Thursday, July 29, 2004
Pilgrims' Blogress
Two wonderful pieces of in-house news today:
First, I'm elated to announce that the new issue of Gilbert Magazine, published by the G.K. Chesterton Institute, goes to press today, and it features an interview with me. I tell about my life and career, and how G.K. Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday planted the idea in my head that Christian faith could be truly exciting. The magazine is available at select newsstands and booksellers, by subscription from the magazine's Web site or from the American Chesterton Society.
Second—and I assure you the timing's coincidental—I'm leaving this afternoon for the "Chesterton Pilgrimage," a 10-day tour of England led by American Chesterton Society president Dale Ahlquist that'll hit places associated my fave rave literary lion.
While I'm gone, I'll be taking a vacation from the online world, including e-mail. But the Dawn Patrol will go on, with the help of special guest bloggers: my mom and stepdad.
In addition to posting Dawn Patrol "best-of" posts, I've asked Mom and Ron—both of whom, like me, are Jews who've accepted Jesus—to do something that I think is very special. They've each sent me their stories of how they came to faith. I've formatted those stories into daily installments, taught Mom and Ron how to put up blog posts, and voila! An ongoing serial of two different and fascinating stories that'll run every day until I return August 9.
You really can't imagine what this will be like until you see the stories unfold each day. My mother and stepdad are sharing about their lives, they're both great writers, and the whole thing's beautiful. The first installments are up now, so please check them out. If you enjoy what you see, please write (address at left) and let them know.
Mom and Ron—that's them at left—will also post updates of my Chesterton Pilgrimage, as I plan to call them daily.
If you've come to this blog from NRO's The Corner or another news-oriented Web site, be assured the Dawn Patrol's news content will return when I do. But in the meantime, I hope you'll stay. You won't find anywhere else what my mother and stepfather have to tell.
Note to my blogger pals: Please help my guest bloggers by keeping an eye out in case I messed up the coding in the preformatted posts, or in case they have problems with their updates. If you see anything wrong, I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd notify them at the address I've cc'ed above. Likewise, please drop them a line if the blog isn't up by 10 a.m. on a given day—they might be having a problem. Blogging's a whole new thing for them, and I know they'd appreciate the help.
4:21 AM
|
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
As mentioned in the update to today's post "The Times' Abortion Debacle That Won't Die,"TimesWatch reports that the Gray Lady has published "an embarrassing and revealing Editor's Note."
8:37 PM
|
The Times' Abortion Debacle That Won't Die
 Amy Richards models her business partner's creation.
Thanks to TimesWatch editor Clay Waters for finding the pic.
New revelations make it increasingly probable that the New York Times not only knew Amy Richards was an abortion-rights activist, but even timed its article to coincide with Planned Parenthood's mass-marketing of her "I had an abortion" T-shirt. [UPDATE: TimesWatch reports that the Times has published "an embarrassing and revealing Editor's Note" that barely even begins to acknowledge the paper's culpability.]
Jennifer Baumgardner, Richards's partner in the speaker-booking agency Soapbox, told Mother Jones editor Monika Bauerlein last April during a public appearance that she was changing the focus of her "I'm Not Sorry" campaign (detailed in yesterday's Dawn Patrol) to "I Had an Abortion." "Unfortunately, I now hate the name 'I'm Not Sorry,' because I feel it really rankles," she said. "It initially spoke to people that I was surrounded by, like my best friend and colleague, Amy Richards, who has had two abortions and she's not sorry."
Richards is so not sorry, Baumgardner said, that she makes no secret of her identity. This is very important with regard to the Times debacle. Baumgardner goes on to say of Richards: "She's really open about her abortions, and she was one of the inspirations for this. She's one of the few people I know who, when a journalist calls and they need someone to talk about their procedure, she doesn't make them change her name."
Let's rewind that with emphasis added, shall we?
"She's one of the few people I know who, when a journalist calls and they need someone to talk about their procedure, she doesn't make them change her name."
Baumgardner's statement echoes Richards's claim to the New York Sun that she didn't hide her background from the Times. Why did Times writer Amy Barrett contact Richards in the first place? How did she know the woman had a story to tell?
The interview with Baumgardner also reveals the genesis of the "I had an abortion" T-shirt: " I realized saying 'I'm not sorry' or calling [the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade] I'm Not Sorry Day wasn't having the desired effect. So I made T-shirts to wear to the march that say 'I had an abortion.' Depending on who you are, wearing that is just no big deal, or it's the most revolutionary and maybe horrifying thing you could possibly imagine. I think 'I had an abortion,' the statement without the qualifier of 'and here is my opinion about it,' is a more forceful thing."
Now, here's what brings it all full circle—the Planned Parenthood connection. Let's hear it straight from Amy Richards, in her blog on the Working for Change site (yes, the same organization you and I have been funding when we buy Ben & Jerry's ice cream). Fasten your seat belts: Besides being a speak out, the I'm Not Sorry Day Event that I attended on the Roe Anniversary featured cute chocolate brown t-shirts emblazoned with 'I Had An Abortion' in baby blue [sic—I mean, sick—Ed.].
The idea behind the shirts is to have women wearing them at the big April 25th March on Washington. I bought one and have worn it twice - once at that event and once because the Fairfield County newspaper was doing a story on the shirts and needed a model. I obliged and only after doing so realized what a statement that shirt made. I save my political t-shirts - like Sarah Jones' "Fed Up" - a play on FedEx and a promotion for her play Surface Transit; Third Wave's I Spy Sexism - for yoga class or runs in the park. But this one already felt different - it felt like an affront.
My instincts were confirmed when my usual mellow and non-opinionated boyfriend cautioned me from wearing it in public. I promised to take his advice, except at the March and other public occasions that called for it....Then I talked to Gloria Steinem who thought "it was great." If anything this revealed a great generational difference for me - Gloria had an abortion when it was illegal and she had to be silent; for Gloria it was liberating to be public.
