Halle's acceptance speech

From Yahoo News:

[Actress Halle] Berry was named worst actress of 2004 by the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation for her performance in 'Catwoman' and she showed up to accept her 'Razzie' carrying the Oscar she won in 2002 for 'Monster's Ball.'

'They can't take this away from me, it's got my name on it!' she quipped. A raucous crowd cheered her on as she gave a stirring recreation of her Academy Award acceptance speech, including tears.

She thanked everyone involved in 'Catwoman,' a film she said took her from the top of her profession to the bottom.

'I want to thank Warner Brothers for casting me in this piece of s--t,' she said as she dragged her agent on stage and warned him 'next time read the script first.'

It is rare for a Razzie winner to show up at the spoof awards held on the night before Oscars - but Berry did, saying her mother taught her that to be 'a good winner you had to be a good loser first.' She received a standing ovation.

The Baby Name Wizard's NameVoyager

Very cool! Use this interactive page to see at a glance the fortunes of the top 1000 names in America over the last century. Remember two or three classmates that shared a name? Punch it up and see if there was a big spike in that name's popularity about the time you were born.

Interesting Discovery: One out of every thousand girls born in the decade from 1900-1909 was named Sadie. By the 1940s, though, the name had dwindled down to nearly nothing, and in the 1970s, virtually no one in this country was given that name. Strangely, each decade since has shown remarkable growth in "Sadie's" popularity, so that in 2003 it was the 195th most popular name for girls... albeit still only half as popular as it was a century ago.

When Uncle Sam goes to church

Jeff sends along this link to a first person account of an armed forces rally wrapped up in religious clothing, complete with M16s, colorguards, "God Bless the USA," and giant-screen video of Jesus dying on a cross. To cap the whole thing off, recruiting tables were set up in the narthex of the church.

Which makes this preacher wonder, "What the Sam Hill were the organizers of that event thinking???" You'll note that the author of the post, who is profoundly uncomfortable with the affair and eventually repulsed by it, is a conservative Republican who supports the war in Iraq. He is absolutely right in his critique of the idolatry of state on display here. When an American flag is hoisted in front of the cross of Christ (as is plain in the pictures) and Christians shout "Amen!", something is seriously wrong.

NYT: Letters on Abstinence and the Sex Ed Debate

One especially insightful analogy:

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof makes a compelling case against teaching abstinence-only, to the exclusion of contraception, to our young people. He cites studies indicating increases in unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS, resulting from abstinence-only programs.

For those who still can't grasp how irresponsible abstinence-only programs are, consider an analogy of a general safety class: A teacher informs students that shooting guns is dangerous, so they should not do that. A student says: 'I have a gun, I have a right to shoot it, and I'm going to shoot it. Are there any safety measures I can take to reduce the chances that I hurt myself or someone else?' The teacher (being prohibited from discussing gun use safety) says, 'Just don't shoot your gun.'

Is that responsible?

Jack Glaser
Berkeley, Calif., Feb. 16, 2005
The writer is an assistant professor, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley.

NYT: "Our Friends, the Torturers"

Bob Herbert writes:

Syria is led by a gangster regime that has, among other things, sponsored terrorism, aided the insurgency in Iraq and engaged in torture. So here's the question. If Syria is such a bad actor - and it is - why would the Bush administration seize a Canadian citizen at Kennedy Airport in New York, put him on an executive jet, fly him in shackles to the Middle East and then hand him over to the Syrians, who promptly tortured him?

The administration is trying to have it both ways in its so-called war on terror. It claims to be fighting for freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and it condemns barbaric behavior whenever it is committed by someone else. At the same time, it is engaged in its own barbaric behavior, while going out of its way to keep that behavior concealed from the American public and the world at large.

Is it possible to bring about peace by waging war? Is it wise to smother a brush fire with rags and gasoline? Can a freer world be created by squashing freedom? Can the methods of thugs be used to uphold the rule of law?

At home and abroad, the Bush administration has given the finger to human rights, has disdained all attempts to pass crucial information on to the public, and has in general conducted itself with an air of authoritarianism and aloofness that is nothing short of breathtaking.

Our friends in Europe and around the world see this plainly... and so do our enemies. Why is it that here in the "homeland" so few seem to recognize the dangerous hypocrisy in the Bush administration's policies?

