LOTR:ROTK: Presidential Politics. There are two scenes that could be used by either Dean Partisans or Bush Partisans to, um, cast aspersions on the opposing candidate. Interestingly, they both involve the same character.

(Mild spoilers ahead.)

For Dean Partisans: The scene where Faramir is shown leading a suicide charge (beautifully done, I might add, with Pippin singing being the only real sound). Meanwhile Faramir's father, Denethor is obsessively eating and Jackson portrays him with a red liquid (blood?) running down his chin. "See?" they will say, "Bush sends our boys to the slaughter, just like Denethor."

For Bush Supporters (although, more accurately, I should say, Dean detractors): Shortly after this battle, where the men with Faramir are slaughtered, we see Denethor, stumbling about on top of the city castle, which is Minas Tirith, while the city is surrounded by the vast armies of evil seeking to destroy this citadel of an elegant civilization. Yet, Denethor is muttering about laying down arms and generally ignoring the imminent threat, instead of rallying the troops looking to him for leadership. Fortunately, Gandalf bonks him on the head and rallies the troops for battle.

Kitty Hawk Update -- today there's a good strong wind out of the northwest. In fact it may be too strong for flying. Current weather conditions at Duck.

No Flight Today - Kitty Hawk, NC -- When I woke up this morning, around 5 a.m., the first thing I heard was the blowing winds -- in my parents upper room, you could hear the strong gusts. I thought this was a good sign as we were down here for the Centennial celebration of the Wright Brothers first flight.

The reason the Wrights came to Kill Devil Hills was because of the high winds, the machine propelling the plane into the wind providing the necessary thrust and lift to get the plane up. Back in 1903, the motorized Wright flyer was ready for flight on December 12, but the winds were too light to take off. The next day was a Sunday, and they were committed to not flying on the Sabbath. Their first attempt at powered flight (remember they'd been flying a glider version of their plane) took place Monday, December 14. That day, the brothers tossed a coin to see who would fly; Wilbur won. On the attempt, the engine propelled the flyer down a guide rail (so the plane would not sink in the soft sand), Wilbur pulled back on the elevator, causing the craft to turn upward rapidly. The flyer climbed a few feet, stalled, the wing dipped to the right, and then hit the ground, slightly damaging the flyer. What has always struck me as interesting is that they could've claimed this was the first flight, since it did leave the ground under it's own power, but the integrity of the Brothers and their compulsion for getting the job done right wouldn't allow them to be satisfied. Repairs were necessary and the wind had to be right before they could try again.

On the morning of the 17th of December, 1903, the wind was too strong to make the flight safely. Too strong a wind could lift the craft and damage it beyond repair. That morning broke with both a strong wind blowing (Wilbur estimated that it was at least 25 mph) from the north and a driving rain. The rain stopped, but the wind kept blowing. They waited until 10, hoping that the wind would die down a little. When it didn't, they decided to go ahead anyway and signaled the men at the Kill Devil Hills Coast Guard Life Saving Station to come and help them haul the flyer to their staging area up the hill. John T. Daniels was stationed at the camera to record anything that happened.

For us, this morning brought the strong winds and rain as well; thankfully, our temperature was in the 60s as opposed to what the Wrights had -- in the high 30s. My father raised the colors on the end of the dock and minutes later, that flag which had been nearly board straight, with winds out of the southwest, had torn partially loose and was hanging by one tether. My father and sister when out and retrieved the flag and we set off for the first flight site in Kill Devil Hills ("KDH"), just 8 miles away; leaving just after 8.

On the bus to the site, the rain which had been threatening, finally broke loose. Those of us on the bus were excited by the news reports which confirmed President Bush, rumored to appear, would be there to address the crowd at 9:45. Unfortunately, by the time we cleared security, the President was beginning his address. We made our way around to a large monitor, catching the tail end of his address. We were positioned at the front of the barricades when the President drove by on his way to Marine Corps One and were all thrilled to catch his eye and see him wave and give us the thumbs up. (As an aside, I think the kids were more excited to see a helicopter leaving the ground than the possible re-enactment.)

