Blog de DanceDivam

Update those RSS feeds

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Fri, 27 May 2011 20:03:00 +0000

Effective immediately my blog has moved! Please join me at txmere.com.

Glistening white buttocks

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Mon, 23 May 2011 15:35:00 +0000

It would've been fun to have been in the newsroom the day those words made it into a headline. Yes, I even read the comments. You almost have to, don't you?

I think this characterization is as funny, if not more so. (Hat tip to a certain Higbe.)

A bit of family history, by way of the history of Wilson County, TN

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:52:00 +0000

This was really interesting to find (h/t to my sister): A Historical Sketch Of the Little Community “Vesta” From Its First Settlement to the Present Time (1819 ~ 1988) penned by my great-aunt, Carrie (Sanders) Harris Lannom. A neighbor of hers met her several years ago and duplicated the only copy in existence (!) of this work. He then posted it online where it could be found by those interested in Vesta/the Glade/Gladeville.

Aunt Carrie died almost four years ago--three weeks before my mother did. I wish I'd known about this when she was still alive so I could've talked to her about it!

Comparing and contrasting.

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:48:00 +0000

I never knew Erik Ainge was an addict, just like I never knew Henry Granju was one until almost a year ago.

This caught my attention, though:

I went to Tennessee to visit friends, and I had some trouble with the law. It never got reported because the cops were Tennessee fans, and they saw how bad a shape I was in. It was so bad that I don't even want to talk about it. I was cuffed, but instead of busting me, the cops called somebody in town that knew me.

Erik was in rehab two days after that. Henry was apparently arrested once but now is dead. The difference is striking to me. Did this happen in Knoxville? He doesn't say, probably on purpose. Wouldn't it have been nice for law enforcement officers to have shown compassion for an 18-year-old who was beaten to a pulp instead of treating him as a throwaway?

There's a pretty scary lesson in there somewhere.

Debunking, part 3: "A few who are whining..."

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 23:19:00 +0000

The truth regarding this myth is so self-evident as to almost not being worth an entire blog post. Liquor store owners (and prominent Baptist preachers) have said that "not that many people" are interested in having wine available in grocery stores. We obviously know that's not true. The Red White & Food campaign has over 25,000 members. (Almost 26,000, I now understand.) There have been 28 editorials in favor and none opposed. And there was that MTSU poll showing Tennesseans to be "enthusiastically in favor."

It's so silly I don't want to even write any more about that.

Instead I'll write about one Baptist preacher in particular who seems to made it his second mission in life to legislate Tennessee's morality. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Chuck Groover of Victory Baptist Church in Mt. Juliet. Now, I'm not Baptist and wasn't raised as such. I was raised in the Church of Christ and one of my parents was a minister until I was in college. I was not raised in a household of drinkers. Not because my parents found alcohol to be sinful (some do; mine don't), it's because they wanted to set a positive example for others and they didn't want to be seen as doing anything in the realm of leading others astray. I just wanted to put that out there so it was clear the kind of home I come from.

My parents were also reasonable enough to know that their views were not the same as others'. That was okay with them. I would go to friends' houses to eat dinner and their parents would have a glass of wine with dinner. Even while in the throes of active ministry, my parents did not try to convince other people that their method was the only right method.

Chuck Groover does not share this belief, so it seems. When he appeared at the legislative study session in December, 2009, he had a lot to say about "other people." He claimed that people pushing for this legislation were pushing a "self-centered lifestyle," and that the bill did not enjoy broad support because it was just "a few who are whining." He saw "no common sense in making wine readily available to impulse buyers." He thinks we should instead have compassion for our neighbors so they won't be tempted.

I assume Chuck Groover has not walked down the frozen pizza aisle at Kroger. Across the aisle from the pizza is almost an entire store-length of "temptation."

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it," he also said.

The thing is, Mr. Groover, it is broke[n]. You can say whatever you want from your pulpit and your church's tax-exempt status is (amazingly) protected; you continue to enjoy government protection as the liquor store owners currently also do. They run a monopoly that should be disrupted. Whether you think your congregants need to run around drinking is a completely different issue.

