Saturday, October 23, 2004
the fourth rail: The Battle of the Sunni Triangle
Good rundown on the battle for the Sunn Triangle the fourth rail: The Battle of the Sunni Triangle
Clayton Cramer's Blog WHY OIL PRICES ARE SO HIGH
Clayton Cramer's BLOG
Why Are Oil Prices So High?
I've heard some of the explanations, and they make some sense: the hurricanes shut down production in the Gulf of Mexico for a while. There has been unrest in Angola. But the Iraq situation shouldn't matter much; they haven't shipped that much oil since Gulf War I. Dan Gifford, a long-time journalist, tells me about the following interesting items that he has heard recently. From financial journalist Jim Cramer (no relation) on CNBC's "Kudlow and Cramer" show:
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial here, but there's something about this oil market that just doesn't smell right. Do you think certain big hedge funds could be buying oil contracts to drive the market up in order to make our current leader [George W. Bush] look bad?
From Jon Burnham, Burnham Financial Group, October 12, 2004, CNBC-TV, "Closing Bell" 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM ET:
The price of oil is high because it's being pushed up by speculators and money from the big hedge funds. The important thing that gets lost in all that is that there is no shortage of crude oil in relation to current demand.
And from Adel al-Jubeir, Advisor to the Saudi Crown Prince September 28, 2004 at about 1:40 PM Pacific time, CNBC interview with Maria Bartaromo:
We believe the price of oil should be between $22 and $28 per barrel. $25 is a good reasonable price. There is no extra demand accompanying today's very high price for oil. We are seeing no extra customers lined up and there is no shortage of supply. The high prices we are seeing are due to speculation in the oil markets.
Then we have this interesting item from the New Yorker (of all places):
On August 6th, a week after the Democratic Convention, a clandestine summit meeting took place at the Aspen Institute, in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. The participants, all Democrats, were sworn to secrecy, and few of them will discuss the event. One thing that is certain, however, is that the guests formed a tableau that not many people would associate with the Democratic Party of the past. Five billionaires joined half a dozen liberal leaders in a lengthy conversation about the future of progressive politics in America. The billionaires were not especially close socially, nor were they in complete agreement about politics or strategy. Yet they shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.
“No one was supposed to know about this,” an assistant to one participant told me, declining to be named. “We don’t want people thinking it’s a cabal, or some sort of Masonic plot!” His concern was understandable: the prospect of rich men concentrating their wealth in order to sway an American election was an inflammatory one, particularly given the Democratic Party’s populist rhetoric....
The meeting’s organizer was Peter B. Lewis, the seventy-year-old reclusive chairman of the Progressive Corporation, an insurance company based in Cleveland, Ohio. He has spent much of 2004 discreetly directing millions of dollars to liberal groups allied with the Democratic Party, such as America Coming Together and MoveOn.org, while cruising the Mediterranean Sea on his two-hundred-and-fifty-foot yacht, Lone Ranger. The yacht has communications equipment that allows Lewis to monitor political developments in America while sunbathing off the coast of Italy.
...
Flying in from Arizona was John Sperling, an octogenarian businessman who in 1976 created the for-profit University of Phoenix....
Herb and Marion Sandler, a California couple in their seventies, came to Aspen looking for ways to give back to a country that had allowed them to prosper. The founders of Golden West Financial Corporation, a savings-and-loan company worth seventeen billion dollars, the Sandlers are devoted to the idea of preserving progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes.
The wealthiest participant at this meeting of hard-core partisans—and the one whose presence was the most surprising—was George Soros, the seventy-four-year-old Wall Street speculator turned philanthropist.
...
Sperling proposed a potential new project for the group: unionizing Wal-Mart workers. Soros, however, had no interest in union drives. He wanted to stay focussed on the main objective—ousting Bush. Yet he also warned the group against the idea of combatting right-wing propaganda with leftist demagoguery. “I do not have an interest in replacing one extremist movement with another,” he said.
Andrew Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, a holdover from the traditional working-class base of the Democratic Party, was also at the summit. In an interview not long ago, he conceded that consorting with billionaires had become a strange but increasingly common part of his job. “I have to admit, I used to think I was doing well when I met millionaires,” he said. “I’m glad we’ve got the billionaires with us. But it did feel a bit odd.”
...
The Quantum fund, a pool for hugely wealthy investors that profited by anticipating and exploiting price swings in foreign currencies, is famously iconoclastic. Soros recently passed much of the fund’s management to his two grown sons, Robert and Jonathan, but under his direction it rejected the prevailing orthodoxy about the rationality of the market in favor of the notion that markets were prone to chaos and distortions stemming from human error.
Now, the Quantum Fund is no stranger to oil trading. But what is interesting is another remark in the New Yorker article. After explaining that Soros has contributed $18.5 million to defeat George Bush:
Critics of Soros see his donations as brazenly hypocritical, considering that, until recently, he was a leading crusader for campaign-finance reform in America. Starting in the late nineteen-nineties, he donated eighteen million dollars to groups that supported the cause, and he is credited with having contributed significantly to the passage of the McCain-Feingold law. When Soros was asked about this reversal, he said, “This is the most important election of my lifetime. These aren’t normal times. The ends justify every legal means possible.”
Now, Soros has said in the past that he would give away all his billions if he could be guaranteed of defeating Bush--and you wonder, since Soros has been a big player in currency markets in the past, if he could be manipulating oil prices right now.
Remember this: until oil prices started skyrocketing in early summer, the economy seemed to be flying upwards. What would it cost for Soros, Lewis, and some of the other billionaires to manipulate oil markets? It doesn't have to last for long--just long enough to derail the economy into October. You don't need to actually buy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil. You can buy and sell oil future delivery contracts for a fraction of the final delivery price. (This highly leveraged nature of futures contracts is why you can make--or lose--an enormous amount of money in commodities trading.) Once you start playing with the price of a commodity, and causing panic buying, you can jerk the price up--or down--quite impressively.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that people at Soros's level can probably spend two or three billion dollars to adjust future prices of 50 or 100 times that much oil--at least for a few months. The Quantum Fund was, back in the 1990s, what is called a "global macro fund", described this way:
By borrowing money to buy and sell futures contracts—themselves a powerful form of leverage—macro funds possessed the capability to move indexes like Japan's Nikkei or to influence significantly the value of important international currencies.
Now, supposedly the Quantum Fund isn't that powerful anymore. But is it powerful enough? Soros also returned to an active role in the Quantum Fund in 2002--after 9/11, when it became apparent that Soros was going to have to do something to bring down George Bush.
Large scale commodities market manipulation can't continue indefinitely, and you can lose your shirt on this sort of thing--but Soros has already said that he was willing to lose it all to defeat Bush. On the other hand, with a little care, he might actually make money. This article reports:
Soros, the founder of Quantum Endowment Fund, one of the world's largest hedge funds, was dubbed "The Man who broke the Bank of England" for his role in betting heavily that the pound would fall in 1992. As a result, Britain suffered a humiliating exit from Europe's exchange rate mechanism -- the precursor to Europe's 12-nation currency. It was rumored that Soros earned $1 billion in a day with his bet against the British pound.
Of course, I doubt that an oil play like this could be kept secret indefinitely--but certainly, President Kerry's Justice Department isn't going to prosecute George Soros for winning him the election. If we suddenly see oil prices drop down again after the election, I certainly hope the Bush Administration will take a serious look at possible market manipulation. But if Bush loses, there won't be investigation at all.
posted by Clayton at 8:30 PM
Why Are Oil Prices So High?
I've heard some of the explanations, and they make some sense: the hurricanes shut down production in the Gulf of Mexico for a while. There has been unrest in Angola. But the Iraq situation shouldn't matter much; they haven't shipped that much oil since Gulf War I. Dan Gifford, a long-time journalist, tells me about the following interesting items that he has heard recently. From financial journalist Jim Cramer (no relation) on CNBC's "Kudlow and Cramer" show:
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial here, but there's something about this oil market that just doesn't smell right. Do you think certain big hedge funds could be buying oil contracts to drive the market up in order to make our current leader [George W. Bush] look bad?
