Shooting the messenger

There were delays on the Orange Crush during yesterday's afternoon rush hour, which kind of threw off my whole evening. I did have to laugh ruefully, though, at the convergence. You may remember in recent posts here I've said that I was surprised at how little I was grousing about my nemesis the WMATA, and then I caved and wrote a commute-themed 5 Things that covered the general annoyances of the Metro in the absence of any recent, specific mishaps. Should have known that would precipitate an actual specific mishap. The other thing that probably precipitated it, karmically speaking, is the fact that WMATA has been actively solicting rider input about their current budget shortfall woes, and that story has been getting play lately on NPR, the local nightly news, and the online newsfeeds I follow. So, great timing there. WMATA wants to know why Metro ridership is in decline? It's because Metro sucks, and nobody trusts the system to get them where they need to go on time and certainly not without getting packed gill-to-gill on crappy old cars. Metro needs to run nothing but eight-car trains on the orange line through both rush hours. Instead they run six-car trains that are always on the verge of breaking down with mechanical difficulties that lead to single-tracking delays. Because they can't afford to buy enough new cars to have reliable trains or eight-car trains, let alone both at the same time. And they're never going to be able to afford all those new cars they need, because no one is giving them money via fares, because Metro only has busted-ass six-car trains ... see the vicious cycle? Maybe WMATA really doesn't see it, in which case I can only hope all this solicited rider input helps illuminate the situation for them.

Of course, the timing was ironic for me personally as well as for WMATA - I had planned yesterday evening to run my laptop over to a buddy's house, because the laptop needs an exorcism which my buddy can hopefully provide. I would have had enough time to pick up little Stumbly from daycare and get the laptop to its destination on a normal evening, but since Metro took half an hour longer than usual, that put the kibosh on that. My household's laptoplessness will extend a bit longer, it seems.

I read almost an entire book on the Metro yesterday (it was a short, breezy read) and yet after two-plus years of plowing through books on my commute I still marvel sometimes at the way my fellow commuters pass the time on the bus and train. The readers versus non-readers breakdown is probably 50/50. And among the readers, half read something they brought with them (work documents, a book) and half read the free copy of the Washington Post Express they picked up at the bus or Metro station. The appeal of the Express eludes me (other than it being free, of course). I feel like its motto should be "Yesterday's News ... Today!" I like catching up on today's news today via the web while I'm chained to my desk between commutes. Do these other people on the train commute to non-office jobs, or offices with even stricter internet policies that filter out the Post, CNet, USAToday? Or do they just love Sudoku, which to be fair is timeless? I don't know.

Occasionally I'll glance over someone's shoulder at the Express they're reading, and I did today, and the headline I saw really irked me: "Vatican Reaches Out to Anglicans". Remember the other day when I said I almost never talk about religion and politics? And how I need to be braver about expressing my opinions? If you're on board with that, read on.

I saw this story online yesterday and it just makes my blood boil. If you have somehow missed this particular news item, the basic upshot is that the Catholic Church is officially making it easier for Anglicans to "convert" to Catholicism. This is in response to the growing schism in the Anglican church between those who support progressive developments like blessing gay unions and appointing women as bishops, and those who do not approve. The Catholic Church is proudly anti-gay and anti-women (all right, maybe that's not exactly enshrined in a papal bull in so many words, but I'm gonna stand by the statement) and would welcome Anglicans - even married Anglican clergy - to the bigoted, conservative Catholic fold with their traditions (married priests, homophobia and misogyny) intact.

So, Jesus Funloving Christ, where to start with this mess. Just the reminder that there are so many people out there who are deeply convinced that gays and women are second-class citizens who don't deserve the same basic fucking dignity that they themselves enjoy - that is depressing. The fact that there are huge institutions - supposedly dedicated to fostering people's spiritual welfare! - who are committed at the institutional level to denying those dignities is outrageous and infuriating. Then add on top of that the pandering opportunism inherent in the Catholic Church commenting on what is, essentially, an internal mess of shit that the Anglican Church needs to work out themselves. "Hey, you guys hate fags? You guys hate bitches who don't know their place? We hate fags and uppity bitches! We should totes hang out!" Way to miss the fucking point of spirituality, Vatican. Not like getting the point of spirituality is your job or anything. What exactly is your job again? Keeping silk cape-makers in business or something?


I swear, it's like a scene out of a high school cafeteria (minus the silk capes). A table full of kids has a few odd ones that a lot of the other kids like to make fun of. But over time some of the more enlightened kids at the table realize it's not cool to pick on the ones who are different and they cut out the abuse and treat their lunchmates all right. Still, some of the kids can't accept that things are changing and get increasingly uncomfortable with the new order of things. And one day a kid at another table, a table that as a whole loves to dish out the abuse, stands up on his chair and yells over that anybody who wants to keep making fun of the dweebs should come and sit with them. Even though a long time ago that abuse-dishing table drove away a bunch of kids for not eating tuna fish sandwiches on Fridays, or something metaphor-straining like that.

Another thing that got under my skin, I have to admit, is the word choice in the Express headline. I just don't see the Vatican sticking its nose in another church's business and reminding the world that, hey, if you long for the days of the 13th century, the Catholic Church is firmly rooted there, as "reaching out." I'm a fan of reaching out. I think the world could use a bit more reaching out, a bit more being there for each other, a bit more acceptance. Being accepting of other people's intolerance because it is of a kind with your own does not count. As much as I might believe in the power and worth of multiculturalism, I don't think anybody gains anything from letting people be dead wrong about human rights because that's just their culture. I don't feel like there's a lot any of us can do about the Catholic Church's regressive, repressive nature, since it maintains itself as being ruled by a single old man who's in direct contact with the Supreme Being - all the protests and petitions in the world can't compete with that. But I guess it would be nice to see everyone excluded from the policy-making (i.e., everyone) at least calling a duck a duck, and not confusing hate-mongering assholery with reaching out. I personally would have advocated for "The Vatican's Dick Move" if the story had to be covered at all.