I am, in fact, interested in shallow things. Recent posts may have indicated that I find politics relevant to my life. I don't. It's just something to talk about. Clothing is actually much more of an existential concern. To dissipate my air of gravitas, I must note that in two movies I recently saw -- that were not at all about fashion -- it was the fashions that caught my eye. Particularly the fashion of the late 90s.
The two movies were Spellbound -- about the 1999 Scripts-Howard Spelling Bee -- and The Queen -- about Elizabeth's reaction to the death of Diana.
I know fashion changes quickly. Within the past year I've become almost afraid to wear flare jeans. I also know how the clothing companies exploit trends in order to sell more clothes. But some things I simply cannot wear. Billowing, tucked-in t-shirts, for example. Everyone wore everything tucked in. Or a long, flowered, polyester dress. Somehow, that's what I envisioned people wearing in the late '80s and early '90s. Yet, that is exactly what people were wearing as late as 1999! Not just the dweebs in Missouri and Tampa who were featured in Spellbound, either. Even older women wore different clothes than they would now.
It seems like fashion used to change by decades and now changes by year. Am I just more fashion-conscious than I used to be? Are people in general just more fashion-conscious now than they were six years ago?
Which leads me to a question -- Brianna, Sarah, Emma, Emily, et al. -- I recently purchased a new pair of boots with my anticipated Christmas money. They fit well (slightly snug in the calf), but the shaft falls 3 - 4 inches below my knee. Is that where they should be, or should I send them back to Zappos and relinquish my quest for appropriately-sized boots? I love them because they are waterproof, and I can wear them with just about any of my black or grey skirts and pants.
I listened to a podcast today from a history lecture at UC Berkeley called "9/11 and Beyond." it made me like H.W. better. He got lambasted for saying "it wouldn't be prudent" to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, and even blamed for the current war. The professor (Jennifer Burns) characterized H.W. as a cautious, experienced man who was a consensus-builder. The U.N. passed a resolution to defend Kuwait, America went in with 20 other nations, and our military still had Soviet-era military build-up, which Bush used to swiftly win the war. Significantly, Bush refused to pursue the war any further than Kuwait's border.
The main reason he might be blamed for the current war is because he gave in to the Saudis and left American troops in Saudi Arabia to guard against Iraq. This incensed Bin Ladin, who is a Saudi, for nationalist reasons and because much of Saudi Arabia is holy land. Of course, Bin Ladin and other extremists also have their panties in a twist over our defense of Israel against Palestine, and because of our marketing of items they see as immoral, such as Coca-Cola and scantily-clad women (I like capitalism, but I also believe the government and the corporations are often in an unholy alliance to pry open new markets).
George W. is NOT a consensus builder, but acts on his own beliefs. There has always been a segment of the Republican party, according to Burns, that has wanted to invade Iraq and force a regime change since the end of the Gulf War. 9/11 provided sufficient paranoia to be an impetus against any threats. Bush also acted based on his own interpretation of a past U.N. sanction on Iraq. The Security Council would not approve these actions.
So, essentially, George W. has come up with a new foreign policy: for the safety of the U.S., force a complete regime change in countries that appear hostile. This is similar, but not completely like, the policy of containment during the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Spanish-American War (both times in Cuba, of course, we were facing off against another superpower; not attempting the regime change of a national government. In both Vietnam and the Philippines there was a fledgling provisional government that we were "supporting.") The question is, of course, should a "hyper-power" like America embrace this role of arbiter of other countries' national governments, or should we attempt to lessen our presence in other countries, thereby perhaps reducing their reasons for hating us?
Anyway...I would highly recommend listening to the podcast. I just recently discovered all the lectures you can get from Princeton...Berkeley...etc. on almost any subject.
Oh...speaking of presidents, guess who is Michigan's commencement speaker for 2007. Hey -- it's a step above Brett Hume. I may have to graduate after all just so I can shake his hand -- from a safe distance.
I'm sorry, Emma, but I see little difference in the style -- the improbable hat, the shapeless, pastel dress, the costume jewelery (although Camilla's, sadly, is probably real).
The Times reports that "troublemakers indulge in 'church hopping', moving on to the next church once they have had enough of the one they are in. Dr Savage says that these people suffer from neurotic personality disorders bordering on the psychotic. "
*gulps nervously and stares at fixed point on ceiling* "Churches in Britain are a 'toxic cocktail' of bullying and terror, as parish priests struggle to lead congregations dominated by neurotic worshippers who spread havoc with gossip and manipulation."
Hyacinth from Keeping Up Appearances? Anyone?
