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.

Every Reich Has its Heidegger. Planned Parenthood's personal nazi is named Ignacio Castuera, a Methodist minister.

I understand his favorite holiday is the Feast of the Holy Innocents and he prays three times a day to Herod.

Jack Chick, up close and personal.

What's going to happen when he gets to heaven and discovers all the Catholics there?

Merrow Commission. -- According to the WaTi, Peter Lee named the members of the Virginia Reconciliation Commission. Heading it will be Rev. Andrew Merrow, rector of St. Mary?s Episcopal Church in Arlington. So is he a flaming revisionist, a faithful follower, or a fatuous moderate?

Funny you should use that last adjective... It seems that Rev. Merrow believes that obese people, those who are biologically predisposed to being overweight, are prima facie sinners. That's right, if you have the "fat gene" you are automatically a sinner and should be cast out.

Well, I don't know for sure that he said that, I can only glean that using all the tools of modern biblical criticism and applying them to this article in Episcopal Life. You see, his article is not available on-line at EpiLife [too embarassing?]

I guess that means if there is a "gay gene" and you have it, biology is no excuse in Rev. Merrow's eyes?

All kidding aside, I don't know anything about Rev. Merrow -- he's probably a fine man. I'd probably agree with his article, if I could read it. I'm sure it's hedged with all kinds of qualifying language and isn't just some black and white piece. Nuanced and thoughtful, like the so-called "fundies" are when it comes to sexuality issues in the Church.

The good news regarding Merrow is that he has done missionary work in Sudan. That's a huge plus in my book. I haven't found many revisionists interested in missons work, period.

In short, pray for the commission and it's members:
Rev. Charles Alley [AAC] of St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in Richmond; Jo Belser [Integrity], a member of Grace Episcopal Church in Alexandria; Stephen Bevis, who works in public relations in the District, also of St. Mary?s Arlington; Hugo Blankingship [Apostles, AAC], a Fairfax lawyer; Don Boileau, a professor at George Mason University who is a member of Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Burke; the Rev. Margaret Faeth of Immanuel-on-the-Hill Episcopal Church in Alexandria; the Rev. Jeffrey Fishwick [AAC] of Christ Episcopal Church in Charlottesville; Donita Greene, a public school teacher who attends Meade Memorial Episcopal Church in Alexandria; Rev. David Harper of Church of the Apostles [AAC]; James Hartz, a former NBC-TV anchor who attends Christ Church in Alexandria; Paul Julienne, the senior warden of Truro Episcopal Church [AAC] in Fairfax and a research physicist for the U.S. government; the Rev. Paul Miller, rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Goochland; and Trevor Potter ["Republican attorney and gay Episcopalian"], a member of Grace Episcopal Church in The Plains and a lawyer working in the District.

[Hmmm, why no one from the Q-Z end of the alphabet?]

95-87. After my lamentation last week that they don't make 'em like they used to, Maryland proves me wrong with a 15-3 run beginning at the 3:14 point, when Nik Caner-Medley made a 2 pointer. Prior to that, Duke was up by 12, 74-62, and Maryland had no timeouts left.

The worst part, in my opinion, was in the midst of this comeback, at about the 45 sec point, when Jamar Smith missed an uncontested layup. He got his own rebound, but was fouled, sending him to the line, where he missed his first foul shot and they showed his average from the charity stripe was 42.9%. Thankfully, he sank the next one to make it 71-74. Mike Jones hit a 3 pointer with 34 seconds left and pulled down the final rebound and the game went into overtime.

In OT, Smith missed his first three free-throws, which led to Duke's main strategy: foul Jamar. However, he made up for his previous performance sinking the next four in a row.

Without a doubt, however, the star of the game was John Gilchrist.

What a great come-back.

Almost as good as another 12 point comeback (over Bill Walton's UCLA squad, with an 88 game win streak on the line).

The Pope was right. Over the past decade, as I've discussed issues with "conservative" Protestants of all denominations, one somewhat surprising theme I've noted is an expression that maybe, just maybe, the Catholic Church has been correct all along on the issue of birth control.

Today, in the Wall Street Journal, another, more public condemnation of birth control, from Donald Sensing, Methodist minister.

Here, if you haven't read it, was the original papal encylical, "Humanae Vitae." Here is an essay by Cardinal Karol Wojtyla on Humanae Vitae.

See also, this symposium published by First Things magazine.

Holy Obedience, Holy Defiance. God Bless you, Saints of Ohio, from these congregations: Church of the Holy Spirit, Akron; St. Anne’s in the Field, Madison; St. Stephen’s, East Liverpool; St. Barnabas, Bay Village; St. Luke’s, Akron; and Hudson Anglican Fellowship, Hudson.

On Sunday, members of these congregations assembled together at Presentation of Our Lord Orthodox Church to celebrate confirmation. They did this without the consent or approval of the local apostate bishop, yet did so under the authority of six bishops from other jurisdictions. Six faithful bishops.

E-mail from Spain. This was forwarded to me from my Dad. The author was one of my father's closest friends in high school (Dad was Charlie's best man):

Dear Friends,

We are all fine, but the horror is there and the anger. We live about four blocks from the Atocha train station. It is an important Victorian landmark and it seems the terrorists wanted the bombs to explode inside the station to destroy it and kill more people. The terriorists want to destroy democracy, and no it won't happen. We were on Long Island on 9/11 and the feeling here is similar. The 1,500 wounded and 200+ dead in such a small country is like our New York tragedy in terms of its impact.

