A driver's education

Jacob, now sixteen, attends driver's training in a dubious building without neon sign. To locate the "cell" where he is taught how to handle the perils of the road, one must walk past the Marine Recruitment office and American Insurance. Patriotic little space there.

In the windowless, airless cube, five other teens and one instructor with shaggy hair and 1970s glasses frames convene to watch videos that include messages from "our President" - George Herbert Walker Bush.

We pay $500.00 for the privilege of these classes which run 6-10 three nights for two weeks.

When I arrived to pick Jacob up tonight, the video was just ending and I noticed that Jacob wore his ear buds while watching. I assume he read Bush Senior's lips. We were "required by state law" not to exit the room until 10:05 p.m. sharp... even though I arrived at 9:59 p.m. and class was clearly over. To literally kill the remaining time, the kids played hang man on the one white board in the room. Two girls wearing flannel pajama pants begged Jacob for his iPod. He handed it over, reckless teen that he is.

They yanked the white cord between them and cranked up the volume... then shouted:

"Don't you have opera on here? I heard you have opera." Click, click, click goes the wheel.

Jacob nodded.

"You have Disney too. Lots of Disney." More clicks.

Jacob said, "Well, yeah." And in fact he does. Loves every musical score right down to Alan Menken's pinkie toes.

The girls then bounced off four feet away to another wall having the following conversation:

"Oh my God. I HATE Disney songs. I can't stand Disney."

"Me too. I hate Disney too."

"Oh! This is that song! I love that song. What's it called again? Oh! From Monster's Inc. I LOVE that movie."

"Oh me too. I love it too."

At that moment, the clock struck 10:04. Everyone turned around to comment, "Only one more minute!"

The two girls dumped the iPod into Jacob's bag and then flipped around to look at me. They giggled and whispered looking back and forth between Jacob and me. The iPod abuser said, "She's his girlfriend. She has to be."

"Oh my God. Is she? She has to be."

"Um, excuse me. Are you his girlfriend?"

I looked up, "Me? Oh heaven's no. I'm his mother. But I love you!"

10:05. Everyone jumped the three steps to the door. As we walked to the car past the marines and insured, I told Jacob what the pajama-clad girls had said about the two of us. He responded, "I know, I heard them. That's just ridiculous. I mean, no offense, I'm not saying you look old, but I mean what are they thinking? Maybe they meant you were the director guy's girlfriend."

My ego balloon deflated on the spot. I had thought that in poor fluorescent lighting, I could pull off 16 for a full five minutes.

Then Jacob shook out my wrinkled ego and reassured me, "I'm sure they meant me, Mom. No way did they mean that guy. I mean, that's how weird and annoying they are - that they put you with me."

So I, um, felt better.

He drove home, almost turning left in front of a car at a green light until I screamed stop and rammed my foot into the dashboard, to, you know, slam on the brakes. I suggested for tomorrow night: less Disney and more attention to the "history of driving" videos. Might actually learn something.

Bruins take on Trojans today

Chanting: Do it again!! If we win and Arizona loses, there's a teensy chance the Bruins can get to that Rose Bowl.

Edited to add: Unless Karl Dorrell is your coach. Unbelievable!! Let's ask all our sports fans out there - if your D stops the Trojans on third down at the 2 (that means three downs they've used their muscles and stopped the Trojans from scoring), but there's a holding call against the Trojans and they could repeat third down from around the 10-15, what would you do?

Naturally. You decline the penalty and force Pete Carroll to decide whether or not to kick a field goal. You *dont'* give John David Booty space to throw a pass into the endzone, you don't force your defense to have to hold up for potentially two more plays...

And so, yes, on the next play, SC scored. Who didn't see that coming? KD, of course.

His head on a platter.... that's what Bruin Nation is calling for.