From Jon Burnham, Burnham Financial Group, October 12, 2004, CNBC-TV, "Closing Bell" 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM ET:
The price of oil is high because it's being pushed up by speculators and money from the big hedge funds. The important thing that gets lost in all that is that there is no shortage of crude oil in relation to current demand.
And from Adel al-Jubeir, Advisor to the Saudi Crown Prince September 28, 2004 at about 1:40 PM Pacific time, CNBC interview with Maria Bartaromo:
We believe the price of oil should be between $22 and $28 per barrel. $25 is a good reasonable price. There is no extra demand accompanying today's very high price for oil. We are seeing no extra customers lined up and there is no shortage of supply. The high prices we are seeing are due to speculation in the oil markets.
Then we have this interesting item from the New Yorker (of all places):
On August 6th, a week after the Democratic Convention, a clandestine summit meeting took place at the Aspen Institute, in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. The participants, all Democrats, were sworn to secrecy, and few of them will discuss the event. One thing that is certain, however, is that the guests formed a tableau that not many people would associate with the Democratic Party of the past. Five billionaires joined half a dozen liberal leaders in a lengthy conversation about the future of progressive politics in America. The billionaires were not especially close socially, nor were they in complete agreement about politics or strategy. Yet they shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.
“No one was supposed to know about this,” an assistant to one participant told me, declining to be named. “We don’t want people thinking it’s a cabal, or some sort of Masonic plot!” His concern was understandable: the prospect of rich men concentrating their wealth in order to sway an American election was an inflammatory one, particularly given the Democratic Party’s populist rhetoric....
The meeting’s organizer was Peter B. Lewis, the seventy-year-old reclusive chairman of the Progressive Corporation, an insurance company based in Cleveland, Ohio. He has spent much of 2004 discreetly directing millions of dollars to liberal groups allied with the Democratic Party, such as America Coming Together and MoveOn.org, while cruising the Mediterranean Sea on his two-hundred-and-fifty-foot yacht, Lone Ranger. The yacht has communications equipment that allows Lewis to monitor political developments in America while sunbathing off the coast of Italy.
...
Flying in from Arizona was John Sperling, an octogenarian businessman who in 1976 created the for-profit University of Phoenix....
Herb and Marion Sandler, a California couple in their seventies, came to Aspen looking for ways to give back to a country that had allowed them to prosper. The founders of Golden West Financial Corporation, a savings-and-loan company worth seventeen billion dollars, the Sandlers are devoted to the idea of preserving progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes.
The wealthiest participant at this meeting of hard-core partisans—and the one whose presence was the most surprising—was George Soros, the seventy-four-year-old Wall Street speculator turned philanthropist.
...
Sperling proposed a potential new project for the group: unionizing Wal-Mart workers. Soros, however, had no interest in union drives. He wanted to stay focussed on the main objective—ousting Bush. Yet he also warned the group against the idea of combatting right-wing propaganda with leftist demagoguery. “I do not have an interest in replacing one extremist movement with another,” he said.
Andrew Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, a holdover from the traditional working-class base of the Democratic Party, was also at the summit. In an interview not long ago, he conceded that consorting with billionaires had become a strange but increasingly common part of his job. “I have to admit, I used to think I was doing well when I met millionaires,” he said. “I’m glad we’ve got the billionaires with us. But it did feel a bit odd.”
...
The Quantum fund, a pool for hugely wealthy investors that profited by anticipating and exploiting price swings in foreign currencies, is famously iconoclastic. Soros recently passed much of the fund’s management to his two grown sons, Robert and Jonathan, but under his direction it rejected the prevailing orthodoxy about the rationality of the market in favor of the notion that markets were prone to chaos and distortions stemming from human error.
Now, the Quantum Fund is no stranger to oil trading. But what is interesting is another remark in the New Yorker article. After explaining that Soros has contributed $18.5 million to defeat George Bush:
Critics of Soros see his donations as brazenly hypocritical, considering that, until recently, he was a leading crusader for campaign-finance reform in America. Starting in the late nineteen-nineties, he donated eighteen million dollars to groups that supported the cause, and he is credited with having contributed significantly to the passage of the McCain-Feingold law. When Soros was asked about this reversal, he said, “This is the most important election of my lifetime. These aren’t normal times. The ends justify every legal means possible.”
Now, Soros has said in the past that he would give away all his billions if he could be guaranteed of defeating Bush--and you wonder, since Soros has been a big player in currency markets in the past, if he could be manipulating oil prices right now.
Remember this: until oil prices started skyrocketing in early summer, the economy seemed to be flying upwards. What would it cost for Soros, Lewis, and some of the other billionaires to manipulate oil markets? It doesn't have to last for long--just long enough to derail the economy into October. You don't need to actually buy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil. You can buy and sell oil future delivery contracts for a fraction of the final delivery price. (This highly leveraged nature of futures contracts is why you can make--or lose--an enormous amount of money in commodities trading.) Once you start playing with the price of a commodity, and causing panic buying, you can jerk the price up--or down--quite impressively.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that people at Soros's level can probably spend two or three billion dollars to adjust future prices of 50 or 100 times that much oil--at least for a few months. The Quantum Fund was, back in the 1990s, what is called a "global macro fund", described this way:
By borrowing money to buy and sell futures contracts—themselves a powerful form of leverage—macro funds possessed the capability to move indexes like Japan's Nikkei or to influence significantly the value of important international currencies.
Now, supposedly the Quantum Fund isn't that powerful anymore. But is it powerful enough? Soros also returned to an active role in the Quantum Fund in 2002--after 9/11, when it became apparent that Soros was going to have to do something to bring down George Bush.
Large scale commodities market manipulation can't continue indefinitely, and you can lose your shirt on this sort of thing--but Soros has already said that he was willing to lose it all to defeat Bush. On the other hand, with a little care, he might actually make money. This article reports:
Soros, the founder of Quantum Endowment Fund, one of the world's largest hedge funds, was dubbed "The Man who broke the Bank of England" for his role in betting heavily that the pound would fall in 1992. As a result, Britain suffered a humiliating exit from Europe's exchange rate mechanism -- the precursor to Europe's 12-nation currency. It was rumored that Soros earned $1 billion in a day with his bet against the British pound.
Of course, I doubt that an oil play like this could be kept secret indefinitely--but certainly, President Kerry's Justice Department isn't going to prosecute George Soros for winning him the election. If we suddenly see oil prices drop down again after the election, I certainly hope the Bush Administration will take a serious look at possible market manipulation. But if Bush loses, there won't be investigation at all.
posted by Clayton at 8:30 PM
BLACKFIVE: The Good And Bad Days in Iraq
BLACKFIVE: The Good And Bad Days in Iraq
This is a good first hand account of what is a good and bad day in Iraq.
This is a good first hand account of what is a good and bad day in Iraq.
The 9/11 Election
The 9/11 Election
From the November 1 / November 8, 2004 issue: "This is the first presidential election since September 11, 2001, and it will define America's response: On the one hand, we can attempt to return to the 1990s; on the other hand, we can face our challenges, and carry out our duties."
by William Kristol
11/01/2004, Volume 010, Issue 08
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
--John Kerry, New York Times Magazine, October 10, 2004
"What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed?"
--John Kerry, on Larry King Live, July 8, 2004
"During the decade of the 1990s, our times often seemed peaceful on the surface.Yet beneath the surface were currents of danger. Terrorists were training and planning in distant camps. . . . America's response to terrorism was generally piecemeal and symbolic. The terrorists concluded this was a sign of weakness, and their plans became more ambitious, and their attacks more deadly. Most Americans still felt that terrorism was something distant, and something that would not strike on a large scale in America. That is the time my opponent wants to go back to. A time when danger was real and growing, but we didn't know it. . . . September 11, 2001 changed all that. We realized that the apparent security of the 1990s was an illusion. . . . Will we make decisions in the light of September 11, or continue to live in the mirage of safety that was actually a time of gathering threats?"
