Mensa, of course, being the international organization for people whose IQ is in the top 2%:
- Marilyn Vos Savant: Listed by Guinness as having the world's highest recorded IQ (228). Writes "Ask Marilyn!", a weekly column in Parade magazine
- Bobby Czyz: A former two-time World Boxing Association (WBA) Cruiserweight Champion
- Dr. Julie Peterson: A former Playboy "Playmate"
- Barry Nolan: Co-anchor of TV's "Hard Copy"
- Deborah Yates: Member of the world-famous Radio City Rockettes
- Bob Speca, Jr.: Professional domino toppler
- Henry Milligan: The 1983 National Amateur Heavyweight champion
Of course there are many members of Mensa who are world-renowned this-or-that.... AND it's not that there is anything wrong with anything these people are doing. But I find this oddly comforting. They aren't all Oxford Professors. They're just really brilliant and they're probably great at what they do.
Anybody you come across could be a genius. I find genuises fascinating, like some weird celebrity cult or something... a group I desperately want to be a part of. I'm especially curious about the Rockette... does she do her kicks with such precision that they can be consistently measured? Does she realize she does this? Or is she just doing it to blow off some steam? Do the other Rockettes hate her? These are the burning questions I ask myself on a warm late Tuesday afternoon.
29 June 2004
16 June 2004
this material world
"The great courage is still to gaze as squarely at the light as at death." -Albert Camus.
I have a friend who is becoming quite materialistic. This is a quality that never just happens one day; it is something that develops, never through nature, always through nurture and through patterns of denial.
If she could only have that new pair of shoes. Maybe she cannot afford them, but if she just got them anyway, think of how much joy they would bring her. Isn't that worth it? The joy they would bring?
Could she not derive more joy by sitting under a tree? Does the tree not have more to give?
When we are unhappy with ourselves, our selves have an elaborate defense mechanism of shutting down lines of communication within. This thwarts our ability to receive joy from the infinite sources around. We cannot hear ourselves speak, and the true joys of the world can't get in. So we want. Because that need for joy doesn't go away- the spirit only starves while some limb of the self goes off looking for nourishment.
We want and we want and we want.
The very nature of wanting portends that it will always grow, externally, in proportion to how little communion occurs within the self. Wanting is a state of unfulfillment. Negative space.
I want to be completely, perfectly happy under a tree today. Looking at a duck. Taking a twig into my hand.
I have a friend who is becoming quite materialistic. This is a quality that never just happens one day; it is something that develops, never through nature, always through nurture and through patterns of denial.
If she could only have that new pair of shoes. Maybe she cannot afford them, but if she just got them anyway, think of how much joy they would bring her. Isn't that worth it? The joy they would bring?
Could she not derive more joy by sitting under a tree? Does the tree not have more to give?
When we are unhappy with ourselves, our selves have an elaborate defense mechanism of shutting down lines of communication within. This thwarts our ability to receive joy from the infinite sources around. We cannot hear ourselves speak, and the true joys of the world can't get in. So we want. Because that need for joy doesn't go away- the spirit only starves while some limb of the self goes off looking for nourishment.
We want and we want and we want.
The very nature of wanting portends that it will always grow, externally, in proportion to how little communion occurs within the self. Wanting is a state of unfulfillment. Negative space.
I want to be completely, perfectly happy under a tree today. Looking at a duck. Taking a twig into my hand.
14 June 2004
under god, under thumb
At least for now, the Supreme Court has ensured that the phrase "one nation, under God," will remain in the Pledge of Allegiance.
According to the Associated Press, "the court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her." (Newdow is in a custody battle for his daughter right now.) So the court really didn't answer the question that is being asked.
Justice John Paul Stevens said, "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law." He avoided making any sort of official statement about the issue.
Newdow will continue to fight, and the question will be answered at some point.
Is this issue not clear?
The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Let us all please, please remember that Congress did in fact make such a law. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge until 1954. It was on this day, Flag Day, that the act was passed. "In God We Trust" was added to paper money in 1955. We were in a religious revival back then, mainly fueled by... yep, an effort to declare ourselves morally superior to communists, particularly the atheist Soviets.
And now we seem to be going through some other strange religious revival... partly because of the Christian right's amazing political momentum over the past couple of decades. But also because we want to declare ourselves morally superior over... yep. Pretty much anyone who doesn't have democracy. Islam. Middle Eastern and Asian countries. (Apparently nobody cares about Africa.) Terrorists. Heck, they're all the same, aren't they? Yeah, right.
So, because Christianity is an official, majority affiliation, it gets the spotlight. And the Christians say that this is okay because this country was built upon Christianity.
There is a great deal of debate over the true religious spirit of those who built this country. True, the Founding Fathers, those who were part of the Constitutional Convention, were mostly some form of Christian. Many were even Calvanists, which is pretty hard core. However it has been argued that many who have had influence, including some of our first Presidents, were Deists. Deists are all about reason, and they reject the sanctity of the Bible. Non-Christian, indeed.
