Why Do I Write?

Heather asks, and answers, as does Christine.

So here's my answer: To understand the world around me, and to understand myself.

That's the "deep" answer.

My first, semi-wise-ass answer was "Because I can." And because it's how I make my living (in my other life, that is).

But the very next question I find myself asking is, why haven't I been writing more -- by which I mean, why haven't I been writing more here?

God knows I have had more than a few things crossing my mind to write about... Questions to ask, conundrums to puzzle out... But I haven't been making time for it of late. That other life has been pretty demanding of late, which, when it's the source of my livelihood, probably beats the alternative.

I've been pondering, however, the question of merging my writing identity here with my public writer's identity... erasing the seams between the two.

As yet, no definitive answer. So I'll just keep writing, to see if I might eventually figure it out...

Who Am I?

I thought Jacqueline Wolven raised some good questions in her post a few days ago, which I happened upon a few days later after taking a look at the weekly roundup of UU blogs.

This post isn't exactly a direct response to her questions, but it is inspired by them.

Up to now, I have run this blog semi-anonymously. At least for the foreseeable future, I expect to keep doing so.

"Semi," in that I've been upfront with various friends in and out of the blog-UU-sphere about my identity here. "Anonymous" in that I don't sign posts with my name and for the most part don't comment on other blogs except under the DSD identity.

So...why the secrecy at all?

The main reason is to separate what I write here from my public identity as a journalist. In that capacity I write for a variety of outlets, and I am not constrained from having a point of view. Nonetheless, I am inclined to believe I will feel a little freer about what I write here if it is not connected with my public journalistic self.

Now, a bit paradoxically, even in this semi-anonymous guise, I tend to be circumspect.

I publicly identify here the various churches with which I have an ongoing relationship: My own church, DairyStateMom's church, and my "church away from home" that I frequent when visiting family in the East.

For that reason -- and because my blogging ID here is only semi-anonymous -- I choose not to air dirty laundry (not that there really is any to air) about any of these places.

In other words, I have not chosen to use this space to work out personal differences I might have with one or another specific institution. I might speak more broadly, but leave it at that. In this regard I am following my instinct, but I bring it up to emphasize that my choice of a masked identity is not motivated by any desire to be more personal, particularly about criticism.

From time to time I think about casting the mask off entirely, and I think Jacqueline Wolven has worthwhile things to say about that approach. For now, however, I choose not to. I thought that it might be useful, for myself and for my two-and-a-half readers, to reflect on why.

Not Rising to the Bait

In the last 24 hours I've turned away from opportunities to comment on two different things I saw online that just made me shake my head.

One was an anti-Christian blog post by a UU blogger that reflects such a blinkered and narrow view of Christianity that I was just beside myself. But I also recognized that blogger's life story I'm sure has been one of deep wounds from Fundamentalist Christianity.

The other was in a comment to a post by one of my favorite bloggers. The comment was by a Christian who took exception to anyone calling him or herself a Christian unless the person subscribed to...

...a blinkered and narrow view Christianity (and one that, paradoxically, was expressed in the comment in such a vague way that it was all but bereft of substance and meaning).

Well, it gives me the chance an excuse to post this old favorite cartoon.

Paging ChaliceChick

A nominee for criminal justice *headdesk* of the day?

The first March on Washington

A fascinating bit of history, via "Heretic, Rebel, a Thing to Flout"

So Coxey decided to bring the unemployed to Washington to petition Congress. Word of Coxey’s plan spread and attracted wide attention, many came to Ohio to join him.

One very small quibble: Patrick says that last weekend's immigration rally

"...attracted hardly a ripple of interest by the news media or concern from authorities while a couple of thousand Tea Baggers spewing racial epithets and threats at members of Congress over Health Care Reform got all of the attention."

I can't speak for other news outlets, but in fairness, both the Milwaukee and the Kenosha (Wis.) papers played Sunday's immigration rally quite prominently.

Update: When I commented on Patrick's blog, he specified he was referring to national TV and cable coverage. Fair enough.

A question to anyone who reads this blog

The way this is set right now, all links automatically open in a new window. Do you find this convenient or annoying? Feel free to leave a reply in the comments.

Essential References, No. 1

Some 15 years ago I made a pitch to cover religion for a major metropolitan newspaper where I worked at the time. In the end, because of major changes there, I withdrew my interest and left the publication to start a new life as a freelance writer -- a life in which I've only written one story about religion so far (I'm actually working on a second one, but that's another matter).