--George W. Bush, October 18, 2004
THIS IS THE FIRST presidential election since September 11, 2001. Its central issue is the meaning of September 11. The events of that day did not really "change everything," as Bush sometimes says in a defensible shorthand. But they did reveal, as columnist Paul Greenberg put it, that "everything we had thought/assumed/expected in the Golden '90s hadn't been so." The surface peace of the 1990s had been bought at a great price. On 9/11 a failure of American leadership was revealed, a failure to look ahead and act forcefully to forestall threats--to do what Bush has called "the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom."
This is what President Bush thinks. John Kerry really doesn't agree. That's why it is so fitting that Bill Clinton will reemerge to campaign for Kerry this week. The choice will then be clearly posed: On the one hand, we can attempt to return to the 1990s. This is not, of course, an unattractive prospect, but it is surely an unachievable one. To pretend we can go back to the 1990s raises false hopes that will prove dangerous to the country. On the other hand, we can face our challenges, and carry out our duties--as President Bush has tried, with considerable success, to lead us to do.
In his October 18 speech on the war on terror, President Bush noted correctly that his opponent "has not made democracy a priority of his foreign policy." Indeed, Kerry's critique of Bush goes beyond competence in the execution of policy to first principles. Kerry does not see a need to fundamentally change the political culture of the Middle East. Bush posed the challenge well: "Is he content to watch and wait, as anger and resentment grow for more decades in the Middle East, feeding more terrorism until radicals without conscience gain the weapons to kill without limit?" Bush isn't. Thus he embraces the task of helping to spread "democracy and hope" so that "governments that oppose terror multiply across the Middle East."
He does so for reasons his counterpart Tony Blair recently explained. This is the only way to deal with a "worldwide global terrorism" based on a perversion of Islam: "Its roots are not superficial but deep, in the madrassas of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahhabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the training camps of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. . . . If you take this view, if you believe September 11 changed the world . . . the only path to take is to confront this terrorism and remove it root and branch."
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently criticized the Bush administration for being "addicted to 9/11." He praised John Kerry for "wanting to put terrorism back into perspective." Friedman continued, "I want a president who can one day restore Sept. 11th to its rightful place on the calendar: as the day after Sept. 10th and before Sept. 12th. I do not want it to become a day that defines us. Because ultimately Sept. 11th is about them--the bad guys--not about us. We're about the Fourth of July."
We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD yield to no one in our loyalty to the Fourth of July. But September 11, 2001, also cannot help but define us 21st-century Americans. And it defines us not simply in terms of those we have to fight, and defeat. For September 11 is not simply about "the bad guys," about the attacks on America. September 11 is also about our response. It is about the police and firefighters in New York, the servicemen and women in the Pentagon, and the passengers and crew of United Flight 93. September 11 was a day of infamy. But it was also a day of bravery, and of nobility. And it could go down in history as a day that began an era in which the American people, and their leaders, rose to the challenges before them--an era in which they acted wisely, and steadfastly, and honorably. September 11 saw horrible hours. But it could also be the beginning of one of America's finest hours. The chances of that will be greatest under President Bush.
--William Kristol
© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
From the November 1 / November 8, 2004 issue: "This is the first presidential election since September 11, 2001, and it will define America's response: On the one hand, we can attempt to return to the 1990s; on the other hand, we can face our challenges, and carry out our duties."
by William Kristol
11/01/2004, Volume 010, Issue 08
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
--John Kerry, New York Times Magazine, October 10, 2004
"What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed?"
--John Kerry, on Larry King Live, July 8, 2004
"During the decade of the 1990s, our times often seemed peaceful on the surface.Yet beneath the surface were currents of danger. Terrorists were training and planning in distant camps. . . . America's response to terrorism was generally piecemeal and symbolic. The terrorists concluded this was a sign of weakness, and their plans became more ambitious, and their attacks more deadly. Most Americans still felt that terrorism was something distant, and something that would not strike on a large scale in America. That is the time my opponent wants to go back to. A time when danger was real and growing, but we didn't know it. . . . September 11, 2001 changed all that. We realized that the apparent security of the 1990s was an illusion. . . . Will we make decisions in the light of September 11, or continue to live in the mirage of safety that was actually a time of gathering threats?"
--George W. Bush, October 18, 2004
THIS IS THE FIRST presidential election since September 11, 2001. Its central issue is the meaning of September 11. The events of that day did not really "change everything," as Bush sometimes says in a defensible shorthand. But they did reveal, as columnist Paul Greenberg put it, that "everything we had thought/assumed/expected in the Golden '90s hadn't been so." The surface peace of the 1990s had been bought at a great price. On 9/11 a failure of American leadership was revealed, a failure to look ahead and act forcefully to forestall threats--to do what Bush has called "the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom."
This is what President Bush thinks. John Kerry really doesn't agree. That's why it is so fitting that Bill Clinton will reemerge to campaign for Kerry this week. The choice will then be clearly posed: On the one hand, we can attempt to return to the 1990s. This is not, of course, an unattractive prospect, but it is surely an unachievable one. To pretend we can go back to the 1990s raises false hopes that will prove dangerous to the country. On the other hand, we can face our challenges, and carry out our duties--as President Bush has tried, with considerable success, to lead us to do.
In his October 18 speech on the war on terror, President Bush noted correctly that his opponent "has not made democracy a priority of his foreign policy." Indeed, Kerry's critique of Bush goes beyond competence in the execution of policy to first principles. Kerry does not see a need to fundamentally change the political culture of the Middle East. Bush posed the challenge well: "Is he content to watch and wait, as anger and resentment grow for more decades in the Middle East, feeding more terrorism until radicals without conscience gain the weapons to kill without limit?" Bush isn't. Thus he embraces the task of helping to spread "democracy and hope" so that "governments that oppose terror multiply across the Middle East."
He does so for reasons his counterpart Tony Blair recently explained. This is the only way to deal with a "worldwide global terrorism" based on a perversion of Islam: "Its roots are not superficial but deep, in the madrassas of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahhabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the training camps of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. . . . If you take this view, if you believe September 11 changed the world . . . the only path to take is to confront this terrorism and remove it root and branch."
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently criticized the Bush administration for being "addicted to 9/11." He praised John Kerry for "wanting to put terrorism back into perspective." Friedman continued, "I want a president who can one day restore Sept. 11th to its rightful place on the calendar: as the day after Sept. 10th and before Sept. 12th. I do not want it to become a day that defines us. Because ultimately Sept. 11th is about them--the bad guys--not about us. We're about the Fourth of July."
We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD yield to no one in our loyalty to the Fourth of July. But September 11, 2001, also cannot help but define us 21st-century Americans. And it defines us not simply in terms of those we have to fight, and defeat. For September 11 is not simply about "the bad guys," about the attacks on America. September 11 is also about our response. It is about the police and firefighters in New York, the servicemen and women in the Pentagon, and the passengers and crew of United Flight 93. September 11 was a day of infamy. But it was also a day of bravery, and of nobility. And it could go down in history as a day that began an era in which the American people, and their leaders, rose to the challenges before them--an era in which they acted wisely, and steadfastly, and honorably. September 11 saw horrible hours. But it could also be the beginning of one of America's finest hours. The chances of that will be greatest under President Bush.
--William Kristol
© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Incivility in Polotics
Right As Usual: "INCIVILITY OF POLITICS
Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding that this may be one of the most heated and contentious elections in recent history, and that is wild, considering the 2000 election.
There are few political discussions anywhere, at least in the tradition of give-and-take. I'm hearing a lot of heated spews about the OTHER side (not, in general, about the merits of one's candidate) and the cataclysmic consequences of letting THAT PERSON steal the election.
What on Earth is going on?
I remember when the 100-year anniversary of the Civil War was celebrated. At that time (I was 10 at the start), I couldn't get a handle on WHY people became so filled with righteous bile that they couldn't calmly discuss the issues, and work together. I just couldn't imagine problems that people of decency couldn't handle in a reasonable way.