The dark side of the cookie

Though much of the world has been happily united in support for Taylor Ostergaard and Lindsey Jo Zilletti, the two teenage bakers who gave their goodies anonymously to neighbors, the reaction has been quite the opposite for the Young family - who sued the girls for $900 in medical bills for a panic attack Mrs. Young apparently experienced following the nighttime delivery.

I've read quite a few of the awful things being posted online about Herbert and Renea Young, and if even a tiny fraction of the people threatening to call or harrass them have followed through, I hate to think what a hellish experience this has been for them. They don't deserve that.

Unfortunately, an interview with the Denver Post seems to suggest that at least Herbert Young (wrongly) blames the girls for the vitriol of the world that is now directed squarely at his family:

The Youngs said that they have been inundated by insulting and threatening messages.

'I don't believe the girls meant for this to happen,' Herbert Young said. 'But they could have prevented it from happening if they had just shut their mouths when they came out of court.'

The original Post story was based almost entirely on court records. The girls had declined to comment immediately following the case.

Renea Young spoke to The Post soon after the hearing, saying that she hoped the girls had learned a lesson. Both she and her husband have declined or failed to respond to repeated Denver Post requests for follow-up interviews.

So the story, when it broke, had nothing to do with the defendants playing it up to the press... however, Mrs. Young was almost immediately on the scene preaching about "lessons" for the local reporters.

*sigh* Two things are clear to me: The Youngs have behaved rather poorly (and foolishly); but the outpouring of nastiness from the Internet hordes is far worse behavior than even the original pettiness that started this whole lawsuit.

If only the world's reaction could have been simply to cheer for two girls and encourage them to persevere in kindness no matter what. Instead, I'm afraid that a bunch of keyboard-pounding vigilantes are going to turn a story of kindness into a case study in how to destroy two lives.

I'm still cheering for Taylor and Lindsey. But I'm ashamed of the ugliness this story has unleashed against the Youngs.

Herbert and Renea - hang in there. The Internet has a very short attention span. You don't deserve this, but it will blow over eventually. Just as I encouraged Taylor and Lindsey not to give up on the good that they do just because of a negative experience, I hope that the good that you do (and by all accounts you do volunteer in your community) will not dry up in bitterness over this.

Slate: "What a Crock! - Which slow cooker is best?"

Slate's ode to the Crock-Pot. If you haven't yet discovered the joys of slow cooking, you really owe it to yourself to grab one of the better pots in this review and start cooking! What made me a convert? Dropping a whole turkey breast, ribs and all, into the pot - frozen! - adding some water, salt, and pepper, and having a real meal in time for dinner if I took five minutes of prep time in the morning. (Thanks, Mom!)

NYT: Spearing the Beast

Under Mr. Bush's plan, workers with private accounts that fared poorly would find themselves destitute.

Why expose workers to that much risk? Ideology. 'Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state,' declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. 'If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state.'

By the welfare state, Mr. Moore means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - social insurance programs whose purpose, above all, is to protect Americans against the extreme economic insecurity that prevailed before the New Deal. The hard right has never forgiven F.D.R. (and later L.B.J.) for his efforts to reduce that insecurity, and now that the right is running Washington, it's trying to turn the clock back to 1932.

Medicaid is also in the cross hairs. And if Mr. Bush can take down Social Security, Medicare will be next.

NYT: "Israeli and Palestinian Leaders Pledge to Halt Attacks"

I'm cautiously optimistic about today's peace talks in Egypt. While I'm delighted to see Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas sitting down together and opening a channel of communication that's been long absent this conflict, I'm still concerned about Israel's tendency to put conditions on the peace process. As the Times notes:

Israel, in other words, is insisting that Mr. Abbas implement his obligations to destroy the infrastructure of terrorism in the first stage of the road map before Israel begins to implement its own obligations to stop new settlement activity and dismantle up to 50 outposts erected after March 2001. Hamas's statements today are likely to solidify that Israeli position.

Both sides need to work toward their end of the bargain, regardless of what is happening on the other side of the fence, in order for peace to come about.

In fact, Israel's part of the deal is easier to implement, at least in the beginning - the military attacks against Palestinians are all centrally directed, and could be immediately ended by a simple command from Mr. Sharon and the courage not to rescind that command at the first sign of activity from Hamas terrorists.

