Quebec election

First, here is an article about an outreach that a good friend of mine, Jeremy Cummings, heads up. Very cool.

Second, for those of you who read this blog for my penetrating political analysis, here's my take on the Quebec election. I continue to point to my letter in First Things of over two years ago as being spot on. This election is no different. There is a Conservative voice in Quebec that was not eradicated in the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Dumont has given them a voice. It might be an erratic voice for a while, but it's a voice nonetheless.

What does this say about Quebec? Quebeckers are for Quebeckers. Big deal. Everyone is for their own province. That lots of people are now realizing it means bad stuff for the sovereigntists. That the Prime Minister knows that Quebec is a little different from the rest of the nation undercuts their identity.

What does this say about Harper? Hard to tell. He'll likely get more seats in Quebec in the next election, but that has lots to do with some wheel-greasing that's been going on for a while. The last election is not a cause, but the result of lots of work he's done. Some conservatives are realizing that Harper is even smarter than them: he realized that first you get the small c cons on board, then you get them all to move with you a little to the centre. The Left will always shout; the (small 'l') left will be more realistic. Harper's the man for many people right now.

What do we make of Dumont? Wildcard. Was a nationalist; became a federalist; I think he's just a Quebecker. That's why lots voted for his party. He realizes that Quebec is Quebec and that Quebec is in Canada and that Quebec is more than just the rest of Canada. The nationalists forget that when you identify yourself against the nation you want to separate from that you've already lost the battle. Separate from Canada and Quebec loses its identity. It remains different only to the extent that it's in Canada. That's what a federation is.

The Myth of Religious Imperialism?

Mark Noll, in a lecture at Roanoke College, has a tantalizing, but brief, argument concerning the culturally conservative element that follows Christian mission. As Christian missionaries have moved into new cultures, one of the efforts they often make is to translate the Scriptures into the indigenous language. This boon in literature, though, facilitates the writing of indigenous works that otherwise would not have been printed, which maintains space for the culture to survive in a new way. This has mixed results, however, as the translation of the Scriptures also provides material for certain cultural phenomena to continue, like polygamy.

I am not sure what to make of this, but I find it interesting, all the same.

The Jesus Fantasy

James Tabor's most recent post is the most honest of his posts yet. He admits to several things I have critiqued with him and does so unashamedly. His main point, yet again, is that we know how the world works; the New Testament has stories contrary to how we know the world works; we are right; therefore, the New Testament must be re-read in a symbolic and apocalyptic way.

Here's my critique: Seriously? Are we still at this? Do you really think this is such a devastating critique? The frustration that Tabor shows again and again in his posts with orthodox Christians is so easily turned back on him that I feel almost embarrassed pointing it out. He shares his disregard for one worldview in its ability to believe something, all the while arrogantly stepping on a premodern worldview just because he "knows" this is the case. (As though 1st c. people didn't know that dead people stay dead.) He remains "convinced that the evidence supports the view that [Jesus] was most likely reburied in a rock hewn tomb in Jerusalem, which well might have become a family tomb for other intimate members of his family." But this evidence disregards the earliest documents we have concerning the events; disregards the most plausible (in my opinion, of course) historical explanation of the emergence of the Jesus movement; is based in a post-Enlightenment worldview.

I'm tired and cranky. I haven't engaged completely with Tabor's thought, but there's not much there in his post to deal with. Once one gets past the ad hominems, it's one worldview against another. And since Tabor already knows that dead people don't come back to life, that 1st c. women need men to become pregnant, and that people don't walk on water, there's nothing to critique. The discussion is over.

Ecce homo.

Smoking and the Breath of Life

There is an anti-smoking commercial with a singing cowboy who has lost his tongue, apparently, to tobacco. The cowboy sings, "You don't always die from tobacco/Sometimes you just lose a lung./You don't always die from tobacco./ Sometimes they just snip out your tongue."

I think the commercial does an excellent job of showing concrete devastations of smoking. It is easier to think about losing a tongue than the vague, "Smoking kills." It also highlights the nature of verbal communication. As smoking takes your breath away by condemning your lungs, and by removing your tongue so is the person affected. Communication is an intricate element to human existence and speaking is one of the most intimate abilities. Without breath we cannot speak.

