For the 3 remaining people that still think the UN isn’t a waste of time and money, the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs is about to change your mind.
The head of the worthy department is gearing up for alien contact.
Listen here.
I used to live in a small village – called Machen – that is not far from the city of Newport in Wales. Machen was a sleepy little place planted on the side of a mountain and Newport, while not sleepy was a respectable middle-class city. Things seem to have changed since then:
Supt Julian Knight says it is better to work closely with those in the sex industry to enable proper monitoring.
He told BBC Radio Wales’ Eye on Wales that the law on prostitution created a dilemma, but he had to be pragmatic.
He spoke amid claims sex trafficking from abroad could rise around the Ryder Cup, which begins on Friday.
Supt Knight told the programme: “You have to be pragmatic about this.
“It is illegal.
“Society has a very Victorian moral code around this, as a result of which we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place”.
Society has a very Victorian moral code around this, as a result of which we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place”
End Quote Supt Julian Knight Gwent Police
The law on prostution [sic] says that while it is not illegal to sell sex for financial gain, certain activities relating to it are. These include two or more people selling sex from the same premises.
However, rather than closing such premises down, Supt Knight believes it is more effective to work closely with those involved.
The Gwent Police policy in Newport, which has been in place since 2004, is to visit brothels on an ad hoc basis, and to develop relationships with the individuals involved.
I can’t help wondering whether police are “working closely” with those engaged in other criminal activity: making sure burglars don’t cut themselves on broken glass, for example. And we wouldn’t want Victorian moral codes getting in the way of the occasional mugger who, after all, is only trying to make a living.
I went to see Hair in London, UK in the 1960s. I wasn’t a Christian in those days and, while I enjoyed the general aura of comfortably rebellious hairiness, it still struck me as pretentious drivel. Even then I knew enough about Christianity to understand that “The Age of Aquarius” doesn’t belong in a church. Until now, that is; and where would it fit better than in an Anglican Church. Another fine production from Christ Anglican Church London:
I expect next year they will enthral the audience with a rendition of another Hair favourite: “Masturbation Can be Fun” – with actions if we’re really unlucky.
From here:
FORMER Welsh Office Minister Rod Richards has called for the resignation of the Archbishop of Wales after he told the Pope that he sometimes spoke with the Archbishop of Canterbury in Welsh to stop others understanding.
Someone should point out to the Archbishop of Wales that having Rowan speak in Welsh to maintain privacy is not necessary: no-one understands him when he speaks in English.
From here:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said he has “no problem” with gay people being bishops but they must remain celibate.
In his first explicit declaration on the subject since taking office in 2002, Dr Rowan Williams signalled his personal support for the consecration of gay bishops in the Church of England but said he would never endorse gay clergy in relationships because of tradition and historical “standards” .
His comments, in an interview in the Times, risk deepening divisions within the church and the wider Anglican communion. Liberals will be angered by his explicit acknowledgement that celibacy must be compulsory for homosexual clergy but not for heterosexuals. While conservative ire will be fuelled by his stance which puts him at odds with church teaching.
In the interview, Williams explained why he has stood with conservatives against homosexuality when it came to official church policy.
He said that he could not endorse gay relationships for clergy and bishops because “the cost to the church overall was too great to be borne at that point”.
And the problem with this is in the last three words. Williams has made it clear that this is a move to soften up the recalcitrant conservative opposition in preparation for the time when non-celibate homosexual bishops won’t be a cost “too great to be borne.”
This has been the liberal strategy all along and, by and large, conservative Anglicans have fallen for it.
From here:
It’s taken a century but scientists have finally prove that Albert Einstein was right – time really does past more quickly if you stand on a step ladder.
In a bizarre experiment using the most accurate atomic clocks ever invented, researchers showed that clocks run faster if they are raised by just 12 inches.
However, anyone hoping that a lifetime living in a basement is the secret to longevity will be disappointed.
The effect is so small that it would add just 90 billionths of a second to a 79 year life span.
The extraordinary experiment – published today in the respected journal Science – demonstrates one of the strangest consequences of Einstein’s theories of relativity.
Einstein’s work famously showed that time is relative. In 1907 his General Theory of Relativity showed that clocks run more quickly at higher altitudes because they experience a weaker gravitational force than clocks on the surface of the Earth.
It also means that your head ages more quickly than your feet, that people living on the top floor of a tower block age more quickly than those on the first floor – and that time passes more slowly for people living at sea level than it does for those on mountains.
Or maybe not: my head is about 25 but my feet and the rest of me are…. well, older.
From here:
The first ever official count of the gay population has found that only one in 100 adults is homosexual.
The figure explodes the assumption – long promoted by social experts and lobbyists – that the number is up to ten times higher than this at one in ten.
The Office for National Statistics said 1.3 per cent of men are gay and 0.6 per cent of women are lesbian.
Another 0.5 per cent consider themselves bisexual, according to the figures gathered from questions put to nearly 250,000 – the biggest survey possible outside a full national census.
This means that, in total, around 1.5 per cent of the population is either homosexual or bisexual.
There isn’t much reason to suppose that the percentages would be substantially different in North America. I strongly suspect that the percentage of homosexual Anglican priests is much higher, though.
Other than the attraction of dressing up in robes, I can’t think of any convincing reason for this: it does help to explain the obsession that the Anglican church has for what it calls “the full inclusion of gays”. It has more to do with self-interest than anything else.
Rev. Keith Nethery is becoming rather alarmed (page 2) – disturbed even – at what he reads on blogs:
What does it mean to study something? How do we go about discussing an issue?
