1. Co-Vivant had had a major blood-sugar crash by the time I got up, so we went and got her some food.
2. I worked in the Deadmines a little this afternoon; I actually defeated Smite! I died at Van Cleef, though.
3. Went to book group; we had a terrific discussion on Pagel & King's Reading Judas. We were particularly interested in how the Gospel of Judas has a very different attitude toward martyrdom than the more Orthodox texts that were made canonical.
4. Came home. We watched a little TV. I didn't work on Pogo Badges because Co-Vivant had the computer in the living room.
5. Finally found a group in the Dark Mines. It wasn't a great group, mind you, but it was a group, and we were able to finish Van Cleef. Finally. I may still take this character back to the Dark Mines now and then just because she made a bloody fortune; all told, she made close to 30 gold in there. (Now much of it has been spent, mostly on raw materials so she could make the Target Dummies and Explosive Sheep that let her finish, but she's made a nice chunk-o-change over the last few days in the Dark Mines.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
6/28: What I Accomplished Today
1. Graded two classes, prepped a class, taught a class.
2. Watched some stuff on TV.
3. Worked on Pogo badges.
4. Read for Arthur.
5. Level 29 Human Paladin tried to solo Darkmines again; no go. Tomorrow, I'll find a nice little group just so I can finish the remaining quest (Van Cleef). In the future, I know that I can make a metric crapload of money by just going as far as I can in this instance; not much cash (poor miners), but loads of cloth and greens. None of them are worth a heckuva lot, but together, 10 not-a-heckuva-lots make a fair amount.
6. BigFishGame looks awfully precious, so I'll probably just go to bed now.
2. Watched some stuff on TV.
3. Worked on Pogo badges.
4. Read for Arthur.
5. Level 29 Human Paladin tried to solo Darkmines again; no go. Tomorrow, I'll find a nice little group just so I can finish the remaining quest (Van Cleef). In the future, I know that I can make a metric crapload of money by just going as far as I can in this instance; not much cash (poor miners), but loads of cloth and greens. None of them are worth a heckuva lot, but together, 10 not-a-heckuva-lots make a fair amount.
6. BigFishGame looks awfully precious, so I'll probably just go to bed now.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
6/27: What I Accomplished Today
1. Not a whole helluva lot.
2. Should have graded or prepped. Might when I'm done here. Probably should. Doubt I do.
3. Watched some comedians on television.
4. Got my Pogo badges to about 20%.
5. Read more in Arthur. (It takes longer than reading normally would because I have to write teaching notes as I go.)
6. Human Paladin dinged 29. Hasn't finished Dead mines yet, although she's soloed once to Smite and once to Sneed. (I don't know how she killed Sneed the first time.)
2. Should have graded or prepped. Might when I'm done here. Probably should. Doubt I do.
3. Watched some comedians on television.
4. Got my Pogo badges to about 20%.
5. Read more in Arthur. (It takes longer than reading normally would because I have to write teaching notes as I go.)
6. Human Paladin dinged 29. Hasn't finished Dead mines yet, although she's soloed once to Smite and once to Sneed. (I don't know how she killed Sneed the first time.)
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
6/26: What I Accomplished Today
1. Graded two classes, prepped class, taught class.
2. Came home and watched forgettable comedians on the television.
3. Worked on Pogo premium badges a little. Tomorrow is new badge day.
4. Read a fair amount for Arthur.
5. Level 28 Human Paladin almost soloed the Dark Mines; very, very cool. I'm not convinced I can get her past Mr. Smite, but she's gotten through everything else and only died three or four times. This was really fun.
I was having such fun that it is now really irresponsibly late (or, rather, early).
2. Came home and watched forgettable comedians on the television.
3. Worked on Pogo premium badges a little. Tomorrow is new badge day.
4. Read a fair amount for Arthur.
5. Level 28 Human Paladin almost soloed the Dark Mines; very, very cool. I'm not convinced I can get her past Mr. Smite, but she's gotten through everything else and only died three or four times. This was really fun.
I was having such fun that it is now really irresponsibly late (or, rather, early).
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
6/25b: Addendum
I just reread the previous post, and it was mostly okay, but my point C under Big Love about the show as a metaphor for homosexuality was just inadequate and seemed to miss the point totally, so I'd better elaborate.
There are obviously similarities between homosexuality and polygamy, as Roman Grant himself pointed out on the show.
1. Both are non-standard families. I can't remember the specifics, but I remember reading that a bill came before the Supreme Court many years ago (somewhere between the 20's and the 50's, which I know is a stupidly large time frame) that was going to require that the Court define a family, and that seemed very easy at first. But as they thought about it, they realized how inappropriate that was; even in the Supreme Court, which I believe at the time was composed entirely of White Men from Wealthy Backgrounds, one had been raised by a grandmother, which, by the definition the case seemed to require, didn't qualify as a family.
