So Brian Said

Fight the power.
--McJangles 5:52 PM
|

I finally got around to the IQ test Laura linked to. It appears I'm a visionary philospher, and I'm also just as adept at mathematical tasks as I am at linguistic ones. Either they're making fun of my copy-editing skills or I guessed pretty well on the math questions. 135, overall.

Afterward, it tried to match me with other people in my area who took the test. Apparently, the Midwest wasn't even a big enough area for them to draw upon. I got nasty hoes from Washington, California and Texas. Check this one out. Her turn-ons include money. She's looking for a fling. What a nice young lady.
--McJangles 2:27 PM
|

In other news: Jack White, you're a genius. Meg, you're gorgeous.

In other news: I got fired from Sign-A-Rama. No, really. I love it.

The real post:

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate Regina Brett? That stupid, annoying, pretending-to-be-a-Jew, boring, lame-ass excuse for a writer. Ugh.

Anyway, for the second time EVER, I think she's written something fantastical. Nice work, Reggie.

Hit Michael's page for the response the Cleveland Diocese has instructed its seminarians to provide. Read on for mine.

The problem that Michael has in his rebuttal is that he has been thoroughly sucked in to the Catholic way of thinking. "This is how we've done it; we can't do it another way. That would be immoral!"

For example, Michael misses the point in the first quote he cites. He may not have read the paragraphs surrounding the one he uses. (Regina in italics)

Right now the diocese has 235 churches, but only 13 are run by lay administrators. That needs to change. Well, yes, though only 13 have lay administrators who control a church like a manager controls a store, every single parish has lay administrators in some aspect of running the church: pastoral councils, youth ministers, administrative assistants, business managers, and so on and so forth. And technically, it is, always has been, and always will be up to the pastor of a parish to have the final say in what happens to his church.

Brett wants the church to make that not the way it is: "Why not take the burden off the priests by putting all administrative duties in the hands of the laity? Hire administrators who have business degrees or experience in accounting, marketing, human resources and nonprofit management.... If it did, priests could focus on sacramental work like saying Mass, hearing confessions and anointing the sick and dying."

Make all those jobs not be priesty jobs, but real people jobs instead. Kind of makes sense. Priests have enough to do, do they not? I think so. Do a lot of priests not quit early on? I believe they do. Does something not working for the last 40 years sound like a good reason to keep doing it? I think not. Next.

There is no shortage of people in the pews, so turn the church over to them. Guess what? Half of them are women. It's time to give them a place at the pulpit. Let them preach on Sundays. You don't have to call it a homily. Call it a reflection. Nope that’s not going to happen either. The only time we allow for reflections is after the Eucharistic celebration and right before any announcements. So, when I went out to St. Julie Billiart for the vocation weekend, it was clearly stated to me that we were not to go up during the time allotted for the homily, because that is when the priest is to preach on the gospel. And some churches out in California tried to do this very idea, and the people hated it. Why would they have some guy up there who has far less experience with and knowledge of the scriptures than the pastor of the parish talk about scriptures? It just doesn’t make sense. So not only did the people hate it, the bishops but an ax to that right quick.

Here we go again. Something never working is a reason to change, not to keep it up. Let's allow different things to happen at different times during Mass. Let's allow different people to do things they weren't allowed to do before. And the reason women aren't regarded as having the same expertise and background is because the church has systematically kept them from being on equal footing as men.

Make [women] deacons so they can baptize, perform marriages and lighten the load. Most theologians don't see that raising a doctrinal issue as does the ordination of women. Well that last statement could only be true if the question asked to the theologians was "Should women be allowed to baptize?" Because the answer is yes, and so you can and so can I, and so can a Jewish rabbi.

Michael misspoke here. What he was trying to say was, "The question asked to theologians dealt only with baptism, and they were OK with that. Not so with the other sacraments." Nonetheless. If I can baptize some kid an hour before his real baptism, just because I want to (Michael assures me that this is permissible), why can't I marry two people? We've got our sacrament-licensing requirements all out of whack. Take a look at who does what.