Mr. Abbas, on the other hand, is in the difficult position of needing to reign in inherently uncontrolable forces. There are terrorist activities even within the United States (Oklahoma, the sniper, anthrax), not because our government isn't powerful or dedicated to stomping out terrorism, but because it is possible merely to control - not eliminate - underground, illegal activity. Mr. Abbas and the Palestinian Authority must put every effort into controlling the terrorist elements active in Palestine, but Israel must recognize that not even the world's most powerful nation has the power to eliminate terrorist activity. Allowance must be made for that fact in the peace process.

In fact, Mr. Sharon holds in his hands the greatest weapon against the terrorists - not the button to Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, but the ability to move ahead in the peace process no matter what the terrorists do, thus rendering them completely irrelevant. The power the criminals presently posess allows them to bring the peace process to its knees simply by committing another atrocity. Take away that power - show by words and deeds that nothing, not even the most despicable action, is going to drag Israel and Palestine back into their bloody past - and the terrorists will lose both their incentive to act and their support among Palestinians. They are supported because they get results. Take that away, and they will be reviled as the monsters they are.

So I remain, as I said, cautiously optimistic. This is a positive development and a reason to be glad. I hope that both parties will now match actions to their words, and bring forth many more positive developments in the days and weeks to come.

Those crazy Google ads...

Now showing on my blog's home page:

"God loves you - How to know that God loves you."

-and-

"Kindness For Sale - Discount Kindness. aff Check out the deals now!"

Great to know. So if anyone's not convinced by the first ad that God really loves them, at least they can motor on over to eBay and buy some kindness on the cheap to make themselves feel better...

*ponders*

Take Action: Budgets are Moral Documents!

From Sojourners:

On February 7, President Bush released his proposed 2006 federal budget. In addition to projecting record deficits and increases in military spending, the budget proposes major cuts to domestic programs that benefit people living in poverty.

This budget reflects a set of priorities that stand in clear opposition to biblical values. Spending more money on nuclear warheads and tax cuts that benefit the rich is not a strategy that would be affirmed by the biblical prophets-and the proposed cuts to low-income programs will not even realize the president's stated goal of reducing the deficit.

Please urge your members of Congress to consider the effect this budget will have on our nation's poor before taking a vote.

You can quickly and easily let your lawmakers know where you stand on this important issue by using Sojourners' action page.

A budget is not a morally neutral item - it is a document that reflects policies and priorities. A budget is a moral document, and President Bush's proposed budget needs to be held to higher moral standards.

DVD Talk reviews "Night Court: Season 1"

Woo-hoo! I've been waiting for Night Court to be released on DVD. It's one of my all-time favorites, and it's not something you catch in re-runs often, for some reason. Best of all, it looks like the Night Court season sets are going to be priced reasonably, in the $20-25 range. That makes it pretty painless to commit to eight seasons (eventually) winding up on my shelf - it's no more expensive than buying many movies.

*does the happy dance of joy*

Star Tribune - "The brief on blogs" (featuring ME!)

When I was home over the holidays, my folks handed my a newspaper snipping from the Minneapolis Star Tribune. It was a brief column titled "Questions and Tips," and the topic was blogs and blogging. Highlighted in blue for my benefit, under the header "What do people blog about?" was the following blurb":

What do people blog about?

You name it. Their personal lives, their political views, their picks for best TV shows. Zach Braff of 'Scrubs' is blogging about his independent movie, 'Garden State.' The Rev. Robert Schaefer, of North Dakota, blogs about what it's like to be a young pastor in his first congregation. Meril of St. Paul blogs about anime and books. Frog Kisser of Minneapolis blogs about her social life, with pictures to go along with it. A list of Minnesota blogs is at http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/mnblogs

Not like I've had a massive uptick in my readership since then, but pretty cool, just the same. ;) I wonder if I need an agent...

Open Letter to Taylor Ostergaard and Lindsey Jo Zellitti

2/5/05

Dear Taylor and Lindsey,

I read your story in the paper this morning with a mixture of pride and deep sadness - pride for your thoughtfulness and initiative, and sadness at the "lesson" I fear the world has taught you: that it's safest not to reach out, not to get involved, not to commit such random acts of kindness.

Please don't listen to that message!