Gloria Steinem was coincidently having dinner with Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the day she received her t-shirt, and so inspired, she mentioned them. Now, Planned Parenthood will sell the t-shirts, potentially along with buttons that will be free in their lobbies. A great example of how one simple idea can become much bigger. Look, I really don't want to become a conspiracy theorist. But if you work in the media or public relations, please tell me: Doesn't it seem highly likely that the appearance of Amy Richards' New York Times article on her double-abortion on the same week that her "I had an abortion" T-shirt debuted in Planned Parenthood's store seem like more than a coincidence?
I suspect that the more information comes out about the genesis of the Times piece, the more it will show that the newspaper always knew that its article would provide a launch pad for Planned Parenthood's "I had an abortion" campaign.
Honestly, if I can dig up this much information just by staying up for a few hours after my copyediting job and using Google, there must be more out there to find. At the very least, even if there's no conspiracy, all this shows that someone at the Times is neglecting their research—outrageously so.
4:49 AM
|
Tuesday night, or rather Wednesday morning, is my least favorite commute of the week, as that's my late shift, so I reach the 33rd Street PATH station after midnight, running the gauntlet of the overnight homeless. Even then, there are usually tourists and a handful of other non-druggie commuters around, so the worst things I normally have to deal with are creepy stares. Once I get on the PATH train, I ride in the first or second car, near the conductor, and I'm home free...normally.
An hour ago, I was sitting in the first car of the PATH train, feeling very much at home. My favorite conductor was at hand, a kind man who each year puts together a huge team to walk for cystic fibrosis in honor of his son. I was looking at my headlines in the bulldog edition of the newspaper, enlivened with excitement over my upcoming vacation.
Part of that excitement was fear, as I haven't flown overseas since 9/11 and am more scared of flying than I used to be. I also have a penchant for Walter Mitty-style fantasizing—earlier that day, I caught myself fantasizing how brave I'd be in a "let's roll" situation.
Less than two minutes before the train pulled in to my stop, I realized I hadn't read the Bible all day. So I put down my paper and opened up my bag to dig out my King James, when I heard a man shout something unintelligible.
I looked up and saw a man who was storming through the car. Immediately he said something else unintelligible and punched the window of the door across from me. The window fell out.
Now, I've been riding those trains regularly for over 20 years. The windows do not just fall out. People lean on them in packed trains, rush hour after rush hour, and they do not fall out. You have to hit one really hard to make it do that. I'd never seen anyone do it until now. And the conductor, who usually would be riding in the first car, was nowhere to be seen.
The man stormed past me, I looked at him and said a wordless prayer that I wouldn't be his next target, and then I got up. A few years back, when someone collapsed on the train, I learned the hard way that one should not pull the emergency brake. The PATH has an alert box that notifies the conductor of a problem, and that was where I headed, in the opposite direction of the thug.
I opened up the box and pushed the button. People around me were shaking their heads, "Don't do it."
"It won't stop the train," I said. I knew the train would arrive in a minute, but I didn't want to be without the conductor for another second. Besides, this way the conductor could notify the police.
Quickly the conductor arrived. "Black man, gray shirt, punched out window," I said robotically. Not how I normally talk, but I was on adrenaline autopilot. The conductor talked to someone on his radio and had a calm exchange of words with the thug. I didn't hear what was said.
We arrived and I hoped to see transit cops get the thug. There were none there that I could see, but it's possible they stopped him on his way out—I didn't want to follow him to see.
I did ask the conductor if he wanted me to stay as a witness, but he said I shouldn't waste my time filing a police report. He explained that the thug was one of the rail system's regular homeless, who had gotten angry after the conductor had ordered him not to ride between cars—and probably hadn't meant to cause damage.
Had I more time and had it not been close to 1 a.m., I might have filed a police report anyway—if only to insure that the perpetrator would have gotten some kind of help or treatment. As it was, I went up the stairs, looking all around. I normally feel safe walking home, but this time, just in case the thug was still around, I took a cab.
At least I know now that my default reaction really is, "Let's roll." But I'm ticked off that I had to discover that in my own hometown.
1:19 AM
|
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
The current edition of Jeff Grimshaw's weekly humor column, "The Writing on the Wall," is bathroom humor in the most literate sense of the word. He examines bathroom graffiti with an earthy yet erudite wit that reminds me of Samuel Johnson crossed with Lenny Bruce. Here's a sample, but I highly recommend reading the whole column before he replaces it with a newer one: Who can forget the thrill of watching a vigorous debate unfold slowly over the course of a month or two on the wall above the toilet dispenser in your favorite stall. On Monday there would be a premise written in Black Flair:
"I like grils!"
On Thursday, a blue all point would respond:
"Don’t you mean girls?"
The following Tuesday, Black Flair would concede:
"Yeah I meant GIRLS."
And after a pause of two or three weeks, purple crayon would enter the discussion with:
"But what about us grils?"
6:18 PM
|
Here's the best headline I wrote for today's paper: MODEL'S BLOND JUSTICE: 'Drug gal' inspires ardor in the court
2:26 AM
|
Monday, July 26, 2004
She's "Not Sorry" She Killed
"An Alien-Looking Clump"
When the New York Times Magazine published an essay last week by a woman named Amy Richards about how she had two of her triplets aborted, readers, bloggers, and pundits reacted with justifiable outrage. Many, like Gerard van der Leun, noted that Richards was a pro-abortion author and writer for a number of Web sites, including feminist.com. But I just discovered a connection that I haven't seen cited anywhere else, and it's important because it reveals an agenda that goes well beyond the Times Magazine piece. In fact, it makes the Times Magazine piece look like a calculated effort to garner a first wave of publicity for Richards's next project. [UPDATE, 7/27/04: The New York Sun reports that the Times claims it was unaware of Amy Richards' background. But neither the Sun nor any other publication has reported the Times article's connection to Richards' campaign, outlined below.]
