...where I just can't seem to make myself do anything good for me. It's been a day of TV and vegging out, for the most part, though I desperately need to be researching for my senior paper (outline due in a week!) and reading for my other classes. I feel like taking a nap now, though I slept over ten hours last night.
Holy crap, guys! There's going to be a Futurama movie! And the whole cast is on board along with David X. Cohen and Matt Groening, of course. So it will be true to what it has been and what it should be. I am SO excited. Unfortunately, it won't be out until 2007. I'm so going to be Leela for Halloween next year, in anticipation. There's also rumors of it making a return to TV, but no substantiation on that so far.
Not that I follow such things too closely, but does anyone else think it's a bunch of BS that four of the five Golden Globe nominees for best actress in a TV comedy series are from Desperate Housewives? First of all, I don't watch the show, so I have no idea why everyone is so freakin nuts over it. I'm guessing it's like Sex and the City, which I never watched until after it went off the air: a decent, fairly funny show, but nothing to phone home about. Secondly, even if the show is as good as the hype indicates (and it's rarely so), how fair is it to give ALL the main actresses from a single show a nomination? Aren't there like a zillion other shows out there? Thankfully, the award went to Mary-Louise Parker, who I adore, for Weeds, a show I had never heard of because it's on Showtime, which we don't have. Apparently the show is about a suburban mom who sells pot on the side to support her family. I'd watch it. Sounds like real life, and like I said, I do adore Mary-Louise Parker.
In other news: Brokeback Mountain got its share of Golden Globes, so now I really have to go see it. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhall making out would have been enough, but it being a really good movie in addition (and with a meaningful message!) pushes it over the top.
Dakota Fanning is a girl scout. She has earned the acting badge and the horseback riding badge. Completely adorable, and probably will help the girl scouts with their lagging recruitment.
I think I've been in my classes long enough to give you the quarterly update. I'm also going to grade my classes--not what I think I'll be getting in it, because that's going to be A's and B's across the board, but what I think the teacher deserves. ENG 328: World Literature. The professor is ancient, and forgets his train of thought frequently. Instead of reading a selection of literature from around the world, we're reading the classics: the Greeks, the medieval theologians, etc. The reading is long and painful, and the classes are about as much fun as punching myself in the face repeatedly. I am bored out of my skull by this class. But I have to take it to graduate. There's only one other class that fills the requirement, and it's offered at the same time as my poli sci class that I love. So I'm stuck. And to think, I almost got out of college without having to read Homer. Grade: D+
POSC 340: Politics and American Capitalism, aka American Political Economy. Interesting subject, great teacher. It's really challenging my beliefs on a lot of things. We play games in class sometimes, like last week we all were either buying or selling wheat, and our activity simulated a free market. We got to see how prices settle at equilibrium and how capitalism is the most efficient method for determining who should produce what. Then the teacher started setting rules like a government would, and it was interesting to see how that changed things. There's a lot of reading, but it's interesting, so it's okay. Grade: A
POSC 489: Senior Synthesis. We get two credits to write a paper and take a huge test. We only have to show up occasionally, but when we do, class is really mind-numbing. Last week, the teacher seriously asked us to define political science, and seemed surprised that nobody could do it. Of course we could do it, but we were so appalled that he asked us such a dumb question that we refused to answer. The class is super-easy now, but when I have to actually work on my paper and study for the test, I'm guessing it will take up a butt-ton of my time. On the plus side, though, we get to do most of the work on our own, unstructured. Grade: B-
PED 118: Ballroom Dance. I needed one more credit to get to full-time status, so Chris and I are taking a dance class together. The teacher is not very good at teaching moves, and she played the same song four times in a row last week. There are twice as many girls as guys, which means I have to sit out half the time, and the teacher believes in the old-fashioned "guys ask girls, girls sit politely until the guys ask them" method. Which means I spend a lot of time sitting or standing bashfully on the side just wishing a boy would ask me to dance. I seriously feel like I'm twelve years old again at a junior high dance. The actual dancing is pretty fun, when I'm with a good lead. Chris likes to throw in some turns we haven't learned yet, which makes it a lot more fun. Grade: C+
But you know what? I'm graduating in two and a half months, so long as I pass everything (I need a C or better in Senior synth). And that's enough to keep me going.
I finally gave in and bought Get Off My Honor, a book by the very talented, very bigoted Hans Zeiger, who I went to school with. The book is about the percieved left-wing attack on Scouting's moral values. Now, before anyone gets any crazy ideas, I'm certainly not buying it because I agree with it. Heavens, no. In fact, I'm so opposed to it that I refused to buy it new because I don't want to be a part of the statistics on how many copies it has sold. But I did buy it secondhand (from half.com) because I need to understand what I'm up against.