Also I just want to remind everyone that this is the same dude who whined about having to wait in line while someone of legal age comes to scan the beer of the person in front of him because the clerk was too young to touch it. Maybe that's what this is all really about.

Remember: wine vote tomorrow! See you there, Chuck!

Debunking, part 2: No spike in underage drinking

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 20:39:00 +0000

I can't decide whether the opposition's "but all the kids will start drinking it!" argument is the dumbest or second-dumbest of their reasons to oppose. OK, I thought about it for an entire 30 seconds. It's the second-dumbest; the actual dumbest reason will be another post for another day.

Do you remember being 18-20? I do. Matthew Hurtt does. He had this to say yesterday:

If I had consumed alcohol as a youth, I can tell you right now I would have been naive and chosen some silly drink like Natural Ice, commonly known by youngsters as “Natty Ice,” or Pabst Blue Ribbon – it has to be good, right? After all, it got a blue ribbon.

Jokes aside, think about it. Beer is cheaper by volume and liquor will get you drunk faster. Underage drinkers aren't trying to have a glass of wine with dinner--their goal is something else.

Yesterday I posted a 2006 study [PDF reminder] done in Massachusetts. It had some pertinent numbers regarding underage drinkers via a "recent" Columbia study (sorry, I don't have a link). According to the subjects in the Columbia study, the drink of choice for those under 21 were as follows:

71.5% beer
20.8% liquor
7.7% wine

Overall wine accounted for only 2.9% of total consumption in underage drinkers.

Aside from wine not being the first choice of minors when it comes to getting buzzed, there's another reason selling wine in grocery stores won't increase the rate of underage drinkers: kids don't buy alcohol from grocery stores. According to that Columbia study, 85% of them obtain alcohol from sources other than retail: they'll instead get it from home, from other adults, or friends. Furthermore the MA study states:

Common sense dictates that minors seeking to buy alcohol are extremely unlikely to choose to stand in a supermarket checkout line where they are likely to encounter parents' friends, teachers, and coaches.

Last, but certainly not least, we have a tiny little issue of the Tennessee Responsible Vendor Law. This state is the first to institute mandatory carding of anyone purchasing beer for off-premises consumption. It also created a Responsible Vendor Program, which is a voluntary thing stores can do. ABC oversees the program and all clerks undergo ABC-approved server training courses. I can tell you that I am only carded about half the time in liquor stores but am carded 100% of the time when purchasing beer (or aromatic bitters!) at the grocery store. I know liquor store owners love to tell you that their employees are the only ones who can be trusted not to sell to minors, but that just isn't supported by research either.

Exhibit 4-1 in the MA study (page 25) has a table that shows data from 2005 on violations for sales to minors:

Package stores, 64%
Convenience/variety stores, 19%
Internet sales/shipping, 14%
Grocery stores, 0%
Other, 3%

Now, OK, that data was from 2005 in Massachusetts, but, like I said yesterday, I'm still waiting on the opposition to show us any kind of data that supports their claims. To date, there has not be a single study proving a correlation between wine in grocery stores and underage drinking. To claim otherwise in the face of research to the contrary is ignorant at best and purposely deceptive at worst.

Debunking, part 1: Liquor stores will not be run out of business

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 20:41:00 +0000

One of the first scare tactics liquor store owners throw out in support of keeping Prohibition-era laws on the books is that changing them (thereby opening up more avenues of competition) would be disastrous for their business. They would ALL go under--all 500+ of them--taking a number of jobs with them. The only guy still making any money would be the guy who makes tumbleweeds.

The facts may be inconvenient to the TWSRA, but not only does research not support that claim, 33 other states prove quite the opposite every single day.

First let's look at some numbers. When I talk about liquor store owners, what I do know? According to the 2007 Economic Census, there were 512 establishments listed as "beer, wine, and liquor stores" and the average sales for that year was $1.13M per store. (Note that, unlike other states, Tennessee does not currently allow a person to own more than one store.) And we are to believe that consumers are going to take all that disposable income that they used to spend at the locally-owned package store and go spend it all in some big box national chain with out-of-state owners.

Will that happen? A 2004 study by American Economics Group [PDF alert] says not only will it not; research reveals that the number of liquor stores will increase. (PS: check the note on the graphics--in direct opposition to what Bard Quillen had to say, the study uses population numbers of residents over the age of 21.)