The other day I was listening to a lecture by Father Raniero Cantalamessa and he was talking about the importance of the Spirit and the spoken word. God's Spirit, or Breath (ruach in Hebrew), is the transmission of God's Word (Son). God's Word cannot be spoken without God's Breath; our words cannot be spoken without breath (as the singing cowboy illustrates). For this reason, Father Cantalamessa urged the preacher to remember the Spirit in the preaching of the Word. Without God's breath, the Word is not preached.

(Theological Question: What does this say about the order of generation? If God's Breath carries God's Word, then does the Son also proceed from the Spirit, as well? Where's Terry Tiessen when you need him?)

Does the Talpiot Tomb match the Gospel Accounts?

James Tabor's latest post on the Talpiot tomb seeks to show how the Talpiot tomb is consistent with the earliest sources we have, namely Paul and the gospels. Here I will show how his argument fails to fit with the gospels. (His article includes more than this, but this rebuttal will suffice for now.)

First, let me summarize Tabor's argument. Tabor argues that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was to be temporary, hastily burying his body because the Sabbath was coming. It would then be moved to a permanent site after the Sabbath. We get this from Mark, although Luke and John (with corollary material) agree. Matthew is discounted because it includes the detail, theological and dismissable, that the tomb belongs to Joseph of Arimethea. Because this tomb was temporary, we would expect it to be empty after the Sabbath.

Tabor's argument begins to falter by his dismissal of the Matthean text. While Matthew is the only gospel writer to include the detail that the tomb belongs to J of A, this is not inconsistent with the other gospels. To argue that the tomb does not belong to J of A because Mark, Luke, and John do not say it does is an argument from silence. Nothing in Mark, Luke, or John contradicts Matthew's claim. In a similar vein Mark, the earliest gospel, does not mention the the tomb is new although Matthew, Luke, and John do. Does this mean that Mark contradicts Matthew, Luke, and John? Of course not. That Matthew has included a detail that was otherwise unimportant for Mark, Luke, and John does not mean it is false.

Tabor's argument is definitively sunk, however, by his assumption that Jesus' body was reburied. Concerning after this original burial, Tabor writes, "What happened next in terms of when and how the corpse of Jesus was taken from that temporary tomb is unfortunately a matter about which historians can say little, given the theological nature of our sources, and their relatively late apologetic character." So what does he conclude? "One must assume that the corpse was taken and reburied, perhaps as soon as the Sabbath was over just after sundown Saturday night." This is strange, however, because all of the gospels agree that it was the same tomb that the closest friends of Jesus went on the Sunday morning (Mt. 28:1; Mk. 16:2; Lk. 24:1; John 20:1). Why, if the reburial of Jesus should be assumed, was it not by earliest characters? Moreover, wouldn't they have known about this move before Sunday morning? Why does Tabor believe it possible to take parts of the gospels as historical and others as theological? Moreover, why does Tabor feel free to take as reliable the parts of the gospel that fit his story, but reject the parts that do not? Regardless, while the gospels are consistent (actually the source) of a hasty burial of Jesus, they are not consistent with a reburial, which would have to happen for the Talpiot tomb to be consistent with them.

This means that Tabor can say the gospel writers are reconfiguring the events, but he cannot say that the Talpiot tomb is in accord with them. This does not mean the gospels are correct, of course, but it does mean an alternative story provided by the earliest sources we have.

Are the Talpiot statistics neutral?

Today's post by James Tabor is very interesting. He seeks to address the role of the statistician in doing math on the Talpiot. The Discovery Channel reported that 600 to 1 the tomb belongs to Jesus of Nazareth. This means that 599 times out of 600, this conclusion will be true.

Tabor writes, "What the statistician is asked to do is to determine the probability of the cluster of names based on name frequency data in late 2nd Temple Jewish Jerusalem. It is a relatively simple task. That is it." Tabor is seeking to defend the stats that have been arrived at by Andrey Feuerverger, the statistician, in my opinion, because this is the only piece of evidence that supports the conclusion to which Tabor leans.