I have been in several families. My parents were married when I was born, but they were young (my father was 19, my mother a year older), and my father sort of flipped and decided that his marital status didn't mean he couldn't date. This family, which eventually composed of four lovely, charming people whom I obviously all love very much, never worked very well.
When I was 7 to 12, my mother, sister, and I lived together. My sister and I would visit our father several times a year as schedules permitted. Eventually, this worked pretty well. I don't understand the bitching about single mothers; yes, it was very hard work on my mother's part, but this was a good family. This one worked.
When I was 12, my mother remarried. She married a good man whom I care about very much, and they recently celebrated their 30th anniversary. For me, this family worked, mostly. However, there were considerable differences in expectation and upbringing (probably the same amount that there would have been with my father, but because he didn't generally stick around to have the conversations until he was on his second marriage, we didn't see that), and it was difficult. Of course, families are always difficult (I think, anyway, although this never gets play).
Went to college; dorm living didn't count. Between college and grad school, I was back with my parents for awhile, so that was an extension of the previous family.
Graduate school was my first time in an apartment. With the exception of a few months in which I lived with a very nice man with whom I should never have lived, I mostly lived alone for the next four years. I did it very well, for the most part; at my first real "job," co-workers mentioned that they'd never really seen anyone who was single and not desperate. (Somebody making the comment compared me to Mary Tyler Moore, which I think was very flattering, albeit perhaps a little odd.) Frankly, for these years, I was my family. Yes, I participated in events for other families (my biological family, friends' family, families that came together at school and work), but I was mostly my own family. This was a successful family, and it worked.
Now to be honest, part of the reason I "worked" as a single person (eventually) is because these are the years I realized it just wasn't right to pretend to be straight. (I spent some time in graduate school trying to prove how gay I wasn't, but mostly what I accomplished was the emasculation of several men I cared about quite a lot, so I came to the conclusion that this wasn't an option I could use with any sort of integrity. I dated several guys thinking, "If I were ever going to fall for a man, I'd fall for this one." And I did care about them--but I knew I didn't love them, not like that. I was one of those awfully quaint little bunnies who'd intended to remain a virgin until marriage, but then the wiring wasn't falling into place for marriage, so I had the "Well, maybe I'm going to have to go to bed with someone to fall in love with him." Didn't work. So then I thought the ole "Maybe I just haven't met/gone to bed with the right man yet" chestnut. Didn't work. And then I realized, "You know, I don't want a man around all the time. Maybe I'm supposed to be the other woman." So yes, to be honest, I tried that. Didn't work. Looking back, I find it really puzzling, to the point of being humiliating, that I somehow thought being someone's sexual hobby was morally superior to lesbian monogamy, which I'm really good at, but I wasn't ready to go there yet. This "I am my own family" stage was essentially the, "Well, men don't work at all for me, and I don't think there's a viable option to that, so I'd better get used to me, because I'm all there's gonna be." And I was okay with that for awhile, perfectly content.
But we get only one life, and it's a short one. Is "content" good enough?
So then I was in the relationship with my ex. We were together six and a half years; from my perspective, it worked five of those years, but I think it's entirely possible that it never, ever worked for her, and she stayed much longer than she wanted to because she didn't want to hurt my feelings. If that is in fact the case, I don't know if that's cruel or kind. I know the intention, at least at first, was to be kind. Whatever.
And now I've been with my Co-Vivant for ten years.
So with the exception of my first seven years (and I'm not sure the year Dad was in Viet Nam counts), I have never been in a "standard" family. I've been in a single-parent family, and I've been in a blended family. Frankly, the years I was in a "standard" family were the worst, family-wise. I really can't recommend it. I developed my insomnia during the year I was seven. My parents' marriage was falling apart, and I was pretty sure it was my fault, and I somehow thought if I stayed awake and listened to their arguments, I'd learn what I needed to learn to "fix it" so we could all stay together. This didn't work. My second-grade teacher told my mother my schoolwork was slipping; I seemed to be falling asleep in school, and I had attention problem. My mother talked to the doctor, who suggested leaving a tape of music while I fell asleep. We had a reel-to-reel tape Dad had bought when he was stationed in Viet Nam, and we had several tapes. I have one specific memory of this period; I forget what Beatles' album it was, but I vividly remember that the background music for one of my parents' loudest fights was "If I Fell in Love With You," and even at seven, I knew there was something not right about that, and I cried. Quietly, of course, so as not to bother anyone else.
Well, I didn't mean to go there, but I'm going to leave it.
2. Both are looked down upon for religious reasons. As I mentioned in the prior post, frankly, polygamy wins this one; it is absolutely Biblical. The case against homosexuality boils down to six passages in the Bible. Points I would like to make about this:
a. Sodom and Gomorrah. Christ interpreted the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah not as homosexuality per se but as a lack of hospitality, a huge lapse in the ancient world; see Luke 10:12.
b. There are two or three verses in the Torah, I think one in Leviticus and one in Deuteronomy.
c. Two or three verses in Paul; I Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26.