I'm beginning to understand. It didn't happen all at once. It built over time, like today's situation. Both sides believed themselves to be right, and the other to be, not just wrong, but potentially dangerous. It ceased to be a political discussion, but a battle against the forces of evil.
Each episode of conflict just led to even greater grievances, with the losing side more determined to prevail. And the losing side only associated with others like themselves. They couldn't contaminate themselves with contact with THOSE EVIL, VILE PEOPLE, IF YOU COULD EVEN CALL THEM HUMAN.
The Civil War didn't happen overnight. It was a long road from the Transcendentalists to war. But the same people grew more agitated each time they suffered a political or legislative loss, and this led to an 'end justifies the means' attitude, and eventually to chaos."
Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding that this may be one of the most heated and contentious elections in recent history, and that is wild, considering the 2000 election.
There are few political discussions anywhere, at least in the tradition of give-and-take. I'm hearing a lot of heated spews about the OTHER side (not, in general, about the merits of one's candidate) and the cataclysmic consequences of letting THAT PERSON steal the election.
What on Earth is going on?
I remember when the 100-year anniversary of the Civil War was celebrated. At that time (I was 10 at the start), I couldn't get a handle on WHY people became so filled with righteous bile that they couldn't calmly discuss the issues, and work together. I just couldn't imagine problems that people of decency couldn't handle in a reasonable way.
I'm beginning to understand. It didn't happen all at once. It built over time, like today's situation. Both sides believed themselves to be right, and the other to be, not just wrong, but potentially dangerous. It ceased to be a political discussion, but a battle against the forces of evil.
Each episode of conflict just led to even greater grievances, with the losing side more determined to prevail. And the losing side only associated with others like themselves. They couldn't contaminate themselves with contact with THOSE EVIL, VILE PEOPLE, IF YOU COULD EVEN CALL THEM HUMAN.
The Civil War didn't happen overnight. It was a long road from the Transcendentalists to war. But the same people grew more agitated each time they suffered a political or legislative loss, and this led to an 'end justifies the means' attitude, and eventually to chaos."
JS Online: Cosby urges city to get serious
JS Online: Cosby urges city to get serious: "Cosby urges city to get serious
Responsibility can cure social ills, he says"
Responsibility can cure social ills, he says"
Bad Example
Bad Example: "KERRY & TERRY EXPLAINED
Most excellently by Gerard of American Digest:
The French have an idiomatic phrase nostalgie pour la boue which means, roughly, 'yearning for the mud.' Nostalgie pour la boue is a compulsion that comes over people when they have, for complex reasons, a need to immerse themselves in self-degradation. This is a specialty of the French culture.
Nostalgie pour la boue is usually a mix of drink, drugs, and weird sex until the soul is obliterated by the abused flesh. You can see it at its most graphic in the party scenes in the French film, Killing Zoe. Most people try this sort of thing a time or two in their youth, but grow out of it when time, experience, or, in many cases, God gets the upper hand. Others grow out of it via deep psychoanalysis and a few trips to the rehab clinic. Many never kick it and were, in the past, thought of as 'perverts' but are now more kindly seen as 'differently minded' and left to go their own way in our 'consenting ' culture.
[...]
I'd like to suggest that there's another kind nostalgie going around in this hybrid culture; one that arises from nostalgie pour la boue, but is more damaging to the body politic: nostalgie pour la d�faite.
Nostalgie pour la d�faite is that dark state of the soul when an American, who either came of age in the Vietnam era, or who was taught and mentored by a leftist or liberal of that vintage, yearns for the defeat of America. American defeat is then seen as confirmation that his or her world view and social milieu is the right view and right milieu. It is simply 'the way things must be.'
I outgrew it when I was 17. I fell in love with a respectable girl and put my life in order so that I could be worthy of her. Never looked back.
I think one of the commenters said it best: 'I have so often wondered: How can an entire lifetime be spent pining away for the lunacy of youth?'
by Harvey "
Most excellently by Gerard of American Digest:
The French have an idiomatic phrase nostalgie pour la boue which means, roughly, 'yearning for the mud.' Nostalgie pour la boue is a compulsion that comes over people when they have, for complex reasons, a need to immerse themselves in self-degradation. This is a specialty of the French culture.
Nostalgie pour la boue is usually a mix of drink, drugs, and weird sex until the soul is obliterated by the abused flesh. You can see it at its most graphic in the party scenes in the French film, Killing Zoe. Most people try this sort of thing a time or two in their youth, but grow out of it when time, experience, or, in many cases, God gets the upper hand. Others grow out of it via deep psychoanalysis and a few trips to the rehab clinic. Many never kick it and were, in the past, thought of as 'perverts' but are now more kindly seen as 'differently minded' and left to go their own way in our 'consenting ' culture.
[...]
I'd like to suggest that there's another kind nostalgie going around in this hybrid culture; one that arises from nostalgie pour la boue, but is more damaging to the body politic: nostalgie pour la d�faite.
Nostalgie pour la d�faite is that dark state of the soul when an American, who either came of age in the Vietnam era, or who was taught and mentored by a leftist or liberal of that vintage, yearns for the defeat of America. American defeat is then seen as confirmation that his or her world view and social milieu is the right view and right milieu. It is simply 'the way things must be.'
I outgrew it when I was 17. I fell in love with a respectable girl and put my life in order so that I could be worthy of her. Never looked back.
I think one of the commenters said it best: 'I have so often wondered: How can an entire lifetime be spent pining away for the lunacy of youth?'
by Harvey "
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Reverend Mike's House of Homiletic Hash
This blog looks nteresting
Reverend Mike's House of Homiletic Hash
Reverend Mike's House of Homiletic Hash
TCS: Tech Central Station - The Blogosphere Grows Up
Run down on where blogging is and is headed
TCS: Tech Central Station - The Blogosphere Grows Up
TCS: Tech Central Station - The Blogosphere Grows Up
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Interesting Comments
Copied and pasted from Andrew Sullivan comments:
EMAIL OF THE DAY: "I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:
It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.
But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.
One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq).
There is a scene in the movie "We were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.
Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.
Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes."
EMAIL OF THE DAY: "I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:
It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.
But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.
One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq).
There is a scene in the movie "We were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.
Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.
Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes."
Land Surveying weblog
This site has some amazing info and incidents from the life of a land surveyor.
Land Surveying weblog
Land Surveying weblog
Les Jones Blog: Kerry's Senate Record
Les Jones Blog: Kerry's Senate Record:
Here are the facts on Kerry's illustrious 20 year Senate career:
"At the last debate Bush claimed Kerry had only passed five bills. Kerry claimed 56. FactCheck.org found only 11.
S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)
S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming 'to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations.' (1994)
S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects 'to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America's coastal resources.' (1991)
S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)
H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition. (2003)
H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. (2001)
S.J.Res.158: To make the week of Oct. 22 - Oct. 28, 1989 'World Population Awareness Week.' (1989)
S.J.Res.160: To renew 'World Population Awareness Week' for 1991. (1991)
S.J.Res.318: To make Nov. 13, 1992 'Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day.' (1992)
S.J.Res.337: To make Sept. 18, 1992 'National POW/MIA Recognition Day.' (1992)
To summarize: in 20 years Kerry passes 11 bills. Of those 11 bills, one is for a visa for an individual, two are to honor individuals, and four are of the 'June is National Sandwich Month' variety. That leaves just four bills in 20 years, and none are especially noteworthy. What an empty suit.
UPDATE: This pitiful record brings to mind this quote from Kerry's official campaign biographer, Douglas Brinkley:
Kerry decided to make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign for one clear reason: Imagine him without his military record--he would just be another liberal from Taxachusetts.'"
Here are the facts on Kerry's illustrious 20 year Senate career:
"At the last debate Bush claimed Kerry had only passed five bills. Kerry claimed 56. FactCheck.org found only 11.
