Sticks and stones

Looking at the continued self-destruction of the Bush Presidency, there's a lot of cautious excitement among Democrats as they await the contest of 2008.

How much worse can life get for Senate Republicans? A number of them can't seem to decide who they dislike more-their Democrat colleagues or their Republican chief.

The fact that Alaska Republican Ted Stevens is under the magnifying glass for possible misdeeds (and his sister Senator, Lisa Murkowski, may not emerge unscathed) is giving new hope to Democrats seeking a majority that can actually get something accomplished.

Isn't this the time for visionary leadership? Wouldn't it be helpful, if not purely pragmatic, for candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to put their differences aside when they are supposedly working on behalf of the people who sent them to the halls of Congress?

An article I read today suggests that Clinton, in particular, is finding this almost impossible. Perhaps she feels betrayed by Obama's decision to run. Possibly she believed herself to be a mentor to the younger Senator. Could she be concerned that she's going to lose not only some African-American women, but other potential supporters who are looking for someone with a little more overt enthusiasm and authenticity?

Part of the issue is that, like many of us in management positions, both candidates are probably surrounded by those who tell them what they want to hear-not what they need to hear. Meanwhile, the public wonders why our leaders can't behave like adults-and gets more and more fed up with politicians of both parties.

It's wrong to put all the blame for the tiff on Clinton's shoulders-Obama is a very ambitious man. Not to mention a darned smart politician. But it would be helpful to Clinton, who has what is perhaps an unfair rap for being exceptionally cold, to stop walking around Obama in the Halls of Congress-and to walk towards him, with her hand out.

Pet Peeve...games people play

I don't know if other servers have this option, because I am one of those neanderthal women (hear me lumber) who still uses AOL as their primary browser, and has an AOL email address. It may be getting time to change that.

Not only do I have an AOL address, but I've never felt the same about it since some guy told me it was very sexually suggestive-in an unintentional way. If I'm going to be suggestive, fellows, you are going to know about it.

I'm not about games. I try to be as direct as possible, and I like people to be direct with me. It wasn't until about seven months ago that I discovered, from a potential date, that one could block people on the AOL "buddy list." Then I found that a few guys would block me most of the time (they blocked most everyone) and unblock me when they wanted to talk to me.

Little Ms. Purer than the Virgin Snow hated this-in fact, I still do. It so smacks of gamesmanship. Then came the day when I blocked a guy who signed on to chat with me around 11:00 on nights when all I wanted was to sit blankly in front of my computer and read in relative privacy.

My suspicion is that this AOL feature is used by some folks I know to remind me they are still around. And I find the temptation to play around with it a distraction and, frankly, an annoyance.

But I wonder...what is a game, and what is a healthy relational strategy? What is adaptive and what is just silly? What is the tipping point in this new relational technology? Any answers.. or even more questions are welcome.

Rather unintentionally, I posted a profile on Facebook this afternoon. Actually, I'm glad I did. I'm rather over the hill for Facebook, but it almost immediately got me back in touch with some folks with whom I'd lost touch-a British seminarian I'd supervised when she was over here doing an internship (she's now a mom and a priest), my ex's son who lives in Argentina and owns a vineyard, a Match friend, several other friends, and His Grace, Archbishop Cranmer. It's phenomenal how well he keeps up with the Times (not to mention the politics of the Conservative Party).

These folks are now listed as "friends" on my Facebook profile.

That got me thinking-what is a friend? In my mom's day, it was a person you might nave met in grade school or perhaps college-or maybe a first job before one got married. Possibly it was a neighbor. For people my age, it could be, and is, my college roomate, a neighbor or someone I met at work or in church.

But having friends one meets solely through electronic media (or in a purely spiritual way, in Arcbishops Cranmer's case) both widens and constricts the possibilities of a deep friendship. I'm interested to see what I will learn from my Facebook "friends" old (very old) and new...