I had in my head there were six, but I can only find five.
d. Nowhere in the New Testament does the Greek word for homosexuality, homophilia, exist. The word appears in the translation in the I Cor verse, but I have read from several sources that the actual word does not appear anywhere in the Bible. (In the interest of honesty, I will admit that I myself do not have enough Greek to verify this for myself.) Also notice that Christ has nothing to say about the subject.
e. Occasionally, I've heard either homosexuals or gay apologists (and we know that word here means "defenders" and not "those who apologize, right?) try to use some Biblical stories, usually either David and Jonathan or Ruth and Naomi, as gay-positive. Now much as I would love to claim David and Jonathan for the team, I just think that the claim is indicative that the person making it has no understanding of military camaraderie. I don't get the Ruth and Naomi claim at all; being kind to your mother-in-law means you're a lesbian?
3. The logistics are still difficult. Health insurance. And is Bill's bank official aware of the situation? I don't know how it works in Sandy, Utah, but here where I live, the tax roles are published in the newspaper every year; anyone who's curious could look and see that Bill Hendrickson holds the mortgage on three consecutive houses.
4. Another similarity: in some situations, it can be dangerous to have your true status known. We're pretty open and honest in most situations; my Co-Vivant comes to my work Christmas parties, and I've gone to a few things with people she works with. However, we have never specifically told our neighbors that we are a couple. Actually, our next-door neighbor once asked me about "my sister?" with a question mark at the end, and I didn't clarify. I think across-the-street neighbor, with whom we are close, probably knows, but she is a devout Catholic who is Of An Age, and unless she specifically asks, we're not going to tell her; it might upset her, and we have no need to Rock Her World just on general principals. Actually, her nephew, who used to do yardwork for us, specifically asked me once, "What is your relationship?" And I thought, and smiled, and said, "Don't ask the question if you don't the true answer." (I didn't think he was asking in good faith with good intent, so I didn't answer his question.)
Now as open and honest as we are in most situations, it's probably silly (and it's certainly disingenuous) that we're not upfront with the people in the neighborhood, but again, I just haven't gotten a sign that it's Okay yet, so we haven't gone there yet.
Actually, I think this is also a difference; for most homosexuals in most situations, I don't think there's still a sense of danger about being Out. Yes, there are situations in which you can't be honest, but the situation is improving.
Differences:
(I turned the last similarity into a difference, so I must be ready to go here now.)
1. For most homosexuals, homosexuality involves two people.
2. In some ways, in most situations (all caveats in place), I think homosexuality is more accepted. My Co-Vivant and I can walk down the street, and some people aren't going to like it, but it's not really going to draw a lot of attention or stares. If the Big Love family (which is rather smaller than many polygamous families) all tries to go somewhere as a family, there will be problems. There was one scene on last week's episode where, for some reason, Nicki and Margie are talking to Bill on the phone; they're at the same place, and they can see each other, but they're talking on the phone rather than talk in person. One of Nicki's sons gets out of the car and starts to walk toward his father, and Margie gets out of the car, scoops him up, and brings him back into the car. Nicki's and Margie's sons are never going to have their dad at public occasions without some explanations. If a gay couple adopts a child, again, not everybody's going to like it, but they can be a family, for the most part.
(One of the things that made Bill angry in an episode last season was the fact that his father hadn't given him or Joey his last name. What are Nicki's or Margie's children's last name? I don't think it's Hendrickson.)
I'm starting to be tired, and although I've typed and typed, I'm not convinced I've really addressed the issue. I'm not convinced it's addressable, now that I think about it, and this might be one of those pointless posts that attempts to address the addressable. I'm going to post it for now, but I might have to think about whether this one stays.
There are obviously similarities between homosexuality and polygamy, as Roman Grant himself pointed out on the show.
1. Both are non-standard families. I can't remember the specifics, but I remember reading that a bill came before the Supreme Court many years ago (somewhere between the 20's and the 50's, which I know is a stupidly large time frame) that was going to require that the Court define a family, and that seemed very easy at first. But as they thought about it, they realized how inappropriate that was; even in the Supreme Court, which I believe at the time was composed entirely of White Men from Wealthy Backgrounds, one had been raised by a grandmother, which, by the definition the case seemed to require, didn't qualify as a family.
I have been in several families. My parents were married when I was born, but they were young (my father was 19, my mother a year older), and my father sort of flipped and decided that his marital status didn't mean he couldn't date. This family, which eventually composed of four lovely, charming people whom I obviously all love very much, never worked very well.
When I was 7 to 12, my mother, sister, and I lived together. My sister and I would visit our father several times a year as schedules permitted. Eventually, this worked pretty well. I don't understand the bitching about single mothers; yes, it was very hard work on my mother's part, but this was a good family. This one worked.