I've been a card-carrying member (literally) of the Boy Scouts of America since I was 14, essentially the instant I was old enough to join. (Venturing is a coed program of the BSA for ages 14 to 20 focusing on outdoor activities.) I believe Boy Scouting at all age levels has a huge value in its capacity for teaching leadership skills and an ethic of service and hard work to young men and women. And I believe that in today's schools, boys are often discouraged and overlooked. Scouting gives boys a chance to learn and excel in a different environment. And it doesn't stop at age 18. For the past four summers, I've worked at Boy Scout Camp, and I firmly believe I learn more each summer than I do the whole rest of the year.
I care about the Scouting program. And I completely agree in a legal sense with the Supreme Court ruling that the BSA has the right to exclude anyone who they feel does not fit the moral code of their organization. But as a very loyal member, I do not think they should refuse membership to atheists and homosexuals.
First of all, even if you accept that atheism and homosexuality are wrong, which I don't, the head Scout Executives should see Scouting as a perfect opportunity to gently encourage the values they support. Hans Zeiger may have always known where he stood on morality, sexuality, and religion, but most young people don't. I'm 21 years old, married, and still have major doubts and struggles with faith. But Scouting has always been a positive influence for me in that category. Because Scouting is a multifaith organization, the message was never too narrow, but I was often reminded at Scouting events of my duty to God. Scouting also brought me into contact with several people who were happy to share their own thoughts on faith and religion (in informal conversations), which were often helpful to me. Many new scouts have never been to church before, and may come to a better understanding of God for themselves through Scouting.
But all of that is rather irrelevant to me, since I do not believe the people who are being excluded have done anything wrong. I think an atheist absolutely can be as moral as a Christian. God knows some Christians have done terrible things in the name of God in the past, and continue to this day. (Hans Zeiger, for instance, once wrote an editorial in the local paper speaking out against a student-organized Day of Silence organized to raise awareness about violence and discrimination faced by homosexuals and other non-mainstream groups. Hans wrote that homosexuality was an abomination and did not belong in schools. He then had the gall to run for class president on a platform of inclusion of all students. He never apologized for or reversed his previous statements, so nobody took him seriously. People actually drew Hitler mustaches on his fliers.)
But I feel much more strongly on the issue of homosexuality. I don't claim to understand why some people are gay and others are straight and still others fall into less-well-defined categories, but I do believe it's not something that people simply choose. And I do not accept that it is immoral. People quote the Bible on this, but the fact remains that almost nobody even attempts to follow every word of the Bible. The Old Testament tells us not to eat pork (Leviticus 11:3,7). The New Testament tells us that women should never pray with their hair uncovered (1 Corinthians 11:5). We certainly are not expected to follow these rules; they were written for another time. Pork was a luxury food and it would have been disastrous environmentally for the Hebrews to begin cultivating large numbers of hogs. In the same way, it makes sense for the Bible to have banned homosexuality in its time, because at that time, land was plentiful, and the death rate was so high that if people did not do as commanded and "be fruitful and multiply" within the bounds of marriage, civilizations could have died out. This is no longer a problem for us today, as the world is already horrendously overpopulated, and it would be a benefit to the world if there were more couples not giving birth.
I will grant that there seems to be a correlation between homosexuality and high-risk sexual behavior. Personally, I think it's related to the fact that gays are not allowed to marry in our society. I'm certainly not saying that the BSA must invite every gay person to join. Just as it would be wrong to require the BSA to allow an openly promiscuous straight man into the program, they shouldn't have to allow a gay individual whose behavior is immoral to join. (Just to be clear, I'm not one of those people who believes that it's okay to be gay as long as you don't act on it. That's a ridiculous idea. But I do think the Scouts have the right to shelter their youth members from irresponsible adults of all orientations.) But most of the gay people who want to be part of the BSA fall into two categories: 1)Unmarried or divorced parents who are either in a long-term partnership or are dating very little, because their kids are their top priority. These are stable, well-adjusted people scarcely distinguishable from their straight counterparts. 2)Youth members who are gay-identified or who are questioning their sexuality. These are uncertain, self-conscious young people alike in many ways to their straight counterparts. Now, wouldn't it be great if we could get the people in these two groups together? If young gay people had more stable gay role models, it could make such a difference in their lives.
I think the times are changing. I think gay marriage will be something our grandchildren will be shocked to discover was illegal in our youth. I am afraid, though, that Scouting will cling to old values long after they are outmoded, and that they will become a scorned relic of the past. And I don't know how to change this policy. Especially with Chris going into professional Scouting, I'm afraid to contact the BSA directly about it; I don't want to risk losing my job and his, or even our membership in the BSA. But in the end, I think that may be what is needed: devoted members saying, "Look. I'm not threatening to leave or anything. I think the organization is doing a lot of good. But I think it's important to change this policy. I think it's wrong, and so do a lot of people around me who are afraid to speak up."
But first of all, I'm going to read the book. I have no illusions that this will even illuminate the reasons the other side believes what it does, but it should at least help me to understand the beliefs I'm trying to change. I know where I stand. I need to know what I'm up against.
