From time to time, I have mentioned hymns I have written. I have also posted hymn parodies (e.g., “All Things Bright and Beautiful”) in my less serious moments.
To date, I have written four hymns, and I would really like to have them sung in church. (Priests and church musicians take note.) Most have been sung at my own church and have occasionally been used elsewhere, though too infrequently.
I thought it might be helpful to list all my hymns in one place, which I have done here.
Particularly notable, I think, is my hymn “Authorities,” which celebrates scripture, tradition, and reason, the so-called three-legged stool of Richard Hooker. I know of no other hymn that celebrates Hooker’s theology. The hymn is especially appropriate for use on November 3, when we celebrate Hooker, and for the Sunday closest to November 16, when we use Proper 28, whose collect celebrates scripture.
“Holy Eucharist” is inspired by Eucharist Prayer C and would be appropriate whenever that liturgy is used. “Heavens and Earth, All of Creation” is also written in the spirit of Eucharist Prayer C (“the vast expanse of interstellar space, galaxies, suns, the planets in their courses,” etc.) One caveat: “Heavens and Earth, All of Creation” uses the copyrighted tune “Earth and All Stars.” I have permission to use this on a trial basis, but further permission would be needed for publication or long-term use.
If you would like to use any of these hymns in your church, please write to me for permission, which I will be happy to give.
September 26, 2014
September 7, 2014
How Do I Hate the TREC Letter? Let Me Count the Ways.
When I learned of the latest communication from the Task Force for Reimagining the Church, I immediately planned to offer a comprehensive response to the “TREC Letter to the Church.” Then I read the letter. And I read it again. And I read what others were saying. And I concluded that my original plan would be a complete waste of time. Like the previous missives from this task force, the latest output is a pile of gobbledygook that hints of changes that, in my humble opinion, would be somewhere between counterproductive and disastrous.
So, this will not be a complete analysis of the TREC letter. Instead, I will try to offer some high-level criticism and raise objections I have not seen elsewhere.
Let me begin with a procedural concern. Ever since I read the “TREC Study Paper on Episcopal Networks,” I became concerned that the task force could not meet its November deadline for producing useful recommendations. I now have no doubt that the deadline will be met. And I have no doubt that the final report will be a disaster.
General Convention Resolution C095 required that TREC convene “a special gathering to receive responses to the proposed recommendations to be brought forward to the 78th General convention,.” That gathering will take place at Washington National Cathedral and on the World Wide Web on October 2. I assume that we now have all the work products of TREC we are going to have before that meeting. That, in itself, is scary. Scarier still is the fact that the task is convening its final meeting on October 3 and 4, with the intention of releasing its report by November 30. What if the work of the task force runs into a buzz saw, as seems possible, on October 2? It is a pretty fair guess that, even if the members of the task force want to, there simply will be no time to change the direction of the task force recommendation. The October 2 affair is a sham. There is time to pretty up the gobbledegook, but what we see on November 30 is going to look a lot like what we have seen already.
The task force might well have begun by building a picture of what it wants the future church to look like. Had it articulated such a vision early on, Episcopalians would have had a chance to either buy into the vision or to point the task force is a different direction. If the task force headed off in the wrong direction, a final course correction at the end of its journey is not going to land its recommendations at the right destination.
Rightly or wrongly, we can, infer the objectives of the task force from what it has written. It seeks a church that is less expensive to run, more authoritarian in its governance, less responsive to lay voices, indifferent to the needs of vast areas of the territory of the church, and which carries out its work of telling dioceses and parishes what to do using hired guns that can be hired and fired at will. This is not the church I signed on to.
A competent report for a group like TREC would:
Consider, for example, the idea of cutting the size of Executive Council and eliminating representatives from provinces. This will cut costs (good). It will make the group less representative (bad). It may or may not make Executive Council more efficient. Yes, it’s easier to make decisions in a smaller group—a group of one works best—but a larger Council brings greater diversity to the decision process and provides more bodies to carry on necessary committee work. Of course, if some of Executive Council’s responsibility is offloaded to, say, the Presiding Bishop, Executive Council will have less to do.
Consider now the job of the Presiding Bishop. If he or she becomes CEO with additional managerial responsibility—I’m uncertain about the lines of authority myself, and TREC has not clarified what the status quo is—should we be selecting Presiding Bishops for management expertise, rather than for spiritual gifts? It is unclear to me that we can find an adequate CEO and chief pastor in the same person. TREC says nothing about this concern.
Clearly, the office of Presiding Bishop has become more powerful as the church moved away from a bishop who simply convened the House of Bishops. If the Presiding Bishop has ultimate responsibility for both the spiritual and organizational health of The Episcopal Church, why is the office holder chosen only by bishops? Now, the House of Deputies merely rubber stamps the choice of the bishops. If we value a participatory church—it is unclear that democracy is a value of TREC—ordinary clergy and laypeople should have a real say in who becomes Presiding Bishop.
Perhaps what is most surprising are the problem that seem not to have come to the attention of TREC at all. Chief among these are
Pray for our church. It surely needs your prayers.
Postscript. There is much commentary on the Web about the latest TREC letter. I do not intend to document it all here. My favorite essay so far is from the Rev. Tom Ferguson. I also have to mention Katie Sherrod’s post, coming as it does from another diocese that has experienced schism at the hands of a general church asleep at the switch. Read also what the Rev. Mark Harris has to say. The Lead has collected comments and links, including some I have recommended above. In any case, let your voice be heard before it is too late.
Let me begin with a procedural concern. Ever since I read the “TREC Study Paper on Episcopal Networks,” I became concerned that the task force could not meet its November deadline for producing useful recommendations. I now have no doubt that the deadline will be met. And I have no doubt that the final report will be a disaster.
General Convention Resolution C095 required that TREC convene “a special gathering to receive responses to the proposed recommendations to be brought forward to the 78th General convention,.” That gathering will take place at Washington National Cathedral and on the World Wide Web on October 2. I assume that we now have all the work products of TREC we are going to have before that meeting. That, in itself, is scary. Scarier still is the fact that the task is convening its final meeting on October 3 and 4, with the intention of releasing its report by November 30. What if the work of the task force runs into a buzz saw, as seems possible, on October 2? It is a pretty fair guess that, even if the members of the task force want to, there simply will be no time to change the direction of the task force recommendation. The October 2 affair is a sham. There is time to pretty up the gobbledegook, but what we see on November 30 is going to look a lot like what we have seen already.
The task force might well have begun by building a picture of what it wants the future church to look like. Had it articulated such a vision early on, Episcopalians would have had a chance to either buy into the vision or to point the task force is a different direction. If the task force headed off in the wrong direction, a final course correction at the end of its journey is not going to land its recommendations at the right destination.
Rightly or wrongly, we can, infer the objectives of the task force from what it has written. It seeks a church that is less expensive to run, more authoritarian in its governance, less responsive to lay voices, indifferent to the needs of vast areas of the territory of the church, and which carries out its work of telling dioceses and parishes what to do using hired guns that can be hired and fired at will. This is not the church I signed on to.
A competent report for a group like TREC would:
- Articulate overall objectives against which its recommendations can be measured.
- Clearly identify each problem it intends to address.
- Analyze each problem and explain what the status quo is and how it contributes to the problem.
- Offer a plan to address the problem.
- Analyze advantages and disadvantages of the plan and how, on the whole, it ameliorates the problem and contributes to the overall goals.
Consider, for example, the idea of cutting the size of Executive Council and eliminating representatives from provinces. This will cut costs (good). It will make the group less representative (bad). It may or may not make Executive Council more efficient. Yes, it’s easier to make decisions in a smaller group—a group of one works best—but a larger Council brings greater diversity to the decision process and provides more bodies to carry on necessary committee work. Of course, if some of Executive Council’s responsibility is offloaded to, say, the Presiding Bishop, Executive Council will have less to do.