When I was 12, my mother remarried. She married a good man whom I care about very much, and they recently celebrated their 30th anniversary. For me, this family worked, mostly. However, there were considerable differences in expectation and upbringing (probably the same amount that there would have been with my father, but because he didn't generally stick around to have the conversations until he was on his second marriage, we didn't see that), and it was difficult. Of course, families are always difficult (I think, anyway, although this never gets play).
Went to college; dorm living didn't count. Between college and grad school, I was back with my parents for awhile, so that was an extension of the previous family.
Graduate school was my first time in an apartment. With the exception of a few months in which I lived with a very nice man with whom I should never have lived, I mostly lived alone for the next four years. I did it very well, for the most part; at my first real "job," co-workers mentioned that they'd never really seen anyone who was single and not desperate. (Somebody making the comment compared me to Mary Tyler Moore, which I think was very flattering, albeit perhaps a little odd.) Frankly, for these years, I was my family. Yes, I participated in events for other families (my biological family, friends' family, families that came together at school and work), but I was mostly my own family. This was a successful family, and it worked.
Now to be honest, part of the reason I "worked" as a single person (eventually) is because these are the years I realized it just wasn't right to pretend to be straight. (I spent some time in graduate school trying to prove how gay I wasn't, but mostly what I accomplished was the emasculation of several men I cared about quite a lot, so I came to the conclusion that this wasn't an option I could use with any sort of integrity. I dated several guys thinking, "If I were ever going to fall for a man, I'd fall for this one." And I did care about them--but I knew I didn't love them, not like that. I was one of those awfully quaint little bunnies who'd intended to remain a virgin until marriage, but then the wiring wasn't falling into place for marriage, so I had the "Well, maybe I'm going to have to go to bed with someone to fall in love with him." Didn't work. So then I thought the ole "Maybe I just haven't met/gone to bed with the right man yet" chestnut. Didn't work. And then I realized, "You know, I don't want a man around all the time. Maybe I'm supposed to be the other woman." So yes, to be honest, I tried that. Didn't work. Looking back, I find it really puzzling, to the point of being humiliating, that I somehow thought being someone's sexual hobby was morally superior to lesbian monogamy, which I'm really good at, but I wasn't ready to go there yet. This "I am my own family" stage was essentially the, "Well, men don't work at all for me, and I don't think there's a viable option to that, so I'd better get used to me, because I'm all there's gonna be." And I was okay with that for awhile, perfectly content.
But we get only one life, and it's a short one. Is "content" good enough?
So then I was in the relationship with my ex. We were together six and a half years; from my perspective, it worked five of those years, but I think it's entirely possible that it never, ever worked for her, and she stayed much longer than she wanted to because she didn't want to hurt my feelings. If that is in fact the case, I don't know if that's cruel or kind. I know the intention, at least at first, was to be kind. Whatever.
And now I've been with my Co-Vivant for ten years.
So with the exception of my first seven years (and I'm not sure the year Dad was in Viet Nam counts), I have never been in a "standard" family. I've been in a single-parent family, and I've been in a blended family. Frankly, the years I was in a "standard" family were the worst, family-wise. I really can't recommend it. I developed my insomnia during the year I was seven. My parents' marriage was falling apart, and I was pretty sure it was my fault, and I somehow thought if I stayed awake and listened to their arguments, I'd learn what I needed to learn to "fix it" so we could all stay together. This didn't work. My second-grade teacher told my mother my schoolwork was slipping; I seemed to be falling asleep in school, and I had attention problem. My mother talked to the doctor, who suggested leaving a tape of music while I fell asleep. We had a reel-to-reel tape Dad had bought when he was stationed in Viet Nam, and we had several tapes. I have one specific memory of this period; I forget what Beatles' album it was, but I vividly remember that the background music for one of my parents' loudest fights was "If I Fell in Love With You," and even at seven, I knew there was something not right about that, and I cried. Quietly, of course, so as not to bother anyone else.
Well, I didn't mean to go there, but I'm going to leave it.
2. Both are looked down upon for religious reasons. As I mentioned in the prior post, frankly, polygamy wins this one; it is absolutely Biblical. The case against homosexuality boils down to six passages in the Bible. Points I would like to make about this:
a. Sodom and Gomorrah. Christ interpreted the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah not as homosexuality per se but as a lack of hospitality, a huge lapse in the ancient world; see Luke 10:12.
b. There are two or three verses in the Torah, I think one in Leviticus and one in Deuteronomy.
c. Two or three verses in Paul; I Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26.
I had in my head there were six, but I can only find five.
d. Nowhere in the New Testament does the Greek word for homosexuality, homophilia, exist. The word appears in the translation in the I Cor verse, but I have read from several sources that the actual word does not appear anywhere in the Bible. (In the interest of honesty, I will admit that I myself do not have enough Greek to verify this for myself.) Also notice that Christ has nothing to say about the subject.
e. Occasionally, I've heard either homosexuals or gay apologists (and we know that word here means "defenders" and not "those who apologize, right?) try to use some Biblical stories, usually either David and Jonathan or Ruth and Naomi, as gay-positive. Now much as I would love to claim David and Jonathan for the team, I just think that the claim is indicative that the person making it has no understanding of military camaraderie. I don't get the Ruth and Naomi claim at all; being kind to your mother-in-law means you're a lesbian?