But maybe this is all to be expected when you take the "angel" out of "Anglican".
In other news, I've adopted a minor "heresy" (this is not related to tests below). I might post more on the subject after I consider if admitting this could result in being burned at the stake or any other nasty consequences.
Here's the test Brianna found; we scored the same on the top two, except they were inverted.
You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.
You scored as Christianity. Your views are most similar to those of Christianity. Do more research on Christianity and possibly consider being baptized and accepting Jesus, if you aren't already Christian.
Christianity is the second of the Abrahamic faiths; it follows Judaism and is followed by Islam. It differs in its belief of Jesus, as not a prophet nor historical figure, but as God in human form. The Holy Trinity is the concept that God takes three forms: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost (sometimes called Holy Spirit). Jesus taught the idea of instead of seeking revenge, one should love his or her neighbors and enemies. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross to save humankind and forgive people's sins.
You scored as Presbytarian. You have mainly Presbytarian beliefs. You have a strong Calvinist Christian theology background and place great importance in learning the scriptures
This, my friends, is a rant. A serious rant, no less. I would suggest (A) seeing Jesus Camp yourself or (B) skipping to the movie clips with descriptive captions.
About three weeks ago I went to see the movie Jesus Camp with some friends from GCF. It's dark, and confusing, and it makes you think hard about where you are on the spectrum compared to the wackos portrayed.
On the one hand, I agree with them that: 1. Widespread, government-sanctioned abortion is a social ill. 2. Kids are going to imbibe some sort of ideology. 3. The public schools have their own form of ideology.
And then there's the other hand.
First, I strongly disagree with doing that to children (see movie clips below). I remember being furious when I drove past someone holding up a picture of an aborted baby on the street when I had A. in the car with me. His parents and I, though coming from different perspectives, jointly agreed upon what was age appropriate and wouldn't traumatize him at his stage of development. Yet here was someone, most likely a Christian, holding up something more gory than anything you could see in an R-rated movie for the viewing of general audiences.
I disagree with the obvious encouragement of hysteria in children (i.e. the spooky humming and shouting by adults) in the name of the "Holy Spirit." If being "touched by the Holy Spirit" means five year olds experiencing epilepsy, then I'm converting to Buddhism. Frankly, it creeped me out more than the Exorcist. I'm going to stop there.
The part I feel I can speak to more authoritatively is indoctrinating children with strong opinions about things they can't possibly understand. Unfortunately, some kids are going to know about rape, incest, and birth deformities when they are three. I think we can agree that is not optimal. Yet it's not possible to have an informed opinion on abortion without understanding these concepts. Kids are smart, but they are also mimics. They can't make judgments about complex moral issues until at least their teens. Unless you really think a child can understand the controversy surrounding abortion, you shouldn't use them as tools, and you shouldn't actively engage their emotions. Making them bless a cardboard cut out of George Bush? I think even Dr. F. would have blanched at that sort of "political activism," I hope.
Second, there's the thoughtless hypocrisy. Spotlighted by Ted Haggard, of course. See the clip below where he mocks the discussions of general assemblies about homosexuality because he thinks it's such a clear issue in the Bible. I guess the National Association of Evangelicals could perhaps have benefitted from some discussion about the topic. Yes, we all sin, but the hypocrisy comes in when someone publicly harangues against sin rather than trying help the people affected by the sin. Perhaps Haggard and the leaders of the Jesus Camp are involved in caring for pregnant teens and fighting AIDS, but that is certainly not where their emphasis is.
Then there's the commercialism. I have no problem with Dannon as a water retailer, but what precisely is the connotation of washing away sins with a plastic water bottle? Sorry, but in the realm of symbolism, the Catholic Church has got it all over you guys when it comes to significance. And the shirts that link Christianity and commercial products. What are we saying with the word "Jesus" written to look like the Reeses Logo? Are we saying there is some sort of correlation between Christ and a peanut butter cup? Are we trying to make Christianity palatable? It never seems to occur to these people that perhaps I'm not ashamed of Christ, but I'm not so sure of myself that Christ might not frequently be ashamed of me. Until my actions are faultless, I'm not going to go around advertising (literally) my Christianity to people who see only a fragment of my actions.
Featurette by the creators of Jesus Camp. Footage of children experiencing seizures, being "baptized" with a bottle of Dannon water.
Is any scandal complete until Jon Stewart comments on it? The clip shown is from Jesus Camp.
You can only have knowledge, strictly,' he replied, 'of things concluded, in the past. It's like bottling the liberty of last summer in the bottled gooseberries.'