Bruce Springsteen tickets

I bought myself a Christmas gift this a.m.: a single ticket to the Boss's concert on March 22nd in Cinci. I was online right at 10:00 a.m. as the purchasing terminal opened. I got in fairly quickly and noticed that my tickets were for the floor (no seating). Being 5'2" and female, I already knew what a challenge that space is for watching concerts (having barely lived through it at a U2 concert a couple of years ago). So, as I've done countless times in the past, I asked to be shown different tickets.

Unlike those countless other times, this time I was booted to the back of the line and had to start my search over. I was shocked! Usually you keep your place and they simply shuffle the seats to give you a better look at what's available right then. There were no choices apart from "Best Available" so I couldn't define my search up front.

After giving up the floor, I wound up in the rafters. Grrrr. I have a nice angle to the stage and I know there will be big screens etc. But still. I'm just mad that I gave up the floor. Should have bought them and suffered up close rather than suffering at a distance.

Okay, now that I got that out....

I can't wait for March!!!

Postmodernism 101 (according to moi)

I take my cues from postmodernism in the discussion of how to "hear" a viewpoint that contradicts your own. One thing I overlooked in this post that should be first is this:

Listen for a long time. Spend time lurking around the viewpoint and resist the urge to comment. So that you can...

1. Get inside the point of view you find repugnant. Find out how that point of view makes sense to the individual holding it. That means setting aside your own presuppositions to adopt theirs temporarily. It means starting from the perspective that their view makes sense to them, is not irrational, is not merely a device to avoid reality or to justify evil or sin.

For instance, if I'm going to look at the pro-choice side of the abortion debate, I have to start by taking pro-choice assumptions: Women deserve the right to choose for themselves whether or not to carry a baby to term as a way to empower women who are at a disadvantage to men because they are the ones who carry babies (men don't), and the baby is not a person until born. These are the starting assumptions. In order to understand the arguments, I have to start there.

Do I have to agree with them? No. I only have to read their point of view with that filter on. Then I can discover how the idea of abortion functions for pro-choice people. I stop arguing and I discover that women have felt held hostage by their reproductive capacities for most centuries. I find out that fathers don't experience consequences for unintended pregnancies carried to term. I learn that the poor are more victimized by unwanted pregnancies than the middle class. I read statistics about women dying on abortion tables when it was illegal... and so on. In short, the presuppositions of the pro-choice side of the debate are the result of a view of history and women's place in it.

I can still not agree fundamentally with abortion (philosophically), but that doesn't prevent me from seeing how this other side, this other point of view coheres, aims to resolve problems my view is less interested in. In fact, I can go so far as to say that the problems the pro-choice view aims to address are important and deserve a deeper look. Simply arguing about whether the unborn are legally persons the way the born are doesn't even address the actual issues pro-choice advocates are concerned about.

Another example: Suicide bombers. To understand why this worldview functions successfully for Middle Eastern Muslim Extremists (note that that is our word for them, not theirs) means to enter and inhabit a world where westernism is seen as the enemy. This shouldn't even be a stretch for most conservative Christians seeing that we have our own culture war in America grounded in religious idealism.

What is a stretch is to understand how and why violence is perceived as a solution. There's no need to simply keep stating that they are crazy. Crazy people can't be changed. They need to be eliminated (hmmmm - sounds a bit like our foreign policy). Yet if we see the world through their eyes, we may come to the realization that what appears irrational from the outside is terrifyingly consistent and a satisfying means of addressing the crisis they perceive.

We might even see some parallels to our own worldview. There are plenty of leaders and pundits who argue that the only solution to the Middle Eastern crisis is the elimination of (fill in the blank) Muslims. We justify our violence as protecting our world, as being "civilized" because it is government endorsed. They justify theirs as defending their religion and culture against bullies.

To understand the worldview just means allowing yourself to get inside the sandals of the other long enough to see that they have successfully justified to themselves what they believe.

So that's step one.

