I'm just trying to keep up with the trendy topics

Just like everyone else, I have something to say about what our first lady is wearing.

As a knitter, a sewer (the kind that makes things with fabric as opposed to the kind that harbours strange smells and rats), and someone who is attempting to dress better, I appreciate beautifully-designed and well-made clothing. And I appreciate the privilege of being able to choose what I wear in the morning.

That being said, it frustrates me how the media expects Mrs. Obama to wear a new outfit everytime she attends a public function. I would be delighted to see our first lady repeat a prior outfit for her appearances.* Not everyone can, nor needs to, buy something new for every new party, conference or fundraiser. And perhaps if people wore more of the same outfits to these events, we’d talk less about what people wore and more about what the event was about. (Is it frustrating for Mrs. Obama that people seem to talk more about her clothes than what she's accomplished or what she is going to do as the first lady?)

It is sad when so much public effort is dedicated to anticipating, observing and criticizing appearances. Does it say something about our country that we care more about inaugural ball gowns than economic stimulus packages? But to be honest, it’s more interesting to look at pictures of Michelle Obama’s clothing and comment on whether or not I like it, than it is to read the full text of the economic stimulus bill and try to figure out whether or not it will work. I guess I never said I wasn’t part of the problem. Back to knitting I suppose?


*And obviously, given the amount of media attention around her outfits, I would love to see Mrs. Obama buy and wear ethically-produced clothing. She already seems intent on supporting smaller, local designers and I would love to see the same enthusiasm for fair-trade, union-made or cooperative-made clothing.... My opinions are so predictable, aren’t they?
** And related to my previous entry, I am thrilled that Obama called the $20 billion worth of Wall Street bonuses shameful. We need to return towards an ethic of integrity and responsibility towards one another, rather than lowering ourselves to the least common denominator of legality.

where’s my $100 million bonus?

Nonprofits get criticized all the time for being inefficient. Our sector is told that we must operate more like for-profits so less money gets wasted.*

So shall we go off and buy jet planes with our donor money? Citigroup did it. Or why don’t we renovate our executive offices with crystal chandeliers and mahogany furniture? Former Merill Lynch’s former CEO certainly thought that doing so would improve his productivity. Or why don’t we give our employees exuberant bonuses? It’s the only way we can make sure they will return to work.

Our sector has had its share of scandals and has not always used donor or government money responsibly, but hardly do we emulate the excesses of Wall Street even in its post-bailout days.** We may sometimes shuffle around paper and spend tons of time trying to get organized (most likely because we’re not funded sufficiently to invest in the proper infrastructure and technology!), but we do a lot with a dollar. And even if every dollar that goes to a nonprofit doesn’t go directly to paying for a bed for a homeless man, it’s at least providing a job and a salary to an employee.

There’s a fear that if more money goes towards “administrative costs”, some nonprofit employee is getting rich. Let me assure you this is rarely the case. Most employees at nonprofits are hardly paid enough for the work that they do, and almost any nonprofit organization stretches each dollar for the maximum benefit possible. Every Fed-Ex mailing, every new printer toner, every maintenance repair is questioned and cut back if possible. Nonprofits can be penny pinching extraordinaires. Buildings with broken roofs, lack of air conditioning, and old donated computers are commonplace.

Wall Street suggests far more wasteful spending and inefficiency than the nonprofit sector. Maybe Wall Street can learn some frugality from the nonprofit sector.

Done rant. (Yes, I have been ranting about Wall Street A LOT. I’ve been meaning to stop, but they just keep doing things that make me angry.)


* Lots of donor advisory articles and websites, such as Charity Navigator tell you to look at the infamous “administrative” vs. “program” expense ratios. The underlying message: Nonprofits should be spending money on program, and not on administrative expenses, because they need to be more efficient with their donor dollars.
** Though this doesn't surprise me -- I remember from my consulting days how we enjoyed food, booze, nice hotels and fancy parties on company dollars, without a thought as to whether we were using shareholder's or our client's dollars responsably. The indoctrination starts at an impressionable age.

a simple twist

how can anyone resist a well-formed cable?

In my first few months as a knitting newbie, I saw my mother-in-law knitting cables on a sweater. Having only knit shapeless charity sweaters and scarves, the cables looked incredibly complex and difficult to me. Much to my surprise, my mother said that they were rather easy and encouraged me to try making the same sweater. So I did. After an hour or two of intense concentration, I was pleasantly surprised to see the same beautiful aran cable pattern emerging:

And that is the wonder of cables, and most knitting in general—beautiful, complex-looking but often only a matter of following instructions to create. As some say, knitting requires learning two types of stitches, and the rest is just a matter of counting. Or to borrow the words of former President George W. Bush, it’s not “rocket surgery”.