My column from today's Intelligencer Journal

Rhoades: Clarity moves church relations forward
Published: Jul 28, 2007 12:01 AM EST
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA -
I have to admit that when I read press reports about the Vatican's decision to reiterate its traditional point of view on the differences between the Catholic Church and Protestant faith communities, I winced reflexively.
After all, I am a member of the Anglican Communion, a denomination that has had a long and complex relationship with the Roman Catholic Church since King Henry VIII decided to do a little ecclesiastical freelancing back in the 16th century.
A restatement of a 2000 document authored by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), the text on what elements make up a church was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog.
It is seen as a "clarification" issued in response to ongoing (and perhaps irrepressible) debate over the precise meaning of the heritage of the Second Vatican Council, a three-year conference that ended more than 40 years ago — and has had a lasting effect on church practice.
There are no shocking revelations here.
Instead there is a restatement of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council that "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church."
Because the Orthodox Churches share a common ecclesiology and tradition, they also have the elements that constitute a church, according to traditional Catholic teaching. Protestants on the other hand are considered "Christian communities" rather than churches in the full sense of the word.
Some Protestant judicatories and individuals responded angrily to the idea that their faith communities might have "defects" rendering them ineligible to be seen as churches (or, rather, as the Church).
But was it possible that something healthy could come out of the current contretemps?
For an answer, I turned to the Roman Catholic bishop of the 250,000-member diocese of Harrisburg, the Most Rev. Kevin Rhoades.
The former head of Maryland's Mount Saint Mary's Seminary, Rhoades has been shepherd of the 15-county diocese for the past two and a half years.
Given the opportunity to get a message out to his Protestant brothers and sisters, let alone rank and file Roman Catholics, what would he like to say?
Both erudite and friendly, Rhoades said he was surprised by the negative reaction, particularly in the secular media.
Particularly distressing to him was the implication in some press reports that only Catholics could be saved.
Not so fast, said the bishop.
Although the Catholic Church believes it has the fullness of the means of salvation, Catholic teaching recognizes the saving action of the Holy Spirit in separated churches and communities and states that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist in other Christian communities.
Rhoades used the sacrament of baptism as an example.
Instead of being seen as a retreat in ecumenical relations, he argues, this restatement should be seen as an opportunity.
"In dialogues between Catholics and other Christian communities it is so important that we understand each other's teachings, and this is a clear affirmation of what we believe," Rhoades said.
A particularly thorny arena for dialogue between Roman Catholics and representatives of other Christian bodies is the issue of the meaning of the Eucharist and the validity of Protestant orders.
Although sometimes contentious, even painful, the discussions should neither be evaded nor avoided, Rhoades said.
"We cannot skirt these issues," Rhoades said. "We have come to the point of maturity in our ecumenical discussions where these difficult points need to be addressed."
More broadly, says Rhoades, there is a continuing need for the Church to address the troubling phenomenon that one can pick and choose various elements of faith according to personal preference.
"There is a lack of recognition for objective truth in the doctrinal and moral arena," he said.
On the other hand, Rhoades wants to remind area Catholics and Protestants alike that "We should be very aware of the many elements of the faith we hold in common and build on those."
Among these essentials, says the bishop, is an "irrevocable commitment" to the cause of Christian unity, to prayer, and to work on issues of social justice and charity common to all Christians.
Then he was off to tend to his growing flock, a veteran of ecumenical dialogues who believes that Christian faith communities must candidly acknowledge the issues that divide them so that they are free to seek the unity mandated by the One they all profess to follow.


©

One man's "fun"

Hang out on an Internet dating site for any length of time, and you'll find out that words you thought you knew the meaning of since elementary school acquire a whole new meaning when it comes to male-female communication.

I've had a few conversations with swingers (men involved in the world of alternative sex)-a sexual category of which I was almost completely ignorant before I signed on to a dating website.

What I quickly realized is that even though the permutations and combinations are dautingly complicated to those of us not in the know, those who practice alternative sex (orgies, threesomes, don't ask if you don't want to know) have rituals and language as complex as any other social milieu.