3. The logistics are still difficult. Health insurance. And is Bill's bank official aware of the situation? I don't know how it works in Sandy, Utah, but here where I live, the tax roles are published in the newspaper every year; anyone who's curious could look and see that Bill Hendrickson holds the mortgage on three consecutive houses.
4. Another similarity: in some situations, it can be dangerous to have your true status known. We're pretty open and honest in most situations; my Co-Vivant comes to my work Christmas parties, and I've gone to a few things with people she works with. However, we have never specifically told our neighbors that we are a couple. Actually, our next-door neighbor once asked me about "my sister?" with a question mark at the end, and I didn't clarify. I think across-the-street neighbor, with whom we are close, probably knows, but she is a devout Catholic who is Of An Age, and unless she specifically asks, we're not going to tell her; it might upset her, and we have no need to Rock Her World just on general principals. Actually, her nephew, who used to do yardwork for us, specifically asked me once, "What is your relationship?" And I thought, and smiled, and said, "Don't ask the question if you don't the true answer." (I didn't think he was asking in good faith with good intent, so I didn't answer his question.)
Now as open and honest as we are in most situations, it's probably silly (and it's certainly disingenuous) that we're not upfront with the people in the neighborhood, but again, I just haven't gotten a sign that it's Okay yet, so we haven't gone there yet.
Actually, I think this is also a difference; for most homosexuals in most situations, I don't think there's still a sense of danger about being Out. Yes, there are situations in which you can't be honest, but the situation is improving.
Differences:
(I turned the last similarity into a difference, so I must be ready to go here now.)
1. For most homosexuals, homosexuality involves two people.
2. In some ways, in most situations (all caveats in place), I think homosexuality is more accepted. My Co-Vivant and I can walk down the street, and some people aren't going to like it, but it's not really going to draw a lot of attention or stares. If the Big Love family (which is rather smaller than many polygamous families) all tries to go somewhere as a family, there will be problems. There was one scene on last week's episode where, for some reason, Nicki and Margie are talking to Bill on the phone; they're at the same place, and they can see each other, but they're talking on the phone rather than talk in person. One of Nicki's sons gets out of the car and starts to walk toward his father, and Margie gets out of the car, scoops him up, and brings him back into the car. Nicki's and Margie's sons are never going to have their dad at public occasions without some explanations. If a gay couple adopts a child, again, not everybody's going to like it, but they can be a family, for the most part.
(One of the things that made Bill angry in an episode last season was the fact that his father hadn't given him or Joey his last name. What are Nicki's or Margie's children's last name? I don't think it's Hendrickson.)
I'm starting to be tired, and although I've typed and typed, I'm not convinced I've really addressed the issue. I'm not convinced it's addressable, now that I think about it, and this might be one of those pointless posts that attempts to address the addressable. I'm going to post it for now, but I might have to think about whether this one stays.
6/25: What I Accomplished Today
1. Today would have been my father's 63rd birthday had he ever gotten older than 35, which he didn't.
2. Should have graded and prepped today. Didn't.
3. Co-Vivant didn't feel good tonight, so didn't watch much. While she was napping, I watched two shows HBO put together on polygamy as side pieces for Big Love. Here's where I end up (which I realize is nowhere at all):
a. I'm not sure why there are laws telling consenting adults whom they may live with (some of the laws specified cohabitation). As long as people pay their taxes and keep their grubby paws off children, I don't care how many spouses they have. (I do have considerable problems with polygamy when it involves welfare fraud or pedophilia. I have considerable problems with monogamy when it involves welfare fraud or pedophilia as well.)
b. Having said that, I'm not sure anyone who enters into polygamy, even people who grew up with polygamy and are familiar with it, can ever be a fully informed, consenting adult. On Big Love, I'm not sure anyone involved knew what he or she was getting into. Certainly Margie didn't; she was young and in love. (On the last episode, she made the comment that Joey and Wanda wouldn't survive ten minutes off the compound, which is probably true. However, I'm none too certain how long she'd survive without Bill, Barb, and Nicki.) Barb didn't understand what she was in for; she's Wife #1, Public Wife, but those positions have their own stresses, and I think she largely expected that those factoids would mean that her life wouldn't change much. It did. I'm not sure Bill understood what it would actually mean to take care of such a family (his own father really was a lousy example here). Nicki should be the most informed here--but she entered into a marriage with two people who had previously been monogamous, one of whom really isn't sold on polygamy. I don't think there's a lot in her upbringing that would have prepared her for this situation (or much at all, really).
c. I know the show is being interpreted as being a metaphor for homosexuality, but I'm not convinced that works; frankly, most lesbians, at least (I can't speak for a group to which I've never belonged, so gay guys are on their own here), don't share that well and aren't interested in learning. I'm curious how many people would rank homosexuality as opposed to polygamy on the "Ew" scale.
d. For me, what makes the polygamy issue most interesting is that it can't be denied that polygamy is Biblical. Jacob was polygamous. Both Jacob and Abraham had children by servant girls, which boiled down to another form of polygamy (granted, one with essentially no status for those servant mothers). David was polygamous. Many people whom God obviously favored and entered into covenants with were polygamous. Now the polygamy got Solomon into trouble, but none of the prophets indicate God having any trouble with polygamy per se.