Cables are made when stitches are knitted out of order—creating the effect of twisting or traveling strands. Many store-bought sweaters, especially the J. Crew and Gap variety, feature simple cables.

For those of you who would like further eye candy, here are samplings of cable designs that go beyond the Gap/J.Crew/Express variety:

• Most sweater designs have cables that run vertically but they can also run diagonally across a sweater.
• Sideway running cables can create beautiful yokes such as this Cable Luxe Tunic and this Tangled Yoke Cardigan (hopefully my next sweater project!).
• A few simple cables can create a gorgeous gathered front or celtic designs.
• Cables can also be used to create elaborate designs such as this wedgewood blouse.
• Twist Collective designs often prominently feature cables. I particular love this sweater coat, but doubt that I'd have the patience (or yarn money) to knit something of that scale.

And for those of you who do knit (I don’t know how many people who read this blog actually knit…I know that I’ve tried to teach a few people who read this blog how to knit in a rather imposing and imperial fashion…), here are some useful tutorials:

• General cable tutorial (in general, knitty.com has excellent tutorials... but really, you could just ask me and I will happily harass you with endless knitting instruction...)
• Cabling without a cable needle tutorial
• Unventing a cable – how to decipher a cable and figure out how it was knit

As for free cable patterns, the Knit for Kids Aran Sweater that I first made was a bit on the complex side for a beginner, but still doable. However, if you're looking for a shorter project, I would recommend trying a headband, a simple scarf or some fingerless mittens. The headband pictured below may also make a good first cable project, but it's not a free pattern. I used the Cabled Headband pattern from the book Knitter's Book of Yarn.**



* The black beret is knit with size 8 needles in Cascade 220 100% wool, based on the pattern Gretel
** The book is actually available from the Philadelphia Public Library, (if any branches still remain open...). I knit this on size 3 needles using Brown Sheep Nature Spun Worsted Yarn. You may see me sporting this around Philadelphia. It looks a bit like a halo because my head is so round.
*** On a side note, does anyone have good recommendations on how to post photos in blogger? I'd like to show more images on my knitting posts but can't seem to get around the annoying blogger interface...

evaluating just wars

This post was conceived earlier this year. Posting it now seems a bit outdated as the Gaza conflict has faded from the headlines, but then again, war and violence continue and so our discussion about their justice must also go on.

In this LA Times opinion article, writer Etgar Keret of the "The Girl on the Fridge and Other Stories,” responds harshly against the proportionality principle. The writer was responding to those who argued that Israel’s main injustice was not in retaliating, but in responding out of proportion. (This Economist article suggests something of that sort, but comes down a bit harsher on Israel).

Is there anything in the proportionality principle that can rationally justify killing of any kind?

The motives of vengeance, which drive us to kill those who have killed people we love, are completely irrational, even if we try to wrap them in rational packaging. We exact vengeance because we hate and are hurting, not because we excel in mathematics and logic. Early in the aerial bombing of Gaza, five young girls from the same family were killed, and many more children have died on both sides of the border in recent years. The attempt to introduce their bodies into an equation that would make their deaths justifiable or comprehensible might be necessary to influence current events, but it is still enraging.

The only equation I can wholeheartedly accept is one whereby zero bodies appear on either side of the equation. And until that time comes, I'll choose outcry and protest that appeal solely to the heart. I shall reserve my appeals to the mind for better times.

Walter Wink wrote over ten years earlier in Engaging the Powers:

Most Christians assume that any war that they feel is just, or merely necessary and unavoidable, is just. The just war criteria, however, are extraordinarily demanding. They presuppose that no Christian should be involved in a war unless it meets all or atleast most of the criteria. The burden of proof is always on those who resort violence.
We can easily kill oppressive rulers, but doing so makes us killers. We want to believe in a final violence that will, this last time, eradicate evil and make future violence unnecessary. But the violence we use creates new evil, however just the cause.
…
The problem is not merely to gain justice but to end the Domination System. Those engaged in a struggle for liberation may actually achieve a relatively greater degree of justice for their side, yet do so in a way that fails to address the larger issues of patriarchy, domination hierarchies, ranking, stratification, racism, elitism, environmental degradation, or violence. In the struggle against oppression, every new increment of violence simply extends the life of the Domination system and depends on faith in violence as a redemptive means. You cannot free people from the Domination System by using its own methods. You cannot construct the City of Life with the weapons of death. You cannot make peace – real peace- with war.
But we also cannot condemn those who in a desperation resort to counter violence against the massive violence of an unjust order. We must wish them success, even if they are still caught in the myth of redemptive violence themselves. Who knows? Perhaps their victory will usher in a better society able to divest itself consciously of some of its oppressive elements.
…
A nation may feel that it must fight in order to prevent an even greater evil. But that does not cause the lesser evil to cease being evil. Declaring a war just is simply a ruse to rid ourselves of guilt. But we can no more free ourselves of guilt by decree than we declare ourselves forgiven by fiat. If we have killed, it is a sin, and only God can forgive us, not a propaganda apparatus that declares our dirty wars “just”. Governments and guerrilla chiefs are not endowed with the power to absolve us from sin. Only God can do that. And God is not mocked. The whole discussion of “just” wars is sub-Christian.

subjecthood vs. objecthood

towards an ethic of integrity
(unfinished*)

I’ve ranted for quite some time about the need for integrity in our professional lives, which has become more evident with the recent economic crisis. Our society has functioned by obeying the letter of the law, with no regard for its spirit. We do what is legal, not what is right.

Martin Buber, a Jewish theologian, provides a principle that may be used to establish a framework of integrity. He describes two modes of relating with word pairs in his book I and Thou. The word pair “I-You” “establishes the world of relation”, which involves encountering the other as a subject, whereas the word pair “I-It” treats the other as an object, a thing to be experienced. This can apply to any sort of relationship, including between human and nature, and between human and God. In Buber's words:

The Life of human beings is not passed in the sphere of transitive verbs alone. It does not exist in virtue of activities alone which have some thing for their object.
I perceive something. I am sensible of something. I imagine something. I will something. I feel something. I think something. The life of human beings does not consist of all this and the like alone.
This and the like together establish the realm of It.
But the realm of Thou has a different basis.
When Thou is spoken, the speaker has no thing for his object. For where there is a thing there is another thing. Every It is bounded by others; It exists only through being bounded by others. But when Thou is spoken, there is no thing. Thou has no bounds.
When Thou is spoken, the speaker has no thing; he has indeed nothing. But he takes his stand in relation.

Buber’s "I-Thou" relation suggests Jesus’ bold command to “Love your neighbour as yourself.” To love another as ourselves, we must first behold another as ourselves, not just another thing to serve us. (And Buber later suggests that the “I” in the “I-It’ relationship is not as fully “I” as the “I” in the “I-Thou” relationship. To be fully “I”, we must fully behold “Thou”)

Our modern life is ordered to maximize the “I-It’ relationships and to avoid the discomfort of “I-Thou”. We buy from anonymous employees of large multi-national corporations, sit in front of the plasma screen to receive our daily dose of information and entertainment and travel by enclosed climate-controlled vehicles. Commodification is the theme of our generation and perhaps its most insidious impact is not obscuring people with things, but turning people into things. And as such, we have lost integrity in the professional world and failed to nurture authenticity in life.

How would this past year differ if we had aimed to treat others as subjects, instead of objects in our professional life? "I-Thou" instead of "I-It". The recognition of a common humanity, of the image of God.

Yet the implementation of “I-Thou” does not merely entail treating people we encounter extra nicely, it goes deeper. To fully redeem relations between people, social institutions that structure the relationships between people also require reform. “I-Thou” relationships cannot be created by some elusive ideal social institution, they ultimately require personal transformations. But institutions can be structured to enable “I-Thou” relationships to be more easily established and realized. Could slave-owners, even the really nice ones, truly have been in an “I-Thou” relationship with one of their slaves? Could a CEO making millions of dollars a year truly treat a minimum wage worker in his company as a “Thou”? Could I ever treat a homeless man on the street as a “Thou” rather than an “It”? We do not meet each other in a vacuum—an entire societal structure props up our encounters.

Whether we are traditionals who don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water, or revolutionaries who’d like to burn everything, or reformers who value gradual change, we should seek to reshape society, its culture and its institutions, so that “I-Thou” can flourish, and integrity and virtue can be recovered.


* I keep a Word document on my computer named dl_MONTH with unfinished blog entries. “DL” stands for “delete later,” suggesting that I will finish using the notes and delete the document. Scrolling through my unwieldy 24-page document, I find this prospect unlikely and am contemplating a less misleading name for the document. In any case, I am attempting to polish up and post some of these unfinished blog entries and atleast reduce the number of pages in the file. Funny enough, I recall having tried this once before without much success—the more reliable alternative is to save the unfinished “DL” file as BlogIdeas_2008 and start a new file called DL. Rinse and repeat!

knitting blog?