Two days ago in this space, I wrote about Planned Parenthood's new "I had an abortion" T-shirt, a story which was picked up today by The Drudge Report. Today, I discovered through a Web search that although the T-shirt became officially available last week, it was available to some as far back as January, to coincide with "celebrations" of the 31st anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision. The January 22 edition of the New Haven Advocate reports: Jennifer Baumgardner, a 33-year-old New York activist and writer....decided to recast the Roe vs. Wade anniversary as "I'm Not Sorry Day," a campaign that will include "I Had An Abortion" T-shirts and a documentary film of women sharing their abortion stories that will be screened during Women's History Month on the 32nd anniversary of Roe next January [2005]. (Baumgardner's writing partner, activist Amy Richards who co-founded Third Wave, the only national organization for young feminists, is pictured on the [newspaper's] cover wearing the campaign's T-shirt.) In other words, this revolting T-shirt, which is now making headlines around the world, is the brainstorm of Amy Richards, who co-writes the "I Had an Abortion" campaign literature and proudly wore the slogan across her chest on the cover of a newspaper.
That Times Magazine article now looks less like a shocking admission of individual guilt, and more like a first volley in a propaganda campaign that is only just beginning. You can see it in the 2005 calendar on the Web site of Soapbox, Richards's and Baumgardner's company that organizes lecture tours for feminist activists: "January 22nd — Roe v. Wade Anniversary (a.k.a. 'I had an abortion/ I'm not sorry' Day)."
A stronger hint of what's to come is on the Web site for an organization closely affiliated with Richards and Baumgardner, ImNotSorry.net, whose front page boasts that it's "a site where women can share their positive experiences with abortion." The site lists Baumgardner as one of its "biggest cheerleaders," a compliment the writer earned by penning a fawning article in The Nation crediting the site with inspiring her "I had an abortion/I'm not sorry" campaign.
ImNotSorry.net goes out of its way to keep any pretense of delicacy or compassion out of its unrepentantly pro-abortion message. I never thought anyone could make the advice "experts" at Planned Parenthood's Teenwire look like Marcus Welby, but these women do it. From their responses to frequently asked questions: If you listen to the anti-choicers, they would have you believe that full-term babies are being ripped out of wombs and having their heads bashed in, when in fact what’s being removed is an alien-looking clump roughly the size of a kidney bean. Many anti-choicers will of course say that we’re avoiding reality by believing that what’s removed during an abortion isn’t a baby. We reply that many people avoid reality by believing that every woman gets gooey over babies and wants to be a mother. The sentence that follows should stand on its own: We have no doubt that the moment the human race figured out that babies were the result of sex, someone began coming up with birth control and abortion. Amazing. They gleefully admit the doctrine of the Fall—as if they'd invented it. Talk about the devil citing Scripture.
See my July 28 entry for new revelations.
FURTHER READING: Dennis of Vita Mea has a story in his archives about seeing a woman leave an abortuary in a T-shirt that read, "Abortion Tickles".
TRACKBACK: Beyonn D. Pale at Vigilance Matters, who calls me the "Uber-Googler" (thanks!), takes the T-shirt war to its logical conclusion. I take it he's merely making a Swiftian "modest proposal" and does not really mean it. No abortionists were harmed in the writing of this post. Saint Kansas also chimes in with "a shirt for 'the rest of us.'"
UPDATE, 7/28/04: Corrected entry with regard to Richards's and Baumgardner's relationship to ImNotSorry.net. Also corrected to say that Richards wore the T-shirt on a newspaper's cover.
The New York Sun article referenced above was found via TimesWatch.
4:40 PM
|
Sunday, July 25, 2004
I wrote a headline for tomorrow's paper, for a story about Kerry's stepson's being too busy to date: Heinz Son No Easy Squeeze
11:56 PM
|
"Destiny"'s Child
Appearing as Mary Magdalene in "The Passion of the Christ" apparently didn't exorcise all of Italian porn queen Monica Bellucci's demons. Page Six reports today that "Bellucci poses pregnant and nude on the cover of the new issue of Italian Vanity Fair to protest the new Italian law, which restricts in-vitro fertilization to married couples and prohibits the use of donor sperm."
The star is apparently pregnant by her husband, but felt the need to make a statement. She's quoted as saying, "Religious and ethical dogmas have prevailed upon common sense. This kind of legal obstacle is not so different from the physical limitations that women have long endured. In Muslim countries women are forced to cover their heads and keep silent. In Italy, they are prevented from asking the help of science to become mothers, unless they are married."
I'll leave it to another writer to point out Bellucci's warped value judgments in creating a false moral equivalence between Muslims' oppression of women and Catholics' concern for life. Although I don't know the politics behind the new Italian laws, Italy is a Catholic country that has a strong interest in helping families have children. Any restrictions on fertility treatments would likely be based at least in part upon concern over the death of embryos who are killed during the in-vitro process.
What jumps out at me in the Page Six story is Bellucci's explanation of why she decided to become a mother. "I was tired of my body," she said. "I found it ridiculous that my breasts and stomach should still be the same as they were when I was 18 and even though I had lived and changed, my body had not. I realized that my breasts were not just made to fill evening gowns, that it was time for them to fulfill their destiny."
I don't see anything different in this "reason" to have children, than I do in Amy Richards' "I, I, I" explanation in last week's New York Times Magazine for why she had two of her triplets killed before birth. Neither woman cares about their children. It's all about "Me."
Bellucci probably thinks she's saying a beautiful thing when she realizes that her breasts' "destiny" is fulfilled by something more than evening gowns. Indeed, the very word "destiny," when used in the context of having a child, does suggest a child that is wanted, as every one should be.
But where is the positive reason this woman, whose entire life up to now has been selling her body to photographers and directors, wants to be a mother? (She really does define herself by her body; the Internet Movie Database quotes her as saying, "My body is so important to me...my face, my arms, my legs, my hands, my eyes, everything. I use everything I have.")
The point of having a child is not to de-prettify one's breasts. If that were true, Bellucci could just get some tattoos. How's that kid going to feel when it's old enough to ask, "Mommy, why did you have me?" and Mommy responds, "Because my breasts had to fulfill their destiny"?