The data show unequivocally that increasing wine outlets in a restrictive state above the median number of outlets per capita for all states will not force a collapse in the number of liquor stores. The impact on liquor stores will be a reduction in the amount of the "monopoly profits" conferred on them by states that restrict the number of stores below a competitive level.

Two pages later, that study outlines how lower prices allows a state to potentially recapture some of the revenue it loses when its residents travel to other states (say, Trader Joe's in Atlanta) to purchase cheaper wine there.

Wait, so we prove basic economic theory--competition in a marketplace results in lower prices and benefits the consumers--and the number of stores serving them goes UP?

See page 19 of the AEG study.

There is a strong and persistent relationship between the number of wine outlets per capita and the number of liquor stores a state supports. Quite the contrary of what some believe, the number of liquor outlets increases as the number of wine outlets grows. The competitive market supports more liquor stores than restrictive states allow.

Pretty sure that means new jobs, too.

Here's what a couple of academics in New York [PDF] had to say regarding that state's similar fight:

According to Appleseed, liquor stores would lose about 15% of their wine sales to supermarkets, which represents a 6%-8% average reduction it total sales per store. However, allowing liquor stores to sell other products could offset this small decrease in average sales.

I've actually seen figures smaller than that in terms of expected impact on liquor stores. One study done in Massachusetts in 2004 found that wine represented around 3.5% of sales in grocery stores, that only about 7% of customers purchased wine (they cited one in 14 customers), that more than 93% of wine were accompanied by the sales of other items, and the average wine purchase per visit was 1.6 bottles.

In short, we have a number of studies disproving liquor store owners' claims that their businesses would shrivel up and die. I've yet to see a single study backing up that anecdote.

Yet again, however, I am reminded of what bar owners across the state said four years ago when the smoking ban was being discussed: "My customers will stop coming here and I'll have to close down and lay off all my employees." Similarly that was not based upon fact, and was actually refuted by what had already happened (or not happened) in other states. And, of course, none of those doomsday predictions ever came to fruition. In fact, there's a really great parallel to be found in this KNS article from the senior VP of Ruby Tuesday:

“We haven’t seen it have an impact on our business (in other states),” Johnson said. “If it’s applied across the board, it doesn’t keep people from coming to a restaurant they enjoy coming to.”

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Debunking, a prologue

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:38:00 +0000

Myth: -noun an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

There are several arguments against the sales of wine in grocery stores that liquor store owners are repeatedly trotting out to media and consumers. What's funny (?) is that the more they parrot these myths, the less Tennesseans tend to buy into them. To wit: Tennesseans, according to that new MTSU poll, are more in agreement (69%) over this issue than over health care, teacher tenure, guns, or immigration. In 2009, MTSU found 62% in favor.

Please, liquor store owners and lobbyists, by all means, keep talking. You're making it easier for us.

But that gauntlet aside, I want to take a look at these concerns the opposition has to wine in grocery stores. We know they want to keep their government-sanctioned business protection as long as humanly possible, but what excuses are they giving for why they need them?

1. Competition from grocery stores will force liquor stores out of business and take their jobs.
2. Underage drinking will increase because of an increase in availability of wine.
3. Not that many people want to be able to buy wine in grocery stores.
4. Alcohol needs tighter controls than clothing or food and grocery stores aren't equipped to uphold the law.

This is Social Media Week over at Red White & Food. I'd like to spend the next few days shedding some light on the myths listed above. Not a single one is factual and I'm going to explain why.

Update on Justice For Henry

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:13:00 +0000

Well obviously you know by now there isn't any. You also know that his mother has gone public with everything she's spent the past nine months keeping under wraps. Today's blog post (part 5) is especially chilling. Read the links for context if you haven't already. Today she discusses the gross mishandling on the part of the Knox County Sheriff's Department regarding evidence. We've known all along (because she said so at the time) that KCSO didn't ever speak with the family much, that she had to beg them to follow leads she herself chased down (while also working full time and mothering five children, including a newborn), and that they went to the local newspaper with information about Henry's autopsy without releasing to the family first (the day after the funeral, no less).