Sometimes the knitting bug hits hard and all I want to do is stay at home on the couch, watching some illegally downloaded TV series (LOST or Ugly Betty perhaps?), with my fingers wrapped in yarn.

I might write good reports or interesting blog entries, but nothing compares in quality with the satisfaction of creating fabric. From one dimensional string to two dimensional cloth to three dimensional garment. The pleasure of physical creation is embedded in each stitch of this seemingly repetitive and mundane activity.

I’ve been knitting for over two years and can now handle almost any pattern (aside from extremely thin lace-weight yarn and complex colourwork), and am becoming comfortable with the structure and math that goes into making garments. I find myself daydreaming about being a knitting designer—sitting at home producing patterns and then running around the countryside taking photos, and keeping a knitting blog of course. (Though to be honest, it may be another year or two before I will be able to design something on my own).

Perhaps my love of knitting has grown in recent months, because I finally sense that I might actually be good at something. While my previous delusions of writing grandeur have resulted in the beginnings of silly fantasy novels that I will never show anyone, atleast I have a few hats, socks and sweaters to show for this. But then you also have to wonder if this impractical activity is just a distraction from figuring out more important matters, like what I am actually going to do with my life.

But in the meantime, a few practical matters:
1. Should I start posting more pictures and information about my knitting/sewing projects on this blog? This could result in frequent posts cluttering up your blog feeds with flash photos of awkward poses, strange blogger formatting and chatter about what needles were used and how delightful the yarn was. Or, should I start a separate knitting blog? I fear that would imply too much of a split between my brain and my body… but I may be willing to sacrifice idealism for the sake of practicality and retaining readership (!)…
2. Crochet/Knitting group at my place on Monday night! Please figure out how to contact me if you’re interested. You’re welcome to come if you don’t know how to knit or crochet and would like to learn. You can also come if you’re male.

*The cardigan above is from the pattern Cherry, knit with Rowan RYC Silk Wool DK on size 4 needles.

I posted this excerpt from Walter Wink's Engaging the Powers a few weeks ago as a response to a comment on my entry on afflicting the comfortable. With Obama's inauguration coming up, it's been on my mind:

God did not create capitalism or socialism, but there must be some kind of economic system. The simultaneity of creation, fall and redemption means that God at one and the same time upholds a given political or economic system, since some such system is required to support human life; condemns that system insofar as it is destructive of full human actualization; and presses for its transformation into a more humane order. Conservatives stress the first, revolutionaries the second, reformers the third. The Christian is expected to hold together all three.

lazy blogger

These link posts are the easiest blog entries to produce. Then again, posts consisting entirely of quotations from books are also easy to produce. Perhaps if I continue this trend, I will start twittering, facebook status-ing and then I will need to take this seminar in order to re-writer’s block myself. (I compile these links and comments over time, so some may be a bit outdated):

2008 marked the demise of Wall Street and the humbling of the proud. Mr. Madoff’s ponzi investment scheme further reminds us that we need better monkeys. Meanwhile, rich folk who have lost lots of money may need better matchmakers.

Not that any of this short-term profit-driven excess should surprise us, since we’ve turned a blind eye to corporate abuses for years. In particular, wage theft has been in the rise as the economy tightens. We don’t just need a federal bailout, but an ethical bailout as well.

Until the 111th new Congress passes ethical bailout legislation, let’s read dystopic novels about how the world will end. Some suspect this is already happening:

• Argentina is experiencing a chronic moneda (coin) shortage. (oh no!)
• Though some experts fear stagflation (oh no the seventies!), inflation on a standard basket of Christmas goods (based on the 12 days of Christmas) has gone up by 8.1 percent this past year (oh no! inflation!)
• Colleges need to reconsider tuition rates and how much parents are subsidizing their children’s extracurricular activities (oh no! Penn's only all-freshman all-Californian all-opera-style a capella group won't get its annual funding from the university!)
• Publishers continue to advance large amounts of money to the likes of Sarah Palin (oh no!)
• Some are beginning to declare the end of the hipster (oh no! no more irony!)

