tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13653066895890061292024-03-05T14:53:02.289-05:00Off-Topic Allowed<b><i>If you're not sure why you are here, you are probably visiting the wrong blog.</i></b>Lynnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09748809418423591030noreply@blogger.comBlogger328125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-25369681507594604912012-09-03T04:27:00.001-04:002012-09-03T04:27:35.865-04:00ABRAKADABRA - It's Bishop LawrenceNow you see him - now you don't. That is correct, when Bishop Lawrence looks in the mirror the person looking back is none other than - tada! Bishop John David Schofield. How can I come to that conclusion? Well read this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span></span>The central purpose of his presentation to the Bishops was to convey his
understanding that with the passage of Resolutions D002 and D019 (making all
possible variations of “gender identity and gender expression” protected
categories in the canons of the church), and the adoption of authorized
provisional rites to bless same gender relationships, <span style="background-color: yellow;">the doctrine, discipline
and worship of this church have been profoundly changed.</span></blockquote>
<div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: yellow;">He told the
Bishops that the magnitude of these changes was such that he could no longer in
good conscience continue in the business of the Convention.</span> In fact, he was left
with the grave question of whether he could continue as a bishop of an
institution that had adopted such changes. It was with that question on the
table that he took his leave from the House of Bishops.</blockquote>
<div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: yellow;">Since that time,
and in the gathering of the Diocesan Clergy, the Bishop stated that he believes
the Episcopal Church has crossed a line he cannot personally cross. He also
expressed to the clergy that though he might act one way if he were a priest in
a diocese, as a Bishop he feels deeply his vow before God to faithfully lead and
shepherd the Diocese of South Carolina.</span> Both dimensions of this dilemma weigh
upon him at this time.<br />
</blockquote>
This is a few paragraphs from the letter to the diocese of South Carolina after Bishop Lawrence returned from convention. I have highlighted the parts of the letter that are almost identical to the words used by John David as he was moving into his end-game. "I didn't move PECUSA moved- The doctrine, discipline. etc. has changed. The church crossed a line that I cannot cross."<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
He also has reworked the constitution and canons of the Diocese of <strike>San Joaquin </strike>South Carolina just as was done in San Joaquin. Bishop Lawrence is indeed not only the protege of John David but he continues to play the diocese of South Carolina in an almost identical fashion to that which was done by John David.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Am I without recommendations? You all know me, I gots lots! First, I am assuming that the National is looking at this and seeing the same things. If they have not already sent an emissary to Lawrence they should. Simply put, they should say, "Stay or go but do not pis* in my ear and tell me it's raining". Then move on bringing him up on charges.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Next, they should send an emissary to the other protege who is currently messing with the Communion Partners and ask him the same question. He can demonstrate that he intents to stay by renouncing the Communion Partners and that which they stand for -- an Episcopal/ACNA inside the Episcopal Church of the US. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Really, how dumb do they think we are? Oops, please don't answer that!</div>
Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-50219014203675211482012-08-29T22:56:00.001-04:002012-08-29T23:02:06.368-04:00He does not need facts -- he has a great storyI now have positive proof that the Republicans could care less about the facts -- the reality of the situation or the science behind making decisions. We have heard this over and over again. Most recently Tony Adkins decided that science was all wrong and women were just "asking for it".<br />
<br />
I have no idea who the representative to the Republican Convention was, but here is his comment on National Public Radio. The conversation turned to Governor Christie and the keynote address. The Republican political pundit said this about the sum and substance of Christie's keynote address: "who needs facts when he has story to tell". Who needs facts? Well, there we go! How does one combat that? I recently had a facebook person tell me that he has opinions and his opinions are as good as facts. Just what in the world is going on? How have the citizens of the most advanced country on earth suddenly decided to discard the very essence of what got us where we are. Don't need facts? How did we defeat Hitler? Don't need facts? How did we create the most powerful military in the world? Don't need facts? How did we put a man on the moon? Don't need facts? Cured AIDs. Don't need facts? How did our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution come into existence? <br />
<br />
Now we don't need facts. We need white guys telling us we don't need facts. We don't need facts since we have all our women barefoot and pregnant all the time? We need white guys who want to control everything in our bedroom and while we are distracted -steal us blind and leave us in the poorhouse-- and laughing! Don't need facts? Surely everyone understands that once a child is born into poverty there is no help for the mom or the child for food, shelter, education or any other of the necessities. No we don't need facts, we just need hedge fund managers that can waste billions of dollars and then the Federal Government comes to their aid.<br />