Last night we were among the two million people who met on the Castellana, our main avenue There were about 14million in the other cities all together. It meant a number of things. First, It was an expression of unity with the families of the dead and wounded; it exhibited overwhelming support for democracy and the government's fight against terrorism. There is a profound sense of anger that one can feel and a determination to be done with these evil people who take innocent lives. Europe is awakening to the fact that the cold war is being followed by the terrorist war, which makes us all vulnerable.
The speed with which the government responded is incredible. People living nearby ran toward the trains with blankets and bottles of water and frankly anything else they could think of to be helpful. They consoled the wounded lying along the tracks and aided the police and firemen in pulling people out of the cars. A near by building became a medical station until the ambulances could transfer people to the hospitals which soon were filled with the injured and shortly after by the families who were searching their for loved ones. A morgue was set up at a convention center and by last night most of the dead had been identified and there had been a religious service for all of them together.

The killers had attacked a train filled with blue coller workers, some of them immigrants without papers, and students. The government announced all the immediate members of the illegal families who were living in this country would be given citizenship and the benefits that the government would give to all the families. The Spanish airline, Iberia, offered free tickets to bring the families from other countries.There were 24 foreigners from twelve other nations were among the the dead and injured. Hotels offered free rooms to the families from out of town who needed to be in Madrid. All the dead and wounded on these four commuter train,naturaly lived outside the city.

Only two days have passed and we just wanted to give you a feel for what was happening.

love, Carla and Charlie

More See also, these comments from Jesus Gil in Spain.

Whispers and Memos. Back in 1969, on my first tour of the U.S. Capitol, the guide took us to a spot in the old chambers, what is now "National Statuary Hall" and demonstrated that through the unique acoustics of the room, a person whispering in one part of the Hall could be overheard by another person in the Hall, quite some distance away. The story, as I recall it, was that John Quincy Adams placed his desk at the "receiving spot" and would use the trick to eavesdrop on the opposition.

I haven't been back to the Hall since 1995, but they were still demonstrating that trick then.

This came back to me when I heard about the kerfluffle involving the Judiciary committee memos. Manuel Miranda and other staffers read memoranda and other documents left on an open computer server.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe there is nothing different in this case and the Adams case, other than the technology is different. The earlier one used the unusual acoustics to access the opposition party's strategy, the later one used everyday computer know-how to access the opposition party's strategy.

Can't you hear JQA chuckling even now?

BTW, speaking of laughter, can you read this WaPo editorial condemning the use of leaked material without giggling?

O Brave. In today's Daily Standard, Wesley J. Smith gives us a peek at the new world ahead:

Futile Care Theory, the bioethical maxim that gives doctors the right to refuse wanted life-sustaining treatment based on their perception of the quality of their patient's life, has imbedded itself like barbed hook into British medical ethics and law. Indeed, current British Medical Association ethical guidelines permit doctors to stop tube-supplied nutrition and hydration if they believe the patient's quality of life is poor, leading to eventual death. In such cases, patients' or relatives' views on the matter must succumb to the medical and bioethical consensus.

Specifially, Smith notes that a patient in Great Britian is suing for to ensure his doctors do not murder him.

Nonetheless, the doyennes of the blogoshere continue to wring their hands about Leon Kass.

Gen. Telford Taylor in his opening statement in the Doctor's Trial said it best:

We cannot rest content when we have shown that crimes were committed and that certain persons committed them. To kill, to maim, and to torture is criminal under all modern systems of law. These defendants did not kill in hot blood, nor for personal enrichment. Some of them may be sadists who killed and tortured for sport, but they are not all perverts. They are not ignorant men. Most of them are trained physicians and some of them are distinguished scientists. Yet these defendants, all of whom were fully able to comprehend the nature of their acts, and most of whom were exceptionally qualified to form a moral and professional judgment in this respect, are responsible for wholesale murder and unspeakably cruel tortures.

It is our deep obligation to all peoples of the world to show why and how these things happened. It is incumbent upon us to set forth with conspicuous clarity the ideas and motives which moved these defendants to treat their fellow men as less than beasts. The perverse thoughts and distorted concepts which brought about these savageries are not dead. They cannot be killed by force of arms. They must not become a spreading cancer in the breast of humanity. They must be cut out and exposed for the reason so well stated by Mr. Justice Jackson in this courtroom a year ago?

The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.

--Gen. Telford Taylor

Political Pop Quiz. This one is too good to pass up:





Created by counterpunch and hotlinked with permission.

103-100. I read this on the front of the sports section: "'We deserve to be in the [NCAA] tournament,' said [Jamar] Smith..." and thought, yeah, tell it to Tom McMillen and Len Elmore. Then, I flipped the page and there, on the inside was this excellent story on that McMillen/Elmore Maryland team of '74.

Since they opened up the NCAA's to the fifth best team in a conference, the ACC hasn't been the same -- especially not the ACC tournament, where it was do or die to make the NCAA. The late 1960s and early 1970s were an incredible time for basketball. (I was an NC State fan).

Even the Wolfpack's 1983 National Championship came after they first won the ACC tournament.

On the otherhand, you wouldn't have had the classic 1985 Villanova win without dipping deep.