My mother has told me, over and over, that as far back as she can remember, the only thing she ever wanted to be with all her heart was a mother. She's done many wonderful things with her life before and since becoming a mom, but motherhood to her remains the great accomplishment of her life.
Whether one wants to be a parent from childhood, as my mother did, or whether one decides later, I really can't see any other reason to have children. It's not about my breasts, nor is it about my body—as much as Planned Parenthood would have women think so. It's about my child—and, where there's a daddy whose name isn't "Donor," our child.
Now, Monica, think about what your future child is going to think of your self-serving exhibitionism—and put some clothes on.
1:15 AM
|
 Thanks to Andrea Harris, I finally found the Web site that bloggers are using to make self-portraits. What a time-waster! Neat idea, though. I think I'll stick with Dawn Patrol caricaturist David Chelsea.
12:01 AM
|
Saturday, July 24, 2004
Vive La Difference!
Jan, the Happy Homemaker, has a thought-provoking post about her first-ever visit to a synagogue. She writes about how she had expected it to be much different than it was—more "set apart" from the world.
It's a reasonable expectation. Many times in the Hebrew Bible, God commands the Jewish people to be a nation apart. That was a prime reason for one of God's first commandments to Abraham, that he and every man around him be circumcised.
The spirit of such commandments is reinforced in traditional prayers, including one used in the Havdalah service that observant Jews perform at the close of the Sabbath: You are blessed, Lord our God, the sovereign of the world, who makes a distinction between sacred and secular, between light and darkness, between Israel and the other nations, between the seventh day and the six working days. You are blessed, Lord, who makes a distinction between the sacred and the secular. Although Christians are not under the law, they too are commanded to be set apart—to not be conformed to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of their minds." That's why I like where Jan's observation on the synagogue takes her:I got to thinking about what a non-Christian must anticipate before visiting a Christian church or even going to a party with a bunch of Christians. I'm guessing they are anticipating a big difference from the usual party. But, sometimes, in our desire to appear "cool" to others, we don't act in a way that is set apart from the world. Indeed, we want others to think we are hip. We may be embarrassed if we don't drink. We may think they will be uncomfortable if we talk about Godly things. We may want to show that we are just as aware of popular culture as they are. Why do we do this? Honestly, it has never occurred to me that they may be hoping we are set apart. They may want to see a glimpse of what it means to be one of God's people. "So, I have some things to work on," she concludes. "Got some inhibitions to cast aside."
Me too, Jan. Keep creating that sacred space—in your church and on your blog.
2:25 PM
|
Xavier Basora of the unusual multilingual blog Buscaraons, writes in response to my earlier post today to suggest a slogan for Planned Parenthood's RU-486 campaign: "Mifepristone! Awaken the meretricious within you!"
2:00 PM
|
Murder Ink
LifeSiteNews.com reports that the latest product in Planned Parenthood's online store is the "I had an abortion" T-shirt. It's pictured on PP's Web site, above the gleeful declaration, "They have finally arrived!" I wonder how long the organization's clientele were expecting them. Surely not nine months.
Checking in with the store, I found loads of other items designed to stop hearts—like the Mifepristone - The Abortion Pill - "Grabbit" Pen Holder.
 The pen holder advertises mifepristone, the French abortion drug better known as RU-486. For $27, an abortion enthusiast may purchase 12 holders—three apiece in three colors: turquoise, orange, and green.
A Planned Parenthood copywriter was paid to write this gushing prose: Both fun and functional - you'll never be without a pen when you have the Mifepristone Grabbit pen holder around your neck. And they convey an important message!
The copy on the pen holder reads:
It's Safe. It's Private. And it's finally here. In other words, yippee! Kill them babies—and advertise the slaughter to the world!
As if to add insult to evacuation, the pen holders are 1-inch thick—the crown-to-foot height of the baby at the 7-week stage, when RU-486 would be used. It helps women have a concrete idea of the size of the human being they're releasing into a toilet bowl.
But of course, a pen holder would be nothing without a pen. Planned Parenthood steps in boldly to fill the gap, with its Emergency Contraception pen—for those times when you wake up the morning after and just want to write off that human life inside your womb.
 The pens are on sale: $20 for a bag of 50. That means that for only $20, you can inspire 50 women to murder their unborn children. Imagine!
The catalogue copy reads: This BIC, Diamante-Style pen comes in two colors (navy and red). Both write in black ink. The three lines of copy are:
"Because Accidents Happen
(EC Logo)
1-800-230-PLAN
www.plannedparenthood.org/ec" "Because Accidents Happen." How prosaic. A human life is an "accident." What does that say about how the proponents of abortion view themselves? Their lives are empty and meaningless. They live only for themselves, yet they see no intrinsic value in their own lives. They are "accidents," and the only service they feel they can do for themselves and the world is prevent more "accidents."
Although the marketing items like these and the "I had an abortion" T-shirt reflect a deep sickness in the culture, they could ultimately help the cause of life, as LifeSiteNews.com reports: "The idea of an abortion pride fashion statement has intrigued at least one Canadian journalist. David Warren, a prominent columnist for the Ottawa Citizen responded to LifeSiteNews.com by saying cheerily, 'I think it's a great idea. In fact, I think they should adopt a whole range of slogans. How about, "I eat unborn babies for breakfast...Vote John Kerry." Now those would really sell.'"
2:30 AM
|
Listening to a Russ Columbo collection as I blog during these wee hours. (I thought I would turn in early and catch up on sleep, but the partiers in the apartment upstairs have other ideas.) I especially like "You Call It Madness, But I Call It Love" and "You Try Somebody Else," but the whole collection's wonderful in an intimate, melancholy way.
1:17 AM
|
Friday, July 23, 2004
A Fine Romans
I was reading the Bible on the PATH train last night (I'm a great proponent of on-train Bible-reading—there's nothing else you're supposed to be doing, there are no distractions, and you can't use your cell phone), and I admit I was doing the I Ching thing. Normally I don't recommend this method, as it's superstitious—you open the Bible to a random page in hope of finding divine wisdom that appertains to you at that very moment—but this time it opened to a particularly moving passage, Luke 8:48: "And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace."