Baptism: Anyone.
Reconciliation: Priests only.
Eucharist: Anyone.
Confirmation: Bishops only, unless you're being baptized at the same time, then a priest can do it.
Marriage: Deacons, priests.
Ordination: Bishops only.
Last Rites: Priests only.

Is the thinking that anyone should be able to perform important sacrements, so that no one can be denied them, or is it that important ones need to be performed only by priests, who have adequate training, authority and understanding? Nope, you're wrong. The pope just rolls the dice to decide who does what.

Baptism is the first welcome into the church. Irrevocable. Very important. We'll let anyone do it.
Reconciliation is atoning for your sins. For some reason, you are encouraged to talk to God every day. God will always hear you, and God will always answer you. Oh, wait. Except when you want to ask for forgiveness. Then you need to talk to a priest, who will forward the request to God for you. But then God has to look into your heart to see if you're sincere in your request. For whatever reason, he can't do that when you ask him yourself. We clearly need an ordained minister for that.
Eucharist: THE most important sacrament. Should be held in the highest regard and treated with the utmost respect. So we'll let anyone distribute it.
Confirmation: "Are you sure you want to be Catholic? Are you sure you're sure? Are you sure you're sure you're sure?" We clearly need bishops for this one.
Marriage: 50-50 bet that we're just gonna throw this one in the garbage can in a few years. We'll need an ordained minister for something we take so seriously.
Ordination: This one actually makes sense. Good work, church!
Last rites: This guy's about to die. We'll wait for a priest to show up before he can be forgiven for whichever sin is about to send him to hell. Right.

Maybe we should reassess our handling of the sacraments. And we probably should come up with reasons other than "That's what we always do."

And yes, the bishops need to address the elephant in the sanctuary: Opening the priesthood to women and married men. Just as Jesus didn't pick women to be part of his twelve, he also didn't pick married men. The reason the church won't allow married men to be ordained as a priest is because the priests primary call is to the church and the parish he serves. Having a family would muddle that up. What about permanent deacons, you ask. It is very clearly stated that their primary focus is to be on their family, all their churchly ministries are to be secondary to the care and well being of their family.

No, it is not time to allow for women priests. When Jesus chose his twelve you will note that none of them were women.

Using Jesus' actions is a bad way to justify anything. Jesus was working in a different place, in a different time, with a different set of rules. Women wouldn't have been effective in starting a church. Of course he didn't pick them. In 21st century America, though, women have a little more clout. As has been pointed out, Jesus didn't assign a lot of people as priests. He didn't assign blacks, Irish, child molesters, or midgets. He didn't even pick Catholics. We let those people in, so why not women? The thing is, Jesus was only picking 12 people. The Catholic church is picking probably 100,000, and it wants more on top of that, undoubtedly. Maybe we need to be a little more inclusive.

People don't want to be priests, and who can blame them?

Priest recruiter: Hey Brian, come be a priest. You can live with only men for the rest of your life, starting when your sex drive is at its highest. Oh, and you can be poor. After you're finished going to school/cult, you can live in a church, where we'll give you more work than you can handle and people will forever wonder if you're a child molester or just queer.
Brian: Um, no thanks.

I truly wish there were a Christian church that I could be this familiar with and not think it was just as stupid, because I'm really getting pretty ashamed to be in the same group as these idiots.

Brian, are you saying as Regina Brett said, that "the bishops need to address the elephant in the sanctuary"?

No, I'm saying it's time for the Catholic Church to take its head out of its ass. Sooner rather than later.
--McJangles 12:00 AM
|

Good days don't usually start at 8:30 in the matin. This one did.

Rolled off the couch in the early morn to head off to Mayfield to see X2. Holy hell. That movie was incredible. Nightcrawler has the coolest effects, Rogue is hot and probably underage, and Lady Deathstrike went *clink*. Directors who do dorky, sci-fi, action-type movies should never, never try to film a scene with diplomatic types. Scenes with the president, senators, etc. were horrible, with the exception of the opening scene, in the White House. Holy hell.