About this time -- 10:15, the rain began to let up. My baby, Emilie, age 2 was a dear and had no complaints at all today -- the other kids held up as well. It was helpful going with my mom and dad and sister, the beloved Aunt Kathy. We made our way up the hill overlooking the field for the first flight re-enactment. Soon, however, they made the announcement that the winds were now too mild, at about 3 mph, to attempt the flight. The flyer required winds of at least 10 mph and not more than 25 mph. Disappointed, we headed down the hill, toward the displays and exhibits.

Just before 10:35 -- the approximate time of the first flight, the B-2 bomber "The Spirit of Kitty Hawk" AV-19 did a low fly-over. I tell you, I've seen the B-1 and B-2 a couple of times now, and they are really awe-inspiring. The bat-wing shaped dark jet creeps and flies relatively quietly. This morning, with the rain lifting, (and an announcement made, so we knew where to look for it), it emerged low from the fog looking like death. Immediately after, the announcer sought 12 seconds of silence to commemorate the first flight (although it was hard to quell the excited chatter after the B-2). Later, Air Force One did a low fly-over as well -- with the pilot dipping the right wing to the crowd.

In 1903, Orville drew the honor of testing the flyer. They started the engine and set it running on the rail -- working the controls Orville pulled the flyer off the ground for 12 seconds and then landed—intact except for a slightly damaged skid. The flyer, weighing 745 pounds (with the pilot) had flown 120 feet from takeoff. In his diary, Orville wrote:

I got on the machine at 10:35 for the first trial. The wind, according to our anemometers at this time, was blowing a little over 20 miles (corrected) 27 miles according to the Government anemometer at Kitty Hawk. On slipping the rope the machine started off increasing in speed to probably 7 or 8 miles. The machine lifted from the truck just as it was entering on the fourth rail. Mr. Daniels took a picture just as it left the tracks. I found the control of the front rudder quite difficult on account of its being balanced too near the center and thus had a tendency to turn itself when started so that the rudder was turned too far on one side and then too far on the other. As a result the machine would rise suddenly to about 10 ft. and then as suddenly, on turning the rudder, dart for the ground. A sudden dart when out about 100 feet from the end of the tracks ended the flight. Time about 12 second (not known exactly as watch was not properly stopped). The lever for throwing off the engine was broken, and the skid under the rudder cracked.

For the first time, a powered flying machine had taken off from the ground, traveled through the air, and landed under the control of its pilot.

The second flight, made by Wilbur (following a repair of the skid), at 11:20 and flew about 175 feet. A third flight, this time by Orville went about 200 feet from the starting point. A fourth flight took off around noon with Wilbur at the controls. This time, however, after about 300 feet, Wilbur got the flyer under control and flew for 59 seconds and traveled just over 850 feet. That proved to be the last flight of the day, however, because in securing the plane for day, the wind caught the craft causing the men to try to grab the flyer. Orville wrote theamateure photographer, "Mr. Daniels . . . hung on to it from the inside, and as a result was knocked down and turned over and over with it as it went. His escape was miraculous, as he was in with the engine and chains. The engine legs were all broken off, the chain guides badly bent, a number of uprights, and nearly all the rear ends of the ribs were broken." The plane at last secured, Mr. Daniels taken care of, the brothers returned to the boarding house where they were staying and sent their father a telegram announcing the success of their efforts

Success four flights thursday morning all against twenty one mile wind
started from Level with engine power alone average speed
through air thirty one miles longest 57 [sic] seconds inform Press
home Christmas

Those two words near the end "inform Press" inspired a telegraph worker to tip off reporters at the Virginian-Pilot which ran the scoop the next day. Here's the original story, and here's the belated correction that ran this morning.

Around noon, we decided to call it a day -- the kids were cold (although not reduced yet to whining about it) and there was no guarantee the winds would pick up by the anticipated 2 pm re-enactment attempt. Arriving home, we learned that an attempt had been made while we were on our way back, however, the flyer failed to leave the ground. Later attempts were shelved without heading down the rail -- the winds proved to be too gentle today.