For a woman searching the Bible for reassuring words from Jesus, those certainly seemed made to order—even more so because Jesus did heal me from a terrible spiritual and physical ailment—clinical depression—and I believe His hands continue to reshape me.
But there was still five minutes to go before the train arrived at my stop, so I looked at the context of the quote. It's part of a sequence of events: Jairus, ruler of the synagogue, asks Jesus to heal his daughter; while Jesus is heading to the ruler's house, a woman touches the hem of his garment and is healed of her bleeding ailment; news comes that the ruler's daughter is dead; Jesus goes to the house anyway and brings the girl back to life.
What struck me about the sequence was that it was a story within a story. It's very rare to find a sequence in the Gospels like that where a story begins, another story interrupts it, and then the narrative suddenly did a "meanwhile, back at the ranch" and returns to the original story. It seemed there had to be meaning in the sequence of events, as well as the events themselves.
Suddenly it occurred to me that the woman being healed represented Jesus' healing the Gentiles, bringing them to him. In a similar manner, the girl, being the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, represented the Jews.
Luke wrote that "virtue" had gone out of Jesus. My Bible linked that back to Luke 5:17: "And the power of the Lord was present to heal them." That made me think of the hymn: "There is power in the blood."
If there's power in the blood, then Jesus didn't just give that woman virtue. He gave her a transfusion.
By contrast, when Jesus raised the dead girl, he took her by the hand and told her to arise. That suggested to me that while Gentiles need Jesus to replace their lifeblood with His own, the Jewish people already have God's substance—in the form of the Hebrew Bible. So Jews then need the touch from Jesus that will infuse the understanding of God that they already have with new and transformative life. I myself certainly felt, when I first received the Holy Spirit, that the entire Bible came alive to me.
Looking at the two healing stories as a whole instead of as disconnected episodes, the message was clear to me: The Jews were the first to recognize their need for God, but the Gentiles were by and large the first to accept the message of the gospel. But the story is not complete until the Jews accept Jesus as well.
All that hit me in that last five minutes of my ride.
I pondered it more as I walked the nighttime streets back to my home. Luke makes a point of the fact that the girl was 12 years old. Wouldn't that be the age that Jewish girls were allowed to marry? So both Gentiles and Jews had to accept Jesus in order for the Bride of Christ—the Church—to be united with Jesus.
As soon as I got home, I did a Web search for the traditional age that Jewish girls could marry, and I found it was indeed 12. I also looked up the name Jairus to see if there was any significance to it, as there pretty much always is with Biblical names, particularly New Testament ones. Although the Web sites I found weren't in agreement, it seemed that the most popular interpretation of Jairus was "God enlightens"—another sign of Jesus' bringing his light to the Jewish people.
It was then that I entered the Twilight Zone.
As I searched for verification of the meaning of Jairus's name, I found a page that had several writers' interpretation of the same miracle stories that I'd examined—and they'd all made exactly the same conclusions as I had.
I had no memory of ever coming across that interpretation of the stories before, though it's entirely possible I might have heard it in a sermon.
So it was with some surprise that I discovered a group of writers had come to the same conclusions as me. I can't say it was a shock—the Bible and Bible interpreters have been along a lot longer than I have. But it was still strange.
One of the writers said, "Mystically, however, Jairus comes after the healing of the woman, because when the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, then shall Israel be saved."
Another said, "But in the woman with the bloody flux, and the raising of the damsel, is shewn the salvation of the human race, which was so ordered by the Lord, that first some from Judaea, then the fulness of the Gentiles, might come in, and so all Israel might be saved."
That same writer added a connection that hadn't occurred to me—the woman had been ill for as long as the girl had been alive: "Again, the damsel was twelve years old, and the woman had suffered for twelve years, because the sinning of unbelievers was contemporary with the beginning of the faith of believers."
But this part was the real surprise: All those interpreters on the page I found were early Christian writers, compiled by Thomas Aquinas in his Catena Aurea (Golden Chain).
I would never have imagined the early Roman Catholic Church's putting so much emphasis on Paul's message in Romans 11, particularly verses 25 and 26: "...that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved..."
I should note that the Catena Aurea chapter which contains the interpretions of the miracle stories also includes language about the Jewish people that, at least on the face of it, is disturbing—particularly Bede's writing that the hands of the Jews are "full of blood": "Again, our Lord raised the damsel by taking hold of her hand, because the hands of the Jews, which are full of blood, must first be cleansed, else the synagogue, which is dead, cannot rise again." But the overall message of recognition that God has a salvation plan for Jews as well as Gentiles—and that both will be saved together—is something I had not seen expressed so plainly in Catholic theology.
At the time that "The Passion of the Christ" was released, I wrote a great deal of contrarian pieces on this page, saying that regardless of the actual depiction of Jews in the film, I objected to Mel Gibson's replacement theology. I made an assumption that Gibson, being a traditionalist Catholic who rejects Vatican II, believed that God's promises to the Jewish were no longer valid—that they'd been usurped by the Church.
I still believe, based on what I know of Gibson and traditionalist Catholics (whose commitment to orthodoxy I respect even as I disagree with them on certain points), that Gibson's faith is likely based on a replacement-theology perspective. But what I've just read in Catena Aurea, combined with the changes of Vatican II and the Church's recent remarkable denouncement of not only anti-Semitism but also anti-Zionism, gives me a new and much more favorable impression of how the Church sees itself in relation to the Jewish people.
TRACKBACK: Dennis of Vita Mea offers an insightful response, drawing a rhetorical bead on Bede.
2:28 AM
|
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Kevin Walsh has put up a stunningly exhaustive page of photos and commentary from last Sunday's Forgotten NY tour of Lower Manhattan. You'll spot me in my Twiggy glasses, but there's much more to see—like the only clock in the U.S. that's embedded in a sidewalk.