Consider now the job of the Presiding Bishop. If he or she becomes CEO with additional managerial responsibility—I’m uncertain about the lines of authority myself, and TREC has not clarified what the status quo is—should we be selecting Presiding Bishops for management expertise, rather than for spiritual gifts? It is unclear to me that we can find an adequate CEO and chief pastor in the same person. TREC says nothing about this concern.
Clearly, the office of Presiding Bishop has become more powerful as the church moved away from a bishop who simply convened the House of Bishops. If the Presiding Bishop has ultimate responsibility for both the spiritual and organizational health of The Episcopal Church, why is the office holder chosen only by bishops? Now, the House of Deputies merely rubber stamps the choice of the bishops. If we value a participatory church—it is unclear that democracy is a value of TREC—ordinary clergy and laypeople should have a real say in who becomes Presiding Bishop.
Perhaps what is most surprising are the problem that seem not to have come to the attention of TREC at all. Chief among these are
- The recent budget disasters in 2009 and 2012 (definitely not the fault of the General Convention)
- The failure to to discipline bishops in a timely fashion when it becomes clear that they are straying off the reservation
- The ambiguity, whether real or imagined, as to whether a diocese can leave the church (also, is the Dennis Canon strong enough?)
- The tendency of Presiding Bishops to attend meetings of the Anglican primates and leave the impression that they are in agreement with communiqués that are clearly hostile to The Episcopal Church
Pray for our church. It surely needs your prayers.
Postscript. There is much commentary on the Web about the latest TREC letter. I do not intend to document it all here. My favorite essay so far is from the Rev. Tom Ferguson. I also have to mention Katie Sherrod’s post, coming as it does from another diocese that has experienced schism at the hands of a general church asleep at the switch. Read also what the Rev. Mark Harris has to say. The Lead has collected comments and links, including some I have recommended above. In any case, let your voice be heard before it is too late.
September 4, 2014
A Thought about Corporate Taxation
Let me begin by admitting that our system of corporate taxation is out of whack. It is not clear that corporations should be taxed at all. Our system taxes productivity and distorts the evaluation of costs and rewards. And it results in huge expenditures devoted to tax avoidance. Despite the notion that corporations are “people,” they are certainly not natural people who can enjoy profits. Only natural people—think stockholders—can ultimately enjoy the fruits of corporate earnings. It would make infinitely more sense than our present taxation method to drop corporate taxes and to tax all income at the same rate.
That said, it must be admitted that, in the current climate, major changes to the U.S. tax system—in anything important, actually—are impossible. Until the Republican Party regains its sanity or is destroyed—the latter eventuality seems preferable—we can make changes to our system of taxation only at the edges.
This brings me to the real subject of this post, but I want to begin with a disclaimer. I am not an economist, tax expert, or even a business person. I can, however, think logically. I’m sure that what I am about to propose would, in practice, have to be more complex than I can possibly imagine. I leave the pragmatic details to others.
There are untold billions of dollars, perhaps even trillions of dollars, being held by U.S. corporations overseas. The government would like this money to be repatriated, so it could be taxed. That is not happening because the corporations do not want to pay the 35% corporate tax on the money. Of course, these corporations virtually never pay the nominal rate, but, in any case, they would like to bring the money to the U.S., where it could be paid to stockholders, and pay as little tax as possible.
There are legislators who would like the government to allow corporate money held overseas to be brought to the U.S. and taxed at a rate lower than 35%, probably much lower (e.g., 3%). From one point of view, this looks like a win-win situation. From another point of view, it looks like a major corporate giveaway.
Those carrying water for corporate giants argue that corporations need an incentive to bring money into the U.S. I agree, but lowering the tax rate so that the government gets only a pittance out of the deal is not the only mechanism for providing incentive.
Here is another incentive idea: Increase the tax rate on monies brought into the country to, say 45%, beginning in perhaps six months. If corporations transfer the money to the U.S. promptly, the corporations would lose nothing—they wouldn’t gain anything, either—and the government would get the taxes to which it is morally entitled.
That said, it must be admitted that, in the current climate, major changes to the U.S. tax system—in anything important, actually—are impossible. Until the Republican Party regains its sanity or is destroyed—the latter eventuality seems preferable—we can make changes to our system of taxation only at the edges.
This brings me to the real subject of this post, but I want to begin with a disclaimer. I am not an economist, tax expert, or even a business person. I can, however, think logically. I’m sure that what I am about to propose would, in practice, have to be more complex than I can possibly imagine. I leave the pragmatic details to others.
There are untold billions of dollars, perhaps even trillions of dollars, being held by U.S. corporations overseas. The government would like this money to be repatriated, so it could be taxed. That is not happening because the corporations do not want to pay the 35% corporate tax on the money. Of course, these corporations virtually never pay the nominal rate, but, in any case, they would like to bring the money to the U.S., where it could be paid to stockholders, and pay as little tax as possible.
There are legislators who would like the government to allow corporate money held overseas to be brought to the U.S. and taxed at a rate lower than 35%, probably much lower (e.g., 3%). From one point of view, this looks like a win-win situation. From another point of view, it looks like a major corporate giveaway.
Those carrying water for corporate giants argue that corporations need an incentive to bring money into the U.S. I agree, but lowering the tax rate so that the government gets only a pittance out of the deal is not the only mechanism for providing incentive.
Here is another incentive idea: Increase the tax rate on monies brought into the country to, say 45%, beginning in perhaps six months. If corporations transfer the money to the U.S. promptly, the corporations would lose nothing—they wouldn’t gain anything, either—and the government would get the taxes to which it is morally entitled.
Random Language Notes
I’ve been accumulating several language issues I’ve wanted to write about, and I thought I’d just deal with all of them in one post.
I grew up in New Orleans, where sewers were the responsibility of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, so, probably unlike most people, I learned sewerage before I learned sewage.
Probably because I am influenced by the use of the term dissociation in chemistry, to dissociate for me suggests splitting a union into more or less equal parts, whereas to disassociate suggests one part splitting from a larger body. (The partners decided to dissociate. Roger concluded that he had to disassociate from his club.) Others may be influenced in their choice of words by the psychological concept of dissociation. I’m not really sure how that idea affects one’s perception of the distinction, if any, between dissociate and disassociate.
I can think of a several instances where people have taken a multi-word substantive and dropped all but the first word. Microwave oven has universally become simply microwave. Less commonly, transistor radio was shortened to transistor. In some contexts, Social Security number (or Social Security account number, SSAN) has become social. In a related transformation, long-playing record has simply become LP.
Some of these contractions work better than others. Microwave, I think, works well because hardly anyone has occasion to refer to one microwave and because references to objects such as a microwave cavity are confined to highly technical contexts.
I have always been upset by transistor to mean transistor radio. I had a clear idea in my own mind of what a transistor was and knew that many devices other than small radios used them. I therefore found the shortened term confusing and imprecise. Others may not have been bothered in the same way I was.
I do strongly object to social as a noun standing in for a longer phrase. Too many commonly used terms begin with social: social graces, social disease, social science, social work, social contract, social climber, etc. Moreover, social already has a meaning; a social is a kind of gathering or party. Perhaps this usage began as a nineteenth-century phrase, but, if so, I don’t know what that phrase might have been. The most common use of social as a noun today is likely in the phrase ice cream social. Perhaps we should just call that an ice cream.