S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)
S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming 'to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations.' (1994)
S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects 'to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America's coastal resources.' (1991)
S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)
H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition. (2003)
H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. (2001)
S.J.Res.158: To make the week of Oct. 22 - Oct. 28, 1989 'World Population Awareness Week.' (1989)
S.J.Res.160: To renew 'World Population Awareness Week' for 1991. (1991)
S.J.Res.318: To make Nov. 13, 1992 'Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day.' (1992)
S.J.Res.337: To make Sept. 18, 1992 'National POW/MIA Recognition Day.' (1992)
To summarize: in 20 years Kerry passes 11 bills. Of those 11 bills, one is for a visa for an individual, two are to honor individuals, and four are of the 'June is National Sandwich Month' variety. That leaves just four bills in 20 years, and none are especially noteworthy. What an empty suit.
UPDATE: This pitiful record brings to mind this quote from Kerry's official campaign biographer, Douglas Brinkley:
Kerry decided to make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign for one clear reason: Imagine him without his military record--he would just be another liberal from Taxachusetts.'"
Gertrude, RIP
This just came from my nephew, Tim Dudley. It is his thoughts on an elderly friend who had been his landlady for years in Austin, Texas. I thought it quite a tribute!
Hello.
After the news that Gertrude had died, I tried to describe to some friends and colleagues (up this way) who she was (they had heard some stories), but did not do a very good job. So, I wrote something which may or may not be totally accurate, but is "as I remember it......"
Please indulge me for a few minutes. The passing of an era seems worth some mentioning.
Gertrude died on Saturday. She was well in to her 90s. Passed away in her sleep in the home she had lived in for over 60 years.
I first met Gertrude when Paula Chaney took me over to her house to make introductions. Gertrude and Paula's grandmother (another fine lady whose strength, grace, and continued faith while watching 3 of her children die in such rapid succession still amazes me) had been neighbors since the 1930s. Gertrude had a wonderful garage apartment and I wanted to be the first person called the next time it became vacant. We hit it off. I had been to a good school (Baylor), displayed proper manners, and had the recommendation of the Chaney family. Several months later, I got the call, and was able to move in after the place had been carefully scrubbed cleaned and used for family visiting at Thanksgiving.
There were only a couple of rules: The apartment was furnished and the furniture up there remained there. No overnight visitors of the opposite sex. Do not use excessive amounts of electricity (electric was included and she had kept records back to the 1960s of how many watts had been used each month). She considered me her guest. A paying guest, but a guest nevertheless.
Gertrude was an old school southern lady. Her phone listing and most of her correspondence came to Mrs Robert Lindsey, even though he had passed sometime in the early 1970s. She enjoyed "highballs," but only after 5 pm. Smoked some, but never while walking. She was active member of the Episcopal Church, but thought there was too much emphasis over the Old Testament, especially all the "begets." She liked to look at the Neiman Marcus catalogues to see what the stores were "showing" each season. She saved stuff and liked to get every last use out of anything. The garage had an old refrigerator where she stored paint. It had to be ancient because the one in the house seemed really old. Liked to work in the yard, camp and fish. I will never forget picking her up at the train station late one evening after a long day of travel. Of course she still had on her hat and gloves.
Gertrude and her sister (quite a character herself) lost their mother at a very early age and were shuttled from one family member to another. Gertrude was on her own by the time she was 17. She was lucky to meet a lady who owned a very successful dress making business in Fort Worth. The lady gave Gertrude a job because of her sassiness, took her in, and they remained family until the lady's death. The job allowed Gertrude to support herself and attend college. She was elected class representative to greet Charles Lindberg when he traveled across the US. When commenting on that experience, I heard her say more than once, "I wasn't really pretty, but I was awfully cute."
I knew Gertrude after her husband died, her eyes were not so great, and her hearing shot. Did not weigh more than 90 pounds dripping wet, most of the time with a pony tail on top of her head. She was still driving a green Ford (circa early 1970s), kept immaculately clean and mechanically tuned. She was an artist, a painter, having won ribbons and recognition at art shows, but now only painted periodically or for a specially requested wedding present. She did however, remain as active and curious as her body allowed. She was always working in and around the house. I would be amazed to she her crawling all over the place meticulously watching anyone who was doing work at her house: painters, plumbers, carpenters, gardeners and/or electricians. Mainly, out of curiosity to see what they were doing. Once, I went outside to see what all the commotion was on top of my roof. It was her - up two stories in the air - with a rope tied around her waist cleaning out gutters. After that I ran downstairs to assist anytime I heard ladders.
She listened to McNeil - Lehrer and books on tape each evening when she did not have company or some other engagement.
She was great fun to be around. We would have "highballs" - play cards, discuss what was going on in the world and our neighborhood. She was quick with an opinion and always stayed curious. I enjoyed hearing updates of her family and sitting with her and her sister or her only child, a daughter named Bobbie Joyce, when they came to visit. She considered me family.
The last time I saw Gertrude was in a hospital room. I had written a postcard - telephoning was too much trouble with her "ears" (hearing aids) - to let her know when I would be in town and could come by and see her. When she realized who it was she commented, "Oh, it must be April 17th or 18th, because that is when you said you would be here." We got caught up, laughed, and joked. She told me that I was handsome for the last time.
Several years ago Paula and I were discussing with her yet another death in the Chaney family, which she had seen grow up and loved so much. She talked about plans for her own death - to be cremated and buried in Llano next to her husband Bob, but without fan fare. She wanted Anne Hoey, her favorite rector, to do the small, simple service. And she told us just to call Weed-Corley (the funeral home) and tell them to "come and get it......."
Gertrude was my friend.
I will always miss her.
Time to "come and get it......."
Hello.
After the news that Gertrude had died, I tried to describe to some friends and colleagues (up this way) who she was (they had heard some stories), but did not do a very good job. So, I wrote something which may or may not be totally accurate, but is "as I remember it......"
Please indulge me for a few minutes. The passing of an era seems worth some mentioning.
Gertrude died on Saturday. She was well in to her 90s. Passed away in her sleep in the home she had lived in for over 60 years.
I first met Gertrude when Paula Chaney took me over to her house to make introductions. Gertrude and Paula's grandmother (another fine lady whose strength, grace, and continued faith while watching 3 of her children die in such rapid succession still amazes me) had been neighbors since the 1930s. Gertrude had a wonderful garage apartment and I wanted to be the first person called the next time it became vacant. We hit it off. I had been to a good school (Baylor), displayed proper manners, and had the recommendation of the Chaney family. Several months later, I got the call, and was able to move in after the place had been carefully scrubbed cleaned and used for family visiting at Thanksgiving.
There were only a couple of rules: The apartment was furnished and the furniture up there remained there. No overnight visitors of the opposite sex. Do not use excessive amounts of electricity (electric was included and she had kept records back to the 1960s of how many watts had been used each month). She considered me her guest. A paying guest, but a guest nevertheless.
Gertrude was an old school southern lady. Her phone listing and most of her correspondence came to Mrs Robert Lindsey, even though he had passed sometime in the early 1970s. She enjoyed "highballs," but only after 5 pm. Smoked some, but never while walking. She was active member of the Episcopal Church, but thought there was too much emphasis over the Old Testament, especially all the "begets." She liked to look at the Neiman Marcus catalogues to see what the stores were "showing" each season. She saved stuff and liked to get every last use out of anything. The garage had an old refrigerator where she stored paint. It had to be ancient because the one in the house seemed really old. Liked to work in the yard, camp and fish. I will never forget picking her up at the train station late one evening after a long day of travel. Of course she still had on her hat and gloves.
Gertrude and her sister (quite a character herself) lost their mother at a very early age and were shuttled from one family member to another. Gertrude was on her own by the time she was 17. She was lucky to meet a lady who owned a very successful dress making business in Fort Worth. The lady gave Gertrude a job because of her sassiness, took her in, and they remained family until the lady's death. The job allowed Gertrude to support herself and attend college. She was elected class representative to greet Charles Lindberg when he traveled across the US. When commenting on that experience, I heard her say more than once, "I wasn't really pretty, but I was awfully cute."