10:53 PM
|
The Missing Drink
National Review's Andrew Stuttaford believes an upright monkey in a zoo is "evolution proved...once and for all." But the news reports note that the monkey is believed to have begun walking on its hind legs after suffering brain damage.
Is that what evolution's all about? If so, I'd better start drinking.
5:29 PM
|
It's my day off, so I don't have any new headlines to report, but Mark Shea fills the gap with a "golden" one of his own (at the top of the page). At my paper, we would say something like, "Army serves wee bit of food"—or some other variation on the standby "Wee bit of trouble." (Another standby is for stories of horses gone wild: "Tale of Whoa.")
2:34 PM
|
Checking my site's statistics this morning, I was honored to find that Fr. Phil Bloom of Seattle had linked to a recent Dawn Patrol post from his weekly homily. It's a good homily, too, drawing from a C.S. Lewis essay on prayer.
2:17 AM
|
The Hound of Heaven
Catholic seminarian Dennis's recent post with alternate lyrics to a well-known contemporary worship song had me laughing out loud.
2:03 AM
|
If you have iTunes, I recommend checking out the first album by Lee Feldman, Living It All Wrong, which just became available on that music service. (They've released his second album too.) I reviewed Living It All Wrong, one of my favorite albums of the '90s, for Salon and interviewed Feldman for the Forward.
1:44 AM
|
Did you hear Laura Ingraham's show yesterday? If so, please write me (dawn -at- dawneden.com) and let me know what she said about Teenwire. I heard she mentioned it, and would love to know if it sounded like she got her information from The Dawn Patrol—and if she credited this here blog.
12:47 AM
|
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
Film Forum Says Ron Issue's a Non-Issue
Here is the reply I juts received from Film Forum director Karen Cooper to the e-mail I sent yesterday: Dear Dawn Eden:
We appreciate the fact that you are a longterm member. A Ronald Reagan Film Festival is the kind of repertory programming selected by my colleague Bruce Goldstein. I select the premieres. He selects the classics. I will pass along your suggestion.
However, regarding your "worldview." I cannot determine if your desire for a Reagan festival is indicative of your poltical or movie-going taste. Should you be indicating, however, subtly, that you are a Reagan Republican, I think you'd be correct in assuming that my own political loyalties lie far from that camp. Nevertheless, in selecting the best new movies, I try to present just that: "the best," my personal politics aside.
Sincerely,
Karen Cooper
Director
Film Forum
I'm sending this reply:Dear Karen,
Thank you for writing back to me promptly. I had posed my question on the phone to your membership director, and he recommended I put it to you, not Bruce Goldstein.
I appreciate your writing that you select the best new movies. But as director of the cinema, you do seem to be passing the buck. I wasn't sending a suggestion. I wrote you with an honest question, and you skirted answering it.
You mention your own political loyalties; that's abundantly clear in Film Forum's choice of new films. I'm aware of it, and I'm willing that some of my contribution money should fund it, because Film Forum is a multifaceted and vibrant cultural organization. But one of those facets--the one that most interests me, and the one where Film Forum among all New York's cinemas best supplies a need--is repertory programming.
My question, then, reflected a genuine concern that Film Forum's overt political views have saturated its repertory programming to the point that the organization's powers-that-be would dismiss with laughter the idea of a Reagan retrospective. It's a legitimate question from a member--regardless of whether or not I personally am, as you insinuate, a "Reagan Republican"--and I don't believe that you, as Film Forum's director, have treated it with respect.
Sincerely yours,
Dawn Eden
11:06 AM
|
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Just wrote a headline for tomorrow's paper—waiting to hear if my boss gives it the OK. It's for a story about how, for the first time, the No. 6 is the top subway line in a report ranking the lines on value-for-money. I wrote: "BEST '6' WE EVER HAD."
I also have a punning headline in today's paper: "Tax-cheat podiatrist's feat failed him: DA."
UPDATE: My boss said he liked the idea, but the headline was too squeezed and "nobody remembers" the headline I was satirizing. He changed it to "THE JOY OF '6'."
6:11 PM
|
Got the Perfect Title for the
Festival, Too: "Dutch Masters"
New Yorkers know the Film Forum as the place that shows films like the anti-capitalist doc "The Corporation," which features Michael Moore, and the fawning documentary about Al-Jazeera. But it also shows wonderful festivals of Dawn Patrol faves like Buster Keaton and Orson Welles. Here is an e-mail I just sent to Film Forum head Karen Cooper—I'll let you know if she replies: Dear Ms. Cooper,
I've been a Film Forum member for much of the past decade, and I first started going when you were on Watts Street. My membership is currently up for renewal. I'd like to renew, because every year you're certain to show something that greatly enhances my experience of life. But I don't like to keep giving money to an organization that, judging by its choice of films, is largely at odds with my worldview.
So here's my question, and please note the way it's phrased, because it's not requiring a commitment of any kind:
Would you ever give serious consideration to a Ronald Reagan film festival, or would you instantly laugh away the very idea of it?
Your answer will give me a better idea of whether the Film Forum is the sort of organization to which I can feel comfortable giving money. I look forward to your reply. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Dawn Eden Goldstein, a k a Dawn Eden
TRACKBACK: Charles of Dustbury.com notes that a little-known Reagan flick, "with its pre-Stepford eye on Perfect Womanhood, is relevant today."
3:53 PM
|
Sixteen Again
Going without kisses, sex, and everything in between for a while—and trying, for the first time in one's life, to curb one's romantic and sexual fantasies as well—creates a good opportunity for self-knowledge. But these days, it feels like the more I learn, the farther I realize I have to go.
I remember that during the last time of my life that I was chaste on purpose—which began shortly after I accepted Jesus—I went through a phase when I felt I'd conquered my desire for sex. But I let my fantasies run wild, and when I eventually met a man I wanted to date, my idealized image of him—and my hopes of how my love might change him—made me rush in when I shouldn't have.