Update, 9/5/2014. I heard the NPR underwriting announcement again today and realized it was for Constant Contact. One of the links on the home page of the company is labeled SOCIAL. The page linked to is about social campaigns, which, of course, use social media. If Constant Contact is using social to mean social campaigns, the usage is even stranger than I thought.
Sewage/Sewerage
My suspicion is that most people use sewage and may not even know sewerage. They may even think the latter term to be made up or a mispronunciation. As it happens, however, both terms originated around 1830. Sewage is waste carried through a system of pipes for disposal. Sewerage can mean the same thing. (That’s the confusing thing about these two words.) More commonly, however, sewerage refers either to the sewer infrastructure or the process of removing waste via such an infrastructure.I grew up in New Orleans, where sewers were the responsibility of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, so, probably unlike most people, I learned sewerage before I learned sewage.
Dissociate/Disassociate
Both dissociate and disassociate are old words, having been invented around Shakespeare’s time. Again, people may know one term and not the other and think that the unfamiliar word is wrong. In practice, the terms are pretty much synonymous.Probably because I am influenced by the use of the term dissociation in chemistry, to dissociate for me suggests splitting a union into more or less equal parts, whereas to disassociate suggests one part splitting from a larger body. (The partners decided to dissociate. Roger concluded that he had to disassociate from his club.) Others may be influenced in their choice of words by the psychological concept of dissociation. I’m not really sure how that idea affects one’s perception of the distinction, if any, between dissociate and disassociate.
Social
In a currently running NPR underwriting announcement, social is being used to mean social media. I find this jarring, and I had to hear the announcement several times before convincing myself that I had understood it correctly.I can think of a several instances where people have taken a multi-word substantive and dropped all but the first word. Microwave oven has universally become simply microwave. Less commonly, transistor radio was shortened to transistor. In some contexts, Social Security number (or Social Security account number, SSAN) has become social. In a related transformation, long-playing record has simply become LP.
Some of these contractions work better than others. Microwave, I think, works well because hardly anyone has occasion to refer to one microwave and because references to objects such as a microwave cavity are confined to highly technical contexts.
I have always been upset by transistor to mean transistor radio. I had a clear idea in my own mind of what a transistor was and knew that many devices other than small radios used them. I therefore found the shortened term confusing and imprecise. Others may not have been bothered in the same way I was.
I do strongly object to social as a noun standing in for a longer phrase. Too many commonly used terms begin with social: social graces, social disease, social science, social work, social contract, social climber, etc. Moreover, social already has a meaning; a social is a kind of gathering or party. Perhaps this usage began as a nineteenth-century phrase, but, if so, I don’t know what that phrase might have been. The most common use of social as a noun today is likely in the phrase ice cream social. Perhaps we should just call that an ice cream.
Update, 9/5/2014. I heard the NPR underwriting announcement again today and realized it was for Constant Contact. One of the links on the home page of the company is labeled SOCIAL. The page linked to is about social campaigns, which, of course, use social media. If Constant Contact is using social to mean social campaigns, the usage is even stranger than I thought.
September 1, 2014
Thoughts on the Future of Israel
I was driving home from Geneva, New York, today and heard an episode of the radio program “Democracy Now!” a public radio program I had never heard before. Today’s program featured an interview with long-time Jewish leader Henry Siegman, a critic of Israel’s policies regarding Palestinian. (The interview can be seen or read here.)
Siegman offered much to think about, but what I found most interesting were his thoughts on the future of Israel. Siegman argued that Israel’s present government has no real interest in a two-state solution—it wants all of Palestine. He asserted that Israeli settlements make that outcome nearly inevitable. Only two developments can derail that inevitability.
First, the U.S. could cut off financial and moral support for Israel. Our “special relationship,” he said, is based on common values, but, as things now stand, we are complicit in the “oppression and permanent disenfranchisement of an entire people.” At some point, America could say enough is enough and tell Israel that it is on its own. Of course, Israel cannot survive without American aid.
As much as I would like to see the U.S. cut Israel loose (or demand the complete dismantlement of all Jewish settlements intended to create facts on the ground), I am not going to hold my breath waiting for this to happen. The Israel lobby, after all, is even more powerful that the NRA. It owns Congress.
Siegman’s second possibility is a lot more interesting. Let the Palestinians surrender. Let them declare that Israel has won and can have all of Palestine. Then begin a civil-rights campaign demanding equal treatment by the Israeli government. (Siegman cautions that this move must be sincere, and the campaign must be non-violent.) Israelis will not stand for a democratic state that is no longer a Jewish one and will be forced to carve out a state for the Palestinians. (Or, better still, in my opinion, will be forced to dismantle the thinly disguised theocracy for a secular state.)
One more thought (this is my own): It is often said that Israel is our staunchest ally in the Middle East. Alas, Israel is also the reason we need such an ally.
First, the U.S. could cut off financial and moral support for Israel. Our “special relationship,” he said, is based on common values, but, as things now stand, we are complicit in the “oppression and permanent disenfranchisement of an entire people.” At some point, America could say enough is enough and tell Israel that it is on its own. Of course, Israel cannot survive without American aid.
As much as I would like to see the U.S. cut Israel loose (or demand the complete dismantlement of all Jewish settlements intended to create facts on the ground), I am not going to hold my breath waiting for this to happen. The Israel lobby, after all, is even more powerful that the NRA. It owns Congress.
Siegman’s second possibility is a lot more interesting. Let the Palestinians surrender. Let them declare that Israel has won and can have all of Palestine. Then begin a civil-rights campaign demanding equal treatment by the Israeli government. (Siegman cautions that this move must be sincere, and the campaign must be non-violent.) Israelis will not stand for a democratic state that is no longer a Jewish one and will be forced to carve out a state for the Palestinians. (Or, better still, in my opinion, will be forced to dismantle the thinly disguised theocracy for a secular state.)
One more thought (this is my own): It is often said that Israel is our staunchest ally in the Middle East. Alas, Israel is also the reason we need such an ally.
Continuing a Labor Day Tradition
In 2011, I wrote a poem titled “Labor Day Lament, 2011.” Alas, the poem seems as relevant today as it did three years ago. This year, however, the American people have suffered yet another indignity at the hands of our corporate overlords, as Burger King moves to Canada to avoid U.S. taxes.
Today, I heard a report on the radio about another technique being used to rob American workers of their dignity and a decent wage. Apparently, in the restaurant industry, software is predicting the probable volume of customers minute by minute. Because of this, a server, rather than being hired for a reasonable shift, might be hired for 7:54 AM to 9:30 AM, then from 11:23 AM to 12:58 PM. It is easy to think that Adam Smith’s invisible hand is increasingly at the neck of American workers.
If the workers of America ever wake up and unite, things may get ugly. Anyway, my 2011 poem is below. It is also on my Web site, where it appears with an explanation of its construction and some of its references.
Labor Day Lament, 2011
Today, I heard a report on the radio about another technique being used to rob American workers of their dignity and a decent wage. Apparently, in the restaurant industry, software is predicting the probable volume of customers minute by minute. Because of this, a server, rather than being hired for a reasonable shift, might be hired for 7:54 AM to 9:30 AM, then from 11:23 AM to 12:58 PM. It is easy to think that Adam Smith’s invisible hand is increasingly at the neck of American workers.
If the workers of America ever wake up and unite, things may get ugly. Anyway, my 2011 poem is below. It is also on my Web site, where it appears with an explanation of its construction and some of its references.
Labor Day Lament, 2011
by Lionel E. Deimel
With bosses making millions,
And millions unemployed,
Hapless workers, by the millions,
Have seen their dreams destroyed.
America the beautiful,
America the strong,
New order of the ages,
Where oh where did you go wrong?
We look for Christian charity,
For pity toward the poor;
We find instead indifference
And the rich demanding more.