Not to mention double jointed gifts for which swingers don't get enough credit-for Pete's sake, how many of you have really taken a look at some of those manuals?

Take the word "fun." I know now that "fun" doesn't denote getting together for a chocolate malt at the diner. "Fun" can take place in the backseats of cars, in secluded glades, a deux or in a quartet.

Thus I should have been more cautious when I got a wink from a guy whose name was "Extra Activity." But no, Elizabeth, who can be a little naive, just thought he was very athletic. It wasn't until I read the paragraph in bio where he said he was looking for "safe adult fun" that I realized he wasn't talking about a jog before lunch-so I let him take a hike.

Have you been "naughty?" If you are "naughty" in the swinging world, it means you are doing something you should not be doing-and the naughtier, the better. After a while, most of the taboos have become sooo trite-then the true swinger will try to find something even 'naughtier".

My "naughty" antenna have become rather sophisticated, because for various reasons I am a tempting target. Knowing I'm like catnip to a swinger is not flattering, because I know it's not my scintillating personality they want.


But my favorite alternative word is "vanilla." The monogamous majority (ok, a lot of them are the serial monogamous majority) are vanilla.

I wasn't sure I liked this-it implied a certain conventionality that just doesn't sit well with me. On the other hand, to become chocolate, sorbet, or even Neapolitan takes a passion for secrecy, not to mention an athleticism that is beyond me right now. So until, and if, I find my inner dominatrix-I'm vanilla, and proud.

Or perhaps vanilla twist?

The Madness of Prince George

George Bush has been called dumb, arrogant, uppercrust pretending to be lowdown, a man without a core masquerading as an evangelical conservative. Has anyone thought to call him insane?

As we head towards a constitutional showdown under the guise of a confrontation over a spending bill, Bush shows no signs of being able to face reality. A National Intelligence Estimate recently came out that said the war in Iraq had drained so many resources that it allowed Al Queda in other parts of the world, like the border of Pakistan/Afghanistan, to strengthen itself.

Thus the insurgents now pose a bigger threat than before the start of the "war on terror". Against the evidence, Bush insists that Al Queda poses a great threat in Iraq-and that we are winning the war!

Against the evidence-that could be the epitaph for this frighteningly delusional President.

Global warming has not been proven-against the evidence.

Evolution is an unproven theory, not a fact-against the evidence.

The Iraqis have a viable government-against the evidence.

All children who need health insurance have it-against the evidence.

Congress has no voice in declaring war or deciding to end it-against the Constitution.

Here is a man who apparently cannot hear voices of dissent, even when they come from the inner circle of his own party.

What does that tell us?

Actually, it doesn't really matter. What matters is whether Republicans Senators who have spoken out against the war, who have spoken up for funding health insurance for children have courage, or are all about striking agreeable political postures. It take a lot of guts for members of the President's party to actually vote, not just speak, against him.

If they do, it may mean the pendulum has finally started to swing-back from the insanity which not only grips Prince George, but the country he claims to serve.

Sex role hypocrisy in Glenmoore!

Soon after writing the last post, I had to confront the fact that there is sexual hypocrisy in my own household. After parading through the house with requests for lemon juice, the children adjourned to our Adirondack chairs on the front patio (a flat slab of concrete under an awning can't really be termed a porch). Not long after this, Colin came in. "They ( Sian and one of her little girlfriends) are saying that if I want to play with them, I have to be a slave," he told me. Apparently Sian (her friend might boss around her little brother, but wouldn't do that to Colin) demanded that Colin fulfill her wishes for a certain number of weeks...months...or years? When I went out to see what was going on, and to free the slave, Sian and her buddy were languidly sipping lemonade (thus the lemon joice) and acting more like abolitionists than slave holders. Sian, of course, denied ever asking Colin to be her slave. After sternly telling them to cut it out, I went inside and brought out cookies-in the hopes that Sian might give up the role of tyrant for that of lady of the mansion-at least for that afternoon.