While some things in this world may change dramatically, other things stay the same. It makes me sad when a man with as much power and influence as Blago could still be hungering for more. But there is hope for those who find themselves hitting rock bottom after climbing high on the ladder of power and influence. Maybe Blago will do something useful with his life after all of this-- maybe he will land a book deal like Joe the Plumber or a Slate column like Eliot Spitzer. America is the land of opportunity!

I’ve only talked about economics and politics and endtimes so far. Looking for something more light hearted? This website chronicles ugly prom dresses. It’s bound to keep you entertained for hours, or atleast a few minutes. If you’re looking for something unexpectedly beautiful, check out these toilet paper wedding dresses. And this knitter suggests some accessible classical music that you can listen to while you endlessly surf the web...

whoever fights monsters...

... should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.

~ Fredrich Nietzsche

~

Conquerors have all through history been conquered by those they conquer. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, proved either a shrewd student of history or a prophet when he reputedly said, “Even if we lose, we shall win, for our ideals will have penetrated the hearts of our enemies.”

~

World War II, many still feel, was a just, or atleast a necessary, war. Nonviolence as a means for settling international disputes is so recent—an international nonviolent movement (apart from the “peace churches”) dates only from 1914- that the means were simply not in place inside and outside Germany to mount an effective nonviolent alternative. It may well be that in ten or fifteen years we will be more prepared to respond to conflicts with an international outpouring of nonviolent resistance. So perhaps there was, tragically, no alternative at that time to war.

The point I am making is that even if a war does appear to be just, or atleast tragically necessary and unavoidable, it will inevitably require that relatively more just opponent (if there be such) to become increasingly molded into the likeness of its adversary. The greatest evils are usually perpetrated by people determined to eradicate an evil by whatever means necessary. War is not, then, a mere continuation of diplomacy by other means, as Clausewitz claimed. It marks the abject failure of diplomacy, and the adoption of means that have very little likelihood of achieving desirable ends.

~

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy”

~ Martin Luther King

~

Some of us engaged in struggles for social justice have been incredibly naïve about what has been happening to our own psyches. Our very identities are often defined by our resistance to evil. It is our way of feeling good about ourselves: if we are against evil, we must be good. The impatience of some activists with prayer, meditation and inner healing may itself represent an inchoate knowledge of what they might find if they looked within. For the struggle against evil can make us evil, and no amount of good intentions automatically prevents it from happening.

~

No wonder so many people, gentle and kind people, quiet and unaggressive people, find themselves saying at long last: “There’s only one way to deal with the Marcoses and Enriles. There’s only one way to deal with the Khmer Rouge. There’s only one language these people understand – we say it not joyfully, but reluctantly and sadly—the only thing they understand is the gun.”

To such people I say: Welcome home, welcome to the largest consensus the world has ever known: a consensus between east and west, between capitalist and communist, between mosque, church and synagogue. All agree that there comes a time when it is just to kill each other. Welcome home to the consensus on which our world is built.

Ultimately we are faced with two choices: to accept the “myth” of the just war, that as a last resort killing is moral, or to accept the ”myth” of nonviolence: we have no last resort, killing is never right. In the first case, we will come to the moment when the conditions for using violence are verified, when we reach the “last resort”. In the second case, believing in our “myth”, that violence is never justified, having no “last resort,” human beings come up with alternatives from the depths of their creativeness… We can and we will learn to live together, but only when we have closed off that escape route known as the last resort”

~ Niall O’Brien, “Making the Myth Real”

~

All of the above text, including quotes, are from the chapter “On Not Becoming What We Hate” in Walter Wink’s Engaging the Powers (Published in 1992). (Is the history of the world but a narrative of violence where right and wrong is determined by the victors? I suppose the answer is not so simple.)

no man's land

Terra nullius. From the Latin terra, earth, ground, land, and nullius, no one's
Thus: no one's land, land not belonging to anyboyd. Or at any rate, not to anybody that counts.
Originally: land not belonging to the Roman Empire.
In the Middle Ages: land not belonging to any Christian ruler.
Later: land to whcih no European state as yet lays claim. Land that justly falls to the first European state to invade the territory.

~ excerpt from Terra Nullius

I am not familiar enough with the Israel/Palestine history to have a strong opinion on the current conflict, but in watching the violence escalate, I am reminded of the near impossibility of forgiveness and redress for land appropriated and lives lost. It reminds me of how deeply our world is still rooted in the power of violence and how much of our world was established on the basis of dispossession.

We can condemn Israel's aggression (or defense, depending on your viewpoint) and condemn Hamas' terrorism, but we also need to be reminded that we have all benefited from violence. And when blood is shed and homes are displaced, it is not always easy to say who is more right or who is more just.