In short, I think we can all agree that KCSO has effed up, big time.

And yet here's the frightening thing. Katie says:

This morning (March 4, 2011), a spokesperson for the Knox County DA’s office told a WUOT interviewer that in his two decades with the DA’s office, he believes that Henry’s case represents one of the most professional and thorough criminal investigations ever undertaken by the Knox County Sheriff’s Office.

Wow. I'm sure glad I don't live in Knox County anymore. Furthermore, as I've stated before, if I had a high-school-aged kid, I would have serious misgivings about sending them to Knoxville for education. If you can't trust your county's law enforcement and investigative bodies to--oh, I don't know--do their jobs properly, how are we supposed to feel protected and well-served? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it's a thankless job and it doesn't pay enough and blah, blah, blah. I know that. But no one held a gun to anyone's head and said, "You must go work for J.J. Jones!" Obviously a person would feel called to that line of work in order to enter it. And if they don't have more pride in their work product, or at the very least if they don't feel they owe the same procedures to Henry or Johnia as they did to Chris and Channon, well, that's pathetic.

The state of Tennessee has laws on the books allowing prosecution of the dealers in overdose cases. We know there are laws regarding what happens when a person is savagely attacked. Based on their inaction, I have no choice but to conclude that KCSO refused to work this case.

UPDATE: Oh, and I forgot about the person in the DA's office who said Katie needed to "shut up and concentrate on the remaining children she still has." And also called the investigation "futile." http://sunsite.utk.edu/wuot/mt/podcast/030411Granju.mp3

The math on wine (and other alcohol)

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:06:00 +0000

Quite a treat on the Red White & Food blog today for you math geeks. I admit to having been in possession for over a week now of multiple studies from other states and have been remiss in that I haven't reported any of the findings therein regarding wine sales. But do yourself a favor and go check out the correlation between wine sales and consumption. The facts just don't bear out the opposition's stance that there would be no change if this legislation passed.

And bonus points for the Naked Gun reference...

Adventures in accounting

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:20:00 +0000

It’s generally accepted that I hate the accounting software we use at work. I make fun of it (and its mega-company owner) a lot via the Twitter. I’ve been particularly under stress lately so I’ve begun imagining what the software developers’ conversations might’ve been like as they came up with this project.

“Well, first of all, we have to make sure our clients’ stuff is secure.”

“Oh yeah, they’ll have important stuff in there.”

“We need to make sure the web version has, like, really good security.”

“For sure. It’s an obvious no-brainer that we should require them to use IE6. It’s, like, the best EVAR.”

“Ohmigosh, how did you know that was exactly what I was thinking?”

“WE’RE BRAIN BUDDIES!”

On a different day:

“Last night when I was playing Warcraft, I realized we need to make ‘em change their passwords.”

“Duh. Everyone knows to do that.”

“What if they don’t? We should force ‘em to do it every once in a while.”

“Like how often? Every six months?”

“No way. Haven’t you ever heard of corporate espionage?”

“OK, then like every three months?”

“Strap this one on, big boy: how about every three weeks?”

“Niiiice. After all, corporate spies won’t be able to figure out passwords if the employees can’t remember them because they change so often.”

“Oh, and they can’t reuse their passwords either. Ever.”

“I bro-heart you.”

And then…

“I just had the greatest idea!”

“Why did you call me at 1:30 in the morning to tell me your idea?”

“No, listen. Right after they log on, a new IE window should open!”

“So?”

“So now they have two windows open! Two is better than one!”

“Won’t they just close the first one when the second one opens?”

“Not if we put a message on it saying, ‘You are logged on.’ Then they’ll always know that they’re logged on.”

“That’s beautiful.”

One day…

“Damn, I’m stuck.”

“What’s up?”

“Well, I have a bunch of fields for when they enter invoices. You have to arrow over to see all of them.”

“What are they?”

“Meh, 90% of the fields won’t ever get used. These are real estate people. Who cares what’s useful?”

“So what’s the problem?”

“I only have 20 characters available for them to describe what they’re paying.”

“20 characters? You kidding me? Who needs more than 20 characters to say anything?”

“Well Ashton Kutcher does. I saw it on the Internet.”

