Happy New Year! Are you aware that hundreds of years ago, while a new year began on January 1, the shift of the year title happened on March 25. That is, if we were living in, say, in the 1400's yesterday might have been March 24, 1403 and tomorrow would be March 26, 1404.

Why the 25th of March? What's significant about that?

I believe the Orthodox would know. More at lunchtime.

More

Yes, that's right, today is the Feast of the Annunciation, the beginning of the incarnation of Jesus; nine months from now will be Christmas Day.

An Explanation from this Scotish Genealogy website:

Between the 12th & 14th centuries the Catholic Church in Europe gradually changed the beginning of the Civil or Legal year from December 25 to the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin (Lady Day) on March 25.

January 1 was adopted as the first day of the year in Scotland in 1600.

The Julian Calendar, which was adopted by Christian Europe between the 6th & 9th centuries A.D., was slightly inaccurate so that by 1582 the equinox fell on March 11 instead of the original correct date of March 21.

PopeGregory ordained two changes to correct the calendar:

of the end century years only the fourth should be a leap year. ie 1600, 2000, 2400 etc.;
in 1582, October 5 should be called October 15, omitting 10 days.
This Gregorian Calendar was eventually adopted by Great Britain & her Dominions (including the American colonies) in 1752 by the omission of 11 days (September 3 being reckoned as September 14).

Until 1752 the Scots and the English, though they had different New Year?s Days after 1600, were both ten, (or after 1700, eleven), days behind the continental Gregorian Calendar. In their own countries the Scots & English used the Old Style (O.S) Julian Calendar, and their sailors usually did so. However, their armies and diplomats on the continent usually used the New Style (N.S); sometimes it is impossible to be certain which style is being used and mistakes can be easily made.

In the Philippines, today is the Day of the Unborn.

See also this on quarter days.

Also, this page looks interesting, although I can not attest to the veracity of anything on it.

The "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight" Shuffle. You say your bishop is an apostate and don't want him/her laying hands on your child? What are you going to do about it? Well you get to do the "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight" Shuffle (sung to the tune of The Hokey Pokey):

First verse-
Take the issues to your Rector
Take the issues to your Rector
Take the issues to your Rector and you shake them all about
Do the Delegated Episcopal Patoral Oversight Shuffle
That's what it's all about!

Second verse-
Take the issues to your Vestry
Take the issues to your Vestry
Take the issues to your Vestry and get a 2/3 majority vote
Do the Delegated Episcopal Patoral Oversight Shuffle
That's what it's all about!

Third verse-
Take the issues to a congregational meeting
Take the issues to a congregational meeting
Take the issues to a congregational meeting and you shake them all about
Do the Delegated Episcopal Patoral Oversight Shuffle
That's what it's all about!

Fourth verse-
Ask for a reconciliation meeting with your Bishop
Ask for a reconciliation meeting with your Bishop
Ask for a reconciliation meeting with your Bishop (and hope it's not Bennison)
Do the Delegated Episcopal Patoral Oversight Shuffle
That's what it's all about!

Fifth verse-
Have a reconciliation conference with your Bishop
Have a reconciliation conference with your Bishop
Have a reconciliation conference with your Bishop regarding the appropriateness and conditions for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (whew!)
Do the Delegated Episcopal Patoral Oversight Shuffle
That's what it's all about!

Sixth verse-
The bishop may appoint another bishop to provide pastoral oversight.
The bishop may appoint another bishop to provide pastoral oversight.
The bishop may appoint another bishop to provide pastoral oversight (or may not).
Do the Delegated Episcopal Patoral Oversight Shuffle
That's what it's all about!

Seventh verse-
Appeal to the bishop who is president or vice-president of the ECUSA province
Appeal to the bishop who is president or vice-president of the ECUSA province
Appeal to the bishop who is president or vice-president of the ECUSA province
Do the Delegated Episcopal Patoral Oversight Shuffle
That's what it's all about!

Eighth verse-
The provincial bishop may request two other bishops to join with the provincial bishop to review the situation
The provincial bishop may request two other bishops to join with the provincial bishop to review the situation
The provincial bishop may request two other bishops to join with the provincial bishop to review the situation (remember they should be representative of the divergent views in this church)
Do the Delegated Episcopal Patoral Oversight Shuffle
That's what it's all about!