What this has to mean is that God changed; most people would now argue that polygamy is most definitely against their religion, so God had to change. God cannot not the same today, yesterday, and forever based on the changing view of His religion toward polygamy, among other things. That's a scary prospect.
e. This wasn't particularly evident in the actual polygamists whom we saw in the shows, and I understand that Big Love itself is fiction, but most of the people on the compound come across as (forgive me) cattle. Question nothing, do as your told, and you can remain in this stinking hellhole. Such a deal. Even Joey and Wanda--dim bulbs. If that's what people choose to accept for themselves, that's fine, but is that really what people have in mind for their children? Don't question, don't push, don't overreach. Do as your told and shut up. At some point, most of us want our children to develop spines, perhaps to have skills or abilities or options we don't. Compound life just strikes me as depressing and fatalistic (and again, yes, I know this is only one type, and it's in a fictitious television show).
4. Read a fair amount for Arthur.
5. Got the Human Paladin to Level 28.
2. Should have graded and prepped today. Didn't.
3. Co-Vivant didn't feel good tonight, so didn't watch much. While she was napping, I watched two shows HBO put together on polygamy as side pieces for Big Love. Here's where I end up (which I realize is nowhere at all):
a. I'm not sure why there are laws telling consenting adults whom they may live with (some of the laws specified cohabitation). As long as people pay their taxes and keep their grubby paws off children, I don't care how many spouses they have. (I do have considerable problems with polygamy when it involves welfare fraud or pedophilia. I have considerable problems with monogamy when it involves welfare fraud or pedophilia as well.)
b. Having said that, I'm not sure anyone who enters into polygamy, even people who grew up with polygamy and are familiar with it, can ever be a fully informed, consenting adult. On Big Love, I'm not sure anyone involved knew what he or she was getting into. Certainly Margie didn't; she was young and in love. (On the last episode, she made the comment that Joey and Wanda wouldn't survive ten minutes off the compound, which is probably true. However, I'm none too certain how long she'd survive without Bill, Barb, and Nicki.) Barb didn't understand what she was in for; she's Wife #1, Public Wife, but those positions have their own stresses, and I think she largely expected that those factoids would mean that her life wouldn't change much. It did. I'm not sure Bill understood what it would actually mean to take care of such a family (his own father really was a lousy example here). Nicki should be the most informed here--but she entered into a marriage with two people who had previously been monogamous, one of whom really isn't sold on polygamy. I don't think there's a lot in her upbringing that would have prepared her for this situation (or much at all, really).
c. I know the show is being interpreted as being a metaphor for homosexuality, but I'm not convinced that works; frankly, most lesbians, at least (I can't speak for a group to which I've never belonged, so gay guys are on their own here), don't share that well and aren't interested in learning. I'm curious how many people would rank homosexuality as opposed to polygamy on the "Ew" scale.
d. For me, what makes the polygamy issue most interesting is that it can't be denied that polygamy is Biblical. Jacob was polygamous. Both Jacob and Abraham had children by servant girls, which boiled down to another form of polygamy (granted, one with essentially no status for those servant mothers). David was polygamous. Many people whom God obviously favored and entered into covenants with were polygamous. Now the polygamy got Solomon into trouble, but none of the prophets indicate God having any trouble with polygamy per se.
What this has to mean is that God changed; most people would now argue that polygamy is most definitely against their religion, so God had to change. God cannot not the same today, yesterday, and forever based on the changing view of His religion toward polygamy, among other things. That's a scary prospect.
e. This wasn't particularly evident in the actual polygamists whom we saw in the shows, and I understand that Big Love itself is fiction, but most of the people on the compound come across as (forgive me) cattle. Question nothing, do as your told, and you can remain in this stinking hellhole. Such a deal. Even Joey and Wanda--dim bulbs. If that's what people choose to accept for themselves, that's fine, but is that really what people have in mind for their children? Don't question, don't push, don't overreach. Do as your told and shut up. At some point, most of us want our children to develop spines, perhaps to have skills or abilities or options we don't. Compound life just strikes me as depressing and fatalistic (and again, yes, I know this is only one type, and it's in a fictitious television show).
4. Read a fair amount for Arthur.
5. Got the Human Paladin to Level 28.
Monday, June 25, 2007
6/24: What I Accomplished Today
1. Came in second for Puzzle Day. I don't think we've ever had a streak this long of not winning. Oh, well. (Today, we missed by one letter; had we audited, we'd have caught it. Them's the breaks sometimes.)