<br />
Why confuse me with the facts -- George Bush inherits a huge surplus and puts us into a deficit and then it must be President Obama's fault. Let's spin a story without any truth. Let's just not use facts. Let's just spin a good story.Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-3487693587218946082012-08-25T11:58:00.001-04:002012-08-25T11:58:21.278-04:00Flax, Fax or FactsI have come to notice something that is a strong strand between the Grand Old Party members and the members of the Anglican Church in North America. This revelation is actually based on those members of both that write, talk, or broadcast. Big time Bishops or regular folks in the pews and voting booths. My guess is that most cross lines between each because of the unique approach to "facts" but none the less both observable groups suffer from the same affliction. The rallying cry for both parties is "Do not confuse me with the facts. I am entitled to my own opinion." <br />
<br />
Once upon a time, in the world of facebook I joined a group and took on a few "friends" from that group. Shortly thereafter I began receiving some of the most "bizarre" writings from one individual. I generally ignored the diatribes until one day I could do so no longer. The posting was so confused and so out of touch with research that I had to post back, and in a nice way, merely asked on what research did he base is post? I was immediately attacked by about 5 of that persons friends (comments section) criticizing me for being a liberal communist. Being as obstinate as I am I tried once again and merely asked for the author to clarify his writings by citing the necessary research to support his arguments. At this point he wrote back and in slightly longer posting said that these were his opinions and he was entitled to his own opinions. (It was not as mean as this may sound). At that point I found a way in which to end our facebook friendship.<br />
<br />
Drinking from the same bucket we hear the leaders of the ACNA movement (and indeed the leaders of GAFCON) espousing the same sort of thing. ACNA says "We are the Anglican representative in the United States." ignoring the facts. "Don't confuse me with the facts, I am entitled to my own opinion." <br />
<br />
Why is this problem not self-evident? Sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My concern is that these silly people are spewing their opinions as if they were facts and then they and their followers are acting on their own opinions. Facts be damned.<br />
<br />
I will end with this story. Years ago I was working in a school district that had negotitated a deal with a cellular company to place a cell tower on a campus. This was creating much needed revenue for a district that was in huge trouble financially. The parents went crazy over the "rays" that were affecting their children. We scheduled a meeting and flew in the world's foremost expert (Harvard in this case) on cellular towers and the effects on the human body. We met, and I introduced the expert. The expert began his explanation for the effects (i.e., none to speak of) of cell towers on children. A parent stood up and asked, "Who paid you to come out here?" Of course he responded with the district paid his way. The parent then went on to explain to the parents that whatever this person said was bogus because he was paid by the district. this was, at that time, the foremost expert and one of the few in the world at that time. The long and the short of it was this: After the parents sat back down and negotiated a portion of the revenue to come to the PTA funds of that elementary school suddenly all the magnetic rays and evil things emanating from the tower was no longer pertinent. They exchanged money for their children's safety.<br />
Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-28010843693401023252012-08-23T00:50:00.001-04:002012-08-23T00:50:51.784-04:00Is It In The Water?By now we are all aware of the Romney/Ryan/Akin/IRD/Koch Brothers/etc. and the movement towards an oligarchy in this country. The idea that the best thing for second class citizens is to be mothers, housewives and barefoot and pregnant. The "hard decisions" that cut support for the poor, the underprivileged, babies, children and folks who need a hand up, students, and unions. While I will continue to write against all this crap, vote against the fools that work against democracy and try to not revert to 1962 there is still a burning question that I have not heard a very satisfactory answer. <br />
<br />
Why does middle and working class America feel/believe that the world can only be saved by people like Romney and Bush and Reagan and Wall Street and Hedge fund presidents? Why is the appeal to achieve tons of money so popular to them when everything the right-wing nuts do contradicts everything that they say? Why do common folks, those who have achieved what they have by way of union activism now rip at the very seams of the fabric they are wearing? And how is it that so many of the middle and working class believe that capitalizing social security, doing away with medicare, eliminating universal health care are all good things? Why is it that we believe that the "hard decisions" are cutting food stamps and not depletion allowances? And why is it that the grand old party leaders can say whatever they want (ala Akin) regardless of what the science says and have everyone believe it is true? <br />
<br />
I can honestly say that while I worked in management almost all of my career and I openly negotiated at times against CTA and CSEA for contract rights I have always respected who and what they are if for no other reason that I recognize my parents successes as well as my successes s well as my children's successes are all built on what unions past and present have delivered. I recognize that affordable housing -- actually an opportunity to own a home comes not willingly from the rich but from those in Congress who believed that to own a home was worthy of legislation. To provide equality across the country was a God given right. That mistakes are made and forgiveness and mercy are more important than justice and punishment. But, alas, I appear to be in the minority.<br />
