Sue had a great date the other night, which we were all excited about. She has a date with someone else next week, and she commented that he voted for Bush twice -- but is smart enough to regret it.
I pointed out in conversation that the 2004 election was bad choices all around, that I couldn't bring myself to vote for either candidate. I said I escaped the 2000 election 'cause I wasn't old enough to vote yet. Michelle said she forgets how much younger I am then her. I said I was only not old enough by a year. She said yeah but she was 23. I said oh, yeah, that's 6 years.
Sue, talking about her date, said in her match.com profile she was looking for a Democrat or a moderate Republican -- fiscally conservative, socially liberal, like a Giuliani or a Weld supporter would be okay. Trelawney was like, "Giuliani?," which is what I said in my head, having read an article recently (in some magazine at the laundromat -- The New Yorker, maybe?) bashing him, plus the sense I get from InstaPundit that he's mad authoritarian (this post, for example -- excerpt from the linked article: "Throughout his career, Giuliani has displayed an authoritarian streak that would be all the more problematic in a man who would assume executive powers vastly expanded by President Bush.").
In a different conversation, someone mentioned that in Rhode Island, more than 3 women living on one place is a brothel (I thought of orgies and socks).
Michelle said she heard that and the urban legends website says no.
I Googled later: http://www.snopes.com/college/halls/brothel.asp
Our handout had a whole bunch of Scripture readings, of which we read the following:
Matthew 6:19-21, 2 Corinthians 8:1-8, 2 Corinthians 9:6-15
I was pleased to see that one of the readings was "Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7) since I had just read a piece talking about that very issue.
Then we read excerpts from A Wesleyan Spiritual Reader.
I had responded positively to the idea of "gain all you can, so that you can give all you can" in a previous session.
Lovett Weems is quoted as saying: "John Wesley was always clear that money is an excellent gift of God. He was careful to insist that it is the love of money, not money itself which is the root of all evil."
I do not mean, avoid gluttony and drunkenness only: an honest Heathen would condemn these. But there is a regular, reputable kind of sensuality, an elegant epicurism, which does not immediately disorder the stomach, nor (sensibly at least) impair the understanding and yet (to mention no other effects of it now) it cannot be maintained without considerable expense. Cut off all this expense! Despise delicacy and variety, and be content with what plain nature requires.Both Michelle and Mike brought up the issue of art, in slightly different contexts, later in the discussion.
(Sermon 50, The Use of Money, Vol. 6, p. 131, as cited on p. 33)
I found it funny given a letter I'd read in the day's Metro (plus of course the above-mentioned link about compulsory giving) that Trelawney mentioned the WB/IMF etc. should encourage sustainable stuff.
Regarding "Banking on Bob" (June 26): I think the new World Bank President Robert Zoellick needs to justify why the multilateral institution he leads is still relevant. From 1985 through 2002, private loans and charitable giving to developing nations increased tenfold. In 2002, they totaled $380 billion, while foreign aid and loans from the World Bank, IMF and other multilateral organizations were less than $180 billion. In 1985, official flows were three times that of the private flows. Perhaps the World Bank should study the terms imposed by private lenders and behave more like a private bank. Otherwise, it will be represented as a meddling imperialist. Do you know anyone who would take out a home mortgage from a bank that required a solar-paneled roof? The World Bank should place its recipients' needs ahead of the progressive politics of its donors.At one point, Mike pointed out the oft-cited fact that Developed Nations don't go to war with each other and talked about the idea that moving from a warlord society to a consumerist society. I was like, "Yes! Free-market capitalism leads to societal secularism and world peace!" I hadn't thought to connect that idea to this discussion, but I've totally heard that idea before and am a fan."
I did ASL applause rather than actually move my hands to touch each other :)
Trelawney Affirmed something about me and her nieces and I said, But I barely interact with them? She said yeah, but she often notices me looking fondly at them. I said okay, looking fondly on them from afar, that I could accept.
Michelle to Mike: "I had an Affirmation for you, but it flew out the window."
me (is father's daughter, can't resist straight line): "If you leave now" (can't keep from laughing) "you can probably catch it -- I'm sorry."
Michelle: "No you're not."
me: "You're right."
Later, Meredith said something similar and Michelle kinda looked at me like, "What, you're not gonna insult her?" but however she had phrased it didn't lend itself quite as easily, plus it's less funny in such close repetition.
Trelawney opened with prayers for heat relief, and when it got to Michelle she said, "Thank you for making me hot." [This is bonus fun because she does in fact, like me, prefer the cooler weather.] Eric was the last one and said, "Thank you for making Michelle hot."
I told Michelle about how in the previous day's ASL class we had learned "hot" and "cold" and someone asked about "hot" as in an adjective for a person, and Alberto said it was the same sign and demonstrated, and Will quipped to me later: "So to make it a noun, you have to queen it up."