2. Restating the other view using the vocabulary of advocates is a great place to start when attempting to understand a viewpoint you don't hold. This is how I've understood the benefits of reformed theology after listening to tapes, sermons, reading books, interacting online and sharing a mission field with reformed believers:

“The sovereignty of God leads to a place of yieldedness, gratitude and peace insofar as you let go of the burden to make all that is wrong with the world right. Salvation by election as a free gift feels like a mind-blowing, deeply satisfying, cleansing experience that goes beyond working for salvation. Reformed Christians see the glory of God manifested in their midst when people discover the gap that exists between themselves and the holiness of God, which moves them to awe, which leads them to humble worship. They then celebrate that holiness through creeds, through sacraments, through covenantal community, through the recitation of God’s greatness as contrasted with human frailty. This theological system makes sense of a chaotic world, puts God at the center and relieves human beings of the burden of their sinfulness.”

Even if I don't experience Calvinism this way, it doesn't prevent me from acknowledging that many, many people in fact do! And as Mariam said in a comment a few weeks ago, there is a zen-like detachment from the suffering of the world (because of trust in God) that leads to peace and acceptance which is deeply appealing to the human condition.

It is also possible to recognize that the idea of grace, for instance, is a revolutionary, universally powerful meme that has had profound consequences for good in the centuries since the reformation, without also believing in all five points of the TULIP. Restating has a way of revealing one's own agenda (if you can't do it without sneaking in sideways attacks, you haven't let go of your agenda yet). It also helps the other person to feel heard.

3. Agreeing to disagree is not satisfying. What feels better is to know that the other person has heard how what you value functions in your life and that you are honoring the truth as best as you currently understand it. The problem occurs when two different points of view must cooperate in a single context (a church, a marriage, a family, a business).

The scale of difference in point of view invariably leads to relational crisis. And it usually means changes of some kind. What is never helpful in any setting is pushing one set of presumptions/assumptions as normative for everyone when that is no longer the case for one or more. The more coercive the environment becomes, the harder it is to keep the relationships together.

We've managed to keep our marriage together when the big changes occurred, but I wasn't able to stay in our church. I've found a place in our homeschooling community, but I had to let my online community go. I've gotten closer to some of my old friends and lost some. It's always tough to face changes in relationship due to changes in beliefs. It's made me want to honor the centrality of others people's belief systems even when I don't agree with them... and I avoid intruding on contexts where my beliefs aren't welcome.

These are a few of the things that have worked for me.

Those pesky Calvinists (Jesus Creed)

Scot McKnight threw up a letter from a young pastor asking for advice about how to plant a church riddled with Calvinists who

...are relentless. Absolutely no discussion or compromise. I have had the life kicked out of me at my church this past year by some of these people. For them, it just isn’t good enough to be a solid evangelical who really loves Jesus and wants to serve him. It has to be all about reformed theology.

The ensuing discussion is lengthy (over 100 comments so far). I found myself drawn in.

Many posters are taking this chance to express their painful encounters with reformed Christians. Then there are parties who doubt that the encounters represented are actually talking about true Calvinists (natch), that Calvinists shouldn't be picked on more than other strident groups, that they have never seen this behavior in their own experiences (of course!), that it's not the theology, it's the misbehavior of sinners, and so on.

When this kind of back and forth didn't get too far, a third strain joined the discussion: "Well, we all think we're right, no matter what the topic. It's just that some people are more persistent than others and that offends them, but it shouldn't." There is a defense of "being right," "believing you are right," "having the right to assert your right-ness" and so on. It's almost as if the attitude is: "Well, we all think we're right so we're all meanies and not interested in listening to others."

But not so fast, Wile E. Coyote. One of the cultural factors in the reformed and fundamentalist camps that creates this stereotype of obnoxious argumentativeness is that it is believed that being right gives people the right to disregard other viewpoints while contending for their own. Lip service is paid to "Well I understand what you're saying BUT...." and then the "right" view is reasserted with new vigor. These debaters are tireless. Until agreement is reached, they assert they have not been properly understood (which makes sense if you actually do believe that you are leading people to the logical, spiritual, Holy Spirit inspired truth).