“I don’t think Ashton Kutcher is going to be using our software.”

“A man can dream, can’t he?”

“What a dream it would be, too…”

In which I wholeheartedly disagree with Jack Neely

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:24:00 +0000

So @RedWhiteFood just linked to this in the Metro Pulse, wherein Jack Neely calls the prospect of buying wine in grocery stores untrendy because it's apparently "cool" to make seven different stops.

To wit:

I thought we were learning to downsize and thoughtfully separate our shopping experience. Buy local produce from the local produce shops. Buy beer from the beer store. Buy seafood at the seafood store. Buy tahini and olives from the Middle Eastern-foods market. Buy tea and spices from the Asian market. Now we can even buy mushrooms from the mushroom shop. In my youth, there was no such thing as a mushroom shop, or a seafood store; you bought everything at Kroger.

However, the modern way, seemingly, is to specialize. I’m not always a sucker for trends, but I’ve been enjoying this one. I never enjoyed grocery shopping, and in my own family always balked at that chore, until I started experiencing it as a seven-stop adventure. Given that interesting trend, is it really progress to be able to buy Shiraz at Kroger? Could it be that we were already trendy in that regard?

What about those who aren't interested in driving to all those different stores in all those different locations and paying $3.20 a gallon while they do it, in addition to higher specialty-store prices and separate sales tax for each individual transaction?

I have great respect for this writer but I really don't care about what's trendy. I don't care about specialty olives or tea. I actually despise grocery shopping above nearly every chore, which is all the more reason NOT to string it out among seven different stores.

The legislation in question has nothing to do with trends. It's not about being concerned about what the cool kids are doing. The legislation in question, if passed, would provide convenience and price parity. It would strike down one of the last remaining monopolies in the state. It would potentially strengthen local business by allowing business owners to have operations in more than one location.

Jack, if you like taking one chore and spreading it out over the course of an entire afternoon, please be my guest. I'm not interested in spending my time or money that way, and saying that "everyone else is doing it" doesn't mean much to me. I'm into spending less time in the car, making fewer stops, and having more choices along the way.

Merry Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 18:18:00 +0000

Now go watch this video of the Nashville airport flashmob.

Belmont's double standard

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:11:00 +0000

I understand that Belmont University identifies itself as a Christian school, despite its separation from the Baptist denomination. I understand that Tennessee is an at-will state. I understand that the Tennessee Commission on Human Rights has not seen fit to add sexual orientation to its list of protected groups.

Just because something is technically legal does not make it right. Or just. Or a positive object lesson.

There are lots of very smart people saying very thoughtful things and offering history and perspective regarding the Lisa Howe dust-up. Though, really, this issue is larger than Coach Howe. Discrimination in any form is not OK, and to hide behind the given excuse is cowardly at best and flat-out hypocritical at worst. Are we to believe, then, that no student, staff member or faculty has sex outside of marriage? Or is it alright as long as there's no baby as evidence? Can someone have sex if they just don't tell anyone that they're doing it? Is it worse to do it or to lie about doing it? No, wait: it's apparently worse to NOT lie about doing it.

Are we really talking about policing the bedroom habits of grown-ass men and women in the name of education? Is it really true that we are more concerned about activities that go on behind closed doors than the fact that we're reinforcing a message of persecution and hatred?

A particular hottie-redhead pointed out that Vanderbilt has a long-standing policy of support for domestic partners. So this isn't just a southern thing or just a Nashville thing. In fact, another hottie-redhead posits that the university is quite aware of students and faculty who are gay.

This is a messy situation that has implications far wider than ladies' soccer. Betsy points out that the entertainment industry is watching this unfold and she wonders how that segment might feel about all this. It seems to me that there are those who might not appreciate the "us versus them" message that Belmont is sending, not to mention that the administration seems to advocate lying as a matter of policy. Neither of those qualities are ones I'd seek in prospective employees.

The school missed an opportunity to be courageous and bold last week. They decided to focus on something that ultimately divides the community rather than doing something to heal it. As Christians we so often do that--we nitpick the hundreds of little things that we disagree about instead of recognizing and celebrating the great big huge thing that we agree on.