Pollution from their smokestacks
The breath of infants robs;
They say that regulations
Will only kill our jobs.
America the beautiful,
America the strong,
New order of the ages,
Where oh where did you go wrong?
Our politicians ponder
How to fool the average Joe
Into thinking every problem
Can be solved by saying “no.”
For wrecking our prosperity,
No bankers went to jail;
They’d rather crush the middle class
Than let a big bank fail.
America the beautiful,
America the strong,
New order of the ages,
Where oh where did you go wrong?
Corporations are just people
In somewhat different guise,
So judges gave them license
To feed us all their lies.
The unions are retreating;
Their time, it’s said, is gone;
Amidst our countless troubles,
Tell me, which side are you on?
America the beautiful,
America the strong,
New order of the ages,
Where oh where did you go wrong?
|
August 28, 2014
Would Less Representation Be More Representative?
There has been much commentary lately about how legislative districts have become less competitive. Districts have been gerrymandered to be more Democratic or, more frequently, more Republican. One party becomes unbeatable in these districts and, because of the primary system, the more passionate (and radical) party faithful tend to select people who go on to win the general election. The resulting legislators, secure in their seats and holding fringe views, resist compromise and paralyze the legislative process. If there are enough such legislators, they can pass crazy laws. This state of affairs is exacerbated by the tendency of people to sort themselves geographically, making it difficult to create diverse districts even through nonpartisan redistricting.
Less remarked upon but at least as distressing is the tendency of local school boards in homogeneous districts to make decisions based on philosophy or religion, rather than on science or the informed opinion of professional educators.
Is democracy failing America?
Perhaps part of the problem is that the House of Representatives and similar bodies at the state and local level have too many members, i.e., because there are too many districts. If the House were half the size, for examples, districts in the states would have to be twice as big. The obvious objection to this is that individuals would have less of a voice in government. On the positive side, however, larger districts would likely encompass a more diverse constituency, resulting in more competitive races and, one might hope, more centrist legislators interested in governing, rather than in flauting their ideological purity.
The benefits of having larger school districts could manifest themselves even more quickly than the benefits of larger legislative districts. Pennsylvania has 500 school districts, which is widely seen as too many. There are some very fine school districts, but many are small, insular, and are funded largely by the underclass. Larger districts could offer more diverse and better funded school boards.
So, would less representation be more representative of Americans generally? Could be.
Less remarked upon but at least as distressing is the tendency of local school boards in homogeneous districts to make decisions based on philosophy or religion, rather than on science or the informed opinion of professional educators.
Is democracy failing America?
Perhaps part of the problem is that the House of Representatives and similar bodies at the state and local level have too many members, i.e., because there are too many districts. If the House were half the size, for examples, districts in the states would have to be twice as big. The obvious objection to this is that individuals would have less of a voice in government. On the positive side, however, larger districts would likely encompass a more diverse constituency, resulting in more competitive races and, one might hope, more centrist legislators interested in governing, rather than in flauting their ideological purity.
The benefits of having larger school districts could manifest themselves even more quickly than the benefits of larger legislative districts. Pennsylvania has 500 school districts, which is widely seen as too many. There are some very fine school districts, but many are small, insular, and are funded largely by the underclass. Larger districts could offer more diverse and better funded school boards.
So, would less representation be more representative of Americans generally? Could be.
August 27, 2014
Flags in Church
I read a piece by Mark Sandlin this morning, the title of which was “10 MORE Things Churches Can’t Do While Following Jesus.” Number 2 on the list was the following:
The idea of banning U.S. flags from our worship spaces is not a new idea. Some prominent Episcopalians have advocated this. Anyone who is a student of American history and who pays attention to current events recognizes that there are dangers in conflating Christianity and nationalism. That said, I think the case against having an American flag in church—in an Episcopal church certainly—is weaker than Sandlin suggests.
To begin with, I dispute the assertion that the flag “points us toward a government,” at least as “government” is understand in most of the world. Whatever the deficiencies of our Pledge of Allegiance—see my essay “The Pledge of Allegiance Revisited”—it is on the mark in stressing allegiance “to the Republic for which it [the flag] stands.” Oaths taken by public servants (e.g., the President and members of the military) are clearer on this point, stressing faithfulness to the Constitution, which is more of an abstraction that would be a pledge to, say, the Obama administration. Although our Constitution is decidedly not a “Christian” document, it is not difficult to see it embodying an aspiration for “justice and peace among all people and respect [for] the dignity of every human being.” Moreover, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religious bodies from government interference, a principle worth celebrating. These are ideals symbolized by the flag.
The stronger case for the flag in church, however, hinges on the nature of Anglicanism. At its best, Anglicanism does not identify church with state, but it acknowledges that church polity, ethics, and practice are not universals, but are best tailored to the society in which the church ministers. One hopes that the fundamental Good News preached in The Episcopal Church is the same as that preached in the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). The cause of Christ would not be served by translating The Episcopal Church to Nigeria or the Church of Nigeria to the United States, however. The protestations of our presiding bishop notwithstanding, The Episcopal Church is very much an American church.
The American flag in an Episcopal church, then, is not equating God and country. Instead, it is acknowledging the mission field outside the doors of the church.
Note. Minor edits were made to this post 9/18/2014.
2) Place a U.S. Flag in the sanctuary.
For me, this one is unbelievably straightforward.
Sanctuary space is meant for signs, symbols and experiences which point us toward God.
A flag points us toward a government.
A government is not a god – at least, it’s not supposed to be.
Worse yet, a flag displayed in a space of worship seems to indicate a sense of “chosenness,” “specialness” – basically good old fashioned American exceptionalism.
But, God loves us all equally.
A flag in the sanctuary suggests that God loves some nations more than others.
And, that actually points us away from God.
Get the flag out of the sanctuary.
Put it on your truck, wear it on a shirt or hang it in your yard – but, unless you are going to display the flag of every nation on Earth in your sanctuary, you are creating a worship space that points away from God.
Make it go bye-bye.
The idea of banning U.S. flags from our worship spaces is not a new idea. Some prominent Episcopalians have advocated this. Anyone who is a student of American history and who pays attention to current events recognizes that there are dangers in conflating Christianity and nationalism. That said, I think the case against having an American flag in church—in an Episcopal church certainly—is weaker than Sandlin suggests.To begin with, I dispute the assertion that the flag “points us toward a government,” at least as “government” is understand in most of the world. Whatever the deficiencies of our Pledge of Allegiance—see my essay “The Pledge of Allegiance Revisited”—it is on the mark in stressing allegiance “to the Republic for which it [the flag] stands.” Oaths taken by public servants (e.g., the President and members of the military) are clearer on this point, stressing faithfulness to the Constitution, which is more of an abstraction that would be a pledge to, say, the Obama administration. Although our Constitution is decidedly not a “Christian” document, it is not difficult to see it embodying an aspiration for “justice and peace among all people and respect [for] the dignity of every human being.” Moreover, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religious bodies from government interference, a principle worth celebrating. These are ideals symbolized by the flag.
The stronger case for the flag in church, however, hinges on the nature of Anglicanism. At its best, Anglicanism does not identify church with state, but it acknowledges that church polity, ethics, and practice are not universals, but are best tailored to the society in which the church ministers. One hopes that the fundamental Good News preached in The Episcopal Church is the same as that preached in the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). The cause of Christ would not be served by translating The Episcopal Church to Nigeria or the Church of Nigeria to the United States, however. The protestations of our presiding bishop notwithstanding, The Episcopal Church is very much an American church.
The American flag in an Episcopal church, then, is not equating God and country. Instead, it is acknowledging the mission field outside the doors of the church.
Note. Minor edits were made to this post 9/18/2014.