This time around, I've once again reached the point where, for now—save for my imagined clinch at bedtime with a young Orson Welles on the Vienna set of "The Third Man," which I allow because it's very brief and he's very dead—my desire for sex has pretty much flatlined. But my interest in the opposite sex remains—even as it's changed from being on Cute Guy Watch to trying to discern who is my future husband—and my human desires prove more daunting than I'd imagined.
"Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." What Paul doesn't tell you is that being born again can mean, from an emotional standpoint, going back to being a baby. That's how I was just after I was saved; I knew I had to live differently, but I still felt there were certain desires that I did not have to give up to the Lord.
Today I know I have to put my desire to eroticize men—or to have a romantic fantasy about one—at the foot of the Cross. But when I meet a man who awakens my interest, I feel awkward and uncertain—even more so than the days when I acted out sexually. I've gone from being a baby in Christ to—God help me—a teenager.
In the past, being in a state of openness to sexual contact enabled me to feel more confident around a love interest. If I wasn't certain of his interest, I could flirt, bat my eyelashes, whatever—and usually get an immediate response. If I wasn't certain that he wanted a committed relationship, I could push things physically, in the hope that it might sway him. Likewise, if I was scared of emotional intimacy, I could get rid of the tension by pushing the physical, speeding the relationship's denouement.
As dangerous as it is, sex provides a comfort zone. Take it away, and you're forced to deal with who you are, who your love interest is, and how confident you are that you can stand. In other words, you're more naked than if you were, well, naked.
Paul says in Romans 14:4 that God is able to make us stand, adding in verses 7-8: "For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's." I know I must hope in the Lord, and put this spiritual teenagehood too at the foot of the Cross.
4:47 AM
|
Got a very nice e-mail yesterday from my friend (and Dawn Patrol jingle writer) Michael Lynch: "I like that photo on Gaits of Eden of you at the podium doing your reading. Even though I know it's a podium, it also kind of looks, what with the position of your arms, like you're at a Hammond organ and singing."
4:31 AM
|
Monday, July 19, 2004
Teenwire's Porn Connection
Read on to learn how Planned Parenthood's Teenwire Web site encourages underage teens to go to an online portal where they can buy sadomasochistic sex toys and porn videos:
South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds took a bold and courageous stand last week, and he caught hell for it. Acting on the request of Bishop Robert Carlson of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, Rounds ordered that Planned Parenthood's "everybody's doing it" sex-ed site Teenwire be removed from the South Dakota State Library's Web site for teens.
Planned Parenthood and its supporters rushed to accuse Rounds of depriving teenagers of valuable information. In fact, all one has to do is visit Teenwire to see that an overwhelming amount of its content has little to do with educating teens on how to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases—and everything to do with sexualizing them.
One can understand why, for example, Bishop Carlson, Governor Rounds, and responsible parents would not want teenagers to view Teenwire's many articles on pornography. According to Teenwire's "experts," pornography is good. Witness the experts' reply to a teen who asked if viewing pornography might damage his school performance:Many people enjoy using pornography or erotica as a part of their sex play — alone or with a partner.
There's no correlation between using pornography and getting bad grades in school. However, when any repeated behavior affects a person's ability to meet his or her responsibilities, it's called compulsive and that person may need help to cut down on that particular behavior — whether it's washing your hands over and over, checking to make sure you've locked the door hundreds of times, or checking to see if the burners are still on.
There is no indication that using pornography causes problems as long as it does not interfere with other aspects of a person's life. That's rich. Viewing pornography is comparable to "checking to see if the burners are still on." Say what you will, Teenwire has a soul of metaphor.
But there is indeed something wrong with pornography, and a kid has to only click on Teenwire's "In Focus" section to learn what it is. The article "Porn Vs. Reality" explains, "Most people who have real sex don't look anything like people who have sex in porn, especially the women."
Yes, it's true. Teenwire is truly concerned about young girls' self-esteem—so much so that it goes out of its way to assure them that they don't have to look like porn stars.
I wish I were making this up. What universe are we in, anyway, where a kid could go to a public library's Web site and be connected to such trash?
Stay with me. It gets worse. Much worse.
Teenwire's "Porn Vs. Reality" piece is based on an interview with "Claire Cavanah, co-owner of New York- and Seattle-based sex-toy shops, Toys In Babeland."
That's right. Kids as young as 13 are encouraged to learn about pornography from the proprietresss of a sex-toy shop.
And when they're done, they can buy sadomasochistic sex toys and pornography from that very shop—via Teenwire.
At the bottom of the "Porn Vs. Reality" article is a link: "For more info, check out: Scarleteen: Sex Education for the Real World. Click on that link on the page and it will open up in a new window.
Normally, Teenwire's links to external sites first open up with a disclaimer, saying that Teenwire is not responsible for outside sites' content. Not this link. It just opens right up. Apparently, Teenwire is quite proud of this site's content.
The article that Teenwire links to is titled, "Looking, Lusting, and Learning: A Straightforward Look at Pornography," and it is on the sex-ed site Scarleteen. It's written by Hanne Blank, whose own Web site boasts that she is the author or editor of such seminal works as Shameless: Women's Intimate Erotica and Best Transgender Erotica. Scarleteen editor Heather Corinna has a similarly porn-friendly résumé; she's a queer writer, editor, photographer, artist, educator, and web publisher. She is the founder and editor of Scarlet Letters, Femmerotic and Scarleteen. She is considered a pioneer of both the Internet and online sexuality and sex-positive erotic art, having brought inclusive, informative and creative sexual content to the web since 1997.
So right away, Teenwire's sending its readers into the open arms of pornographers eager to encourage them to see themselves and others as soulless sex objects to use and be used.
That's no hyperbole. The article to which Teenwire directs its readers, Blank's paean to porn, reads like Relativism 101: "Sometimes, pornography can be a substitute for having a partner with whom you can be sexual. Most people go through periods in their lives when they do not have a sexual partner - that’s totally normal. But very few people really like feeling sexually frustrated, so often when people don’t have anyone in their lives with whom they can be sexual in person, they opt to use pornography to help arouse them and engage themselves sexually."