I spend considerable time reading blogs and various media from around the world on things Anglican. In doing this, there is something becoming more and more obvious to me and it is alarming. Now let me say first that I do NOT just read one side of the story. The blogs that I have marked for daily consumption cover the entire scale of theological opinion. What bothers me is that I see some disturbing trends in how we answer the two questions that I began with.My understanding of study is that one will find a variety of opinions and see how that informs the thoughts that they possessed going into said study. More and more, it seems to me, that study is another term for a determination to prove the “other” wrong……
When folks search “Anglican” on their computers, it is scarey what they will find masquerading as the true face of who we are. If the foregoing statement was posted on many of the blogs I read daily, it would be followed by an immediate swell of condemnation from people on both ends of the spectrum, because discussion and study have become code words for further opportunity to demand agreement for one’s place on the scale.
This comment by the very same Rev. Nethery tends to show that he is less than eager to take his own advice when he feels called upon to show that those of us who “haunt the far right side of Anglicanism” are in sore need of “a dose of reality.”
Job well done in this post and in the discussion with David on Samizdat. I’ve had more than one such conversation with David, Warren and the others that haunt the far right side of Anglicanism that ended similarly – oh, but we’re right and you’re wrong because we say so, thank you for coming and come back again so we can tell you how right we are. I honestly think that we need to bust into their world every once now and again to give them a dose of reality.
The exchange in question is here and, as these things go, was reasonably civil and entirely devoid of the phrase – or idea – “oh, but we’re right and you’re wrong because we say so.”
Rev. Nethery’s solution (page 2) to all this seems to be:
My oft unpopular position is that there is always room to be further informed and to weigh more ideas.
Doubtless this is a remedy that he wishes those of us that infest the swamps of Anglicanism’s right would embrace, but one – in spite of protestations to the contrary – in which he is reluctant to dabble himself: that must be because we are just spinning:
Even one of ANIC’s spinning best bloggers can’t draw more than a comment or two posting on Holy Post at the National Post.
I can’t help wondering whether what is really eating Rev. Nethery is the fact that there are people who disagree with him; and they just won’t shut up.
For reasons that escape me, I received an email fron Ricken Patel, Avaaz.org saying:
We’ve got them on the run! When 80,000 of us signed a petition refusing to be forced to pay for “Fox News North” (aka SunTV) on our cable bills, the Sun media empire threw everything they had at us – smear pieces in their newspapers, threatened lawsuits, and SunTV frontman Kory Teneycke even admitted insider knowledge of a criminal sabotage of our petition!
Sorry to break it to you, Rick, but I like Fox News South and would welcome the SunTV channel in Canada. I’m about as likely to sign your wretched petition as I am to stick a corkscrew up my nose.
If I were not already convinced, this from Margaret Atwood would do the trick:
THE ACTUAL PETITION
“As concerned Canadians who deeply oppose American-style hate media on our airwaves, we applaud the CRTC’s refusal to allow a new “Fox News North” channel to be funded from our cable fees. We urge Mr. von Finckenstein to stay in his job and continue to stand up for Canada’s democratic traditions, and call on Prime Minister Harper to immediately stop all pressure on the CRTC on this matter.” THE VERBS ARE “APPLAUD,” “URGE,” AND “CALL ON;” NOT “BAN,” “SUPPRESS,” AND “CENSOR.”
The “Fox News” comparison is from the Sun’s own CRTC Application # 1. Is it “American-style hate media?” You judge.
The CRTC refused Sun TV News’ request for a special licence that forces all cable and satellite distributors to offer the station, thus generating almost automatic income. Application #2 — almost the same deal as #1, but for three years — will be considered. The Sun says it needs this special deal for its “business plan.” Should it get one? Should anyone? Can I have one too?
AM I A PROPONENT OF “CENSORSHIP”?
Nope. Read the petition again.
Now Konrad von Finckenstein has said he isn’t under pressure (unlike his fired CRTC deputy), and will judge Application # 2 on its merits. Good!
REAL CENSORSHIP INCLUDES
Book burning, murdering, jailing and exiling writers, and shutting down newspapers, publishers, and TV stations. If you are against this, support PEN International and Index on Censorship.
Calling the Avaaz petition “censorship” is beyond cheap.
Calling something censorship that is censorship isn’t cheap, it’s accurate. Rather than let the great unwashed decide for themselves whether the new channel is “American-style hate media” by being given the chance to watch it, a liberal elitist would take it upon herself to act as nanny and tell us we can’t have “Fox News North”. Instead we’ll just have to put up with the current Canada-style drivel media that meets Margaret Attwood’s approval – and is paid for by our cable fees, not to mention our taxes in CBC’s case.
Although I wouldn’t burn them, I dislike Margaret Atwood’s novels as much as she dislikes Fox News; to plagiarise a remark by Malcolm Muggeridge about Edna O’Brien, I’d rather be a minor character in a Jane Austen novel than a major one in a Margaret Atwood novel.
From here:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Marine Corps says he doesn’t think Congress should lift the ban on gay troops who want to serve openly.
Gen. James Amos’ comment came hours before a Senate test vote on a defense policy bill that would repeal the 17-year-old law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
It’s probably only a matter of time before the law is repealed, though:
The law is already under siege. A federal judge in California recently ruled the ban on gays was unconstitutional, polls suggest a majority of Americans oppose it and Lady Gaga has challenged it in a YouTube video.
What chance does it have if Lady Gaga – a well known advisor to the US military – is against it? She has a simple solution to opposition:
She suggested a new policy should target straight soldiers who are “uncomfortable” with gay soldiers in their midst.
“Our new law is called ‘If you don’t like it, go home!'” she said.
This would probably result in the most Marines heaving a sigh of relief and returning home to their families, leaving the US military looking something like this:
We’ll probably wait a long time before General Petraeus complains that an openly gay military would be like a red flag to a bull for the Taliban and will endanger lives.