August 22, 2014
Words We Need (Maybe)
On several occasions recently, I have heard news people using the term “videotaping.” The word is more specific than simply “recording,” which might imply audio recording. Very little video recording is done on tape these days, however. I think we need new words for audio recording and video recording that do not refer to particular technologies.
Permit me to make some suggestions. (Alternatives are welcome.) Why not use “videcording” to mean recording video and “audicording” for recording only audio. (Usually, audio is recorded with video, though this is not necessarily the case. I don’t know how useful a word for recording only video would be, but security cameras usually do this.) Naturally, we would also have the words “videcord,” “videcorder,” etc.
A quick Web search uncovered words related to my proposed neologisms. I found a audio tape recorder whose model name was Audicord 23 (see here):
References to “videcord” are more confusing. It appears to be the name of a defunct UK company. “Videcord” also appears on a Web page of Textronix, Inc. I have no idea what it is referring to.
Permit me to make some suggestions. (Alternatives are welcome.) Why not use “videcording” to mean recording video and “audicording” for recording only audio. (Usually, audio is recorded with video, though this is not necessarily the case. I don’t know how useful a word for recording only video would be, but security cameras usually do this.) Naturally, we would also have the words “videcord,” “videcorder,” etc.
A quick Web search uncovered words related to my proposed neologisms. I found a audio tape recorder whose model name was Audicord 23 (see here):
References to “videcord” are more confusing. It appears to be the name of a defunct UK company. “Videcord” also appears on a Web page of Textronix, Inc. I have no idea what it is referring to.
Home at the DFMS
In my post “Missing Episcopal Words,” I noted that the URLs http://episcopalchurch.org and http://dfms.org take the visitor to the same place. The latter URL is easy to remember and short, so I used it frequently. That was seven years ago, however, and the two URLs are no longer interchangeable. The URL http://dfms.org (or http://www.dfms.org) takes the visitor to a page named “Home,” which looks like this (click on image for a larger view):
What, exactly, is the point of this page, particularly since “www.eiscopalchurch.org” is not actually a link? Wouldn’t it be more user-friendly simply to redirect to http://episcopalchurch.org? If the page is meant to discourage the use of the dfms.org domain, it would at least be thoughtful to provide a real link the the Episcopal Church home page (not, as the text asserts, to the actual Episcopal Church). Moreover, the social media links at the left make no sense. And why is the page named “Home”?
Who is responsible for this idiotic page?
Who is responsible for this idiotic page?
August 13, 2014
Does Facebook Drive You Crazy?
I post on my own page, of course, but also on institutional pages such as that of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) and the No Anglican Covenant Coalition. I also post on group pages (e.g, that of Pittsburgh Episcopal Cursillo) and institutional pages for which I am not an editor (e.g, that of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh). I post from my computer, my tablet, and my mobile phone. I mostly post directly to a Facebook page, but I sometimes click on a Facebook icon found on a non-Facebook page (e.g., on my own blog) to write a post. Many of my posts are of pictures or links to other material on the Web. I also post comments, some of which may also be pictures or links.
What drives me crazy is that making a post or comment works differently depending on platform, page, and my status with regard to that page. Moreover, the behavior of Facebook in any context keeps changing.
I don’t have the time or patience to catalog all the differences encountered when posting to Facebook, but I’ll note a few:
- When I enter a URL, a picture from the referenced page, a title, and text from the page usually show up. But sometimes not.
- When the information above shows up on a page such as that of PEP, I can change the picture. On my own page, I cannot change the picture.
- When I use a URL in a comment, information from the referenced page does not display. When I publish the comment, however, it does. I cannot change it, only delete it.
- When I enter a URL in my mobile Facebook app, only the URL is shown. The post contains no picture, title, or text.
- (This one sent me over the edge today.) I wanted to post a link to an event on the PEP page on the page of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. When I entered the link, the date and event information, including link, was displayed. When I published the post, the date, information, and link disappeared. The post gave no direct way to reach the PEP event post. Moreover, I could neither edit the post nor delete it.
I realize that not everyone encounters these frustrations, simply because people mostly post on their own Facebook pages, but does the inconsistencies of Facebook drive you crazy?
August 7, 2014
Hard Shell Baptists
I’ve begun reading To Kill a Mockingbird, which I should have read a long time ago. In Chapter 5, I was surprised to encounter a reference to “foot-washing Baptist” and to this sentence: “‘My shell’s not that hard, child. I’m just a Baptist.’”
As a child, I remember my father’s referring to “hard shell Baptists.” I thought this simply referred to very conservative Baptists who disapproved of such activities as card-playing and dancing. Harper Lee caused me to check Wikipedia, however, where I discovered that Primitive Baptists (also Anti-Mission Baptists, and Old School Baptists), also known as Hard Shell Baptists are an identifiable group with specific doctrines and practices.
Who knew?
As a child, I remember my father’s referring to “hard shell Baptists.” I thought this simply referred to very conservative Baptists who disapproved of such activities as card-playing and dancing. Harper Lee caused me to check Wikipedia, however, where I discovered that Primitive Baptists (also Anti-Mission Baptists, and Old School Baptists), also known as Hard Shell Baptists are an identifiable group with specific doctrines and practices.
Who knew?
August 6, 2014
Ritz on the Fritz
I have had a problem with the last several boxes of Ritz crackers I’ve purchased.The crackers are packaged in four cellophane sleeves in the 13.7 oz package. Even though the cardboard box holding the four inner packages appears undamaged, there is an unpleasant surprise when one of the sleeves is opened. In their sleeve, the crackers seem fine. In many cases, however, when the crackers are removed, the edges of the crackers crumble. This is illustrated in the photo shown, which depicts five crackers that were stacked one atop another in their sleeve. (Click on the photo for a larger image.)
I love Ritz crackers and have usually been dissatisfied with similar crackers on the market. I am, however, thinking of switching to Keebler Town House crackers.
Ritz crackers are made by Nabisco, once known as National Biscuit Company, whose history stretches back more than 200 years. Following many mergers, acquisitions, and splits, the crackers are now made in Mexico by Mondeléz International.
I called Mondeléz International today, and the customer representative I spoke to seemed surprised at my problem. Either the company has not had many complaints like mine or does not want to admit to a serious manufacturing defect. I have to wonder if the crackers are thinner than they used to be or have otherwise changed in recent years.
Has anyone else encountered crumbling Ritz crackers?
August 3, 2014
The Rest of the Story
Today’s Gospel reading was the feeding of the five thousand (Matthew 14:13–21). As I listened to the reading in church this morning, I imagined a following incident that was not recorded by the evangelist. Below is the story from Matthew, including my imagined epilogue.Jesus withdrew in a boat to a deserted place by himself. But when the crowds heard it, they followed him on foot from the towns. When he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them and cured their sick. When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a deserted place, and the hour is now late; send the crowds away so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves.” Jesus said to them, “They need not go away; you give them something to eat.” They replied, “We have nothing here but five loaves and two fish.” And he said, “Bring them here to me.” Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And all ate and were filled; and they took up what was left over of the broken pieces, twelve baskets full. And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children.
After the crowd had eaten, the disciples came to Jesus and said, “The people have no way to relieve themselves. Send them away, so they can relieve themselves at home.” But Jesus said to them, “Have the people walk to the nearby grove, and they will be satisfied.” When the people did as they were told, behold, they found many small dwellings with doors, each with a seat and pot inside. And the people relieved themselves and returned to hear Jesus teach until it was nearly sunset. And Jesus dismissed the crowd with a blessing, and the people went home, amazed at what they had seen and heard.