Even so, are these people the only ones who matter? Yes, they did amazingly important things. But what were they building from? Who really built this country?
Can we discount the African paganism of slaves? Strains of religion that, while often acknowledging a supreme being, also believed strongly in the sanctity of nature/the earth and magical spirits. Can we discount other pagans and atheists who no doubt helped to build this country as well?
Even if those who created the Constitution were mainly Christian, and even if their values undoubtedly influenced what was written, can we discount the current American religious landscape, which is made up of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Unitarians, Pagans, Buddhists, Native Americans and dozens of others that are both secular and non-secular in nature? Yes, almost every member of the Supreme Court and the majority of Congress are Christian in some form. It is now as it was then: those in power by and large have Christian values. (At least theoretically.) But according to the government, the number of mosques in the United States has doubled in the last 15 years; also around ten percent of the citizenry is atheist or agnostic.
When will we start demanding that our government represent all of us, and stop this power grab? Non-Christians who are monotheistic know full well what the reference to God in the Pledge and on our money really means. It does not represent them. And it certainly does not represent those who are polytheists or atheists or agnostics.
Regardless of who was or is affiliated with what, having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance undermines the very spirit of the Constitution.
According to the Associated Press, "the court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her." (Newdow is in a custody battle for his daughter right now.) So the court really didn't answer the question that is being asked.
Justice John Paul Stevens said, "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law." He avoided making any sort of official statement about the issue.
Newdow will continue to fight, and the question will be answered at some point.
Is this issue not clear?
Let us all please, please remember that Congress did in fact make such a law. "Under God" was not added to the Pledge until 1954. It was on this day, Flag Day, that the act was passed. "In God We Trust" was added to paper money in 1955. We were in a religious revival back then, mainly fueled by... yep, an effort to declare ourselves morally superior to communists, particularly the atheist Soviets.
And now we seem to be going through some other strange religious revival... partly because of the Christian right's amazing political momentum over the past couple of decades. But also because we want to declare ourselves morally superior over... yep. Pretty much anyone who doesn't have democracy. Islam. Middle Eastern and Asian countries. (Apparently nobody cares about Africa.) Terrorists. Heck, they're all the same, aren't they? Yeah, right.
So, because Christianity is an official, majority affiliation, it gets the spotlight. And the Christians say that this is okay because this country was built upon Christianity.
There is a great deal of debate over the true religious spirit of those who built this country. True, the Founding Fathers, those who were part of the Constitutional Convention, were mostly some form of Christian. Many were even Calvanists, which is pretty hard core. However it has been argued that many who have had influence, including some of our first Presidents, were Deists. Deists are all about reason, and they reject the sanctity of the Bible. Non-Christian, indeed.
Even so, are these people the only ones who matter? Yes, they did amazingly important things. But what were they building from? Who really built this country?
Can we discount the African paganism of slaves? Strains of religion that, while often acknowledging a supreme being, also believed strongly in the sanctity of nature/the earth and magical spirits. Can we discount other pagans and atheists who no doubt helped to build this country as well?
Even if those who created the Constitution were mainly Christian, and even if their values undoubtedly influenced what was written, can we discount the current American religious landscape, which is made up of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Unitarians, Pagans, Buddhists, Native Americans and dozens of others that are both secular and non-secular in nature? Yes, almost every member of the Supreme Court and the majority of Congress are Christian in some form. It is now as it was then: those in power by and large have Christian values. (At least theoretically.) But according to the government, the number of mosques in the United States has doubled in the last 15 years; also around ten percent of the citizenry is atheist or agnostic.
When will we start demanding that our government represent all of us, and stop this power grab? Non-Christians who are monotheistic know full well what the reference to God in the Pledge and on our money really means. It does not represent them. And it certainly does not represent those who are polytheists or atheists or agnostics.
Regardless of who was or is affiliated with what, having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance undermines the very spirit of the Constitution.
endless mourning
Maureen Dowd from the New York Times had a rather brilliant comment about Bush regarding Reagan's passing:
"Finally, there's a flag-draped coffin and military funeral that President Bush wants us to see."
Chills.
The Bush Administration says, no more photos from the largest military mortuary in Delaware. In fact, there is now minimal photographic evidence available of the slain. They say it's for the privacy of the families. Uh-huh. There was nothing private about Reagan's burial, now was there? We were allowed to openly mourn him, even walk right up to the casket. Watch it on tv.
Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington, said that the omission of photos of coffins or remains "is not about privacy. This is about trying to keep the country from facing the reality of war."
Uh-huh.
So, when someone dies in battle, we are supposed to just sorta hear about it in the headlines. No national mourning. There are just too many of them. At the time I am writing this, 834 American military people have died in Iraq. If we all stood around mourning every single one, I guess we wouldn't do much else, would we? We wouldn't be out spending our money and working to make money (in that order) and going about our business and having barbeques. And we'd never leave the house if we took the time to mourn for every Iraqi who has died. Currently, that number is in the neighborhood of 10,000.