I knew Gertrude after her husband died, her eyes were not so great, and her hearing shot. Did not weigh more than 90 pounds dripping wet, most of the time with a pony tail on top of her head. She was still driving a green Ford (circa early 1970s), kept immaculately clean and mechanically tuned. She was an artist, a painter, having won ribbons and recognition at art shows, but now only painted periodically or for a specially requested wedding present. She did however, remain as active and curious as her body allowed. She was always working in and around the house. I would be amazed to she her crawling all over the place meticulously watching anyone who was doing work at her house: painters, plumbers, carpenters, gardeners and/or electricians. Mainly, out of curiosity to see what they were doing. Once, I went outside to see what all the commotion was on top of my roof. It was her - up two stories in the air - with a rope tied around her waist cleaning out gutters. After that I ran downstairs to assist anytime I heard ladders.
She listened to McNeil - Lehrer and books on tape each evening when she did not have company or some other engagement.
She was great fun to be around. We would have "highballs" - play cards, discuss what was going on in the world and our neighborhood. She was quick with an opinion and always stayed curious. I enjoyed hearing updates of her family and sitting with her and her sister or her only child, a daughter named Bobbie Joyce, when they came to visit. She considered me family.
The last time I saw Gertrude was in a hospital room. I had written a postcard - telephoning was too much trouble with her "ears" (hearing aids) - to let her know when I would be in town and could come by and see her. When she realized who it was she commented, "Oh, it must be April 17th or 18th, because that is when you said you would be here." We got caught up, laughed, and joked. She told me that I was handsome for the last time.
Several years ago Paula and I were discussing with her yet another death in the Chaney family, which she had seen grow up and loved so much. She talked about plans for her own death - to be cremated and buried in Llano next to her husband Bob, but without fan fare. She wanted Anne Hoey, her favorite rector, to do the small, simple service. And she told us just to call Weed-Corley (the funeral home) and tell them to "come and get it......."
Gertrude was my friend.
I will always miss her.
Time to "come and get it......."
Monday, October 18, 2004
A Brief History of the Baptists
This info from Landmark Baptist Church in Fla. I need to spend some time really digging into this. Looks like interesting info though.
A Brief History of the BaptistsA Brief History of the Baptists
by the late Norman H. Wells
The history of the ancient churches is very obscure. Much of the early recorded history was either lost or destroyed. A great part of the history that remains was changed to suit the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. All of church history has been involved in much controversy and was subject to the whims and fancies of each particular age.
In a very broad outline we want to look at the history of the church.
The First 300 Years of Church History
Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, founded the first church in Jerusalem in approximately the year 30 A.D.
This first church was commissioned to go forth preaching the gospel, winning the lost to Christ, baptizing and teaching the converts and establishing new churches.
On the pages of the New Testament we find the record of the growth of Christianity and the founding of many New Testament churches.
Nero, the Roman Emperor, blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome in 64 A.D. and began the first of ten persecutions the Christians were to receive at the hands of the Romans.
Despite all the persecution, Christianity grew. At the end of the first 300 years the religion of Jesus Christ was established all over the then known world. There were churches in every town and community.
The Progress of Error During The First 300 Years
In the first two centuries the individual churches rapidly multiplied and some of them became very large. The church at Jerusalem had possibly as many as 50,000 or more members!
These large churches each had several preachers or elders. Some of these bishops or pastors began to assume authority over smaller churches. This corrupted the original democratic policy and government of the churches and led to the kind of hierarchy we see in the Roman Catholic Church today.
In the first two centuries the false teaching of "baptismal regeneration" began to spread. This error led to infant baptism and many other errors.
It has to be remembered that these changes did not come about all in a day, nor within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated these errors.
About the middle of the third century the lines were clearly drawn. Those churches that remained loyal to the Scriptures were now clearly separate from those that had gone into error and apostasy.
Constantine ruled as Emperor of the Roman Empire from 306 to 337A.D. and his reign was to mark one of the great turning points in church history.
During a battle in 312 A.D. Emperor Constantine believed he had a vision of a flaming cross and above it the words, "By this sign thou shalt conquer."
He decided to fight under the banner of Christ and Christianity came into favor in the Roman Government.
In 313 A.D. Constantine gave a call for all the churches to come together and pronounced himself as the head of the churches.
Many, but not all, of the churches came. The true churches would have no part in this error.
This hierarchy or body of church rulers, that Constantine formed was the definite beginning of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the errors of Catholicism had already had their beginning but now they were organized into a definite system.
Constantine made "Christianity" the "State Religion." Up until this point the persecution of the Christians had been done either by Judaism or Paganism. Now came a change. Christians (in name) began using the law to compel all Christians to join the organization. The true churches that refused were persecuted.
The division was now complete. The true churches refused to line up with the errors of the "state church." The church of Constantine became what we know as Roman Catholicism. Baptists were never part of Roman Catholicism. They remained true to the Scriptures and rejected the error.
After the organization of the churches into a hierarchy and their acceptance as a "State Religion" the true, loyal churches that rejected this error were identified by various names.
It is not to be understood that each of these groups was entirely free from error or entirely embraced the truth. Through these groups can be traced the people called Baptists. In these groups is to be found the true church -- not in Catholicism.
Montanist ... Paulician ... Novationist ... Paterines ... Donatist ... Albigenses ... Anabaptists ... these were some of the names used to identify those who refused to identify with Rome.
The Dark Ages
The period from 426 A.D. to 1628 A.D. is called the "Dark Ages."
With the establishment of the new Catholic temporal power a bloody persecution began. Loyal, New Testament churches, by whatever name they were called, were hunted and hounded to the utmost limit by this new Catholic power.
The now established Catholic Church began a war of extermination upon all who opposed her.
It is reliably reported that 50,000,000 died of persecution during the Dark Ages.
During the bloody times of persecution, as Catholicism tried to exterminate the true churches, many of the false doctrines of the Catholic church of today began to take place.
The Inquisition 1198-1700
The Inquisition was instituted by Pope Innocent lII and perfected under Pope Gregory IX. It was a "Church Court" established by the popes for the trying and punishing of "heretics" ... a heretic being anyone who did not agree with Roman Catholicism. The lnquisition lasted for 500 years and was a time of indescribable horror.
During all this persecution Baptist churches continued to exist.
The Reformation
The conditions within the Catholic Church had become so corrupt that many voices were raised within the church in protest. Among these voices was that of John Wycliffe (1320- 1384), John Huss (1373-1415), Savonarola (1452-1498), Zwingli (1484-1531), John Knox (1505-1572), John Calvin (1509-1564), and Martin Luther.
The combined effort of these men, along with many others, brought about the Reformation.
All these Reformers started new churches. This was the beginning of Protestantism. All Protestant churches had their beginning in the period of the Reformation or since that time.
Baptists continued to exist through the Reformation as they had since the time of Christ. Since the Reformation the Baptists have had a glorious history. There are over 23,000,000 Baptists in the United States and they are also found in over 100 different countries.
Available as a printed tract from:
Landmark Independent Baptist Church
P.O. Box 847
Archer, FL 32618-0847
A Brief History of the BaptistsA Brief History of the Baptists
by the late Norman H. Wells
The history of the ancient churches is very obscure. Much of the early recorded history was either lost or destroyed. A great part of the history that remains was changed to suit the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. All of church history has been involved in much controversy and was subject to the whims and fancies of each particular age.
In a very broad outline we want to look at the history of the church.
The First 300 Years of Church History
Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, founded the first church in Jerusalem in approximately the year 30 A.D.
This first church was commissioned to go forth preaching the gospel, winning the lost to Christ, baptizing and teaching the converts and establishing new churches.
On the pages of the New Testament we find the record of the growth of Christianity and the founding of many New Testament churches.
Nero, the Roman Emperor, blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome in 64 A.D. and began the first of ten persecutions the Christians were to receive at the hands of the Romans.
Despite all the persecution, Christianity grew. At the end of the first 300 years the religion of Jesus Christ was established all over the then known world. There were churches in every town and community.
The Progress of Error During The First 300 Years
In the first two centuries the individual churches rapidly multiplied and some of them became very large. The church at Jerusalem had possibly as many as 50,000 or more members!