After that, I went back to school, where I found one of our writers/copy editors at the STAND hunger strike on Buchtel Common. Writing a story? No. Interviewing? No. Wearing a "Hunger Strike 2003" T-shirt and taking an ACTIVE part in the strike? Oh, yes. Just like a good journalist, remaining detached and impartial. I confronted her and she screamed at me in front of the library. I think she was just cranky because she was hungry.


And then...


And then...


And then...


And then...


And then...


Oh yes,


And then...


Well, first some background. After that latest public-records request, the idiots running our university tried to tell me that copyright law not only forbids reproducing copyrighted material, it also forbid letting people look at copyrighted information. Oh, and on top of that, the government doesn't have to comply with the law as long as it signs a contract with someone saying that they don't. Idiots. IDIOTS!!! That really pissed me off. Soooo.........


Then I called the Student Press Law Center. Oh God. Good times. Mike at SPLC is now trying to find me an Akron lawyer who will fight UA, WZIP, Tom Beck, etc. for me, pro bono. Oh pro bono. Dear God. I love it. It's time to sue the U. I love it.


Rock aaaaand roll.

EDIT: Hypocritical me. I accidentally deleted this post.
--McJangles 10:54 PM
|

In other news: I thought I had the record for most shouts in 24 hours, but it appears that Jay edged me out. I guess I should have made out with a guy at the concert.

Martin and Laura say, "I don't think I've ever backed down in my blog, just refined my statements so as not to be so offensive..."

That would be great if it were true, but it just isn't at all.

Blog entry: Niggers piss me off.
Refined to be less offensive: A black person made me mad today.
Deleted:

Sure, the deleted post was less offensive, but that less offensive does not equal refined. Laura pulled an entire entry or three down; Martin pulled several months' worth.

In sum: Martin, Laura and the Dixie Chicks are all on my list, and Mr. Ream doesn't mean his Christmas list.
--McJangles 1:50 AM
|

In other news: He-ho is pretty cool.

Ugh. First Martin, now Laura. It's cute to see those two agree on something.

People: The blog is for saying what you have to say, and it's for saying it so that everyone can hear it. So why are you taking down posts just because people took strong objection to what you've said? Did you not see it coming? Did people not object when you said something controversial out loud? You're so ridiculous it's unbelievable. You would never have done this in a conversation, but you'll do it in your blogs. Perhaps a short, Quinn-style play would help to illuminate:

Brian: Hey, did you hear that some people are think women should be able to be priests? Cuh-razy.
Laura: Yeah, I completely agree that they should. I mean why not? It's so sexist to say that they can't. How ludicrous and antiquated. It's time for a change.
Brian: What? Are you kidding? There's no way women should be priests.
Laura: I don't know.... It kind of makes sense, given the shortage of priests and the lack of trust that so many people have now.
Brian: You have to be some kind of idiot to think that women could be priests. Do you really think that?
Laura: What? I never said I agree that women should be priests. I never said they should and I never said they shouldn't. I've never taken any stance on women in the priesthood and I never will.
Brian: I'm glad you agree with me.

Brian: Hey, Martin, have you heard the new Black Keys album?
Martin: Yeah! Rock aaaaaand roll.
Brian: What? Worst album ever. And Xochimilco's sucks.
Martin: Wait, I've never even heard of the Black Keys, much less said anything about them. What's Xochimilco's?

You would never back down in a conversation, but it's what you've done in your blogs. If it were Carolyn or Michael or Rob or Kadar, I could believe and maybe even expect it. From the two of you though, it's pretty disgusting. If you have an opinion you'd like to share, stick to it. If not, keep it to yourself.

I'm immensely disappointed in both of you.

Additionally, your failure to address issues and talk about something interesting leaves your blogs, well, uninteresting. Cute-kid stories and episode-by-episode Survivor reviews alone don't make for good reading after more than a week.
--McJangles 5:10 AM
|

April archives: GO!

EDIT: Michael says people won't get the Pokemon reference there. There's a Pokemon reference, folks.
--McJangles 1:02 PM
|

I am on fire today.