Ninth Verse
(Are you still here?) Okay...
You get a a plan for the purpose of reconciliation for a limited period of time
You get a a plan for the purpose of reconciliation for a limited period of time
You get a a plan for the purpose of reconciliation for a limited period of time (with regular reviews by your diocesan bishop).
Do the Delegated Episcopal Patoral Oversight Shuffle
That's what it's all about!

Or you could leave, which is what Frank and company really really want.
(Or knuckle under, prole)

Inadequate. The House of Pancakes Bishops issued a document in response to the primates directive to provide Adequate Episcopal Oversight ("AEO") to the remaining Christian congregations in the ECUSA(postate).

Given the fact that Frank Griswold and company have ignored* the Primates and believers throughout the Anglican Communion, it should be no surprise that the HOB continues to abuse the remaining faithful Christians.

Here is a good analysis from the AAC, and I still like Kendall Harmon's first reaction posted last night.



-------------------
*I take that back -- they haven't always ignored the Christians, sometimes they've treated them with extreme contempt.

Chattaway on General Synod. Writer and critic Peter Thomas Chattaway, who tends to sympathize with the revisionists, observes regarding the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada (meeting in May): "They're not even *trying* to make a show of impartiality."

Education Tax Break. This is a very interesting case. I was not aware that the Church of $cientology was granted a special exemption allowing its members to deduct the cost of religious education for their children.

Krugman Lies! Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman continues his lying ways:

After 9/11, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits--Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions.

Ari Fleischer responds in a letter to the Times:

In "Lifting the Shroud" (column, March 23), Paul Krugman alleges that at my White House press briefing on Sept. 26, 2001, I "ominously warned" Americans to "watch what they say, watch what they do." He accuses me of telling citizens "to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions."

At that briefing two weeks after Sept. 11, I was asked about a racist comment made by a Republican congressman from Louisiana who said that if he saw a Sikh-American with a towel wrapped around his head, he would tell the Sikh to get out of his state.

I said, "It's important for all Americans to remember the traditions of our country that make us so strong and so free, our tolerance and openness and acceptance." The president, I said, was disturbed by Representative John Cooksey's remarks.

Moments later, I was asked about Bill Maher's statement that the members of our armed forces who fire missiles are cowards while terrorists who crashed planes into buildings are not cowards.

I answered: "It's a terrible thing to say, and it's unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the president said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do."

My remarks urged tolerance and openness and were addressed to those who made statements and threatened actions against Muslims or Sikhs in America.

Krugman has been proved time and time again to be an outrageous liar and if the Times were a responsible paper, he would be fired.

"Secular America . . . reviles . . . evangelicals" Jeffrey Rosen has an article (not available on-line) on AG John Ashcroft in the current issue of Atlantic. What I want to highlight, however is the interview the magazine does with Rosen to promote the article and in particular Rosen's response to this question:

From the vantage point of the liberal Northeast it's easy to get the impression that he's universally reviled as a narrow-minded religious zealot. But you note that he's popular with about half of Americans, and that he sees his detractors as a "small and vocal minority." Is his perception accurate?

* * *

Your observation about the role his religious background plays in galvanizing opposition to him is I think quite accurate. I'm particularly sensitive to this myself because my wife was raised in fundamentalist schools and her mother was a member of The Assemblies of God, which is Ashcroft's church. My wife is no longer a believer herself, but she has often been struck by the degree to which secular America misunderstands and reviles fundamentalists and evangelicals, and is unable to get past the unfamiliar religious background to realize that, both politically and personally, religion is a far less meaningful guide to a person's public positions than his or her general political orientation.

This rings true with me (an Episcopalian). [ed: as if anyone needed a reminder.]

GAB-Fest. Chris Johnson is holding a G.A.B. -fest over here to come up with the "funniest headline of the most inane Gene Robinson news story you can think of... All entries must include the phrase, 'Gay Anglican Bishop...' "

I can't compete with any of these...