To me, this just underscores the achievement of Orville and Wilbur Wright -- nothing about this was easy. It took dogged persistence to make this happened. They succeeded, ushering in the 20th century and the age of flight.

Some other links, not mentioned above:

First-to-Fly
NOVA
A 1940 essay on why the Wrights chose the Outer Banks.
The Baltimore Sun on the Wrights
The WaPo on the changes in a pilot's role.

Query -- for lawyers: Do you call a QDRO a "Kwa-dro*" or a "Cue-dro"? As I've traveled around the country, I've heard both.

-----
*or Quad-ro.

Dare You. Christopher S. Johnson at the Midwest Conservative Journal raises the possibility that the ECUSA(postate) establishment might try to play the "race card" against the members of the confessing movement:

I thought the Episcopal left would explicitly play the race card a lot sooner than they have. I think that conservative Episcopalians should expect a good deal more of this sort of thing as the months go by and that they should be ready for it.

I dare them to try.

The fact is the establishment is solidly white and very upper crust. These are the cream of the limousine liberals -- folks who decided they would rather "reach out" to upper-class wealthy white gays in urban areas than to reach out to the poor and down-trodden non-whites in these same urban areas.

Moreover, when faced with opposition from the whole of the third-world, they turned their backs on their brothers and sisters, accusing them of being "superstitious" "animists" and being bought off with chicken dinners.

Go ahead you members of the establishment -- I double dare you.

YES!

Humbug Season.

The Grinch hated Christmas! The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be his head wasn't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
But I think the most likely reason of all
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.

- How the Grinch Stole Christmas

Here's an interesting site: the Grinch List. It lists those businesses which are hostile to Christmas (usually in the name of misguided diversity) as well as those which recognize Christmas.

For nearly a decade, my wife and I were frustrated by businesses that offered "holiday" photo cards that failed to acknowledge Christmas. You could get a picture of junior over the top of a generic greeting like "happy holidays" or sometimes "Merry Christmas" -- but only if the "Merry Christmas" was next to an icon of Santa or Rudolph. If you wanted a nativity icon, you had to go with "Feliz Navidad." A couple of years ago, JC Penny began offering a praying Mary and Joseph with a Christmas greeting, so we've been back again. This year, we have the card with the message: "Rejoice a Savior is Born" They still have the "secular" options, and the Spanish option (too bad there's not more of those -- but, give it time) and a Jewish option (ditto). (They even have an Easter photo card with the message "He Is Risen.")

Diversity means celebrating . . . diversity. Not stamping out traditions. Anyway, take a look at the Grinch list.

P.S. WalMart and KMart make different lists -- everyone knows WalMart is successful, while KMart is struggling. Guess which list the stores make. Coincidence? I don't think good management is a coincidence.

Scalia's Dissent. Justice Antonin Scalia perfectly frames what the Supreme Court has done in upholding this abridgement of the First Amendment:

This is a sad day for the freedom of speech. Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child
pornography, tobacco advertising, dissemination of illegally intercepted communications, and sexually explicit cable programming would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government. For that is what the most offensive provisions of this legislation are all about. We are governed by Congress, and this legislation prohibits the criticism of Members of Congress by those entities most capable of giving such criticism loud voice: national political parties and corporations, both of the commercial and the not-for-profit sort. It forbids pre-election criticism of incumbents by corporations, even not-for-profit corporations, by use of their general funds; and forbids national-party use of "soft" money to fund "issue ads" that incumbents find so offensive.
To be sure, the legislation is evenhanded: It similarly prohibits criticism of the candidates who oppose Members of Congress in their reelection bids. But as everyone knows, this is an area in which evenhandedness is not fairness. If all electioneering were evenhandedly prohibited, incumbents would have an enormous advantage. Likewise, if incumbents and challengers are limited to the same quantity of electioneering, incumbents are favored. In other words, any restriction upon a type of campaign
speech that is equally available to challengers and incumbents tends to favor incumbents.

