« Home | first post, upon which i ungraciously share my exp... » 

Monday, March 27, 2006 

the first one-fifth of a long post.... (there will be tables and chairs)

i should start with a quick anecdote.

i recently had lunch with one of my peers at smu -- he took the literary course for departmental distinction with me and a few other undergrads. anyway, he said something that i'll have to paraphrase for you here:

in college i just assumed i'd use my degree to work a shit job, drink a lot of beer and write bad poetry... now i'm working to get rid of poverty.

jeremy works for a dallas non-profit, a group that has great ideas and they make a real, tactile difference on a local level. it's great to do something you can be passionate about, right?

i went three days without bandwidth but glory be, i'm back on now. listening to andrew bird and gearing up for an afternoon of crazy unpacking.

another gargantuan blog post has been fermenting over the past month. this might just be the outpouring of thought that has stacked itself day after day, some thick introspection, a synapse i can't let go....


something that has struck me in a rather satisfying way is the push for social justice that i see in those i've been reading lately. it's a common thread that is woven into the narratives of thinkers and preachers from tony campolo to richard rorty.

i think that may just be the last time i'm allowed to use the tapestry metaphor. shrug.

when i attended the emergent convention (tennessee, april of 2004) i was impressed by the leaders there who spoke against the iraq war. it was very courageous to take that stand given the bush approval rate at the time.

but why should one be surprised that christians would stand up for human rights, decry unnecessary death? it is too easy to assume that bush (and the "christian right")'s policies are somehow fundamentally christian, that a follower of jesus must believe there were wmd's and we were liberating those people.

i acknowledge that pacifism is not a pragmatic position in many circumstances (even i am not a fundamentalist pacifist) --

what i'm trying to get at is that our invasion of iraq has caused more human suffering than it alleviated. i was utterly moved to hear that spoken from the pulpit (or lectern/podium) almost two years ago.

i'm circling around a bit, trying to get to volf and rorty ----- because i think the former was unfair and just plain wrong in his critique of the latter.

both philosophers have the same goal: social justice. the eradication of human suffering (from genocide to poverty.) they just have different methods, different hopes for actualizing this ideal.

the distinction is that volf snidely dismisses rorty's approach. he mis-re-presents rorty's argument.

i just realized that i left volf's exclusion and embrace at my other house (i just moved). i'm going to have to get it so that i can provide evidence and a solid argument.

more to come.


get andrew bird's album.

don't worry about the atmosphere, or sudden pressure change.

i'm off to clean the kitchen and unpack. cause there will be snacks, there will.