Genocide's Handmaiden. I heard on the radio, just a few minutes ago, that Richard A. Clarke delivered a "blistering" attack on George Bush on 60 Minutes last night. Checking the CBS website, it would appear that Clarke is being portrayed as a Republican appointee: "Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush." In fact, Clarke is a life-long careerist, having started in the Pentagon in 1973 and worked up to SES status. In the words of Samantha Power, he was known as "one of the most effective bureaucrats in Washington."

And as Ms. Power clearly demonstrates in her September 2001 Atlantic article, Mr. Clarke was the bureaucrat who completely shut down any U.S. assistance in Rwanda 10 years ago, leading to the Hutu massacre of "800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu" in a matter of weeks." Ms. Power's documents, time and again, Clarke's hand at shutting down even minimal efforts and forstalling or slowing the genocide:

Donald Steinberg managed the Africa portfolio at the NSC and tried to look out for the dying Rwandans, but he was not an experienced infighter and, colleagues say, he "never won a single argument" with Clarke.
* * *
On April 15 [Secretary of State Warren] Christopher sent one of the most forceful documents to be produced in the entire three months of the genocide to Madeleine Albright at the UN—a cable instructing her to demand a full UN withdrawal. The cable, which was heavily influenced by Richard Clarke at the NSC, and which bypassed Donald Steinberg and was never seen by Anthony Lake, was unequivocal about the next steps. Saying that he had "fully" taken into account the "humanitarian reasons put forth for retention of UNAMIR elements in Rwanda," Christopher wrote that there was "insufficient justification" to retain a UN presence.

The international community must give highest priority to full, orderly withdrawal of all UNAMIR personnel as soon as possible ... We will oppose any effort at this time to preserve a UNAMIR presence in Rwanda ... Our opposition to retaining a UNAMIR presence in Rwanda is firm. It is based on our conviction that the Security Council has an obligation to ensure that peacekeeping operations are viable, that they are capable of fulfilling their mandates, and that UN peacekeeping personnel are not placed or retained, knowingly, in an untenable situation.

"Once we knew the Belgians were leaving, we were left with a rump mission incapable of doing anything to help people," Clarke remembers. "They were doing nothing to stop the killings."

But Clarke underestimated the deterrent effect that Dallaire's very few peacekeepers were having. Although some soldiers hunkered down, terrified, others scoured Kigali, rescuing Tutsi, and later established defensive positions in the city, opening their doors to the fortunate Tutsi who made it through roadblocks to reach them. One Senegalese captain saved a hundred or so lives single-handedly. Some 25,000 Rwandans eventually assembled at positions manned by UNAMIR personnel. The Hutu were generally reluctant to massacre large groups of Tutsi if foreigners (armed or unarmed) were present. It did not take many UN soldiers to dissuade the Hutu from attacking. At the Hotel des Mille Collines ten peacekeepers and four UN military observers helped to protect the several hundred civilians sheltered there for the duration of the crisis. About 10,000 Rwandans gathered at the Amohoro Stadium under light UN cover. Brent Beardsley, Dallaire's executive assistant, remembers, "If there was any determined resistance at close quarters, the government guys tended to back off." Kevin Aiston, the Rwanda desk officer at the State Department, was keeping track of Rwandan civilians under UN protection. When Prudence Bushnell told him of the U.S. decision to demand a UNAMIR withdrawal, he turned pale. "We can't," he said. Bushnell replied, "The train has already left the station."
* * *
What about the other officials involved in Washington's Rwanda policy—how do they view their performance in retrospect? Today they have three main options.

They can defend the U.S. policy. This is the position of Richard Clarke, who believes, all things considered, that he and his colleagues did everything they could and should have done. "Would I have done the same thing again?" Clarke asks. "Absolutely. . . . I don't think we should be embarrassed. I think everyone else should be embarrassed by what they did, or did not do."
* * *

Perhaps Richard Clarke is correct in attacking George Bush -- that should be explored and developed -- nevertheless, it should be remembered that Clarke, the consummate bureaucrat, is very effective at protecting and advancing Clarke at all costs.

It also must never be forgotten that Richard A. Clarke will forever be known as the handmaiden of the Rwanda genocide.

See also, this profile from the WaPo from 2000.

And this response from Condoleezza Rice.

Still More: See also this essay by George Smith from last Feb. 17 2003, setting forth still more of Clarke's mishaps.