These large churches each had several preachers or elders. Some of these bishops or pastors began to assume authority over smaller churches. This corrupted the original democratic policy and government of the churches and led to the kind of hierarchy we see in the Roman Catholic Church today.
In the first two centuries the false teaching of "baptismal regeneration" began to spread. This error led to infant baptism and many other errors.
It has to be remembered that these changes did not come about all in a day, nor within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated these errors.
About the middle of the third century the lines were clearly drawn. Those churches that remained loyal to the Scriptures were now clearly separate from those that had gone into error and apostasy.
Constantine ruled as Emperor of the Roman Empire from 306 to 337A.D. and his reign was to mark one of the great turning points in church history.
During a battle in 312 A.D. Emperor Constantine believed he had a vision of a flaming cross and above it the words, "By this sign thou shalt conquer."
He decided to fight under the banner of Christ and Christianity came into favor in the Roman Government.
In 313 A.D. Constantine gave a call for all the churches to come together and pronounced himself as the head of the churches.
Many, but not all, of the churches came. The true churches would have no part in this error.
This hierarchy or body of church rulers, that Constantine formed was the definite beginning of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the errors of Catholicism had already had their beginning but now they were organized into a definite system.
Constantine made "Christianity" the "State Religion." Up until this point the persecution of the Christians had been done either by Judaism or Paganism. Now came a change. Christians (in name) began using the law to compel all Christians to join the organization. The true churches that refused were persecuted.
The division was now complete. The true churches refused to line up with the errors of the "state church." The church of Constantine became what we know as Roman Catholicism. Baptists were never part of Roman Catholicism. They remained true to the Scriptures and rejected the error.
After the organization of the churches into a hierarchy and their acceptance as a "State Religion" the true, loyal churches that rejected this error were identified by various names.
It is not to be understood that each of these groups was entirely free from error or entirely embraced the truth. Through these groups can be traced the people called Baptists. In these groups is to be found the true church -- not in Catholicism.
Montanist ... Paulician ... Novationist ... Paterines ... Donatist ... Albigenses ... Anabaptists ... these were some of the names used to identify those who refused to identify with Rome.
The Dark Ages
The period from 426 A.D. to 1628 A.D. is called the "Dark Ages."
With the establishment of the new Catholic temporal power a bloody persecution began. Loyal, New Testament churches, by whatever name they were called, were hunted and hounded to the utmost limit by this new Catholic power.
The now established Catholic Church began a war of extermination upon all who opposed her.
It is reliably reported that 50,000,000 died of persecution during the Dark Ages.
During the bloody times of persecution, as Catholicism tried to exterminate the true churches, many of the false doctrines of the Catholic church of today began to take place.
The Inquisition 1198-1700
The Inquisition was instituted by Pope Innocent lII and perfected under Pope Gregory IX. It was a "Church Court" established by the popes for the trying and punishing of "heretics" ... a heretic being anyone who did not agree with Roman Catholicism. The lnquisition lasted for 500 years and was a time of indescribable horror.
During all this persecution Baptist churches continued to exist.
The Reformation
The conditions within the Catholic Church had become so corrupt that many voices were raised within the church in protest. Among these voices was that of John Wycliffe (1320- 1384), John Huss (1373-1415), Savonarola (1452-1498), Zwingli (1484-1531), John Knox (1505-1572), John Calvin (1509-1564), and Martin Luther.
The combined effort of these men, along with many others, brought about the Reformation.
All these Reformers started new churches. This was the beginning of Protestantism. All Protestant churches had their beginning in the period of the Reformation or since that time.
Baptists continued to exist through the Reformation as they had since the time of Christ. Since the Reformation the Baptists have had a glorious history. There are over 23,000,000 Baptists in the United States and they are also found in over 100 different countries.
Available as a printed tract from:
Landmark Independent Baptist Church
P.O. Box 847
Archer, FL 32618-0847
Catholic World News : Kerry said to be excommunicated
Catholic World News : Kerry said to be excommunicated: "Kerry said to be excommunicated
Los Angeles, Oct. 18 (CWNews.com) - A consultant to the Vatican has said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has incurred the penalty of excommunication from the Catholic Church.
The consultant made his statement in a highly unusual letter to Marc Balestrieri, a Los Angeles canon lawyer who formally sued John Kerry in ecclesiastical court for heresy.
Balestrieri, who launched his case earlier this year by filing a heresy complaint in Kerry's home archdiocese of Boston, told EWTN's 'World Over' program on Friday that he had received an unusual, indirect communication from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the pro-abortion stance.
That communication provides a basis, he said, to declare that any Catholic politician who says he is 'personally opposed to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose,' incurs automatic excommunication. It also provided a basis for Balestrieri to broaden his canonical actions and file additional complaints against four more pro-abortion Catholic politicians: Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Tom Harkin of Iowa; Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine; and former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a Democrat.
The current action could be significant as it could undercut the entire debate over denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. An excommunicated Catholic may not receive any of the sacraments of the Church, including the Eucharist, marriage, and even Christian burial. The type of excommunication outlined in the new information is called latae sententiae, which means that it occurs automatically and does not require a formal pronouncement by any Church official.
Balestrieri said he went to Rome in late August to discuss his canonical case with experts, including an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Less than 10 days later, he received a letter from Father Basil Cole, a Dominican theologian and consultant to the congregation based in Washington, DC, who said he had been 'delegated' by Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation, to give an unofficial response to the question that Balestrieri had submitted.
'I went to Rome in person to submit two critical questions to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith,' said Balestrieri. 'The first: Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any direct abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy. The second: Whether or not a denial of the Church's teaching condemning every right to abortion also constitutes heresy. Father Cole, an expert theologian who studied the matter carefully, responded in the affirmative on both counts.'
Father Cole wrote, 'If a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code [of Canon Law]. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty and imputability are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated ....'
Balestrieri said the response was unusual in several respects: that a response was provided to a layman at the request of the undersecretary in only 11 days, that the response was in writing, decisively clarifying the matter, and that it was in far greater detail than a typical official reply. 'Normally, only a bishop may request such clarification of doctrine from the CDF, such responses usually take a much longer time to be received, and they are rarely made public,' he said.
He also said that the original canonical complaint of heresy against Kerry had received so much response from the public that the tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston has been deluged with thousands of letters from ordinary Catholics who wish to add their names to the complaint. The head of the archdiocesan tribunal reportedly told him that the case had not been rejected and was 'now in the hands of the archbishop,' that is, Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston.
Balestrieri, a self-identified political independent, says that his actions come as a defender of the faith and Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and scandal, not as one focused on an electoral outcome. 'Our victory can come as early as today: It would be for Sen. Kerry, who publicly calls himself a Catholic and yet in violation of Canon Law continues to receive Holy Communion, to repent of his grave sin and publicly recant his abortion advocacy.'
The complete text of Father Cole's response as well as other details of the pending cases are available on the DeFide.com web site."
Los Angeles, Oct. 18 (CWNews.com) - A consultant to the Vatican has said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has incurred the penalty of excommunication from the Catholic Church.
The consultant made his statement in a highly unusual letter to Marc Balestrieri, a Los Angeles canon lawyer who formally sued John Kerry in ecclesiastical court for heresy.
Balestrieri, who launched his case earlier this year by filing a heresy complaint in Kerry's home archdiocese of Boston, told EWTN's 'World Over' program on Friday that he had received an unusual, indirect communication from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the pro-abortion stance.
That communication provides a basis, he said, to declare that any Catholic politician who says he is 'personally opposed to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose,' incurs automatic excommunication. It also provided a basis for Balestrieri to broaden his canonical actions and file additional complaints against four more pro-abortion Catholic politicians: Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Tom Harkin of Iowa; Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine; and former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a Democrat.
The current action could be significant as it could undercut the entire debate over denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. An excommunicated Catholic may not receive any of the sacraments of the Church, including the Eucharist, marriage, and even Christian burial. The type of excommunication outlined in the new information is called latae sententiae, which means that it occurs automatically and does not require a formal pronouncement by any Church official.