I woke up late this morning and then realized I had locked myself out of the car when I came home last night. On the first try on my passenger door, I managed to pop the lock with the slim jim. Hot dog.

I dragged out the Arbitron public records request from WZIP long enough to back them into a corner with their reason for not giving me the information. They say it's copyrighted, so they can't give me copies. They're wrong and stupid, but I don't have a lawyer. But if their only objection is copyright, then I should still get to look at the records, right? I think so. And I think I'll want to look at them on a weekly or daily basis. Mwahahahaha.....

Then we played pool. I won every game I played. Of course, half of them were against a girl, so those probably don't even count. Either way, I rule.

Brittany is an idiot.
--McJangles 12:28 AM
|

Quickly:

I got an encouraging e-mail from a former Buchtelite member whom I do not in fact hate. Thank you.

Detroit: White Stripes, excellent; Xochimilco's, excellent; La Gloria, excellent; gambling, up $15; Martin's navigating, not so great; having male bonding on the way back, unnerving.

Happy birthday, Gregory.

Michael's blog is getting boring.

Out of control at the Buchtelite: Jono, Beth, Jay.

Does anybody remember a time when I did a really good police blotter? I need another for my portfolio. The date--which you probably don't know--would be ideal, but if you can even remember one of the incidents in it, that would help.

I think that will be all.
--McJangles 2:07 AM
|

I lose.
--McJangles 3:06 AM
|

Still going crazy. Listening to "Won't Get Fooled Again" over and over.
--McJangles 3:12 AM
|

WARNING: Brian is about to discuss his feelings.

The last time I was even close to being this stressed out, it was the week between Districts and Regionals senior year. This is basically the same thing, only amplified. As much as I loved running and Holy Name cross country, I love the Buchtelite even more. In one year, I may have poured more time into the paper than I did in four years of cross country.

Now I want to be the editor in chief, but it doesn't look good. I was planning on being the editor almost since the week I started at the paper. I've subsequently busted my ass nonstop at that paper to get the job, but it appears the job is not coming to me. I'm not happy at all about that. No one else has worked as hard and as nonstop as I have in the last 18 months trying to make that paper be great.

Maybe Dan has. Not the point.

The point is that the job is probably going to go to someone who refused to come to the paper for the whole of last summer, bitched and moaned when we asked him to only temporarily fill a job that he already knew how to do and that desperately needed to be filled, then didn't do the job after he agreed to, then cried about his bosses not making up a new job that he wanted, then was handed an even better position based on who-knows-what. And he still hasn't made the paper a lick better. For this, he gets to be editor in chief.

After I turned the copy desk into the second-strongest department at the paper in less than a semester (without even being in charge of it), after I lived at the paper for nearly the duration of Fall Preview, after I recruited a copy desk to replace the one that left almost entirely at the end of my first semester, after I worked to salvage the paper from a hundred screw-ups, after I reported every major story we had in the last year even though they were thrown to me well after the last minute, after I took without comment the crappy Opinion Editor job--which I both hated and didn't even know how to do--even though there was someone better who I said should have it, after I was passed up for Managing Editor at the beginning of this semester, I am being passed up again.

Why? Because I bark in the newsroom, apparently.

Obviously, that's just a fragment of the reasons, few of which seem to have been thought through fully:

(1) I'm crazy. He's not.
There is a strong feeling in the upper management at the paper that laid back equals better. If you don't mind letting things slide, we can't have any trouble in the newsroom. That would be great, except that we don't have a good newsroom yet. The newsroom needs to be stirred up a bit. We have a newsroom full of good-enoughs. Everyone is good enough at their job, so no one is going to try any harder. We make a paper that's consistently decent, but most of the staff needs a kick in the butt to make the paper better.