(citations omitted).

After extensively examining and burying the majorities fallacies, he concludes, in relevant parts:

Those in power, even giving them the benefit of the greatest good will, are inclined to believe that what is good for them is good for the country. Whether in prescient recognition of the Charlie Wilson Phenomenon, or out of fear of good old-fashioned, malicious, self-interested manipulation, "[t]he fundamental approach of the First Amendment . . . was to assume the worst, and to rule the regulation of political speech 'for fairness' sake' simply out of bounds." Having abandoned that approach to a limited extent in Buckley, we abandon it much further today.
We will unquestionably be called upon to abandon it further still in the future. The most frightening passage in the lengthy floor debates on this legislation is the following assurance given by one of the cosponsoring Senators to his colleagues:

This is a modest step, it is a first step, it is an essential step, but it does not even begin to address, in some ways, the fundamental problems that exist with the hard money aspect of the system.

The system indeed. The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy. In scene 3 the Court, having abandoned most of the First Amendment weaponry that Buckley left intact, will be even less equipped to resist the incumbents' writing of the rules of political debate. The federal election campaign laws, which are already (as today's opinions show) so voluminous, so detailed, so complex, that no ordinary citizen dare run for office, or even contribute a significant sum, without hiring an expert advisor in the field, can be expected to grow more voluminous, more detailed, and more complex in the years to come—and always, always, with the objective of reducing the excessive amount of speech.

Restrictions on Political Speech Upheld. That's my take on the brief summary I've read regarding the Supreme Court's decision this morning. Please keep in mind that the last major ruling on campaign regulation and speech, Buckley v. Valeo, was a hydra-headed, book-length monster. Weighing in at 298 (.pdf formated) pages, this looks similar. Here are the justices dance partners:

STEVENS and O'CONNOR, JJ., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined except with respect to BCRA §305, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA §§304, 305, 307, 316, 319, and 403(b). BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to BCRA Title V, in which STEVENS, OCONNOR, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, and concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring with respect to BCRA Titles III and IV, except for BCRA §§311 and 318, concurring in the result with respect to BCRA §318, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Title II, and dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I, V, and §311, in which opinion SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I, II-A, and II-B. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part with respect to BCRA Titles I and II, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined, in which SCALIA, J., joined except to the extent the opinion upholds new FECA §323(e) and BCRA §202, and in which THOMAS, J., joined with respect to BCRA §213. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA Titles I and V, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion dissenting with respect to BCRA §305, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined.

To riff off Justice Hugo Black, what part of "Congress shall make no law..." didn't you understand?

Hotch pot. I'm still not "back" -- I've got a lot of catching up to do. So, in the meantime, here are some Interesting and Important links:

David Horowitz publishes Frank J. Gaffney's look at the Islamofacist "Fifth columnist" Grover Norquist. This is Must Reading.

Well over a year ago, I noted that ABC Rowan Williams who was elevated in part "because of perceived support for female bishops and gay clergy" could "turn[]out to be a pro-life Trojan horse..." According to this story, he has offered his "full backing" to an Anglican curate seeking a declaration the High Court to claim that the police should have charged a doctor for performing the abortion in 2001. (BTW, that young curate was successful in her petition.)

As far as I'm concerned, football season ends after the Rose Bowl. [Death to the BCS.]

Best Christmas CD of 2003: Relient K's "Deck the Halls, Bruise Your Hand." Alas, it's only a ten song disc with less than 30 minutes of songs.

I'm not sure I want to know what was behind Munch's Scream.

Last, a win for real diversity.

A Giant. Carl F. H. Henry, a giant who has shaped Christendom more than many of us know, has gone home to be with his Lord and Savior.

On television this season, we'll probably see that Capra classic, It's a Wonderful Life. You may remember Clarence's line: "One man's life touches so many others, when he's not there it leaves an awfully big hole." Without Dr. Henry, we'd have a Marianas trench void.

Well done, good and faithful servant, and thank you.