2. Took a nap this afternoon; Puzzle Day messes up my schedule.
3. Went to a birthday party for a friend this evening.
4. Worked on Premium Pogo badges.
5. I don't remember what we watched on television; we were tired.
6. Got the mage through Midsummer Fire Festival. That's everybody! Hurray! The Level 26 Paladin worked on her Engineering.
7. Still reading for Arthur.
8. Last night after blogging, I played the demo of Alice Greenfingers. I don't know; I finished the whole hour, and it wasn't terrible, but I'm just convinced it's worth spending money for. Today's BigFishGame looks like a clickfest, and there's nothing new at Playfirst, Sandlot, or Popcap, so I think I'll just go to sleep now.
2. Took a nap this afternoon; Puzzle Day messes up my schedule.
3. Went to a birthday party for a friend this evening.
4. Worked on Premium Pogo badges.
5. I don't remember what we watched on television; we were tired.
6. Got the mage through Midsummer Fire Festival. That's everybody! Hurray! The Level 26 Paladin worked on her Engineering.
7. Still reading for Arthur.
8. Last night after blogging, I played the demo of Alice Greenfingers. I don't know; I finished the whole hour, and it wasn't terrible, but I'm just convinced it's worth spending money for. Today's BigFishGame looks like a clickfest, and there's nothing new at Playfirst, Sandlot, or Popcap, so I think I'll just go to sleep now.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
6/23: What I Accomplished Today
1. Priest & Hunter through Midsummer Fire Festival.
2. One of the forgettable things we watched a few nights ago was AFI's Lifetime Achievement Award for Al Pacino. Now this wasn't a particularly good award show as award shows go; Pacino, of course, deserves all the recognition anyone will give him, but it looked like the show was done while everyone was out of town, and that was sort of lame. (And DeNiro wasn't there at all, didn't send a video clip, bubkes? Hmm.)
My Co-Vivant also finds the AFI Lifetime Achievement Awards irritating because, every year, they don't give the award to Richard Widmark. "Remarkable actor, and he needs some recognition before he dies." (She's also irritated each year that the Lifetime Oscar doesn't go to Richard Widmark. Every Lifetime Achievement that doesn't go to Richard Widmark makes her bitter and angry. It sort of looks like he is going to die without having won any, and then after he is dead, every single time we watch an award show, she will be bitter and angry during the Lifetime Achievement part and mutter, "You couldn't have given this to Richard Widmark?" No, I do not understand this obsession with getting a Lifetime Achievement Award to Richard Widmark, either, but I Accept it as a Thing I Cannot Change.) (She wrote AFI, and they said it was their policy to give the award to someone who was still working, to which she responded, "Then why are you calling it a Lifetime Achievement Award?" The obvious answer is, "Nobody under the age of 62 has any recollection of Richard Widmark, so he's not going to generate any ratings for us," but that's a cynical, mean-spirited answer.)
Another reason why this show wasn't so great: the actual award was given by Sean Penn, which, of course, is fitting and proper and very nice and such. However, he gave the weirdest speech in the history of lifetime achievement award shows. He said he had heard the most defining story about Pacino from Pacino himself, and that the story had illuminated and captured the character of the man and the work perfectly. And then he refused to tell the story, assured Pacino his privacy was safe (Pacino mouthed, "Thank you,"), and told us all should all be grateful that Pacino's privacy hadn't been compromised. Dumb ass, why did you threaten to violate that privacy in the first place, then? (Brilliant actor, Sean Penn, but this is the man who seemed to feel Chris Rock needed to informed as to the identity of Jude Law. Was he absent on Sense of Humor Day?)
This is a much longer discussion of this award show than it warranted. But there was one memorable quote that stuck with me. Someone who had worked Pacino (I don't remember if it was Andy Garcia or Jamie Foxx or someone else), said that Pacino had told them that the key to something or other is that Everyone Is Guilty. I don't think it matters what that "something or other" might be, because I think that's the key to many things. It's the key to religion; it's usually couched either in the language of original sin or of "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," but the whole premise behind religion is that everyone is guilty. (Unfortunately, many religious people only comprehend half this memo; they receive it as "Everyone [else] is guilty.") It's the key to compassion. It's the key to many things.
And in some ways, it's the key to many of the current batch of television shows. Many moons ago when I started this blog, I made the comment that I enjoy television shows like The Sopranos, Big Love, and The Riches in which people's lives are perfectly ordinary except for one extraordinary thing. And that's it: we're all guilty. We may not be mobsters, or polygamists, or Travelers, but everybody's got something. Doesn't matter how big or small. Everyone has something.
I was watching Big Love tonight. This show drives my Co-Vivant crazy; she has basically asked me several times how I could watch a show about freaks. This is an educated, open-minded person curious about the world around her. She enjoys The Sopranos and The Riches, to use the list above, very much. But for her, Big Love goes too far; these people aren't worthy of our learning more about them. They are just freaks.
