Obama, Tucson and Sarah Palin

Posted on by
1

I thought Obama did a moderately creditable job in his Tucson memorial speech: he was suitably sentimental, moderately maudlin, appropriately apolitical and only partially pompous.

Nevertheless, with the cheering, clapping and sporadic booing, the whole thing had more the aura of circus than pensive pondering on mankind’s mortality.

It really was a political rally in disguise; it even had a gay hero.

Obama’s plea for a kinder, gentler political discourse – or as he would put it, a toned down rhetoric (how I hate that overused cliché) – is, of course, in vain. The left is so hormonally belligerent, it wouldn’t recognise gentility no matter what  teleprompter inspired dulcet tones Obama invoked to penetrate its malice in the hope of infusing sense into the dark colonic cavity that houses the left’s brain.

There is evidence of this on the following video – removed from youtube, but thoughtfully preserved by me for your edification – on how Sarah Palin is a latter-day impersonator of the Edenic serpent.

[flv:https://anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/videos/TwitterPalin.flv 700 480]

Archbishop of Wales lectures business on ethics

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

The Archbishop of Wales will support calls for an ethical business code when he talks to firms in Wales later.

Dr Barry Morgan will suggest that practices could be improved if executives signed an oath similar to that adhered to by doctors.

Speaking to Professions Group Wales, Dr Morgan will say a change is needed after crises like the banking crisis and MPs’ expenses scandal.

Who is an Anglican archbishop to be lecturing others about ethics, one wonders. This particular specimen is vigorously anti-Israel, anti-nuclear weapons, advocates more homosexual bishops, uses words like “glass ceiling” and is a thoroughgoing pointy-hatted apparatchik.

It is true that business is often unethical but, if Barry Morgan had his way, there would be no businesses, ethical or otherwise. Who would he nag then?

What next after DADT?

Posted on by
1

Transgender recognition, of course.

From here:

Transgender vets want military access for own

SAN FRANCISCO — Before handcuffing herself to the White House fence, former Petty Officer First Class Autumn Sandeen carefully pinned three rows of Navy ribbons to her chest. Her regulation dress blue skirt, fitted jacket, hat and black pumps were new — fitting for a woman who spent two decades serving her country as a man.

Sandeen was the only transgender person among the six veterans arrested in April while protesting the military’s ban on openly gay troops. But when she watched President Obama last month sign the hard-fought bill allowing for the ban’s repeal, melancholy tinged her satisfaction.

“This is another bridesmaid moment for the transgender community,” the 51-year-old San Diego resident said.

The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy now heading toward history does not apply to transgender recruits, who are automatically disqualified as unfit for service. But the military’s long-standing posture on gender-identity has not prevented transgender citizens from signing up before they come out, or from obtaining psychological counseling, hormones and routine health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs once they return to civilian life.

So as the Pentagon prepares to welcome openly gay, lesbian and bisexual service members for the first time, Sandeen is not alone in hoping the U.S. will one day join the seven other nations — Canada, the United Kingdom, Spain, Israel, the Czech Republic, Thailand and Australia — that allow transgender troops.

“There is really no question, it’s just a matter of when,” said former Army Capt. Allyson Robinson, 40, a 1994 West Point graduate who has spoken to sociology classes at the alma mater she attended as a male cadet. “There are active-duty, as well as reserve and national guard transgender service members, serving today.”

And why not? After all, that’s what the modern army is all about: psychological counselling, hormone treatment, gender re-assignment, bridesmaid moments and a spot of wrinkle removing cosmetic surgery thrown in for good measure.

Make women, not war.

Another nail in the marriage coffin

Posted on by
2

From here:

Saskatchewan’s highest court has ruled that marriage commissioners who are public servants cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples.

The decision by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rejects two proposals from the provincial government that would allow some or all marriage commissioners to refuse to perform a service involving gay or lesbian partners if it offended their religious beliefs.

The government proposed that marriage commissioners who were employed before the law changed in 2004 could refuse to perform the services. It also proposed a second option where all marriage commissioners could refuse.

But the court noted that marriage commissioners are appointed by the government to perform non-religious ceremonies and are the only option for some same-sex couples seeking to tie the knot.

This decision has the unusual property of making sense and not making sense simultaneously.

It make sense because, from a secular perspective, once marriage has been redefined – and it has been – to mean just about anything you want it to mean, you cannot deny it to those who would have been outside its purview before redefinition. We shall see how long it takes for incestuous and polyamorous marriages to be accepted by the courts.

It makes no sense in the context of religion – which, after all, was the inventor of marriage – since all major religions define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Western Anglicanism excepted, of course, but, then, it is no longer a major religion.

Anglican priest punished for propositioning two gay servicemen

Posted on by
7

Life is so unfair.

From here:

An Anglican rector from London has been banned from working as a priest for two years after he was found guilty of sexually propositioning two gay servicemen.

Father David Gilmore, of St Anne’s Church, Soho, in the West End of London, has been removed from office and prohibited from exercising ministry as a priest for two years following a hearing of a church disciplinary tribunal, the Diocese of London said.