This job isn't about making friends with your co-workers, it's about making the paper better. Once everyone is settled in and doing a fantastic job, a laid-back editor would be perfect. I'm rarely crazy when things are going well. It's usually a giant screw-up that sets me off. Sure, I yell at people; he doesn't. I don't, however, yell at anyone who responds to a calm tone of voice. And I can't recall even one occassion where yelling didn't effect a change that eliminated the need to yell at that person again. Unless you count Tim Kanak, but that was sort of the nature of the relationship. Yelling to someone, yelling someone's name and yelling randomly do not count. I hope.

(2) I've screwed up a lot of things. He hasn't.
Truetruetrue. But it's easy enough to not screw up anything if you don't do anything. I'm sure both of us made a lot of mistakes while doing our jobs, but I haven't had the benefit of the Undo button on every single one of mine. I've made several notable, memorable and high-profile mistakes, but I also went out and did a ton of things right and did a hell of job on them. I haven't been around that long, so maybe it happens all the time, but I don't know the last time anyone other than me dug up a story or put up the slightest fight when there was a problem getting a news story. I do not know of anyone else who has sleepless nights because he is researching the latest issue or problem being dealt with by the Buchtelite. I do know that the wrong page was never sent to the printer under my watch.

(3) I have a low GPA. Presumably, he does not.
Come on. I'm not asking to be on the Buchtelite Honor Roll. I want to run the paper. I won't have a GPA to rely on when I get a job, I'll need experience instead. GPA is just one of several "administrative" problems that would need to be ironed out if I were editor in chief, but by virtue of becoming editor, nearly all of these problems would become nonissues.

I know how to do almost everything at the paper. I may not be the best at everything, though I am confident that I am the best at two things: editing and reporting. I could lay out any page other than a Thursday B1. I know my way around Quark and Photoshop. I can write. I can report. I can edit. I can take pictures (with a familiar camera, anyway). I have good news judgment. I could do the webpage by myself, for crap's sake. I can't draw or sell ads, but that's about it.

So if this job is really first and foremost about having a good GPA and playing kissy-face with your co-workers, I can agree that I probably shouldn't have it. But if being the editor of the paper is about hunting down news, making the paper better, knowing what you're doing, being the best, taking chances and learning from mistakes, I honestly can't understand choosing the person who isn't me. I'm not sure that the people making the choice have their priorities arranged the way mine are. I wonder also whether my opponent has contemplated whether he deserves the job, or whether he simply considers that he wants it and feels that it is owed to him due to seniority and his failed bid for the editorship last year.

I think there's a glimmer of hope that I can land this job. My chances will rest completely in the interview on Wednesday. The adviser has pretty much already said that I can't have it but is now saying that there's a possibility. I don't know if that's just because he realized it was kind of crappy to pull the rug out from under my feet like that or because he actually is changing his mind. He sounded sincere. All I know is that this entire pursuit is making me very mentally unstable. I don't recall having been moody since fourth grade, but moody I was all last week. I went through periods of staring endlessly into space and then into fury and beating my car and then into better. Then back through again. I bit off Dan's head when I heard an apparently untrue story about an offer made to him. Out of line.

I need this process to be over. I need to know that I got it or I didn't. I need to be able to be angry simply because I lost or ecstatic because I won. I don't want to be infuriated by the possibility of an upcoming defeat.

I apologize to anyone who has been a victim of my mood swings in the last few weeks. There are several of you.

I don't want to play the game. I don't want to wait another year. I want to make this paper great and I want to do it now.

I want the gavel.

On Friday night, I'll know who the next editor is.

I doubt I'll post again before then.

Stay tuned.

DISCLAIMER: "He" is in fact a very good person, and I like him quite a bit on a personal level, despite (m)any problems that I have with him professionally. He is ludicrously generous and helpful. He is fun to hang out with and interesting to talk to. He's just a pain to work with.
DISCLAIMER: References to the paper are made in broad generalities. It should go without saying, but 99 percent of the negative comments do not apply to A&E.
--McJangles 2:57 AM
|

Problems..
Fix
Fix again
How about this?
And again
Shoutbox is in place
Blogs in place
Blogs in box
I think this will work.
One more tweak.
And another
This might be it.
Next tweak.
Ta-da! Only three days later....
--McJangles 1:33 AM
|