August 1, 2014
Fish Friday
I was thinking broiled fish when I went to Walmart to shop today, but the store had frozen cod, so I decided to make cod au gratin. I discovered this dish years ago when visiting St. John’s, Newfoundland. It is the classic dish of Newfoundland and the dish that convinced me that cod can be terrific. (My previous experience with cod was limited to being given cod liver oil as a child. The memory is not a fond one.)
Cod au gratin is really pretty simple, just a bechamel sauce with onion over pieces of cod, baked in a dish covered in breadcrumbs and grated cheese. The dish was tasty—I could have made the sauce a bit thicker—and I took the opportunity to open the bottle of Riesling I bought on my recent trip to Ontario. (See “Ontario Wine Country.”)
I did have a minor problem, however. The recipe called for one pound of fish, and the package of frozen cod I bought at Walmart clearly announced “NET WT 16 OZ (454 g).” After I defrosted the contents, however, I weighed the fish. The four pieces of cod weighed 13-3/8 ounces. Perhaps they weighed 16 ounces when frozen, though the package did not suggest that water contributed to the nominal 16 ounce weight. Moreover, the Nutrition Facts on the side of the package began
Many products carry the URL of a Web site or a telephone number for consumer questions and complaints. Not this package. All it says is
Cod au gratin is really pretty simple, just a bechamel sauce with onion over pieces of cod, baked in a dish covered in breadcrumbs and grated cheese. The dish was tasty—I could have made the sauce a bit thicker—and I took the opportunity to open the bottle of Riesling I bought on my recent trip to Ontario. (See “Ontario Wine Country.”)I did have a minor problem, however. The recipe called for one pound of fish, and the package of frozen cod I bought at Walmart clearly announced “NET WT 16 OZ (454 g).” After I defrosted the contents, however, I weighed the fish. The four pieces of cod weighed 13-3/8 ounces. Perhaps they weighed 16 ounces when frozen, though the package did not suggest that water contributed to the nominal 16 ounce weight. Moreover, the Nutrition Facts on the side of the package began
Serving Size 4 oz (113g) rawMy conclusion is that Walmart is cheating consumers and, I assume, violating the law.
Servings per Container about 4
(approx. 3–6 fillets)
Many products carry the URL of a Web site or a telephone number for consumer questions and complaints. Not this package. All it says is
DISTRIBUTED BY: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.I may return the package to the store. Or, perhaps, I will contact the Pennsylvania Attorney General.
Bentonville, AR 72716
July 28, 2014
Ontario Wine Country
I spent much of Friday and Saturday in Ontario sampling the products of the many wineries there. I had never been to Ontario before, and I didn’t have much of a strategy other than getting a sense of what the region had to offer. Because my son is a winemaker in the Finger Lakes, a region that produces particularly notable whites, I was naturally interested in what white wines I might find in Canada. I was also interested in tasting ice wines. much of the world’s production of which comes from Ontario.
August Deimel, the winemaker at Keuka Spring Vineyards, suggested three of the wineries I visited. I began my tasting at one of these, Stratus Vineyards, in Niagara-on-the-Lake. A tasting of four wines at Stratus cost $10, but I was assured that the experience would be worth it. The tasting room was in a somewhat austere LEED certified building that was more attractive inside than out. I went for the whites and the ice wine. (I didn’t make any notes, so this post may seem sketchy to the serious wine lover.) The standout here was the ice wine, which was a blend of several grape varieties. Not having visited other wineries, I was reluctant to buy anything at Stratus, but I thought I might come back for the ice wine. The woman who served me was very helpful and knowledgeable—this was uniformly the case at all the wineries I visited—and she suggested that, since I was particularly interested in Rieslings, I should visit the nearby Between the Lines Winery. (She also discouraged me from visiting another winery I had selected purely on location—too corporate, she advised.)
Between the Lines has an unprepossessing and rather claustrophobic tasting room. I was served by a woman recently arrived from Stuttgart, Germany, but she had no trouble representing the winery’s products. I tasted the Riesling, but fell in love with the 2013 Gewuerztraminer. (According to Wikipedia, Gewuerztraminer is the French spelling of the more familiar Gewürztraminer.) The Gewuerztraminer was my first purchase of the day. Between the Lines also had a couple of ice wines. I tasted the 2013 Vidal, which was fine but much less interesting than what I had found at Stratus.
There wasn’t much time left on Friday for winery hopping, so I selected as the final destination of the day Château des Charmes, another Niagara-on-the-Lake winery, which was on the way back to Niagara Falls. I made the selection with the help of “Wine Country Ontario Travel Guide,” an invaluable booklet obtained from one of the Ontario information stations scattered about. I also got an Ontario map there, but the seven-panel fold-out map in the guide was more than adequate for the wine tourist. I was more charmed by the buildings and grounds at Château des Charmes than the wines, but it was getting to the end of the day. The Vidal ice wine was tasty, but not as much so as the Stratus offering.
On Saturday, I abandoned the picture-perfect Niagra-on-the-Lake region for points west. The first stop was the Henry of Pelham Estate Winery, another destination recommended by my son. Perhaps I wasn’t paying close attention, but I discovered the tasting room only after visiting two other buildings on the property. And the property is extensive—there are vines as far as the eye can see. The winery offers both conventional tours and tours via Segway, but these have to be arranged in advance. (I want to try out a Segway someday.) I tasted a 2012 Riesling here, but I found a Riesling to buy in a 2008 Reserve Riesling. (Who knew a 2008 Riesling would be a great wine in 2014!) The Riesling ice wine was fine, but the Stratus blend remained my favorite.
Next on the list was another family recommendation, Malivoire Wine Company. Before I even entered the winery, I found a cheesemonger on the property selling mostly locally produced cheeses. I came away with chunks of a maple syrup cheddar and caramelized onion cheddar. (How could one pass up a cheese with maple syrup in Canada?) The main attraction here was really the winery itself, described in the “Travel Guide” as the “first-in-Ontario gravity-flow winery” in “an elaborately recycled Quonset hut built in 1998.” The place had a cave-like quality quite unlike, say, Stratus or Château des Charmes. From the tasting room, one could look up and see several levels of tanks. I thought the gravity-flow production was primarily an energy-saving device, but it was explained to me that the big advantage of the system was that, by eliminating pumps, less oxygen is introduced into the juice/wine. August will have to explain to me why this is a good thing. I tasted several wines in the Quonset hut, including a Grenache—I had only before tasted rosé made from this grape—and a red ice wine whose composition I don’t remember.
I had time to visit one last winery, and the server at Malivoire suggested the nearby Kew Vineyards. Winemaking is relatively new there, and there is no “Travel Guide” listing. Riesling grapes were first planted on the property in 1975, however. Visitors enter a mid-nineteenth-century house that has been renovated for wine selling, while retaining the charm of the original. Kew, which is very much a family operation, offers a very different tasting room experience. There is no conventional tasting room, at least not one with the usual bar. I was invited to sit inside or outside and have wine brought to me. I choose to go outside on a patio with a lovely view of rows and rows of grape vines. Kew was different in other ways as well. No ice wine was available, but I tasted two sparkling wines—think brut Champagne—and a white blend whose composition I don’t recall. For an extra fee, I could have had a cheese plate to accompany the wine, but it was too close to lunch time, and I wanted something more substantial for the midday meal. Drinking bubbly with cheese on the Kew patio and looking out on the vineyard would surely make for a pleasant afternoon.
As it turned out, there wasn’t time after lunch to return to Stratus for ice wine, but I wished that that had been possible. It was time to return to the U.S. and the time-consuming border station. The two wines I bought on the trip can be seen below. (Click on the image for a larger view.) I’ll have to plan another trip to Ontario.