The number one thing I learned this week is that we need to do a better job of loving each other. Right now that love is looking conditional, and I'm pretty sure no one wants the kind of love that comes with strings attached.

Mark your calendars

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:56:00 +0000

There are some readings of A City of Ghosts coming up.

Wednesday, October 20: Ri'chard's Louisiana Cafe, 6:30. Bundle up for this one.

Friday, October 22: The Goddess and the Moon, 6:00.

Sunday, October 31: Front Porch at Scarritt Bennett, 6:00

Henry Granju's story will be broadcast next week

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:33:00 +0000

Today Katie announced that her former employer, WBIR in Knoxville, is airing a commercial-free special next week to share the impact of Henry's life, death, and legacy. It airs in Knoxville next Wednesday, October 27, 2010 at 7:00 Eastern, but she says it will be available on their website also. (See previous link.)

Drug addiction can happen in any family. It can and does steal people's loved ones at an alarming rate that for whatever reason isn't being publicized in our communities.

This story is bigger than one brilliant, talented, 18-year-old named Henry. This story plays out all around us all the time.

I appreciate WBIR putting aside their own needs for ad revenue and choosing to put this piece on the air. If you live in Knoxville, please tune in next week. If you live elsewhere, watch it on WBIR.com. But do watch.

An open letter to the Tyler Clementis and Hope Witsells of the world

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:05:00 +0000

(I almost hesitate to comment on this subject. I'm not nearly smart enough to articulate my message the way I want to, but I feel like I should try. Maybe if enough people speak up about their experiences and how they got to the other side, other people won't feel so isolated. Maybe they won't feel afraid or embarrassed to speak up themselves.)

I've read a lot about bullying in the past week. Various celebrities have talked about ways in which they were bullied (one of whom attended the same high school in Dallas that I did) and I hope you have taken notice of the It Gets Better Project, because it's awesome. I would also hazard a guess that this CNN poll showing that a third of kids have been the victim of bullies is way low figure. (Bullying, as we all know, comes in a number of forms and we can't even stereotype the form it takes by gender anymore. It was once said that boys tended to be bullied in physical ways, whereas girls tended to use psychological measures. The circumstances surrounding Tyler Clementi and Hope Witsell would certainly suggest otherwise.) I think bullying is way more prevalent than that and I think it's only gotten worse in the 15 years since I left high school.

I was always a scrawny kid. I was one of the youngest in my class because of the September 1 cutoff; my birthday was three weeks before that. So everything that was happening to the other girls as they got older, I was behind getting there. I wore glasses starting in the 4th grade (and not the cool kind that kids have available today), which didn't help me look or feel any less awkward and self-conscious.

The girls in my elementary school were normal--clannish and mercurial. Alliances were made and broken weekly. Unkind things were said and done and the teachers weren't really aware of it. My fifth grade teacher pulled my friend Jodi and me aside when she saw us putting on lip gloss before school pictures, but really did nothing to prevent or monitor interpersonal conflicts.

Sixth grade was the worst. Mr. Popularity was in my class that year and I guess he assumed that his athletic prowess (we're 11, let me remind you!) made up for the fact that he was kind of stupid. I'm sure he picked on a lot of people, boys and girls. As for me--he would steal my notebooks, write assholish crap in them, and I'd have to grab it back. One day he dumped the entire contents of my desk out, right in front of Mrs. Rice--who didn't feel the need to do a damn thing about it.

Oh, but my favorite was the time he told me I'd have to become a lesbian, because I was so ugly no guy would ever want me.

Yeah, I didn't appreciate that. An insult combined with bigotry! If only I could've seen it at the time for the pathetic statement it was.

But I didn't know then what I know now, so I was the one sitting on the sidelines during mitzvah parties because I didn't know how to dance and was too self-conscious to just get out there and have fun. I skipped ALL junior high dances and most high school ones too (prom excepted). Even though I had friends, I always felt a little like an outcast--never quite good enough and certainly not pretty enough or smart enough.