The rector was accused of conduct “inappropriate for a clergyman” including making indecent sexual propositions to two men, named only as A and B, who were staying overnight at his rectory in December 2009.

The tribunal was told the rector had asked the men, who were in London for a conference of lesbian and gay members of the Armed Forces, to sleep with him in his bed.

Mr Gilmore was also found to have chosen to enter A’s bedroom naked when it was “unnecessary” for him to do so, and when he knew that sexual activity was taking place between the two men. Both men left before breakfast and made written complaints after the incidents, the tribunal was told.

The questions that really demand an answer are:

What necessity could there have been for Rev. Gilmore to enter A’s bedroom naked? Had he lost his jammies?

Why doesn’t Rev. Gilmore get himself a reliable, stable monogamous man that he can marry and wander around naked with ad nauseum? Then he could demand a generous pastoral response from the church. That’s what other Anglican priests do.

Why is the suspension only two years? Is the church giving him that long to find a  stable, monogamous, homoerotic paramour who is not a serviceman?

Who could possibly argue that repealing DADT was a good idea? We already have homosexual members of the armed forces corrupting upright Anglican clergymen by tempting them to wander naked into their bedrooms. Repealing DADT could be the end of the Anglican church.

Why did the servicemen complain? Was the sight of Rev. Gilmore naked that shocking?

It could have been.

The doughty Rev. Gilmore is no stranger to fighting for sexual anarchy: he appeared in court to lobby for keeping Soho brothels open:

A RECTOR has come to the rescue of a group of prostitutes who face having their Soho brothel closed.

The Rev David Gilmore, from St Anne’s Anglican Church in Soho, was called to court over the closure of two flats used by prostitutes.

And was successful. He probably didn’t appear in court naked, though.

I know it’s a tired, worn out cliché but I can’t help it: who could make this stuff up?

Someone stole the Diocese of New Westminster’s brass eagle

Posted on by
1

From here:

Sometime between 9:10 and 10am on Sunday, January 9th, 2011, a person or persons unknown stole the brass Eagle Lectern from the narthex of Christ Church Cathedral.

Following the interior renovation of the 116 year old heritage building the Eagle lectern was moved from its former position in the sanctuary to the narthex (entrance lobby) vestibule where it served as a welcoming presence for visitors.

The “Eagle” is estimated to have been at the Cathedral since prior to World War II and it weighs roughly 80-90 kilograms.

The Cathedral Parish would very much like to have this item returned. Selling it for scrap is going to be very difficult, particularly as Cathedral staff immediately contacted the VPD and notified foundry owners of the disappearance of the item.

Boy, that thing was heavy.

MakerBots at CES

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

I’ve seen a lot of drool-worthy products in the last few days at the 2011 Consumer Electronics Show: Smart tablet computers, high-def 3D televisions, cutting-edge phones and superpowered gadgets of all stripes.

But the thing I want the most out of all of them is the MakerBot Thing-O-Matic. It’s an affordable, open source, easy to operate 3D printer, a desktop-sized engine for making whatever you want out of sculpted plastic.

And you thought Star Trek Replicators were mere fantasy.

Goebbels was a womaniser

Posted on by
1

From here:

He walked with a limp and was known to some as the ‘poison dwarf’.

But a book reveals that Nazi Germany’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels was an unlikely lothario, nicknamed ‘the ram’ by the many actresses and society ladies he seduced.

I’m pretty upset about this; it means my favourite song – one we used to sing in scouts around the campfire when I was 9 – wasn’t entirely accurate:

Hitler has only got one ball,
Göring has two but very small,
Himmler is somewhat sim’lar,
But poor Goebbels has no balls at all.

What are we doing to our children?

Posted on by
Reply

I spent some of my Sunday afternoon today providing the musical component of a chapel service in a local youth detention centre.

I’ve been doing this for around the last 20 years, so I’m rather more immune than I used to be to the sight of what should be a group of innocent children in a pit of despair and confusion that would be the undoing of most adults.

The girl that struck me today was, she said, short sighted and couldn’t read the words of the songs on the screen. Being an old hand at this, I thought she was pulling my chain, but I gave her a printed sheet of the songs anyway. She sang with some enthusiasm and, after a few more interactions, I saw that she was, as we used to say, a little simple, but with a very sweet temperament – something that  is often the case with God’s special people.

I also noticed that she is a cutter. She has the scars from self-inflicted wounds on her arms. Why do children do this to themselves? Apparently, they are so desperate to alleviate their emotional pain that they inflict physical pain on themselves to take their minds off what is going on inside their heads. This girl is going to be baptised soon; I have no idea whether it will subdue her inner turmoil, but I hope so.

Although I don’t know how she has ended up where she is or why she is in the state she is in, I do know that for many of the incarcerated children, parents haven’t helped much. A child I used to visit some years ago – who when released, re-offended and ended up in adult prison – had a strange mother. One day when visiting him, a guard said something she didn’t like; her response was to jump on his back and try to claw his eyes out with her fingernails – in front of her son. With that to live up to, what chance did he stand?