Pardon the Interruption. I'm having a very busy week at work (today has been a 14 hour day and I don't see going to bed for another 3 hours; more of the same forecast for tomorrow).

I'll be back here next week.

Advent. I have been critical of the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA(postate), Frank Griswold. I am happy to note, however, that he has reaffirmed one of the central beliefs of the Christian Church -- the return of Jesus.

Let me take you back to Lambeth Palace, 37 of the 38 Primates of the Anglican Communion had just gathered together and issued a statement saying the consecration of Gene Robinson as a Bishop would "tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level and may lead to further division on this and further issues."

Immediately after this statement was issued, Frank Griswold was asked the "Disneyland Question:" "Hey Frank, now that you've just had your butt kicked in front of the world media, what are you going to do next?"

Frank could've been contrite and a servant-leader as Jesus taught, or he could've been belligerent, or he could've just said he was going to Disneyland. But he chose this moment to reaffirm the second coming, that we all look forward to and celebrate during this time of Advent. According to the Washington Times, this was how Frank replied:

"While anything can happen, including the Second Coming, I expect to be in New Hampshire on the second of November," he said. Nov. 2 is the scheduled date for the consecration of Mr. Robinson, a divorced father of two who has lived with his male lover for more than a decade, as the new bishop of New Hampshire.

Okay, so Frankie chose belligerence -- but he also reaffirmed the Second Coming.

It's a start.

Thankful. I am very thankful for the lives and health of each member of my family. My wife and I were talking about our car accident last summer -- neither of us likes to bring it up because we were so close to grave injury and even death. Yet, by the Grace of God, we were delivered and walked away with mere scratches. Thinking on the accident brings us back to how close, how very close the fragility of life was broken for us. I guess it's good to slide by that and dwell in our gratefulness to the Master for having truly delivering us.

It is good to have a national day of Thanksgiving.

Accept, O Lord, our thanks and praise for all that you have done for us. We thank you for the splendor of the whole creation, for the beauty of this world, for the wonder of life, and for the mystery of love.

We thank you for the blessing of family and friends, and for the loving care which surrounds us on every side.

We thank you for setting us at tasks which demand our best efforts, and for leading us to accomplishments which satisfy and delight us.

We thank you also for those disappointments and failures that lead us to acknowledge our dependence on you alone.

Above all, we thank you for your Son Jesus Christ; for the truth of his Word and the example of his life; for his steadfast obedience, by which he overcame temptation; for his dying, through which he overcame death; and for his rising to life again, in which we are raised to the life of your kingdom. Grant us the gift of your Spirit, that we may know him and make him known; and through him, at all times and in all places, may give thanks to you in all things.

Amen.

The Möbius Strip Shuffle. I love mathematics and, in particular, the somewhat different fields like topology. For example, my kids and I play the torus game: I'll ask "is an unattached garden hose more like a piece of cooked spaghetti or a full mug of coffee?" The answer, since this is the torus game, is the mug of coffee since both have a hole through them (the mug being the hole created by the handle). Mathematically, they both have a genus of one.

I love Möbius strips (a one sided surface) and Klein bottles (a bottle with no inside). These imaginary things are wonderfully fanciful and allow one to do mental calisthenics.

Having said this, I can not begin to describe how positively convoluted Rev. Keith F. Axberg's argument is claiming that those who seek to remain faithful to the Anglican Communion are schismatics. I quote it here in the entirety, so as to not do the man a disservice:

There are two kinds of schism: schism in the Church, and schism from the Church. ?“Schism in the Church is a breach of communion between local churches ?… though neither side has changed the fundamental faith and order of the Church?” (Moss, 281). Schism in the Church, then, isn?’t a leaving, but a rip in the fabric of our common life in Christ. It is an estrangement, not a divorce.

?“Schism from the Church?”, on the other hand, ?“is the revolt of persons, large or small, who separate themselves from the Church by rejecting her faith and order ?…?” (Moss, 282). Calvin, for instance, rejected the Catholic Church, calling it the synagogue of the Anti-Christ. He saw it as being beyond redemption, beyond healing, and beyond God?’s capacity to reform. So he created a new church organization over and against the old church. The Protestant Reformation was most literally a schism from the Church.