August Deimel, the winemaker at Keuka Spring Vineyards, suggested three of the wineries I visited. I began my tasting at one of these, Stratus Vineyards, in Niagara-on-the-Lake. A tasting of four wines at Stratus cost $10, but I was assured that the experience would be worth it. The tasting room was in a somewhat austere LEED certified building that was more attractive inside than out. I went for the whites and the ice wine. (I didn’t make any notes, so this post may seem sketchy to the serious wine lover.) The standout here was the ice wine, which was a blend of several grape varieties. Not having visited other wineries, I was reluctant to buy anything at Stratus, but I thought I might come back for the ice wine. The woman who served me was very helpful and knowledgeable—this was uniformly the case at all the wineries I visited—and she suggested that, since I was particularly interested in Rieslings, I should visit the nearby Between the Lines Winery. (She also discouraged me from visiting another winery I had selected purely on location—too corporate, she advised.)
Between the Lines has an unprepossessing and rather claustrophobic tasting room. I was served by a woman recently arrived from Stuttgart, Germany, but she had no trouble representing the winery’s products. I tasted the Riesling, but fell in love with the 2013 Gewuerztraminer. (According to Wikipedia, Gewuerztraminer is the French spelling of the more familiar Gewürztraminer.) The Gewuerztraminer was my first purchase of the day. Between the Lines also had a couple of ice wines. I tasted the 2013 Vidal, which was fine but much less interesting than what I had found at Stratus.
There wasn’t much time left on Friday for winery hopping, so I selected as the final destination of the day Château des Charmes, another Niagara-on-the-Lake winery, which was on the way back to Niagara Falls. I made the selection with the help of “Wine Country Ontario Travel Guide,” an invaluable booklet obtained from one of the Ontario information stations scattered about. I also got an Ontario map there, but the seven-panel fold-out map in the guide was more than adequate for the wine tourist. I was more charmed by the buildings and grounds at Château des Charmes than the wines, but it was getting to the end of the day. The Vidal ice wine was tasty, but not as much so as the Stratus offering.
On Saturday, I abandoned the picture-perfect Niagra-on-the-Lake region for points west. The first stop was the Henry of Pelham Estate Winery, another destination recommended by my son. Perhaps I wasn’t paying close attention, but I discovered the tasting room only after visiting two other buildings on the property. And the property is extensive—there are vines as far as the eye can see. The winery offers both conventional tours and tours via Segway, but these have to be arranged in advance. (I want to try out a Segway someday.) I tasted a 2012 Riesling here, but I found a Riesling to buy in a 2008 Reserve Riesling. (Who knew a 2008 Riesling would be a great wine in 2014!) The Riesling ice wine was fine, but the Stratus blend remained my favorite.
Next on the list was another family recommendation, Malivoire Wine Company. Before I even entered the winery, I found a cheesemonger on the property selling mostly locally produced cheeses. I came away with chunks of a maple syrup cheddar and caramelized onion cheddar. (How could one pass up a cheese with maple syrup in Canada?) The main attraction here was really the winery itself, described in the “Travel Guide” as the “first-in-Ontario gravity-flow winery” in “an elaborately recycled Quonset hut built in 1998.” The place had a cave-like quality quite unlike, say, Stratus or Château des Charmes. From the tasting room, one could look up and see several levels of tanks. I thought the gravity-flow production was primarily an energy-saving device, but it was explained to me that the big advantage of the system was that, by eliminating pumps, less oxygen is introduced into the juice/wine. August will have to explain to me why this is a good thing. I tasted several wines in the Quonset hut, including a Grenache—I had only before tasted rosé made from this grape—and a red ice wine whose composition I don’t remember.
I had time to visit one last winery, and the server at Malivoire suggested the nearby Kew Vineyards. Winemaking is relatively new there, and there is no “Travel Guide” listing. Riesling grapes were first planted on the property in 1975, however. Visitors enter a mid-nineteenth-century house that has been renovated for wine selling, while retaining the charm of the original. Kew, which is very much a family operation, offers a very different tasting room experience. There is no conventional tasting room, at least not one with the usual bar. I was invited to sit inside or outside and have wine brought to me. I choose to go outside on a patio with a lovely view of rows and rows of grape vines. Kew was different in other ways as well. No ice wine was available, but I tasted two sparkling wines—think brut Champagne—and a white blend whose composition I don’t recall. For an extra fee, I could have had a cheese plate to accompany the wine, but it was too close to lunch time, and I wanted something more substantial for the midday meal. Drinking bubbly with cheese on the Kew patio and looking out on the vineyard would surely make for a pleasant afternoon.
As it turned out, there wasn’t time after lunch to return to Stratus for ice wine, but I wished that that had been possible. It was time to return to the U.S. and the time-consuming border station. The two wines I bought on the trip can be seen below. (Click on the image for a larger view.) I’ll have to plan another trip to Ontario.
July 19, 2014
Visitors
I get information concerning where visitors to my blog are located. Not surprisingly, more visitors are from the United States than from anywhere else. Because many of my posts involve Anglicanism, I might have expected that lots of visitors would be from Canada and the U.K. Not so.
Looking at visitors since my blog premiered in 2002, the top sources of traffic other than the U.S. have been China, Ukraine, Russia, U.K., France, Germany, Poland, Canada, and Sweden. It was 4½ years before I wrote a church-related post, so Anglicans may not have contributed significantly to the numbers in the early years. Visitors from China, Ukraine, and Russia were responsible for 30% as many page views as were U.S. visitors. Go figure. Corresponding numbers for the U.K. and Canada were 4.6% and 1.9%, respectively.
Considering visitors in only the last month, the top traffic sources have been the U.S., France, Ukraine, Taiwan, Russia, China, Turkey, Germany, U.K., and Poland. France contributed 29.7% as many page views as did U.S. visitors. Who knows what the French were interested in! I am disappointed that few members of the Church of England seem to be reading Lionel Deimel’s Web Log. The U.K. accounted for only 3.8% as many page views as did the U.S. My U.K. audience seems to be decreasing. Sigh! I don’t know anything about Canadian visitors, but they viewed fewer pages than did the Poles.
Of course, all these numbers must be taken with a grain of salt. No doubt, many find my blog without finding anything they were looking for. I have serious doubts that I have many fans in Ukraine.
Looking at visitors since my blog premiered in 2002, the top sources of traffic other than the U.S. have been China, Ukraine, Russia, U.K., France, Germany, Poland, Canada, and Sweden. It was 4½ years before I wrote a church-related post, so Anglicans may not have contributed significantly to the numbers in the early years. Visitors from China, Ukraine, and Russia were responsible for 30% as many page views as were U.S. visitors. Go figure. Corresponding numbers for the U.K. and Canada were 4.6% and 1.9%, respectively.
Considering visitors in only the last month, the top traffic sources have been the U.S., France, Ukraine, Taiwan, Russia, China, Turkey, Germany, U.K., and Poland. France contributed 29.7% as many page views as did U.S. visitors. Who knows what the French were interested in! I am disappointed that few members of the Church of England seem to be reading Lionel Deimel’s Web Log. The U.K. accounted for only 3.8% as many page views as did the U.S. My U.K. audience seems to be decreasing. Sigh! I don’t know anything about Canadian visitors, but they viewed fewer pages than did the Poles.
Of course, all these numbers must be taken with a grain of salt. No doubt, many find my blog without finding anything they were looking for. I have serious doubts that I have many fans in Ukraine.
July 18, 2014
Terrorism
Since September 11, 2001, any instance of violence we don’t like is called terrorism. This practice is manipulative, but it has become the 21st century’s propaganda weapon of choice. This unfortunate trend seems to have been started by the United States, but the technique has been adopted by friends and foes alike.