However, something is amiss in Tabor's defense. He writes, "Nothing in Feuerverger's math determined or informed the next step of the analysis, namely the issue of whether these names, rare as they have been shown to be in this cluster, are 'highly appropriate' as names for the Jesus family." This is true. The math does not make specific assignments, but it already assumes that certain names are highly appropriate and that the (quoting Feuerverger) "results of any such computations are highly dependent on the assumptions that enter into it. Should even one of these assumptions not be satisfied then the results will not be statistically meaningful." What are some of these assumptions (found at the above link, too)? That names on the ossuaries (the Mariamenou e Mara is appropriate for Mary Magdalene; that Yose is appropriate to Jesus' brother Joses), are highly appropriate for people we know associated with Jesus. In this way, the conclusions are indeed worked into the math before the historians work it out the conclusions. It assumes that certain names are highly appropriate for certain people we know associated with the person whose identity we are trying to figure out, which makes it highly probable that the person will end up being attached to the people we are already assuming. Let me say it like this. Suppose I know a person named James Doe, who has a best friend named Jill Smith and a brother named John Doe. I find a piece of paper that is addressed to "James" and signed "Love, Jill and John." If I assume that Jill is highly appropriate to Jill Smith, and John is highly appropriate to John Doe, then I will automatically increase the probability that the "James" to whom the paper is addressed is James Doe. Now, this is not a parallel situation, as whether or not the assumptions made on the tomb names are appropriate is an important dialog to have. But they are assumptions in the original calculations.

The stats that Tabor is defending just aren't so neutral.

Weekend tidbits

A few things of varying importance this weekend.

1. James Tabor has a good post on the Talpiot Tomb. I think his citation of J.D. Crossan and various comments on the doctrine of the Ascension belie the neutrality of his tone in this piece, but the quieter tone he uses, which he has been calling for himself, is a welcome.

2. We had a crazy storm here that has left a lot of snow.

3. "Go Big (Green) or Go Home," I guess.

4. The irony of Boisclair's racial remarks is that there is no irony. The party centralized in the most "progressive" of all provinces has a history of such remarks (JP and the 1995 referendum!). Even more terrible is the lack of response by Charest and Dumont. Honestly.

Pick your Poison: A Girardian Reflection on Cain and Abel

Seeing that God accepts Abel's sacrifice of meat, but not his of fruits of the soil, Cain gets angry. God does not leave Cain alone, however, he speaks with him and warns him of the danger of his attitude. Cain does not listen and sees his jealousy flesh out in Abel's murder. God's punishment of Cain is that the ground will no longer be his livelihood and that he will be a wanderer. However, Cain marries, his wife gives birth, and he builds a city (4:17).

Girard argues that the Israelite sacrificial system, in its brutality and explicitness, uncovers the scapegoat phenomenon (ganging up on one person of a group in order for it to be reunified and protected) and works against human sacrifice. In this story, obviously prior to Israel, Abel and Cain both bring offerings to the Lord, both of which will have a place in the sacrificial system of Israel. From Girard's view, though, Abel's makes more explicit the nature of violence which endangers society. The rivalry that develops between Cain and Abel ends in murder and leads to Cain's city. If animal sacrifice is to uncover the scapegoat violence, is it possible that the story conveys that not participating in this violent practice leads to human violence? That the story confirms the necessity and benefit of violence--the founding of a city, but also a different form of violence for those who follow Abel? If this is true, the value of sacrifice is not in it being an animal over grain (hence the silence on God's reason for selecting Abel's offering and not Cain's), but in its deferral of violence to non-humans. Is it possible the story indicates that violence is necessary for the post-Fall, pre-Jesus society and that neglecting one form will lead to the worse one?

Extending the right hand of fellowship to James Tabor

James Tabor has a post today on the presuppositions and prejudgments of those working with the Talpiot Tomb and how they break people into one of three categories. I want to interact with this post a little bit to show my own position. Let me summarize his three basic categories:

1. Those who have prejudged the evidence and believe this is Jesus of Nazareth's tomb and disproof of Christianity. (These are mainly avowed atheists, church burnouts, etc.)

2. Those who have prejudged the evidence and believe this cannot be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. (This is comprised, mainly but not exclusively, of orthodox and conservative Christians.)

3. Those who would like to see an open and honest investigation of the evidence. This group mainly should not "care" how the evidence plays out.

As Prof. Tabor sees the first two views as deficient, he presumably opts for the third, along with the majority of the academics he says have emailed him. These three options are fine, but incomplete. Here's why.