Still, the topic of religion and how it's covered in the media remains of keen interest to me.

In that vein, if I were a religion writer now, I would consider The Wild Hunt essential reading on my beat. This post today exemplifies why.

In the spirit of yesterday's post on writing a blog post...

...here's a TV report on how to do a TV report:

Did you know...

...that the blogger and frequent commentator on Middle East matters, Juan Cole, has a UU connection?

(If yes) Well, it was news to me.

(If no) Yeah, I didn't either.

How to write a blog post

A step-by-step guide.

(H/t: Andrew Sullivan)

Update: Read the comments, too. But swallow your beverage and don't take another sip before you open the link.

Well look at that

PeaceBang's Beauty Tips for Ministers showed up today in my twice-weekly e-mail from the Martin Marty Center's Sightings. As I write this, it hasn't yet made the archive list on line, but I expect it will be there soon.

Update: And now a direct link.

Surf spray

A handful of not-particularly-related items that have crossed my computer screen today.

I've just discovered an interesting Christian blog, slacktivist, which has this clear-eyed post on religious freedom that's well worth reading.

I got there via the equally interesting Pagan blog, The Wild Hunt, which has been diligently following an ongoing story -- particularly the media sensationalism thereof -- about the uncovering of dead animal remains at a home in Philadelphia that may or may not be related to the practice of Santeria.

On other matters...

...Is it just me, or is the story of Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a/k/a Humam Khalil Mohammed, the CIA double-agent-turned-suicide-bomber, beginning to sound more and more like a John LeCarre novel?

...Once in a while I happen upon Daily Variety, the show-biz paper. This story is a case study in the publication's highly idiosyncratic use of language (coined words, odd syntax, jargon). Reading it is entertainment itself.

...And finally, thanks to an ad in the margins of Facebook, I now know that a new movie is coming out that features God, St. Michael, and Jesus being born again at the Apocalypse. I'm mildly curious how the Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians view this cultural event, but not enough to go looking right now...

Afterthought: And I'm very unlikely to see it myself.

The last thing I'm going to write on that GK column...

...at least until I write something else.

In the end, I do find the whole Keillor episode a little baffling.

A Talking Points Memo commenter insists it is just satire. Certainly, in the face of things like this, satire would seem all too easy -- and tempting.

But if satire was the intent, it's no Modest Proposal. Instead, a lot of people have missed the point. Including me.

I really did -- and until this evening was still inclined to -- believe that the infamous gay marriage column was satirical. (More on that in a moment.) And yes, I've read Dan Savage's response to Keillor's subsequent apology on that one. I frankly just see saw it differently. But the Christmas column, not so much.

And clearly not so much with other commenters around the Internet.

If Keillor's Christmas column was intended as satire, it fails -- and the gay-marriage-column episode should have been a lesson to him on the perils of the form for his audience.

It fails because, in the end, too many people miss the point. Not just us touchy Unitarians, but Jews as well.

Worse yet, if it was satire, a number of people who have responded in the comments section at Salon, the Chicago Tribune and the Baltimore Sun to roundly endorse his screed never got the memo, either.

And then DairyStateMom and I got to talking this evening, and she offered the opinion that she wasn't so sure the aforementioned gay marriage column was satirical, either. Since I take what she says seriously, I'm having to rethink that, too.

Up to now I've enjoyed his jokes on UUs. He makes fun of Lutherans and Catholics, too, after all. So the jokes about us simply made me feel part of the club. Until this current controversy I had been ignorant of the amount of distaste for him in some UU circles.

Now I'm starting to wonder if I'm just some sort of self-hating UU for laughing.


~DSD, who has long admired that famous Swiftian satire and was beside himself some years ago teaching a night-school college class of students who thought Swift was serious.

Should stupidity disqualify an advice columnist?

That's the question DairyStateMom asks regarding the campaign by some bloggers to get DoubleX advice columnist Lucinda Rosenfeld fired from her job for telling a letter writer... oh it's too long for me to summarize, just read it yourself.

Says DSM:

Should an advice columnist (or any opinion columnist) be removed for giving, well, bad advice? I don't think there's any question at all that the columnist gave a moronic response to the letter writer (taking Broadsheet's summary as accurate). Is that really the issue though? Do we fire columnists for stupidity?

Well, I guess some people think we should...