Reebok hates babies.

Reebok hates babies. This patently unsafe image is proof.

Reebok hates children. Just FYI. Reebok encourages patently unsafe behavior. Reebok is bad for children.

What's going on in Blogoslavia

That is my cute name for the Orthodox web-log-o-sphere. I've been trying to make it a "thing" for a while, but it hasn't caught on.

Answer: mostly just a bunch of wankers talking about stuff. Apparently "homosexuality" is a big "thing" right now. An extremely polarized "thing" - which is to be expected. It's also extremely political, and explicitly so in the treatment of one side. This has the unfortunate side effect of allowing the treatment of those outside your bloc as a monolith without nuance and declining to hear anything they say. Of course, that right there is a characterization which you may not agree with. Fortunately for us all, the people that actually matter, for the most part, are not the ones spewing crap on web-logs. Some, unfortunately, seem to have some influence (AOI and its ilk, though, of course, they would claim that certain other groups they don't like have some influence, perhaps).

All I would say is that people should be careful of the rhetoric they use and not be dickheads. And ignore anything coming out of AOI and its constellations.

As a result of this, I've actually started posting on some forum or other. Intriguing. Some people are apparently very tightly wound and likely insane, and I say this not necessarily on the basis of discussions of this topic.

EDIT: Unlike, it seems, some of the AOI/Monomakhos/etc people, I approve of Metropolitan Jonah's approach outlined here if the outline does it justice. Particularly point #5: Homosexuality is a much smaller problem for the Church than heterosexual pornography, infidelity, and divorce. Much better than what the culture warriors and, for instance, Fr Josiah Trenham, seem to say. Also point #7: The bigger problem is people judging each other, gossiping about other people’s sins, and causing a lot of hurt. (A lot said on this.) See, by way of contrast, any discussion about Mark Stokoe in the last six months by anybody involved with AOI, OCA Truth, etc.

EDIT #2: It seems the commentors on monomakhos don't like Metropolitan Jonah's points at all. Well, I guess it's a twofer, then!

One thing I'm very curious about...

Is why I get google hits for "mr gzt" on this page. Okay, I know why they end up here, I'm flummoxed as to why people google "mr gzt". I don't sign off as that very often, in most places I'm just plain "gzt". Even if I did sign off as that, why would people google it? On most web-logs, I even put a link to this web-log when commenting, so there's no need to google. Most of my hits come from the venuleius site, by the way. I was curious as to whether people were clicking on my comment links or the links on the site itself, so I made the comment links point at my extremely boring and narcissistic chess site. I'm not linking to the venuleius site because I don't find it particularly helpful.

I would also just say that not informing on people is a fundamental aspect of interpersonal relations. I'm thoroughly disappointed whenever I hear of people "snitching" to their priest about gossip or somesuch.

Divorce, Sanctity of Marriage

Monomakhos, a web-log I don't particularly like, quite frankly, posted a piece about OCALaity's resolutions that they are submitting at the All-American Council this fall. The author's intro text says, "All are well aware of the continued assault on traditional marriage due to fornication, adultery, divorce, and same-sex unions." Emphasis added. I do like that he included divorce in this list.

The resolutions, however, do not contain the word "divorce" at all and only allude to it. It is of course true that, in certain circumstances, the Church allows divorce and remarriage. However, I would certainly argue that divorce is a far greater threat to "traditional marriage" than "same-sex unions" - though certainly far less than fornication and adultery - and therefore deserves at least an explicit mention in any resolution about the "sanctity of marriage". If George Michalopoulos can find room in the intro text on his web-log for the word, I'm sure the actual resolutions can as well. Divorce is the only thing on George's list, after all, that will end a "traditional marriage". I realize it's tricky to mention appropriately, but if you're going to tackle tough subjects, you have to actually tackle them. Otherwise, it's just political posturing.

EDIT: Of course, the big issue is not so much divorce but remarriage after divorce. If somebody divorces and remains celibate perpetually, there's not much to object to. However, neither Michalopoulos nor the resolutions refer to remarriage after divorce and only Michalopoulos mentions divorce.

What I'm Reading Right Now

I'm reading A Change of Heart, a book about the Framingham study, a groundbreaking longitudinal study which unraveled many of the mysteries surrounding the causes of cardiovascular disease. They're the people who coined the term "risk factor". It's amazing how far science has advanced in the last few decades. I got it for a penny off of Amazon, but it seems that the used price is now slightly more. I don't know that I would recommend seeking it out unless you are interested in the subject matter, but it is very good if you are. Of course, how can all these scientist jokers compare to an exercise cult? They will obviously be dwarfed.

Before that, I read The Fatal Shore, which is about the founding of Australia up to the end of the transportation system. This book is not only a wonderful history, but it well-written and enthralling. I highly recommend it even if you are not terribly interested in the subject matter. As a bonus, you can still get it off of Amazon.com for a penny (plus shipping). I first heard about this book while reading the Aubrey/Maturin series. O'Brian mentioned it as a valuable resource when writing about their trip to Australia and highly recommended it. It was a good recommendation. Interestingly, the author is an art critic, not a historian. There is some overlap in the training for the disciplines, to be sure, but it is not what I would expect.

Besides that, some chess books. Before all that, the Flashman novels, which you'll either love or hate. The last few get a bit redundant, but are interesting for their historical details, just like the boat books.

I haven't been reading much theology lately besides the lives of the saints and the OCA tabloids.

Good grief, OCA Truth is still silly. Ironic quotes.

Remember the last time a leave of absence was announced, how well that went? Making it public did how much good?

Of course, one could argue that the histrionics of the OCA Truth web site played a large part in "how well that went", given that they were publishing, on average, 2 articles per day.

I think OCA Truth here has succeeded in making another tempest in a molehill. I think they would do well to reconsider what the reply they published said, viz, "What is WRONG with you people that you’re filled with this much hate, pride and animosity?! If I were you, I’d go find something more important to do with your life than needling and ripping apart the Church you belong to." And, finally, I must, of course, comment on the irony of OCA Truth criticizing any web site for being indiscreet. The only thing they were ever discreet about was their own identities.

EDIT: Though it does make me mildly curious who has their hand up the puppet's back that OCA Truth cares so much about Fr Zacchaeus, or at least who would care enough to write them an (anonymous) e-mail for publication about it. Or perhaps everybody involved only cares about justice, transparency, discretion, etc, which is so readily evidenced by the rest of the contents of the OCA Truth web-log. OCA Truth publishes infrequently these days, so it's somewhat intriguing that they pop out and post two articles about some minor figure they've never met who should fade into obscurity (unless some scandal breaks later, but of course it won't if OCA Truth's righteous indignation is well-founded).