It seems that Prof. Tabor is aware of the inherent modernity of his view. He notes the difficulty of not prejudging evidence and yet finding oneself in a "location," or with an opinion. He writes, "No historian can be absolutely objective and all of us need a 'place to stand' from which we ask our questions. However, in the academic enterprise there is really no place, even on a topic as sensitive as this one, for prejudging the evidence.... In other words any kind of cultural or theological considerations should not come into play in evaluating evidence."

This is a strange comment considering the theological and cultural presupposition that Tabor makes with regard to dead bodies and decomposition. Critiquing another scholar, Tabor writes that this scholar "clearly does believe that Jesus, as any human being, died and his body decomposed" (emphasis mine). Prof Tabor also wrote in a comment on this blog, "Yes, I do think that Jesus died and returned to the dust, as do all human beings" (emphasis mine), though Tabor still believes in some form of resurrection. If the belief that all human beings die and decompose is not a prejudgment of the evidence, then I am not sure what would qualify as such. (Prof. Tabor also caricatures the doctrine of the ascension and thereby reveals a less than completely fair assessment, which I won't go into.) Placed in the context of 20th century Western society, this belief in dead bodies and decomposition is cultural. Other cultures have been open to physical resurrection. Placed in the context of the NT faith community, this belief is also theological. Prof. Tabor does not meet his own expectations for position #3. If these are the only 3 options, then Tabor must find himself in position 1 or 2. I don't think Tabor is in position 1, though. So, let me suggest a new category.

Tabor writes, "I remain convinced that the evidence regarding the Talpiot tomb, deserves a fair and honest evaluation." I agree with him. But I will passionately defend what I have considered to this point in my faith journey without feeling the need to return to a conclusion-free stance in considering this evidence. This is exactly what James Tabor is doing, as well. This evidence must be weighed and considered against the prior evidence that has come to light thus far, even if prior evidence is peripheral to the Talpiot tomb. There is nothing unfair or dishonest in this approach. Ironically, neglecting previous beliefs formed and shaped by evidence in the consideration of the Taliot tomb would be anti-objective (neglecting previous evidence) and subjective (I choose to reject previous evidence). Passionately engaging in this debate, whether by critique or by support for the Tomb, from within one's own faith journey is a fine option. Welcome to the club, Prof. Tabor. Here's my hand.

Forgetting Where You Come From: A Meditation on Joseph

Let me first summarize part of Joseph's story:

Joseph finds himself in jail because of trumped up sexual assault charges. He is innocent, but still finds himself in jail. Even there, however, God is kind with him and places him in a management role. Some time later, two new inmates arrive: a cupbearer and a baker. Apparently they have offended their master, perhaps he suspects them of a plot (who better to conspire together but the baker and the chief taster?), and they are jailed. The person who had Joseph thrown in jail, however, sees them placed under Joseph's care (40:4). (I have a suspicion that this captain of the guard, Potiphar, the captain of the guard (39:1), understands injustice in some form: rather than killing Joseph for assaulting his wife, he merely jails him. The Pharaoh then jails the baker and taster in the house of the captain of the guard, which is where Joseph's prison is [40:1-4].) Both the baker and the taster have dreams that Joseph interprets. The taster will be restored! The baker will be hung. Both of these events come true. But Joseph, even after urging the taster to remember him, is forgotten. (Perhaps the taster has good reason to forget Joseph: If your suspected conspirator is hung, you don't want to put your neck out on the line! Plus Joseph is in charge at the captain of the guard's house and there seems to be a wink-wink nudge-nudge thing going on there. This seems somewhat confirmed when the taster calls Joseph a servant of the captain of the guard--his pre-sexual assault post[41:12].) Anyway, two years pass and the taster is still alive and remembers Joseph. Joseph comes and interprets Pharaoh's dreams and is put in charge of Egypt. Ultimately the people of Egypt are saved from famine. But Joseph, in the meanwhile, has two sons: Manasseh and Ephraim. Manasseh is so named because Joseph has forgotten his trouble and his father's household; Ephraim because God has made Joseph fruitful in the land of his suffering (41:50-52).

