Its getting crazy out there!

"She's completely a woman, . . . A man's woman if you like … what most women would like to be.

~~Bay Bucahanan on Sarah Palin, in "Sister, Sister" on Newsweek on line, October 11, 2008.

Help--anyone know what that means?!? Didn't women start the feminist movement so that they no longer has to be "a man's woman" . . .or did I just miss a century of social development?

How did Buchanan become crazy enough to say such a thing? Is she beside herself? Is she hysterical or something? Maybe she just needs a good man--or woman--to show her that she no longer needs to be "a man's woman".

sigh, in disbelief, walk away . . oh sister!

Really It Just Jumped Out At Me!

(Disclaimer: Rather then emailing the following to a handful of my professors and telling them that I will hold them accountable for inclusion, I am simply posting this here.)

I finally get it! I finally understand why Claremont School of Theology does not include the disability perspective in the program and none of the classes require Nancy Eiesland's The Disabled God: Toward A Liberatory Theology of Disability as required reading . . .they can't . . .it might cause rebellion:) They really don't want us to read this:

"People with disabilities are subject to prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory acts by the able-bodied majority, who consider people with disabilities inferior and use environmental segregation by way of built architectural barriers, as means of keeping a social and physical distance. A prime example is colleges and universities that ostensibly admit academically qualified people with disabilities yet do not provide specialized facilities or necessary services, thus making matriculation for these students exceptionally difficult. Simply ignoring the special needs of people with disabilities constitutes discrimination."
(Nancy Eiesland, from the book "The Disabled God", page 63)

Oops! I wonder if they know there are copies of the book in the library and the bookstore . . . So much for breadth and depth of theological knowledge, much less a commitment to social action and justice!

Just a Thought About Economic Plans

I am all for Barak, and all for Main Street rather then Wall Street However, I don't think that homeowners facing foreclosure are completely "innocent"--they made bad financial decisions and they should have some consequences. (They are only innocent in that they were allowed to have for a while what they cannot afford; but all any of us have is only given to us temporarily.) I don't think homelessness is what foreclosed homeowners deserve, but neither may be staying in homes they cannot afford. Things change--it happens--roll with it. I have not bought a home, or ever foresee doing so, because I know I can not afford it. I have been evicted, once, and I have lived in my car--you do survive. I don't think individuals should be bailed out for bad decisions any more then Wall Street should--unless it serves a purpose of bettering the whole community, and in some cases keeping people in their homes may do that. We have to learn to accept that we can not all have everything we want. There is enough wealth in this nation for all to have what they need-which may not be the same as want. Let us all be reasonable. If we must have a bailout it should be for families and not banks--Main Street not Wall Street. Ussery is immoral--scripture has told us this for several thousand years--if we continue to base our economy on lending and charging interest, then of course we are headed for disaster! Duh!
What we really need is an interest moratorium!