The debate raging within the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church is partially clouded by the use of the term ?“schism?” without the defining prepositions: in or from. The Episcopal Church is clearly experiencing schism in the Church over such issues as Prayer Book revision, the ordination of women, gay, and lesbian persons, human sexuality, etc. Those persons, parishes, or dioceses not able to abide such changes are, themselves, departing from the faith and order of the Church by choosing not to accede to the authority of the Constitution & Canons of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the actions of General Convention, and not the other way around.

I've left his emphasis in.

Let me repeat his payoff sentence, Axberg's conclusion:

Those persons, parishes, or dioceses not able to abide such changes [i.e. "Prayer Book revision, the ordination of women, gay, and lesbian persons, human sexuality, etc."] are, themselves, departing from the faith and order of the Church

!

Talk about "pay, pray, and obey!"

Let's look at Axberg's definitions. First, let's do the "in" thing. Rev. Axberg writes "Schism in the Church, then, isn?’t a leaving, but a rip in the fabric of our common life in Christ. It is an estrangement, not a divorce." A rip in the fabric, hmmm. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the Primates' letter -- the one signed by every primate present in London, why, just last month. Even Frankie ("Lyin Eyes") Griswold signed it. What was that phrase they used -- you know, the leaders of the Anglican communion.

Oh yes, they said "This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level..." Okay, so it's slightly different, not a mere rip, but a tear at the deepest level. So what was the "This" the Primates referred to -- according to Rev Ax, it must have something to do with failing to accept the ordination of a guy who believes gay sex is sacramental. How did those primates define what would tear at the deepest level? "If his consecration proceeds . . ."

Well, how about that...

No wonder Rev. Ax decided to go for that second option. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Come over here and let me show you the real schism. ?“Schism from the Churchis the revolt of persons, large or small, who separate themselves from the Church by rejecting her faith and order ?…?”

By golly, Rev. Ax, do you think that's them pesky fundamentalists we've got lurking around the 'piscopal church?

Rev. Ax sure thinks so.

When all the Primates get together, year after year after year and "reject[] homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture" that doesn't establish the Church's faith and order.

When the Scriptures teach that God created us male and female, that doesn't have anything to do with the Church's faith and order. When the Scriptures teach that marriage should be between one man and one woman for life, that doesn't have anything to do with the Church's faith and order.

When those same Scriptures - without equivication -condem homosexual acts as sin, that doesn't have anything to do with the Church's faith and order.

When the constant teaching of the Church Catholic through the decades and the centuries is that homosexual practices are sin, why that doesn't have When the Scriptures teach that marriage should be between one man and one woman for life, that doesn't have anything to do with the Church's faith and order.

When the Scriptures and teachings of the Church tell us that a Bishop should be holy and blameless, why that doesn't mean squat.

When every single Christian denomination tells us that what ECUSA is doing is wrong. Eh, who cares?

Again, when the Primates unanimously tell us that ordaining Gene Robinson is wrong, why, that doesn't have anything to do with the Church's faith and order.

No, it seems all that matters for Rev. Ax is what 60 bishops in Minnesota thought on a hot day in August.

Those of us in the congregations who are seeing our churches ripped to shreds by a handful of selfish, self-centered American bishops are having to decide if we want to follow that, "revolt of persons, large or small, who separate themselves from the Church."

Hmmm, do I go with the Church or those in ECUSA revolting from it?

Not a hard choice, Rev. Ax.

I must say your argument is not a very good topology. In fact, I'd say it's a lousy tautology.

It's full of holes. It's a one-sided surface. It is a bottle with no inside: it doesn't hold water.

Steve Taylor Clone. It's been 10 years since the last Steve Taylor album. The only "up" side is for those of you who have never heard him is he's given express permission for his songs to be freely traded or disseminated via the internet. As a result, King David has posted a number of his songs here, in .mp3 format.