If you've made it this far into this missive, hear this now: you ARE enough. As my mom used to tell me, there will always be someone a little better at stuff, a little prettier or a little smarter. She didn't tell me this to be cruel, she told me so I could be set free from the need to compare myself. Life is far too short to look at others that way, and constant comparison is not only an exercise in futility, it's a quick descent into self-centeredness. Wouldn't it have been better for me to focus my energies on some hobby or sport? I could've been a world class dancer if I'd gotten over myself and taken lessons with the sort of energy I put into cataloging all the ways I wasn't as cool as someone else. Well, live and learn.

If you take nothing else away from this post, you should know people love you. They do; I don't care how much you think you can argue that. Second, kids say and do shitty stuff to each other and it's not going to be possible to eradicate that. You can't control other people but you can control how you react. One day you'll be laughing to your friends about what an ignorant delta bravo that Darren Kearns was in sixth grade. Finally, yes, it does get better. I learned to dance (and found out I was pretty good!) as an adult, I learned compassion, my boyfriend assures me that I'm not ugly (though if I'd had a girlfriend instead, everyone in my life would have loved me just the same), and I found out that pretty much everyone had a rough time in junior high and high school.

I happen to think that good things happen to good people. I want you to stick around and see for yourself.

Why "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" became dirty words

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:39:00 +0000

When I use "fundy" to describe church-goers or former acquaintances, I use it as an epitaph. I don't really discuss the church of my childhood on here because, in a literal sense, it is considered evangelical and that's something I try to distance myself from.

Why is that? When did churches who focus on winning souls for Christ become an entity I can't wait to run away from? I've got my own story. Below you'll see someone else's.

Know anyone who attends Knoxville Baptist Tabernacle at 2437 E. Magnolia? "Independent. Fundamental. Missionary," the website claims. "The end of your search for a friendly spiritual church."

Hm. About that. I find it neither friendly nor a positive missionary goal to hunt a grieving mother down in her own front yard and attempt to entice her to attend your congregation by explaining that her beloved eldest is currently "frying in hell." His damning sin? Being Episcopalian.

When I read that, I became so angry I almost couldn't see straight. This so completely embodies everything that is so wrong with The Church and why non-Christians roll their eyes at evangelicals and some Christians leave and never come back. Some of these little denominations are so convinced that they've got it right that they refuse to see the great big thing we have in common and quibble over things that just are not central to salvation. At all.

The problem with having been raised in an evangelical denomination is that I'm lumped in with these heartless nitwits automatically. To those without an insider's view, maybe all Christians look and act this way. The thought of such a thing infuriates me. This was a prime opportunity to offer someone love and compassion and the woman was instead met with condemnation.

It just makes me sick.

Again, from the KBT website (emphasis mine):

We believe that God has a local, Bible-believing, New Testament, Baptist church for every believer. We hope that we are the church God has for you!

I'll have you know that my God is not Baptist. Or Episcopalian. Or whatever. He is what He is and we are what we are--which is to say that none of us has any damn business telling each other we're going to hell for attending the wrong church. Or maybe they've just removed I Corinthians 5:12 from their KJVs.

UPDATE: Apparently there was a little dust-up in the comments of the original blog post, as noted here. Remember what I always say about feeding the trolls. I can't decide if I'd rather see that miserable waste of space banned from her blog (this behavior is apparently a habit) or wait for the hundreds of commenters to ignore him/her/it. I kind of think many trolls don't ever care whether they're wanted or not and therefore never skulk away quietly, but your mileage may vary.

Nashville, creepified

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:11:00 +0000

It's officially official: A City of Ghosts by Betsy Phillips is on sale.

In case you A) live under a rock or B) do not follow her or me, this is a collection of short stories. Ms. Phillips brings us an array of ghost stories that, while fictional, feel like they could be real. She takes real historical figures or real places in Nashville and crafts tales that run the gamut between eerie, heart-warming (really!), and pretty terrifying.

She had a team of really awesome people help her put this book together, but ultimately this was her vision and these are her words. I'm really happy for her and I think you're gonna love it.

PS: You can listen to Betsy discuss self-publishing it on Nashville ~~Tech~~ Feed.

What has been done in the two months since Henry Granju died?

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Well, no one's been held accountable, that much I can tell you.

To his family, I would like to say that people aren't forgetting about it or filing it away as an unhappy memory. People are still talking about it. We want those responsible to be punished. We want justice for Henry.