How much more death of our bodies and destruction of our spirits? Oh... I guess a lot more.
"Finally, there's a flag-draped coffin and military funeral that President Bush wants us to see."
Chills.
The Bush Administration says, no more photos from the largest military mortuary in Delaware. In fact, there is now minimal photographic evidence available of the slain. They say it's for the privacy of the families. Uh-huh. There was nothing private about Reagan's burial, now was there? We were allowed to openly mourn him, even walk right up to the casket. Watch it on tv.
Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington, said that the omission of photos of coffins or remains "is not about privacy. This is about trying to keep the country from facing the reality of war."
Uh-huh.
So, when someone dies in battle, we are supposed to just sorta hear about it in the headlines. No national mourning. There are just too many of them. At the time I am writing this, 834 American military people have died in Iraq. If we all stood around mourning every single one, I guess we wouldn't do much else, would we? We wouldn't be out spending our money and working to make money (in that order) and going about our business and having barbeques. And we'd never leave the house if we took the time to mourn for every Iraqi who has died. Currently, that number is in the neighborhood of 10,000.
How much more death of our bodies and destruction of our spirits? Oh... I guess a lot more.
11 June 2004
where troubles melt like lemon drops
Ray Charles passed.
I had the pleasure of seeing him live some years ago, and he was one of those brilliant, bright lights whom age could never dull. He was just as captivating as at any other time of his career.
Hearing him sing Old Man River for the first time as a teenager, I remember understanding so many things. Really getting the boundless sorrow of that song. But then, as only Ray could do, he found an optimism in it, as well.
He did it again in Somewhere Over the Rainbow. Oh, when I heard him do that.... he raised that song higher and took it lower than I ever knew it could go.
If you haven't heard Ray Charles do Rainbow, or haven't heard it in a long time, go listen to it now. Go. It's simply... yeah.
It seems only a black man who grew up in America, poorest of poor, blind after his first few years of life, and orphaned, could have the particular kind of textural, expressive depth that he had. And that he sang these two particular songs with such vision, with such breadth... is ridiculously inspiring and tells his story more than words ever could.
Sleep well, Ray. You are so beautiful and your voice full of pain and hope and laughter continues to sing in my heart.
I had the pleasure of seeing him live some years ago, and he was one of those brilliant, bright lights whom age could never dull. He was just as captivating as at any other time of his career.
Hearing him sing Old Man River for the first time as a teenager, I remember understanding so many things. Really getting the boundless sorrow of that song. But then, as only Ray could do, he found an optimism in it, as well.
He did it again in Somewhere Over the Rainbow. Oh, when I heard him do that.... he raised that song higher and took it lower than I ever knew it could go.
If you haven't heard Ray Charles do Rainbow, or haven't heard it in a long time, go listen to it now. Go. It's simply... yeah.
It seems only a black man who grew up in America, poorest of poor, blind after his first few years of life, and orphaned, could have the particular kind of textural, expressive depth that he had. And that he sang these two particular songs with such vision, with such breadth... is ridiculously inspiring and tells his story more than words ever could.
Sleep well, Ray. You are so beautiful and your voice full of pain and hope and laughter continues to sing in my heart.
10 June 2004
a closer look
Doing a little curious research yesterday, I did a search for "god gender." One of the first things that came up was:
Buy God, Gender and the Bible at Walmart.com
Yep. That's right. You can buy not only the Bible at Wal-Mart, you can buy god and gender too. And they've gone through some effort for all of us to know that. Which is so convenient, because I was getting really tired of having to look for those things.
I hope everyone knows that the owners of Wal-Mart take up four slots on the list of the world's top ten richest people.
I hope everyone knows that communities around the world continue to boycott the presence of Wal-Mart because of its unfair trade practices, shoddy employee treatment, and obliteration of independently owned stores.
Rather than go shopping at Wal-Mart, I challenge all of us to go out into the world and see god in a leaf. To find the feminine in our fathers and the masculine in our mothers. To find both ends of the spectrum in ourselves, plus everything in between.
While we're at it, let's find god in our mothers and fathers. And, yes, in ourselves.
We can do it.
Yep. That's right. You can buy not only the Bible at Wal-Mart, you can buy god and gender too. And they've gone through some effort for all of us to know that. Which is so convenient, because I was getting really tired of having to look for those things.
I hope everyone knows that the owners of Wal-Mart take up four slots on the list of the world's top ten richest people.
I hope everyone knows that communities around the world continue to boycott the presence of Wal-Mart because of its unfair trade practices, shoddy employee treatment, and obliteration of independently owned stores.
Rather than go shopping at Wal-Mart, I challenge all of us to go out into the world and see god in a leaf. To find the feminine in our fathers and the masculine in our mothers. To find both ends of the spectrum in ourselves, plus everything in between.
While we're at it, let's find god in our mothers and fathers. And, yes, in ourselves.
We can do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)