Now some reflections. First, and I owe this point to Dr Jeff Crosno, pastor at a Nazarene Church in Bourbonnais, Ill., the Joseph story refigures how we are to think about power. Joseph, a slave, a foreigner, a prisoner consistently ends up in places of power because of God. Dr Crosno pointed out that it is the most powerful who look for Joseph--who by all accounts is powerless. When God is involved, the slave, foreigner, outcast (though egotistical!) is sought after. However, Joseph, methinks, forgets this. He is always mindful that interpretations come from God and they are not open to his reworking. God is also behind the famine: God is sending plenty of food; God is sending famine (41:28-32). But in the sending of the plenty of food, Joseph does not treat the food as God's gift, but as Pharaoh's resource. If the food is God's gift, it is to be given to the people; but treating it as Pharaoh's resource means that it can be sold and enslave the hungry. Joseph has forgotten that he was slave, foreigner, and prisoner, as Manasseh's name makes clear; Joseph has forgotten his household, his previous identity. Second, there is irony in Ephraim's name, so named because God has prospered Joseph in the land of his suffering. What's ironic is that in Joseph's prosperity and not treating the food as a gift from God to all, the land becomes one of suffering for all his descendants.

I know one man who never forgot that one small town was his "Big Apple" and his descendants remember. If God grants any of us favour, let us remember where we come from.

Missing the Cemetery for the Tombs

Days since I have been accused of slander: 2.
Days since the Talpiot Tomb could be considered meaningful to early Christianity: 4018.

The way one considers the evidence (read: name cluster) of the Talpiot Tomb is the source of dispute. For some, evidence counts for the re-working (I won't say disproving) of the Jesus narrative. For others, the Jesus narrative itself is distanced from this tomb because of some of its factors.

First, let me consider Prof. Tabor's blog from today.
1. Prof. Tabor quotes a friend of his, David, who highlights the rarity of name clusters. This, of course, is the point of debate. David uses his own family as an example of rare name clusters. This, of course, is a red-herring as the probability of the names he cites are far rarer than the Jesus tomb clusters. (I am sure that Aaron son of Ellard, Brother of Tim, Brother of Paul is pretty rare. Maybe the only one in Canada. But this doesn't show the probability of the Jesus Tomb name cluster.) Prof. Tabor also uses his own family as name cluster--again making the same error as his friend David. Name clusters are fascinating and worth comparing. But one cannot move between 20th c. names and 1st c. names to make the point.

2. Prof. Tabor says that the statistician did not use "Mariamenou [he] Mara" as being Mary Magdalene. This is correct. However, Andrey Feuerverger says that he assumed that "`Marianemou e Mara' is a singularly highly appropriate appellation for Mary Magdalene." That a name is highly appropriate is not the same as saying it is the person. It does, however, skew probability, making the name "more probable" to be connected with Jesus of Nazareth because of what we know about their relationship. The assumption that this was appropriate for Mary Magdalene had connections with the Acts of Philip, which is not an historical document, and which Randy Ingermanson points out actually makes Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany the same person. Strange to apply this assumption to the probability, then. What makes it even stranger still is that Richard Bauckham has suggested this isn't even the same name as in the Acts of Philip. The probability therefore *increases* for connecting a Mary with a Jesus son of Joseph (still a question worth considering). Now that that's cleared up...

3. Prof. Tabor uses the familial inscription on the James ossuary to bolster the case. But this is misleading. First, it has not been demonstrated, as Prof Tabor points out, that the James Ossuary has not been demonstrated to have been found in the Talpiot tomb. Second, part of the reason the James ossuary is of importance is the inscription "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus." It is extremely rare to have inscriptions of "brother" on ossuaries unless the brother is exceedingly famous, which, of course, Jesus of Nazareth came to be. This evidence does not, however, add to the name cluster in the tomb for it being Jesus of Nazareth, partially b/c the Jude ossuary does not have this inscription (being Jesus' brother). We have a Jude ossuary found in the same tomb as a Jesus son of Joseph ossuary. (Important: One wonders why James, who was better known in the 1st c. early church would have the inscription "brother of Jesus" while Jude, who was not as well known and would have needed the added information for identity, would not. One could argue that by being buried in the same tomb that the connection would be made for its discoverers, but then one suspects that the James ossuary would not have been found in the Jesus tomb [why the added info if he's in Jesus of Nazareth's tomb?], or that his ossuary was at least moved there. But if it was moved there and the Jesus of Nazareth tomb was well known enough to be found years later, then the rise of early Christianity, especially in Jerusalem and its Jewish roots, makes no sense.)