Betsy makes a good point:

It is not the job of the police to walk into a crime scene and decide “well, he’s just a junkie; that’s never going to court” or “he brought this on himself, so let’s move on to victims who matter.” If they come upon evidence of a crime, they’re supposed to investigate that crime.

And as Betsy and others have also pointed out, if I were a parent, I'd have to ask myself some questions about how comfortable I am sending my kid to Knoxville. I feel this even more acutely since I actually lived in Knoxville for ten years and saw several scenarios play out that were troubling in different ways. (In fact, the more I think about Daphne Sutton, it makes me wonder whether any of the folks involved in Henry's beating and eventual demise have relatives in local law enforcement.)

I know justice is a slow process. I know we're all supposed to just sit back and patiently wait for people to do their jobs. But considering how long it took before anyone in Knoxville law enforcement got off their duff to work on this case, it's not easy for me to be patient. Maybe they're all busy looking for people fishing without licenses too.

On another subject, for your reference, here's a link to bookmark: The Henry Granju Memorial Fund is still under construction but hopefully it'll be live soon. May others be saved from his fate through this venture.

Happy National Dog Day

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:41:00 +0000

Yes, it's real. The Tennessean ran a story about how dogs are being allowed on the patios of more Nashville restaurants lately. (Knoxville was ahead of Nashville by a couple of years on this, by the way.) And I know, I know, you aren't supposed to feed the trolls, but apparently there are a few people with their panties in a bunch and refusing to go to any restaurant that allows dogs on their patio. To them I'll say: 1) Calm down; we aren't even talking about guns right now and 2) Surely a compromise can be reached that appeases everyone.

What I learned on my summer vacation

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 21:23:00 +0000

1. String bikinis and oceans don't mix. Unless you're an exhibitionist, of course.

2. If the attorney in your family recommends a book, read it immediately. They have so much crap to read in the course of their work that if they read something in their leisure time that they like enough to recommend to you, read it. Like, now.

3. All beach-cruiser bikes should be required to feature cup-holders. Because they're awesome.

4. Dolphins appreciate the female form. I didn't believe it either, but apparently that's true.

5. Tybee has no open container laws.

6. Clean your house from top to bottom before you leave; you cannot fathom how glad you'll be that you did.

7. Take a beach umbrella, even if you think you won't use it.

8. Store your freshly-squeezed lime juice in an unbreakable, tightly-closed container.

9. Just because the Tennessee mosquitoes don't like you, don't assume the coastal ones feel the same way.

10. Banana daiquiris are just as girly now as they were when you were 21. It may sound good, but just skip it and order a margarita.

This? This was sweet.

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 14:41:00 +0000

Go see it.

(Original reference, if you're living under a rock.)

Polling, schmolling

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:02:00 +0000

Recently Mason-Dixon Research & Polling conducted a poll to gauge support for the guns-in-bars legislation. (Yes, yes, another oversimplified bill moniker. I don't write these things, folks.) What did they find in this tea-partying, second-amendment-loving red state? 7 out of 10 people oppose it.

The findings match the results of earlier polls taken by Middle Tennessee State University and on behalf of the state tourism industry, both of which showed widespread opposition to the law. Nonetheless, state lawmakers twice in the past two years passed measures permitting guns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, both times over the veto of Gov. Phil Bredesen.

"You would think they (legislators) would vote the way their constituents want," said Will Cheek, a Nashville attorney who led a successful legal challenge to the first of the two gun laws. "I think the legislators are out of touch with the people."

Well what did legislators have to say on the matter? So glad you asked. Curry Todd opined:

"I don't think it (the poll) is right. I think a majority of folks in the state of Tennessee don't have a problem with it."

Now remember, he's had some wacky things to say about closing bars at midnight and has proven that he's totally ignorant of wine pricing differences between states even though he's on the study committee. So is it any shock that he'd be so completely out of touch with the demonstrable will of his constituents? Not especially. But blaming the poll? Lame.

On the other hand, he clearly defines "majority" differently than, like, everyone. Maybe we should apply his definition to his district's voting record. Should he even be in office?

Dr. Pepper with real sugar

noreply@blogger.com (dancedivam) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:04:00 +0000

The question was posed by AuntB: who in Nashville carries this?