I am a pastor in rural North Dakota, and every other month I've led my confirmation class in a service project, so that they might learn the joy and blessing of working hard to help someone else. However you two young women learned it, it's clear that this is a lesson you've taken to heart. I can only hope that someday my own students will choose to spend a night making others' lives better and showing love to them, as you both did. Whatever is said in a courtroom, what you did was kind and good, and I hold you both in the highest esteem. Thank God that there are still people who think first of others! I know and pray that you'll continue to value kindness and service as you grow older. I doubt this will be the last outstanding achievement of yours to make the headlines! =)

I've enclosed a small check that I want you to put toward your legal expenses - or, if those are already covered, use it to fund your next adventure in kindness. Good deeds should be rewarded, not punished, and I'm glad if I can help shoulder the burden that's been placed on you and your families.

Hang in there, keep on lending a hand to your neighbors, and know that you are a blessing... not just to those you serve, but also to those of us you inspire.

THANK YOU for being the wonderful young women you are. God's richest blessings to you both.

Peace,
Bob Schaefer

More on how the cookie crumbled...

Here's the original story from the Denver Post.

HoustonChronicle.com - "Act of kindness will cost girls $900"

Two teenage girls who surprised their neighbors with homemade cookies late one night were ordered to pay nearly $900 in medical bills for a woman who says she was so startled that she had to go to the hospital...

The teenagers' families offered to pay Young's medical bills, but she declined and sued, saying their apologies were not sincere and were not offered in person.

It's a wonder people try to do anything nice for each other at all anymore. When teachers have to watch their backs if they put a hand on a student's shoulder, and teenage girls can get sued for committing a random act of kindness rather than going to a dance "where there might be cursing and drinking," it's enough to make me throw up my hands in disgust.

Once upon a time we commended people for doing unselfish, loving things for each other... now we're apparently just as likely to take them to court and milk them for what we can.

Slate: "Nutty for Nino - Antonin Scalia for chief justice. Seriously."

Or, as we used to joke back in AP Government, "Ave Scalia"...

The last reason Democrats should support Scalia is the most important and the most complicated: He's smart.

The high court has long been viewed by many as a bunch of political hacks who only got there because the president considered them pliant or sought to reward blind loyalty. That view coexists uneasily with the image of justices as the sage interpreters of our nation's laws—who got there because they're the wisest people in the land. Lately, the political-hack view has dominated, and that's a bad thing. Counterintuitive as it may seem, Democrats should work toward establishing a respected court, even if it's still dominated by GOP appointees.

If citizens believe that the grandest interpreters of our laws are merely black-robed political partisans, it's easier for the administration to treat them that way: The White House can choose candidates based on how loyal they are and how well they'd help the GOP in future elections. That's the way it is now, and that's why we've reached the peculiar situation in which Gonzales is a more likely nominee than, say, Richard Posner or Frank Easterbrook—conservatives who are also among the smartest appellate judges in the country.

Scalia's elevation would be a useful tonic. He thinks through issues logically and, unlike Thomas, he asks tough questions during hearings and writes terrific opinions.

NYT: "Our Battered Constitution"

The fundamental right in the case of the Guantanamo detainees is the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. A government with the power to spirit people away and declare that's the end of the matter is exactly the kind of government the United States has always claimed to oppose, and has sometimes fought. For the United States itself to become that kind of government is spectacularly scary.

In seeking the stay of Judge Green's ruling, the administration showed yesterday that it is committed to being that kind of government.

Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has filed legal challenges on behalf of many detainees, said the administration believes it has 'carte blanche' when it comes to fighting terror: 'It's pretty alarming.'

Need a Refresher Course in the Bible? Listen in on Popular "Genesis to Revelation" Class

Professor of Old Testament Craig Koester annually takes students in his January-Term course "Genesis to Revelation" on a whirlwind tour of the Bible. Koester brings the old stories to life through dramatic storytelling and song. Now, you can listen in on his popular lectures: Craig Koester - Genesis to Revelation

Requires RealPlayer

Half of Bankruptcy Due to Medical Bills -- U.S. Study

Seriously depressing news from Reuters:

Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said on Wednesday.

The study, published in the journal Health Affairs, estimated that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans every year, if both debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children, are counted.

'Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy,' said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School who led the study.

'Most of the medically bankrupt were average Americans who happened to get sick. Health insurance offered little protection.'

Geek Love Poem T-shirt

Now some of the greatest geek poetry ever composed can be yours on a simple t-shirt in time for Valentine's Day:

roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you

*LOL* I absolutely LOVE it!