Second, Randy Ingermanson also points out that the discovery the Judah son of Jesus actually points against it being Jesus of Nazareth for reasons I've talked about on this blog before. Why would no historical sources record such a son? There are no historical, theological, or personal reasons this would have happened, that I can think of, at least. Indeed, such a son would have been pivotal in a Jesus movement after his death. This fact does not count as evidence for it being Jesus of Nazareth. It is, at best, a fact to be interpreted after one decides it is Jesus of Nazareth.

Violence and Christianity

Days since I have been (ridiculously) charged with slander: 1.
Days since the Talpiot Tomb could be considered meaningful to early Christianity: 4017.

David Murrow's book, "Why Men Hate Going to Church" has been recommended to me by both academics and popular. I hear it's really pretty good.

However, I cannot agree with the assumptions of his analysis between Islam and Christianity in this article. Assumptions that I see bleeding through:
1. Religion must deliver ("Men need to know Christianity works").
2. Religion should appeal to base instincts in people (i.e., "a gut level").
3. Tougher lines in the sand means numerical growth.

Let me address these:
Re: 1. Religion must deliver. This, of course, begs the question, "Deliver what?" Deliver power? (If so, power over what?) Framed in the context of Islam and its male-domination of power, Christianity cannot deliver. In fact, it is meant to disrupt the delivery service. Of course, the Christian faith is one of life change, and so it should help people achieve life change, but exactly what the change is might not be what the man wants to hear.

2. Religion should appeal to "gut levels." Frankly, no. It might; it might not. Many times Christianity calls people to control gut levels--food, water, sex, shelter. Murrow's use of Islamic ferocity as appealing is the perfect example. Christians are not to be ferocious (in violence).

3. Tougher lines might mean numeric growth. I agree with Murrow that this is why conservatives are growing and liberalism declining. However, it is not an assumption, when linked with Islam, that I think serves the point. Recalling New Testament commitment would be much more appropriate.

More importantly, have I avoided slander in this post?

Avoiding Libel and Dealing with Tragedies

Let's see if I can avoid the (unwarranted) charge of slander today. Here's hoping!

Frances Young shared at the Wesleyan Theological Society on Friday morning about suffering and the holy life. I will not give a summary of her excellent lecture, but I will share one part. She talked about suffering and tragedy, even from the personal perspective of raising a disabled child. She drew some of her thoughts to a head by saying we need a wider historical perspective of suffering and tragedy. When we take a wider historical perspective, we see that suffering and tragedy is just the way life is. Everybody suffers and it should not come at us as a surprise. It is the media, not Scripture, that presents tragedy and suffering as surprise. When we remember that suffering is not surprising, we are much better equipped to deal with it. Now Young believes that we can move from realizing that suffering is not the most serious thing; sin is.

Tombs and Tragedies

It seems that fewer and fewer are supporting the Talpiot tomb. Except for James Tabor. (An anonymous person alerted me to his blog a few days ago in a comment and I've been reading it ever since. It's a study of irony, par excellence.) First, Tabor is annoyed with Witherington, Bauckham (seemingly), Bock, and all others who work to discredit the tomb. His reason is that they have rejected the evidence before considering it and are not using proper tone. The irony is that it seems Tabor has a belief in a dead and decomposed Jesus before coming to this tomb. That would skew the evidence at least as much, no? Second, Tabor's own tone gets a little edgy, himself, pointing out things he believes incredible about Witherington (but saying he's not poking fun). Third, while the evidence against the tomb continues to mount, Tabor keeps coming back to the name cluster. While this is not surprising in itself--it's the only evidence there is--the irony is so much sweeter. Tabor keeps seeking for objective, verifiable evidence and urges others to consider the evidence in a like manner. But the name cluster's power is in **narrative.** It is an amazing name cluster, to be sure, and one that warrants a second and third look, but after these looks, what's left is only a compelling narrative of a family united in their deaths and loyalty to a dead Messiah. The irony fleshes out most easily now: How do you verify a story?

Let me finish this off by turning Tabor's question back at Tabor. Tabor keeps pointing out the level of protest, interpreting it to be necessary apologetic by those simply committed to a faith that is now (literally) dead. The more one protests, the more emotional and less objective one has become. But this itself is an interpretation of the act of protest and a form of protest! Methinks the charge of too much protest cuts two ways...

The tragedy is that I cannot write about Frances Young's tremendous lecture at the WTS on Friday and will have to wait until tomorrow.