Among the songs available is one I've mentioned before, Over My Dead Body, written in Warsaw in 1984, about Grzegorz Przemyk a Polish Youth Worker slain by the Communist government. This one may be downloaded by clicking on this link [right click and save as, for best results].

Confessing Network. The Anglican Mainstream has set forth some of the details on the emerging Confessing Anglican Network of North America on its website. There is a long statement and explanation there. What is really cool is that you have the opportunity to sign up and pledge to pray.

Here is some of the background:

The Primates set up a Commission to address these dangers and to report in September 2004. In the meantime they unanimously urged Provinces not to act precipitately and therefore agreed to a moratorium on controversial actions in their own jurisdictions. But ECUSA has acted already.

The Primates further called for and guaranteed adequate provision for Episcopal oversight for dissenting minorities in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Adequate here clearly means "acceptable to the people concerned."

Because of the defiant and pre-emptive action of some in ECUSA, this oversight needs to be in place now. But instead of providing such care as promised by the signature of their Presiding Bishop, some in ECUSA have launched lawsuits and disciplinary procedures which pre-empt the Archbishop's Commission and hold the agreed standstill in contempt.

As the Primates warned, this action could have grave knock-on consequences in relationships around the Communion. The fabric has already been torn by New Hampshire and the whole Anglican family must act to prevent further damage.

Moreover, there is a long list of suggested and contemplated actions for different persons, dioceses, bishops, and ministers. The gist of the actions may be seen in what is being urged of the ABC:

Urge the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other primates individually and severally

To maintain full Communion with those Anglicans in the USA who comprise the Network

To recognise Bishop Bob Duncan (Pittsburgh) as the duly elected Convening Bishop (Moderator) of the Network and invite him to all events to which the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA is invited.

To recognise the Convening Bishop (Moderator) in opening ecumenical conversations with other Christian churches.

To insist on a moratorium on license suspensions and lawsuits against those who do not accept the election, confirmation or consecration of Gene Robinson or the blessing of same-sex partnerships at least until the Archbishop's Commission completes its work and Primates have considered its outcome.

To insist that true and acceptable Episcopal oversight (rather than the Presiding Bishop's unacceptable proposal for "Supplemental Episcopal Pastoral Care") be arranged forthwith, and offer immediate oversight themselves until it is in place.

To accept Letters Dimissory (recognition as licensed ministers) of threatened clergy, including both women clergy and those who will not accept the ordination of women.

To ensure that no Bishops who attended and signed the consecration papers of Gene Robinson be permitted to serve on any committee or commission of the Communion or, in any way, as official representatives of the Anglican Communion.

Truro. Last night we had another parish meeting to discuss what's happening in the broader Anglican communion and where Truro parish is heading. As with the other all-parish meetings, Martyn Minns asked that the discussions be kept within the parish family. In the past, I've honored those requests and will do so again.

I believe the Truro vestry and clergy leadership are proceeding in an appropriate manner.

Details will be forthcoming in the coming days -- when they do, I will link to them here.

The Speeches Not Given. At the JFK Library, and posted on-line, we can see the two Presidential speeches that John Fitzgeral Kennedy was going to give, had he not been felled by an assassin’s bullet.

The first was an address at the Trade Mart in Dallas.

He began with JFK realism that rings across the decades and rebukes many today: "There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable." He then moved to the focal point of the address

I want to discuss with you today the status of our strength and our security because this question clearly calls for the most responsible qualities of leadership and the most enlightened products of scholarship. For this Nation's strength and security are not easily or cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a guerrilla war. Formal pacts of alliance cannot stop internal subversion. Displays of material wealth cannot stop the disillusionment of diplomats subjected to discrimination.

Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.

I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere--it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept communism out of Western Europe--it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic assistance.

His speech continues, addressing the realities face by the US in 1963 -- please read it for the specific details.

I am quoting extensive portions to show that JFK established a doctrine of freedom for all in the world that continues unabated to this day and the Bush presidency. Was this said by Kennedy on that day or Bush last week:

Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and promotion of freedom.

That strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions--it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations--it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.