A re-posted excerpt from Terra Nullius, regarding the theft of land from Aborigines in Australia:

According to my Religious Education teacher in at secondary school, ‘contrition’ is at the core of all religions. It’s easy to make mistakes. Anybody can make mistakes, even commit crimes. The important thing is knowing how to feel contrition afterwards. That was why he began every lesson with the same question: ‘What constitutes contrition?’ To this day, I can still rattle off the answer in my sleep:
I realize I have done wrong.
I regret what I have done.
I promise never to do it again.
Today I tend to think these three criteria for contrition are far too introverted. ‘Realize’, ‘regret’ and ‘promise’ can all be done internally, in complete secrecy, without betraying any outward sign of realization of promise. Such an internal contrition process is precious little comfort the victim of the wrong I committed. And the promise is easily forgotten if nobody knows it was made. So the criteria should demand a more public process of contrition. Perhaps like this:
I freely admit that I have done wrong.
I ask forgiveness of those I have wronged.
I promise to do my best to make amends to them.
Here, the third criterion promises not only that I will not repeat the crime, but also that I will make efforts to put things right to the best of my ability. For the victims, redress is the most tangible result of my contrition and a measure of sincerity.
Can we feel contrition for other people’s crimes? Can we feel contrition for crimes we have not committed personally, but have subsequently profited from? How can we formulate the criteria for contrition to make them applicable to collective responsibility for historical crimes? Perhaps like this:
We freely admit that our predecessors have done wrong and that we are profiting from it.
We ask forgiveness of those who were wronged and of their descendants.
We promise to do our best to make amends to those who were wronged for the effects that still remain.
The larger the collective, the more diluted the personal responsibility. The less intimate the contrition, the greater the risk that it will just be hollow ceremony. A representative steps forward on our behalf, admits the wrong committed, apologizes, pays what it takes and appoints a committee to ‘monitor our practices’. Australia isn't even doing that.

lists*

I've been digging through boxes of my old diaries, photos and other knickknacks while at my parent's house. They are planning to sell their house in California, so I am trying to throw away more of my stuff stored at their place. Actually, this is not a new activity for me. I go through these boxes twice a year in my semiannual family visits in an attempt to cut down on the pamphlets and trinkets I've collected over the years. Every year, the vast majority of these inanimate objects end up back in their boxes because they are attached to some event or person-- I am afraid that if I throw the stuff away the memories will disappear along with them. I let go of these objects by photographing them. Yet this time, even after photographing old Playbills and movie stubs, I still stuffed a few travel brochures and postcards back into a box for old time's sake. Though I've managed to whittle down the contents of two dressers, two bookshelves, and two closest full, 12 boxes remain as a testament to my packrat qualities.

In glancing through my old diaries, I noticed several “year in review” entries at every New Year’s, birthday and even diary-end. (I used to personify my diaries, like Anne Frank, except I would name them after crushes—some parts of my past are perhaps better forgotten). I would write long reflections about the prior year and interpret my personal life themes. I abandoned that practice of self-contemplation and reflection towards the end of college. But 2008 was an important year, a milestone year in my nearly quarter-of-a-century long life, so perhaps I will inaugurate the new year with some lists.

memories of 2008 (the good, the bad and the ugly):
altar cloth scorch marks.
moving speeches from fathers.
nights climbs by flashlight up rocky slopes.
shiny kitchen gadgets.
warm tights.
hardwood floors, drafty windows and sunlight.
American citizenship and voting.
Martin Buber.
20,000 at 52nd and Locust.
Wall-E.
Phillies World Series Win.
Alan Greenspan.
Sarah Palin.
$700 billion dollars.
Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and many others… R.I.P.
$4 gas and $1.50 gas.
Foreclosures
Casino zoning in Philadelphia Chinatown.

hopes and dreams for 2009:
daily journaling and prayer (though I’ll settle for three times a week)
read read read write write write (and actually make submissions!)
knit knit knit sew sew sew
more blogging with more photos
using dried beans instead of canned beans
figure out what to do with my life
a growing awareness in our culture of institutional/systemic guilt and responsibility
executive compensation caps
a better economic system
world peace and an end to hunger and poverty
finish writing our wedding thank-you notes
finding a good pair of black flats
start practicing pilates again (I think the odds are for world peace over this)


* As a result of reading William Zinsser’s On Writing Well, I would like to make a concerted effort to write better. I will be experimenting with different writing styles so my entries may be hit or miss in the next while.