In Syria, for example, we viewed the insurgents, even when we didn’t like all of them, as revolutionaries or freedom-fighters. The Syrian government, however, repeated called the fighters terrorists. The U.S. government saw this charge as ridiculous, but it was merely reaping the rhetorical harvest of the propaganda seeds it had sown.
I write this now because some people in and out of government are calling the downing of a commercial airliner over Ukraine an act of terrorism. To begin with, the circumstances of the disaster are not yet clear, so the conclusion—any conclusion—is premature. More significantly, however, it is unlikely that anyone had a motive to bring down the plane. The most likely explanation is that Russians or pro-Russian rebels downed the aircraft with a Russian missile, having mistaken it for a Ukrainian military transport. That is, the incident is linkly collateral damage resulting from ongoing warfare.
“Terrorism” has become an epithet used without careful thinking and without integrity. It’s time to become more careful in our use of the term
In Syria, for example, we viewed the insurgents, even when we didn’t like all of them, as revolutionaries or freedom-fighters. The Syrian government, however, repeated called the fighters terrorists. The U.S. government saw this charge as ridiculous, but it was merely reaping the rhetorical harvest of the propaganda seeds it had sown.
I write this now because some people in and out of government are calling the downing of a commercial airliner over Ukraine an act of terrorism. To begin with, the circumstances of the disaster are not yet clear, so the conclusion—any conclusion—is premature. More significantly, however, it is unlikely that anyone had a motive to bring down the plane. The most likely explanation is that Russians or pro-Russian rebels downed the aircraft with a Russian missile, having mistaken it for a Ukrainian military transport. That is, the incident is linkly collateral damage resulting from ongoing warfare.
“Terrorism” has become an epithet used without careful thinking and without integrity. It’s time to become more careful in our use of the term
July 14, 2014
Nuance Power PDF Advanced Bug Fixed
The bug I discovered after I installed Nuance Power PDF Advanced on my computer appears to have been fixed. I reported in an earlier post that PDF files created by the new software often, though not always, put a watermark on pages indicated that the file was produced by a trial version of the program, even though the program was registered and activated.
I have been documenting my interaction with the technical support people at Nuance in my original post. Readers of that post who have not been reading my updates but who are interested in my experience may want to return to that post and read about my experience.
I am inclined to believe that Power PDF Advanced is an excellent program for creating and manipulating PDF files, but I have not systematically examined all its features. Certainly, the software embodies some design decisions different from those I would have made. In any case, Nuance offers a free trial, as well as a money-back guarantee.
I have been documenting my interaction with the technical support people at Nuance in my original post. Readers of that post who have not been reading my updates but who are interested in my experience may want to return to that post and read about my experience.
I am inclined to believe that Power PDF Advanced is an excellent program for creating and manipulating PDF files, but I have not systematically examined all its features. Certainly, the software embodies some design decisions different from those I would have made. In any case, Nuance offers a free trial, as well as a money-back guarantee.
July 13, 2014
The South Carolina Amnesia
A severe outbreak of amnesia has struck the southeastern portion of South Carolina. Epidemiologists have observed that the disorder seems to have affected only former Episcopalians who followed deposed bishop Mark Lawrence out of The Episcopal Church. Continuing Episcopalians are apparently unaffected, and it is unclear whether all erstwhile Episcopalians are vulnerable to the spreading epidemic. The rate of affliction among diocesan and parish leaders, however, is virtually 100 percent.
Evidence of the epidemic is found exclusively in the town of St. George, South Carolina. In particular, the outbreak is observable in the Dorchester County Courthouse, specifically, in the courtroom in which Judge Diane S. Goodstein is presiding over the trial brought against South Carolina Episcopalians by the aforementioned deposed bishop and the congregations that departed The Episcopal Church with him.
Observers have noted that witnesses called by the plaintiffs—clergy and lay leaders of congregations claiming to have left The Episcopal Church and taken real and personal parish property with them—have apparently forgotten that their parishes were once part of the general church and not simply a part of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Various witnesses, for example, have claimed that “Episcopal” in parish names and on identifying signs did not refer to The Episcopal Church, but only to the fact that their parishes were under the supervision of a bishop. Moreover, these witnesses have forgotten that, in the very recent past and for some time previous, they had exhibited extreme and righteous hostility toward The Episcopal Church because they believed that the church had departed from biblical truth, of which they were in exclusive possession.
The South Carolina amnesia presents with concomitant paranoia. Victims of the affliction have testified that they engaged in various legal maneuvers to “protect” their parishes from the depredations of The Episcopal Church, yet they offer no justification for their fear other than what they view as the undeserved persecution of the former Bishop of South Carolina.
Although there is some disagreement regarding the etiology of the South Carolina epidemic, the consensus epidemiological opinion is that the observed aberrant behavior is the result of the realization that acknowledging that the dispute between Episcopalians and former Episcopalians is theological in nature will result in the civil courts recusing themselves from jurisdiction and deferring to the leadership of The Episcopal Church to resolve the property issues. Thus, the afflicted victims have been driven to the delusional notion that what is at issue is purely a matter of secular property law.
There is some question as to whether Judge Goodstein is also a victim of the epidemic, as she has seemingly forgotten that there might be a more obvious reason for the behavior of the witnesses and that that reason might involve considerations of theology. Perhaps she has only forgotten that judges are supposed to be impartial.
Epidemiologists are hopeful that the South Carolina epidemic will be contained when the defense is allowed to present its case in Judge Goodstein’s courtroom. Not all the observers of the epidemic are so sanguine as to the ultimate outcome, however.
Evidence of the epidemic is found exclusively in the town of St. George, South Carolina. In particular, the outbreak is observable in the Dorchester County Courthouse, specifically, in the courtroom in which Judge Diane S. Goodstein is presiding over the trial brought against South Carolina Episcopalians by the aforementioned deposed bishop and the congregations that departed The Episcopal Church with him.
Observers have noted that witnesses called by the plaintiffs—clergy and lay leaders of congregations claiming to have left The Episcopal Church and taken real and personal parish property with them—have apparently forgotten that their parishes were once part of the general church and not simply a part of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Various witnesses, for example, have claimed that “Episcopal” in parish names and on identifying signs did not refer to The Episcopal Church, but only to the fact that their parishes were under the supervision of a bishop. Moreover, these witnesses have forgotten that, in the very recent past and for some time previous, they had exhibited extreme and righteous hostility toward The Episcopal Church because they believed that the church had departed from biblical truth, of which they were in exclusive possession.
The South Carolina amnesia presents with concomitant paranoia. Victims of the affliction have testified that they engaged in various legal maneuvers to “protect” their parishes from the depredations of The Episcopal Church, yet they offer no justification for their fear other than what they view as the undeserved persecution of the former Bishop of South Carolina.
Although there is some disagreement regarding the etiology of the South Carolina epidemic, the consensus epidemiological opinion is that the observed aberrant behavior is the result of the realization that acknowledging that the dispute between Episcopalians and former Episcopalians is theological in nature will result in the civil courts recusing themselves from jurisdiction and deferring to the leadership of The Episcopal Church to resolve the property issues. Thus, the afflicted victims have been driven to the delusional notion that what is at issue is purely a matter of secular property law.
There is some question as to whether Judge Goodstein is also a victim of the epidemic, as she has seemingly forgotten that there might be a more obvious reason for the behavior of the witnesses and that that reason might involve considerations of theology. Perhaps she has only forgotten that judges are supposed to be impartial.
Epidemiologists are hopeful that the South Carolina epidemic will be contained when the defense is allowed to present its case in Judge Goodstein’s courtroom. Not all the observers of the epidemic are so sanguine as to the ultimate outcome, however.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)