, DO IT. In my "happy memories" mental list, I can now add scenes of sitting in my family's kitchen, my aunt's living room, my friend's living room, at the Lagniappes French Quarter Cafe, Marco's Italian Deli, Amy's Place, or the Retreat and a few others with friends and family visiting, chatting, and catching up. Skating, cooking, laughing, hugging, and getting one heck of a welcome from my family's uber-excited Yorkie. I felt so lucky to have seen everyone that I did. It had been a year since I was back east. Despite all the changes, in some ways it felt like I had never left.

I am now back in my apartment with a stack of to-dos and should-have-been-dones, jet lagged and not certain where to start. Basking in gratitude? Already there.

How Occupy Seattle Lost My Support

Do not get me wrong. I support Occupy Wall Street, and share the indignation about the inequality in our society that the movement represents. The folks in Occupy Seattle were my neighbors for a little while. Their camp at Seattle Central Community College is a (low) number of blocks from my home.

I never joined them. Frankly, I was not comfortable with the fact that they were there.

First of all, it seemed obvious to me that the reason they chose SCCC was because they could not be evicted - at least not initially. For some reason, the Washington State University system does not have a ban on camping on campuses. (State University of New York? All over that.) They claimed it was to make a statement about public education. Eventually the board of trustees for the school made an emergency rule and then they were evicted. Now, presumably this initial lack of prohibition applied to all public universities in Washington. So, why camp at a community college? Why not "occupy" the University of Washington, the flagship university, less than four miles away in the same city? Why tax the resources of a struggling community college? The answer seemed to be more of "because they could" than any political sensibility. I got the sense that they were using the same tactics that the 1% does - imposing themselves upon others for their sole benefit, regardless of the harm done upon the imposed, because for whatever reason (privilege, resources, etc) the imposed cannot fight back.

The camp was a mess. Pure and simple. Fine. When you get lots of people in one space, without property sanitary facilities, it gets messy. My neighborhood has a homelessness problem, so many of the issues weren't unfamiliar, just concentrated and easier to see. After they were evicted, they proceeded to "occupy" a vacant warehouse and a vacant duplex in a poor part of the city. Tagging appeared in local areas more so than usual.That was a problem in my neighborhood too. It was not clear who they are trying to stick it to. If it was the 1%, they were in the wrong area. Again.

But those things, as frustrating as they were, did not completely erase my support for these activists because they had a premise, inequality, that is accurate. It was somewhat easier to forgive disastrous execution if you got the sense that their hearts were in the right place.

I maintained this opinion until I was directed to their General Assembly minutes courtesy of my local neighborhood blog. Up to debate was a proposal, that failed 16-54, to

Commit to using methods of non-violent civil disobedience at all of our demonstrations and define violence as unprovoked physical aggression.

Wait, what? Y'all rejected non-violence? Why? Here are some quotes from their minutes. I did my best to highlight it in such a way as to not take it out of context. Any bolding is my own for emphasis purposes.

Maria - Understands that proposal is to make OS a strictly nonviolent movement. This puts way too much authority over her personal actions. Rule will only alienate those in the movement who want to use a diversity of tactics.

"Diversity of tactics"?!  What does that mean? That my neighborhood will keep having problems like these?

Kathleen - When anti-war movement was at high point, was a proposal from pacifist, liberal, anti-war coalition that unless you accepted vow of nonviolence, could not be in coalition. That was really bad. It was very divisive. Was attempt to shut up radicals, socialists, and anarchists.  

Matt - Bothered by this, because he doesn't know who will decide what is provoked or unprovoked. People are saying nonviolence, but they're not there when outside violence is occurring. 

This is a legitimate point, in my mind, given the fact that the Seattle Police Department is too quick to use force, and too often it is excessive and uncalled for. To protect themselves, they'd really benefit to define that.

Circus - This won't pass. Doesn't matter how you word it. When you include "nonviolence" people will oppose it. Tempted to propose an endorsement of violence to bring attention to the fact that we're not this and we're not that. Alliana didn't say we're nonviolent, but that we will use nonviolent tactics. Didn't say that we will not use violence. 100 people saying we're not violent, rah, rah, rah, if one person throws a flare, we'll be labeled violent. 

Stray - Opposes this. Thinks we should take steps in opposite direction, toward self-defense against police action. Since beginning of OWS movement, police have been using violence and aggression against so-called peaceful movement. We should adopt strict policy of self-defense against police and recognize Seattle Police Department as a criminal organization. 

There are some definition problems with this... such as the meaning of the word "criminal", but that's an aside.

Chris - Proposal is unprovoked physical aggression. People say the whole capitalist system is violent. Agrees, but thinks this is because it is able to hide violence. Ignoring that this PR fact is fact will doom us to failure. Consider different between direct violence and systemic violence. 

JW - One reason people press nonviolence is to attract wider variety of people, but port action had very wide variety of participation. Let's be honest: people are concerned about turning off middle-class white people.

Well, this white woman of working class origins (who has no idea which class she belongs to right now) doesn't exactly approve of violent tactics either. I am turned off because, as a person of faith, I believe in the inherent dignity of everyone, and strive towards a world that we do not harm life. Police officers, as misguided as they are, are still part of this world and that's what makes these reforms hard. The people you dislike are still a part of the web we're in.

Emily - To people who favor this: As someone who once believed in nonviolence, a white person: What is so threatening? What would you be giving up by embracing a diversity of tactics? What would you give up? When she analyzed this years ago, realized she'd be giving up some privilege, realized she was not so afraid of the tactic, but afraid of the real result that could come from radical change. What are we afraid of? What is the threat?