We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: 'except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.'

Students of JFK know it is his speech, but it easily could be George W. Bush.


The second was an address to a political convention, showing the progress his administration had made on his goals:

We pledged to increase America's strength against its enemies, its prestige among its friends, and the opportunities it offered to its citizens. Those pledges have been fulfilled.

...I pledged . . . to restore world confidence in the vitality and energy of American society. That pledge has been fulfilled. We have won the respect of allies and adversaries alike through our determined stand on behalf of freedom around the world, from West Berlin to Southeast Asia--through our resistance to Communist intervention in the Congo and Communist missiles in Cuba-- . . . America . . . has shown that it cares about the needy of its own and other lands, . . . America . . . has shown that freedom is the way to the future, . . . America . . . is known to be first in the effort for peace as well as preparedness.

I pledged . . . that the businessmen of this State and Nation--particularly the small businessman who is the backbone of our economy--would move ahead as our economy moved ahead. That pledge has been fulfilled. Business profits--having risen 43 percent in 2 years--now stand at a record high; and businessmen all over America are grateful for liberalized depreciation for the investment tax credit, and for our programs to increase their markets at home as well as abroad. We have proposed a massive tax reduction . . .

I pledged . . .that this country would no longer tolerate the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized nation in the world. That pledge has been and is being fulfilled. In less than 3 years our national output will shortly have risen by a record $100 billion--industrial production is Up 22 percent, personal income is up 16 percent. And the Wall Street Journal pointed out a short time ago that the United States now leads most of Western Europe in the rate of business expansion and the margin of corporate profits. . .

. . .I pledged . . . to build a national defense which was second to none--a position I said, which is not "first, but," not "first, if," not "first, when," but first--period. That pledge has been fulfilled. In the past 3 years we have increased our defense budget by over 20 percent; increased the program for acquisition of Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by 60 percent; added 5 combat ready divisions and 5 tactical fighter wings to our Armed Forces; increased our strategic airlift capabilities by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces by 600 percent. We can truly say today, with pride in our voices and peace in our hearts, that the defensive forces of the United States are, without a doubt, the most powerful and resourceful forces anywhere in the world.

(emphasis added -- hard to believe this was before a Democratic political convention.)

The following was to be his concluding remarks to this convention. Perhaps we should remember this as his farewell address:

For this country is moving and it must not stop. It cannot stop. For this is a time for courage and a time for challenge. Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither the fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed. And our duty as a party is not to our party alone, but to the Nation, and, indeed., to all mankind. Our duty is not merely the preservation of political power but the preservation of peace and freedom.

So let us not be petty when our cause is so great. Let us not quarrel amongst ourselves when our Nation's future is at stake. Let us stand together with renewed confidence in our cause--united in our heritage of the past and our hopes for the future--and determined that this land we love shall lead all mankind into new frontiers of peace and abundance.

Plano East. Okay, I've been hearing about this for the past week and a half, but wanted to wait until I saw confirmation. There will be a conference held in Woodbridge on January 9 and 10, 2004, to follow up on the developments with respect to the confessing movement in the Episcopal social club (I can't call it a "church"). From the announcement:

The American Anglican Council's historic conference in Dallas, Texas (known as the'"Plano" conference) was a powerful and uplifting experience of the Church, bold in standing for Jesus Christ and alive in the Spirit for the work of mission. It strengthened, encouraged and challenged all who attended.

The AAC Chapters in Virginia and Washington would like to provide a similar experience for faithful Episcopalians in our region. But while the Plano conference looked ahead to the emergency meeting of the Primates and possible realignment of the Anglican Communion, we now find ourselves facing the reality of realignment. At the "Plano-East" conference, key leaders of the AAC will inform us of the latest developments nationally and internationally, inspire us with biblical teaching and preaching, and challenge us to go forth to fulfill the Church's mission.

Details are here. Also, just to make it clear, I don't have any "inside information" on this -- I haven't been holding back or anything -- the only reason I knew about this is because my oldest daughter will be involved in the worship.