define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true);
define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true);<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>uua &#8211; Making Chutney</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.makingchutney.com/tag/uua/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.makingchutney.com</link>
	<description>One part facial hair.  Two parts moxy.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:08:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Who loses with regions?</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2010/02/23/who-loses-with-regions/</link>
					<comments>http://www.makingchutney.com/2010/02/23/who-loses-with-regions/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[UU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[districts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uua]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/?p=1510</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[UU World put up a good article yesterday about the move from districts to regions. If you don&#8217;t know, the country is divided into 19 regions now, and it looks like we&#8217;re headed to merging them together to come up with five regions instead. What I&#8217;m wondering is who loses in the move from districts [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>http://www.makingchutney.com/2010/02/23/who-loses-with-regions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>UU Women Endorse Morales</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2009/04/27/uu-women-endorse-morales/</link>
					<comments>http://www.makingchutney.com/2009/04/27/uu-women-endorse-morales/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:53:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[UU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uua]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/?p=1463</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The UU Women&#8217;s Federation board has unanimously endorsed Peter Morales for president of the UUA. For a while it seemed like all the powers-that-be were lining up behind Laurel Hallman. Now it gets a little more interesting.]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>http://www.makingchutney.com/2009/04/27/uu-women-endorse-morales/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>New ad an act of self-parody?</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/19/new-ad-an-act-of-self-parody/</link>
					<comments>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/19/new-ad-an-act-of-self-parody/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[UU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ad campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uua]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/19/new-ad-an-act-of-self-parody/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The Christian blog Pyromaniacs call the UUA&#8217;s Time magazine ad campaign an act of self-parody. I&#8217;m pretty critical of these things as they go, but I can&#8217;t go that far with this one. (Hat tip to Chamblee54.)]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/19/new-ad-an-act-of-self-parody/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Video: Voices of a liberal faith</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/10/video-voices-of-a-liberal-faith/</link>
					<comments>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/10/video-voices-of-a-liberal-faith/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 04:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[ATLBloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uua]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/10/video-voices-of-a-liberal-faith/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[For everyone I&#8217;ve talked to about this. No deep reflections just yet. But I&#8217;ll say it did go over very well at a prospective member class this past weekend. (Hat tip to Yet Another UU for the link.)]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/10/video-voices-of-a-liberal-faith/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fixing UUism (but which one?)</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/01/23/fixing-uuism-but-which-one/</link>
					<comments>http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/01/23/fixing-uuism-but-which-one/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[ATLBloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bureaucracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hypercorporatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uua]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uuism]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/01/23/fixing-uuism-but-which-one/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Looking over the growing list of ideas to &#8220;fix UUism&#8221; over at ChaliceChick, it occurs to me that the vast majority are about what Roger Kuhrt calls the &#8220;hypercorporatism&#8221; of the national Association and its authorizing body, the annual General Assembly. Which is to say, they&#8217;re really not about fixing butts-in-the-pews Unitarian Universalism at all. [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/01/23/fixing-uuism-but-which-one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chutney&#8217;s UU fixes</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/01/21/chutneys-uu-fixes/</link>
					<comments>http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/01/21/chutneys-uu-fixes/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[ATLBloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uua]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uuism]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/01/21/chutneys-uu-fixes/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[ChaliceChick just started up a nifty little thing: a contest to come up with the best idea for &#8220;fixing&#8221; Unitarian Universalism. You can submit your paragraph idea to her, and before too long we&#8217;ll be voting on them. Here are my submissions: Hold GA every two years Actions of Immediate Witness Require a 66 percent [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/01/21/chutneys-uu-fixes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>