That an "eye for an eye" makes the whole world blind? Be the change you'd like to see? I do not want social change to come at a cost of peace. I fear that after the police, this group of activists would justify their "diversity of tactics" towards all who disagree. That we'd take a collective step backwards. That is what is so threatening.

? - Regarding definition: Society is an act of unprovoked violence. Revolutionary violence we're seeing across the world would be considered nonviolence. We're hung up on the word. To invoke the letter from Cairo: wish not to use violence, but wish not to lose. Demonstrations will respond to conditions. We have half-way revolutions that never complete because of these issues.

So... is it winner take all, at any cost? There's no revolution right now. There's discussions through the same political and media channels that we all use. Most people are at home. Most people are watching, waiting for some leader to take the helm.

The last person quoted was a bit of a breathe of fresh air, highlighted several problems at once (willingness to adhere to violence, persistent problem of police brutality):

Mohawk - Upset that we're discussing this. Agrees with proposer about proposing over and over again. Has been here since the beginning. Has been punched in the stomach and pepper sprayed by the cops. Sat non-aggressively, [....] Should try not to use violence unless your life is in danger. Please have understanding of that. Understands that we disagree.

The vote to reject the commitment to nonviolence was 16:54. Over three times as many people opposed it as supported it.

I really hope that the Seattle occupiers are the extremes of this "movement" and that what I have been watching, the disregard for the broader community, lack of assessing impact on people they claim to support, and willingness to embrace violence, is atypical.

I have sensed a general unwillingness to really criticize the movement by liberal establishment types. I have not seen critiques on the UU blogosphere, for instance, though perhaps I just did not notice them. I know I have been hesitant to criticize for fear of losing my liberal street cred. A columnist in Real Change received very ugly feedback when she spoke out against it. When people do criticize, in comment sections of websites, the rebuttal is often "social justice is happening" and if you don't support them, than you are clearly against their cause. That it is possible to have the same goals and disagree about the means gets ignored.

Anyone who has been in an argument with a loved one knows that it's not just what you are saying, it is how you are saying it which will impact your support and ability to persuade. I am not persuaded.

I am nervous.

Thinking More About Class

A good friend gave me the book Limbo by Alfred Lubrano. He read it prior to becoming a graduate student at an elite university, and figured that I would be able to relate to it. The premise of the book is that upwardly mobile people from blue collar families have some unique struggles trying to get into, and then functioning in, the white-collar world. Lubrano describes the value conflict between the spheres. Blue collar people value honesty and authenticity. White collar people value being agreeable. Blue collar people are accustomed to viewing the boss as an enemy, co-workers as allies. White collar people see being viewed well by the boss as very important and co-workers are competition. In addition to struggles in the professional world, he describes struggles in social realms, such as expectations with dating, worrying about your children becoming entitled and ungrateful because they have privilege, and so forth.

The key point of this book is that if you are not born into the middle class, learning how to function in it can be very difficult because it operates on the unspoken. This allows the middle/upper classes to perpetuate their privilege with greater efficiency. It also means that those from working class backgrounds feel consistently alienated.

I appreciated this book, because while people are at least somewhat willing to be aware of issues of race and sex (albeit, not always successfully), class remains a very effective othering tool. It's not that your background is different, it's that you're doing something "wrong". Even in places that should, theoretically, know better: universities, social justice groups, and churches.

In many conversations about "diversity" in Unitarian Universalist communities, it seems like people are asking the question, "Why don't they like us?" "They" are people who are not upper-class, not white, and not members of some other privileged category. "Us", ie UUs, often mean those who are privileged. Sometimes the conversation seems to imply that non-UUs just do not appreciate the great things UUs do, as if the problem was with those who feel disaffected and not with our struggle to welcome our fellow human beings regardless of their background.

The lesson of Limbo that is most applicable to Unitarian Universalism, IMHO, is that inaccessibility likes to camouflage itself in a coat of subtle normality. A perception of normal is class informed, so it seems like it is "the way to do things" and that it could be exclusionary does not occur to people. If something is seen as normal, then it is not seen as a problem, and it may not feel privileged.

Inadvertent instruments of exclusion could include:

• Sermons require a college education to understand them
• Sermons that focus on self-actualization (which is a problem to focus on if you're secure in the basics)
• Religious education programs that have high prices to take part in them 
• Church dinners or fundraisers have high ticket prices
• Social justice work assumes a model of "Us helping them", in other words that those in the congregation don't need help, "other people" do. 
• Justice initiatives that favor foreign countries over local communities. It is not that East Africa has less important problems, or that we should only focus on local issues. It is that the act of working on problems affirms the trouble as true, and if you do not work locally you are complicit to those problems.
• Attitudes of congregants towards each other. Prejudice is often subtle and unrecognized by the wearer

My church really struggles with some but does a great job with others. 

The difference between class issues as it applies to a faith and to the rest of society, is that faiths generally try to be welcoming due to a moral or theological imperative. I suspect that class-inspired gatekeeping is an artifact of current membership composition. I could just as easily write a similar list for the academic field of sociology. Many people in the field would not care about my list because, like all of academia, sociology prides itself on its exclusivity. The same could be said for white-collar work. It is chasing elite for the sake of chasing elite. Unitarian Universalism has acted on a desire to advance social justice, and in my experience congregants often care. Ultimately, to reach out to everyone requires being aware of how people relate and see the world, and how broader cultural contexts impact how we think, treat and evaluate each other.