In other words, there's no good reason to use sexual restraint, no concept of people's being more than collections of errogenous zones. Teens are told in essence, "You are a sexual being, and your sexuality is your being. End of story. Go f--- yourselves."
But give the aptly-named Blank some credit for uncovering one problem with pornography—though she's quick to add that it only exists in people's minds:The biggest problem that people often have with using pornography is that they sometimes start to expect their own actual sex lives to be just like the pornography they use and enjoy. This is really pretty ridiculous and unreasonable! Pornography is idealistic, not realistic. Porn tends to show what people fantasize about, not what actually does happen in most people’s sex lives. It's the Teenwire message, rephrased: Don't feel bad if you don't look like a porn star.
By this point, if Teenwire and Scarleteen have done their job, readers who have will be itching to see some actual pornography, confident that they can view it without any ill effects and without comparing their own bodies to those of the performers. And Scarleteen is there for them. All the teen reader—or any reader who's allowed to use Mom's credit card—has to do is click on the "Scarleteen Shop" to the left of the article. That will immediately take them to the site's store, which offers links to its shopping partners, including—
That's right. Toys in Babeland.
Let me repeat this, and it's something you can discover yourself by going to Teenwire's "Porn Vs. Reality" article and clicking the series of links I've described. A Teenwire reader only has to click on a recommended link, and then click one more time—on a "Scarleteen Shop" link—to purchase all manner of sadomasochistic paraphernalia, vaginal and anal sex toys, and pornographic videos.
And here's the kicker: They don't have to give their age.
From Scarleteen's shopping instructions:We...have chosen merchants who support our mission, who accept a variety of payment methods, who do not put age limitations on the products linked to, and who ship expediently and reliably...The merchants we use all ship in plain packages, discreetly...If you have any further questions, or need help, or want to make suggestions, just drop us a line, and we'll be on it like lubricant on latex in no time flat. There is no way that Teenwire could be unaware that it links to a Web site that enables teenagers to purchase sadomasochistic sex toys and pornography. The Scarleteen link has been up on its Web site for nearly two years, and Scarleteen's shop is an integral part of its "mission."
The people who support Planned Parenthood should stop breathing fire over teen's supposed rights to abortion and birth control and take a look at what Margaret Sanger's organization is actually teaching teenagers. I can't believe any responsible parent, or anyone who cares about America's youth, could see how Planned Parenthood treats kids as pawns and not be enraged.
3:52 AM
|
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Went on a lovely walking tour of Lower Manhattan today guided by Kevin Walsh, webmaster of that true treasure Forgotten NY. At one point, Kevin had the attendees gather by the Washington statue at Federal Hall for a group shot, and one of the fellow Forgotteners, Amy Langfield, turned around and snapped a photo that includes my friend Janet and me. You can see it on Amy's photoblog.
Janet's in the denim jacket, and I'm wearing glasses while awaiting my new contact lenses. (The glasses, by the way, are older than me—the authentic Twiggy brand.)
7:19 PM
|
Road to Joy
One of my favorite things about C.S. Lewis's "Surprised By Joy" is the way he describes how, before he knew the Lord, he gained a taste of divine joy through worldly things—like Norse myths or, if memory serves, a picture on a cookie tin.
I don't believe that all or even most of the pleasures I experienced in my pre-saved life were tastes of the divine. But on those occasions when I did experience a hint of the joy Lewis describes, many times it was sparked by a song. Much of my favorite music was based on a sense of longing—whether delicately beautiful ballads like the Left Banke's "Walk Away Renee," or angst-tinged anthems like Badfinger's "Baby Blue" and George Harrison's "What Is Life." In a way, you could say, "Pop" helped point me to the Father.
Another thing I unwittingly learned about the Lord through my love of old records was that in a way, musically speaking, as G.K. Chesterton said, all roads lead to Rome. That is, as my knowledge of 1960s pop increased and I heard more and more obscure tunes, I kept discovering that my favorite tunes were linked by a handful of creative people. That great Searchers song "Needles and Pins" was co-written by Jack Nitzsche, who also produced the beautiful Bob Lind hit "Elusive Butterfly," and whose sparkling arrangements coated Phil Spector's Wall of Sound. The same names kept popping up, often in unexpected places, creating a silver thread that linked the era's most artful music. One only had to look for the connections.
That's why I was fascinated when I first heard the name John Pantry several years ago and discovered he had a hand in several of my favorite British psychedelic-pop songs. I had never before linked the songs in my mind, but when I learned the same person was behind them, it all made sense.
Musically, all the Pantry tunes I knew met at the crossroads of the psychedelic Beatles, the Pet Sounds-era Beach Boys, and the pre-disco Bee Gees. They were also terrifically catchy, with a delightful sense of miniaturism. If you're not a rock fan, imagine how exciting it is to hear the tiny little "Turkish March" section in the midst of the bombast of the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth. In the same way, Pantry's best melodies sound as precious and fragile as cut glass.
But it was the lyrics of Pantry's tunes that really should have tipped me off that there was a single mind behind them. They all shared an existential longing, teetering precariously between morbidity and a desire for something more.
There was "Red Chalk Hill," released by the Factory, a melancholy tune in 6/8 time which seems to be about the inescapability of death. I say "seems to be," because Pantry, who engineered several of the Bee Gees' early albums, seemed to have picked up Barry Gibb's gift for ambiguity. Still, there's no mistaking the sadness in lyrics like, "See where the wood's done what it could to touch the sky—what a try/Who am I to say what should be?"
Then there was the truly bizarre "Glasshouse Green, Splinter Red." Released by the Kinsmen, it's an "Eleanor Rigby"-style tale of a lonely retired gardener who commits suicide by stepping off a balcony and falling through—yes—a greenhouse. I know; it sounds like something from the psychedelic-era output of Spinal Tap. But there's absolutely no irony, and the relentlessly catchy melody causes the Gerard Manley Hopkins' "Spring and Fall"-style lyr | |