She was in the room while I was watching, and at one point, she said, "I really admire HBO for putting on some of the shows they do." The acting is gorgeous. (Jeanne Tripplehorn and Chloe Sevigny are remarkable forces of nature; people should just throw award statuettes at them as they walk down the street on a day-to-day basis.) The writing is impeccable. It's a show of the quality that she would normally flip for. But it's about polygamists, and that's just not okay. I think that's interesting. (No value judgments were made in the writing of these paragraphs. I just think it's interesting.)
3. Finished three or four Pogo badges and worked on the other Premiums.
4. Druid through Midsummer Fire Festival. Started the mage, but I'm too tired to finish that right now.
5. Read some magazines (Wired, Utne, something else) and more for Arthur.
2. One of the forgettable things we watched a few nights ago was AFI's Lifetime Achievement Award for Al Pacino. Now this wasn't a particularly good award show as award shows go; Pacino, of course, deserves all the recognition anyone will give him, but it looked like the show was done while everyone was out of town, and that was sort of lame. (And DeNiro wasn't there at all, didn't send a video clip, bubkes? Hmm.)
My Co-Vivant also finds the AFI Lifetime Achievement Awards irritating because, every year, they don't give the award to Richard Widmark. "Remarkable actor, and he needs some recognition before he dies." (She's also irritated each year that the Lifetime Oscar doesn't go to Richard Widmark. Every Lifetime Achievement that doesn't go to Richard Widmark makes her bitter and angry. It sort of looks like he is going to die without having won any, and then after he is dead, every single time we watch an award show, she will be bitter and angry during the Lifetime Achievement part and mutter, "You couldn't have given this to Richard Widmark?" No, I do not understand this obsession with getting a Lifetime Achievement Award to Richard Widmark, either, but I Accept it as a Thing I Cannot Change.) (She wrote AFI, and they said it was their policy to give the award to someone who was still working, to which she responded, "Then why are you calling it a Lifetime Achievement Award?" The obvious answer is, "Nobody under the age of 62 has any recollection of Richard Widmark, so he's not going to generate any ratings for us," but that's a cynical, mean-spirited answer.)
Another reason why this show wasn't so great: the actual award was given by Sean Penn, which, of course, is fitting and proper and very nice and such. However, he gave the weirdest speech in the history of lifetime achievement award shows. He said he had heard the most defining story about Pacino from Pacino himself, and that the story had illuminated and captured the character of the man and the work perfectly. And then he refused to tell the story, assured Pacino his privacy was safe (Pacino mouthed, "Thank you,"), and told us all should all be grateful that Pacino's privacy hadn't been compromised. Dumb ass, why did you threaten to violate that privacy in the first place, then? (Brilliant actor, Sean Penn, but this is the man who seemed to feel Chris Rock needed to informed as to the identity of Jude Law. Was he absent on Sense of Humor Day?)
This is a much longer discussion of this award show than it warranted. But there was one memorable quote that stuck with me. Someone who had worked Pacino (I don't remember if it was Andy Garcia or Jamie Foxx or someone else), said that Pacino had told them that the key to something or other is that Everyone Is Guilty. I don't think it matters what that "something or other" might be, because I think that's the key to many things. It's the key to religion; it's usually couched either in the language of original sin or of "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," but the whole premise behind religion is that everyone is guilty. (Unfortunately, many religious people only comprehend half this memo; they receive it as "Everyone [else] is guilty.") It's the key to compassion. It's the key to many things.
And in some ways, it's the key to many of the current batch of television shows. Many moons ago when I started this blog, I made the comment that I enjoy television shows like The Sopranos, Big Love, and The Riches in which people's lives are perfectly ordinary except for one extraordinary thing. And that's it: we're all guilty. We may not be mobsters, or polygamists, or Travelers, but everybody's got something. Doesn't matter how big or small. Everyone has something.
I was watching Big Love tonight. This show drives my Co-Vivant crazy; she has basically asked me several times how I could watch a show about freaks. This is an educated, open-minded person curious about the world around her. She enjoys The Sopranos and The Riches, to use the list above, very much. But for her, Big Love goes too far; these people aren't worthy of our learning more about them. They are just freaks.
She was in the room while I was watching, and at one point, she said, "I really admire HBO for putting on some of the shows they do." The acting is gorgeous. (Jeanne Tripplehorn and Chloe Sevigny are remarkable forces of nature; people should just throw award statuettes at them as they walk down the street on a day-to-day basis.) The writing is impeccable. It's a show of the quality that she would normally flip for. But it's about polygamists, and that's just not okay. I think that's interesting. (No value judgments were made in the writing of these paragraphs. I just think it's interesting.)
3. Finished three or four Pogo badges and worked on the other Premiums.
4. Druid through Midsummer Fire Festival. Started the mage, but I'm too tired to finish that right now.
5. Read some magazines (Wired, Utne, something else) and more for Arthur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)