Here's the rub. Not everyone is up for arguing, not everyone feels compelled to win all points of view to one point of view. Moreover, some people have legitimately rejected the reformed point of view and aren't open to being shown its truth-value any more.

The justification that we all believe we are right therefore our conversations will be hostile, intractable, painful and at times downright unfriendly is a fallacy though. There is a way to interact over difference that allows dignity to all parties and leaves open the possibility of learning. I'll post my ideas in the next entry. What are some of yours? What has worked for you?

Enchanted: Enchanting

I cleansed the palette with Disney which always works. What a delightful movie! Go see it. Take a child. It's got it all: whimsy, self-deprecation without sardonic irony, good looking stars, the most adorable six year old on screen this year, and twists I didn't expect.

Women and men both learn stuff worth learning, children are valued, even rodents and insects see redemption! The songs don't "wow" me outside of the film, but in it, they are practically perfect in every way. Laughs and insight for all ages.

It's always more fun to write a movie review for a film I hate. :) This movie, though, deserves a well-written review by someone. It's wonderful.

August Rush: Should be called "Audience Rush"

As in rushing out the doors for air, coffee and the cold dissonant winds of reality. Seriously. I spent the middle portion of the film on the floor outside the theater's bathroom with my head in my hands trying to shake the suffocation of this film.

Jon and I made the mistake of ignoring critics' reviews for this one. I didn't read them. (Post-it note to self: ALWAYS read critics' reviews first.) It seemed that the other two choices for the holidays (Enchanted, Beowulf) left us with a split family decision whereas "August Rush" promised to "bring us together." So being modest fans of Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Freddie Highmore, seven of us forked over full price (ouch!) for a "feel-good" fairytale. Only six managed to sit through it the whole way through. I was not one of them.

I knew air was leaving my lungs the moment Evan Taylor, orphan in a boys' home (Highmore), recited the voice-over narration in the opening scene of the film. Cliches like "The music is all around us, if we will just listen" marched out of his mouth on cue while the wind whipped tall grasses around his small body and he, ironically, without rhythm or fluidity of movement, attempted to move in time to their sounds as one who "hears the music" unlike all the other orphaned schlubs who -cut to winter- submitted to "hard labor" of digging frozen earth in the snow by "forces uncaring and cold" - as all boys' homes directors of the 21st century are). I was in for a painfully long, badly written, metaphor-laden slog.

I kept wondering how the writers got out of seventh grade English. "The music is all around us. If we'll only hear it." Are you kidding me?

That writing is the equivalent of the discovery that roses have both blooms (beauty, love, artistry) and thorns (pain, risk, hurt)... You know, the contrasts, the idea of love having both beauty and sorrow, the metaphorical idea of the rose equaling love... Oh I didn't need to spell that out for you? You've heard that one once or twice in your lifetime? How about I drag my teeth over a blackboard now to cleanse the palette? EEEAKEREEEREK.

How many times do you need to be told that "no one listens to the music of life" or "you can hear it if you listen"? Good God! Trust in the power of showing, not telling, Mahn! Quit smacking us upside the head with a 10 pound Honeybaked ham (though at least the brown sugary sweetness of the ham has flavor).

Even if we bracket the musical metaphors (where, incidentally, music reminds us that there is more out there than we ourselves know... by the way), the implausibility of the sequence of events, intended to be fairytale-like, instead induces Tourette's-like outbursts: "Fire!" and "Bomb!" —anything to get people safely out of the building.

Spoiler alert: After a one-night stand between a famous cellist and a rock musician without chemistry or dialog or much kissing, Evan is conceived. The cellist's father separates his compliant, scared-of-her-own-shadow daughter from her rock musician and later forges her signature to give up the baby to adoption (but tells his daughter the baby died). Evan Taylor is orphaned (inexplicably never adopted as a baby) and, so it turns out, is an undiscovered musical prodigy.