Balestrieri said he went to Rome in late August to discuss his canonical case with experts, including an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Less than 10 days later, he received a letter from Father Basil Cole, a Dominican theologian and consultant to the congregation based in Washington, DC, who said he had been 'delegated' by Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation, to give an unofficial response to the question that Balestrieri had submitted.
'I went to Rome in person to submit two critical questions to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith,' said Balestrieri. 'The first: Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any direct abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy. The second: Whether or not a denial of the Church's teaching condemning every right to abortion also constitutes heresy. Father Cole, an expert theologian who studied the matter carefully, responded in the affirmative on both counts.'
Father Cole wrote, 'If a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code [of Canon Law]. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty and imputability are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated ....'
Balestrieri said the response was unusual in several respects: that a response was provided to a layman at the request of the undersecretary in only 11 days, that the response was in writing, decisively clarifying the matter, and that it was in far greater detail than a typical official reply. 'Normally, only a bishop may request such clarification of doctrine from the CDF, such responses usually take a much longer time to be received, and they are rarely made public,' he said.
He also said that the original canonical complaint of heresy against Kerry had received so much response from the public that the tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston has been deluged with thousands of letters from ordinary Catholics who wish to add their names to the complaint. The head of the archdiocesan tribunal reportedly told him that the case had not been rejected and was 'now in the hands of the archbishop,' that is, Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston.
Balestrieri, a self-identified political independent, says that his actions come as a defender of the faith and Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and scandal, not as one focused on an electoral outcome. 'Our victory can come as early as today: It would be for Sen. Kerry, who publicly calls himself a Catholic and yet in violation of Canon Law continues to receive Holy Communion, to repent of his grave sin and publicly recant his abortion advocacy.'
The complete text of Father Cole's response as well as other details of the pending cases are available on the DeFide.com web site."
Real Live Preacher
Real Live Preacher: "How Do You Spell That?
Ever had something like this happen to you? Yesterday I lost the ability to spell the word 'bowl.' I was writing away, lost in my focus, feeling the words, when I suddenly needed to write the word for those containers we use to eat cereal and soup.
First I spelled it 'bole,' which cracked me up. So I backspaced and then wrote 'boal.' Of course I could tell they were both wrong. I laughed, backspaced again, and was shocked to find that I was fresh out of ideas. I couldn't imagine any other way that a person could spell this word. I tried sounding it out, but I got nothin.
So I sat there staring at 'boal' and waiting for the answer to come to me. It didn't. That means there was actually a period of time yesterday where I couldn't spell bowl at all. It was utterly beyond me. I guess I had a brain fart or something. I had to right-click and pull up my spell checker to get it right.
That's weird if you ask me. My confidence is totally blown. I keep staring at 'bowl' and it looks like 'bowel' to me.
Okay, now that I've actually spelled 'bowel,' 'bowl' is looking better.
I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that I'm on day four of the South Beach diet, phase one? I AM a little light headed. Who knows?
I'll tell you more about the South Beach transition to a new way of eating tomorrow. It isn't a diet! Diets are of the devil. I'm learning new ways to think about food.
And losing the ablitilty to spell."
Ever had something like this happen to you? Yesterday I lost the ability to spell the word 'bowl.' I was writing away, lost in my focus, feeling the words, when I suddenly needed to write the word for those containers we use to eat cereal and soup.
First I spelled it 'bole,' which cracked me up. So I backspaced and then wrote 'boal.' Of course I could tell they were both wrong. I laughed, backspaced again, and was shocked to find that I was fresh out of ideas. I couldn't imagine any other way that a person could spell this word. I tried sounding it out, but I got nothin.
So I sat there staring at 'boal' and waiting for the answer to come to me. It didn't. That means there was actually a period of time yesterday where I couldn't spell bowl at all. It was utterly beyond me. I guess I had a brain fart or something. I had to right-click and pull up my spell checker to get it right.
That's weird if you ask me. My confidence is totally blown. I keep staring at 'bowl' and it looks like 'bowel' to me.
Okay, now that I've actually spelled 'bowel,' 'bowl' is looking better.
I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that I'm on day four of the South Beach diet, phase one? I AM a little light headed. Who knows?
I'll tell you more about the South Beach transition to a new way of eating tomorrow. It isn't a diet! Diets are of the devil. I'm learning new ways to think about food.
And losing the ablitilty to spell."
BrothersJudd Blog: CANADIANS VS. HOCKEY:
BrothersJudd Blog: CANADIANS VS. HOCKEY:: "CANADIANS VS. HOCKEY:
Global Warming Bombshell : A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. (Richard Muller, October 15, 2004, Technology for Presidents)
Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science
also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isn't.
When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by
the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.
In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest
wrong piece may be the 'hockey stick,' the famous plot,
published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and
colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the
warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining
cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up
about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil
led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.
I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately,
discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist
frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier
column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested.
Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science
difficult to pursue.
But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program
that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications
of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal
component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of
more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program
that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the
program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a
way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends
to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to
suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and
McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no
trends. This method of generating random data is called 'Monte Carlo'
analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical
analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these
random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the
same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child
of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor
mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress..."
Global Warming Bombshell : A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. (Richard Muller, October 15, 2004, Technology for Presidents)
Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science
also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isn't.
When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by
the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.
In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest
wrong piece may be the 'hockey stick,' the famous plot,
published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and
colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the
warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining
cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up
about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil
led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.
I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately,
discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist
frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier
column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested.
Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science
difficult to pursue.
But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick
have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program
that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications
of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal
component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of
more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasn't so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program
that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the
program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a
way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends
to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to
suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and
McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no
trends. This method of generating random data is called 'Monte Carlo'
analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical
analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these
random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the
same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child
of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor
mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress..."
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Interesting Misc
"Quote Of The Day
From the 9/11 Report:
"The first FDNY fatality of the day occurred at approximately 9:30, when a civilian landed on and killed a fireman near the intersection of West and Liberty streets."
(Via JW)
_______________________________
I Didn't Know This
That Texas Air National Guard unit that Bush joined was actually combat-bound when he signed up, and he knew it:
[I've rearraigned these paragraphs for clarity. The original is here.]
It is a common misconception that the Air National Guard was a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. In actuality, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam at the very time Bush enlisted. [...]
As he was completing training and being certified as a qualified F-102 pilot, Bush's squadron was a likely candidate to be rotated to Vietnam. However, the F-102 was built for a type of air combat that wasn't seen during that conflict, and the plane was withdrawn from southeast Asia in December 1969.
[... P]ilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. [...] Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training [...]
The previously mentioned Maurice Udell was a flight instructor for Lt. Bush who was interviewed by the Associated Press in February 2004. MAJ Udell recalled that Bush was one of his best students saying that, "I'd rank him in the top five percent.""
http://www.fecesflingingmonkey.com/0704/0704.htm#R9
From the 9/11 Report:
"The first FDNY fatality of the day occurred at approximately 9:30, when a civilian landed on and killed a fireman near the intersection of West and Liberty streets."
(Via JW)
_______________________________
I Didn't Know This
That Texas Air National Guard unit that Bush joined was actually combat-bound when he signed up, and he knew it:
[I've rearraigned these paragraphs for clarity. The original is here.]
It is a common misconception that the Air National Guard was a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. In actuality, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam at the very time Bush enlisted. [...]
As he was completing training and being certified as a qualified F-102 pilot, Bush's squadron was a likely candidate to be rotated to Vietnam. However, the F-102 was built for a type of air combat that wasn't seen during that conflict, and the plane was withdrawn from southeast Asia in December 1969.
[... P]ilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. [...] Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush's who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training [...]
The previously mentioned Maurice Udell was a flight instructor for Lt. Bush who was interviewed by the Associated Press in February 2004. MAJ Udell recalled that Bush was one of his best students saying that, "I'd rank him in the top five percent.""
http://www.fecesflingingmonkey.com/0704/0704.htm#R9
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