So here's how it plays out, all right? Cellist is pregnant with rock musician's kid for the full nine months but never thinks to contact the father? Father who was completely devastated that the best sex of his life (couldn't be love) has left him never seeks her out?

Child is raised in orphanage where he listens to the music of nature and is convinced (nutty as it appears to the other orphaned kids) that he will find his parents by following the music (how rational!). As one reviewer points out, he inherits their talent, and, amazingly, his father's accent!

Evan leaves the orphanage for the streets of New York with no money and a sweatshirt where he is never in danger. He joins a musical gang led by Robin Williams (a cross between Bono and Fagin) and in one night discovers that he can play guitar! (He plays in some banging fashion that Highmore never manages to imitate successfully or believably.) Evan exchanges his name for the stage name August Rush (horrid Bon Jovi era choice) at this point in the story.

Next, Evan/August impresses a churchman by learning musical theory and how to play a church organ in half a day, by himself. Yeah. Then he is admitted to Juilliard (of course!) for six months (without parents or legal guardians or money) where his first full symphony is referred to the NY Philharmonic for a performance in Central Park, that he will conduct (who else?).

Evan's parents waste a lot of film time doing a lot of nothing (with close-up head shots) that is meant to lead them to Central Park on the same day, at the same time... which, surprise, surprise, it does! And yet after all the cloying, follow-the-music reminders littered through the film pointing to the climax of reunion, we never get one. Instead, we see mom and dad walk trance-like right past the thousands gathered at the concert until they are in front. They see each other, hold hands without saying a word (it's been 12 years people!) watching their son (dad doesn't know he has a son and thinks mom is married - subplot that went nowhere) and son (Evan/August) finishes the piece, turns to face the audience, sees them and *knows*! Cue black screen. Credits scroll to sappy love song.

Yeah, didn't really like it.

DNA: It's who you are

This article blew my little unscientific mind. Apparently for a small (cough) fee, we're all going to be able to "read" our personal genomes the way fortune tellers read our palms... only this time, the results will have that added credibility and the fatalistic weight of science behind them.

The writer of the article, Amy Harmon, notes that both her dislike of brussels sprouts and her arthritis are genetically sourced. Breast milk really does increase intelligence (woo-hoo Bogart babies all of whom nursed for a combined total of 12 years and have the mental chops to show for it).

And although there is great controversy about the role that genes play in shaping intelligence, it was hard to resist looking up the SNPs that have been linked — however tenuously — to I.Q. Three went in my favor, three against. But I found hope in a study that appeared last week describing a SNP strongly linked with an increase in the I.Q. of breast-fed babies.

She raised the specter of how insurance companies might misuse the information once public.

I was not always so comfortable in my own genome. Before I spit into the vial, I called several major insurance companies to see if I was hurting my chances of getting coverage. They said no, but that is now, when almost no one has such information about their genetic make-up. In five years, if companies like 23andMe are at all successful, many more people presumably would. And isn’t an individual’s relative risk of disease precisely what insurance companies want to know?

Totally interesting!

The Ohio State University versus... little mich

12:00 p.m. abc

Apparently this is how Buckeye students prepare for the Big Game... they strip and dunk in Mirror Lake. (ht: Johannah's facebook photo album) Ahhh to be in college again!

With a win, Ohio State (10-1, 6-1 Big Ten) would:

- match its longest winning streak in the rivalry at four straight.

- win a third straight conference championship, including consecutive outright titles for the first time in a half-century.

- likely earn a spot in the Rose Bowl for the first time since 1997.

For more pregame hype, see ESPN.

Jorja Fox (Sara Sidle) leaves CSI

Last night was the final episode. :( I wanted her to marry Grissom. Anyone else watch? Interestingly, I had a dream last night where "Cameron" from House was at a going away party for "Sara" from CSI. Supposedly they'd miss "working together." TMTV (Too much TV)

Here's a terrific interview if you are a weekly fan.