<br />
I am open to anyone explaining this phenomenon to me. Right now -- I cannot see it and I do not understand it.Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-28994600258555432442012-08-18T03:59:00.001-04:002012-08-18T04:07:35.826-04:00IDs? IDs!IDs? IDs! We don't need no stinkin' IDs!<br />
<br />
We have talked about this over the blogs and most recently at Friends of Jake. Well, I just got one more reason to really dislike the climate we are currently living in. <br />
<br />
My son, is a Petty Officer and a nine year veteran of the Navy. He was recently selected to go to Naval Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island. While the rest of his family are registered Democrats and have been most of their lives, my son is a registered Republican (what would you expect from a Navy type?), not really the crazy type, but a staunch Republican. He has been to the California Republican caucus and has "rubbed elbows" with the Firestone family, an aggressively conservative group. My son is overall, an old style republican, fiscal conservative and a liberal when it cvomes to most social programs. He believes in many principles currently ascribed to the democrats, but alas, I just cannot seem to get him to our side.<br />
<br />
At any rate, he is headed to the OCS school in Rhode Island and is driving. For some reasons unbeknown to his mother and father he left late and is covering about 1,000 or so miles a day. Hard but doable.<br />
<br />
So, in Illinois, he is stopped by a law enforcement officer (do not know if sheriff, police, highway patrol or what have you) and my first thought was well, 1,000 miles a day, must have been stopped for speeding. Guess what? That was the furthest thing from the truth. He was pulled over under suspicion of drug running! First, if they ran wants and warrants they should find him as a member of the armed forces. His car, a Chevy Blazer, has all the required military stickers. My son is 6'9" tall, certainly someone who can "hideout" in a crowd. The officer said he was stopped for at least two reasons. First, his license plate, the state of registration, is Washington. Apparently the officer believes that a huge drug ring is operating out of Washington state and they suspected my son was among the bad guys because he had a Washington plate. But hold on, that is not all, the officer said "you were not driving on I-80 and so you were suspected of drug smuggling for not being on a major interstate. What? My son had decided to take a scenic route just for fun and that made him a suspect in a drug operation?<br />
<br />
This is a George Bush nightmare! One cannot drive on a scenic byway with the state of Washington license plates without being suspected of drug smuggling? Where in the world did this all come from? Back in 09/11/01 the then President (GWB) decided that fear was the operative word so that he and his cohorts could bomb the heck out of Iraq trying to find Osama Bin Laden. He then sent troops to Afghanistan to find Osama Bin Laden. Now apparently, Osama Bin Laden may be riding in a Chevy blazer having Washington license plates.<br />
<br />
My son has been deployed in the Gulf during the current disagreement. He loves his country more than most everything and thinks freedom is a good reason to fight. His dad agrees with him -- maybe he learned it from me -- I hope so. But what he cannot do, I can. <br />
<br />
I am outraged by what happened to my son. I am so angry I am beside myself. How can we, a free country and a free people, allow the police to just stop any old person they want to, search their car, and then make up some cock and bull story about drug runners in Washington taking back roads to mule their stuff? That officer ought to be ashamed of himself -- in fact that officer should have, at the end of his shift, turned in his gun and badge and any other property of the state and resigned. He would be free, of course to choose to join the skinhead group of his choice -- courtesy of my son.Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-59973354297597384992012-08-16T23:48:00.000-04:002012-08-16T23:49:03.310-04:00Hard DecisionsI was listening to Capitol Public Radio (NPR) this morning when the NPR reporter interviewed a politician from, well it makes no never mind because it is all the same. They (the politicians) had to make some hard decisions in order to balance the budget -- so they closed a hospice for the elderly. Now, just how is that a hard decision? The vast majority of people living in a hospice cannot vote. Those childre3n who will be affected by reductions in free and reduced lunch, aid to families with dependent children, MIC, mental health programs, recreation centers and more -- they are all children and cannot vote. How about the "hard decision" to cut education? Realize that by the numbers there are only about 24% of parents who might vote -- no big deal, a politician can still weather those numbers and be re-elected. That is, especially if they do not want to make "the easy" cuts -- like tax incentives for corporations, tax breaks for the very, very wealthy. Those folks thank you/ask you by way of millions of dollars to campaign funds. So, why would the politicians want to make those cuts? What makes matters all that much worse is so many middle class and working poor actually believe it. After all, why would they lose a tax break or some services simply because the rich are not to be touched? Certainly these are hard decisions -- no one would intentionally want to hurt me, right:?Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-24552567633971456302012-08-10T00:27:00.000-04:002012-08-10T00:27:16.808-04:00ACNA and Marx: The RelationshipIs it possible that the Anglican Communion in America is somehow connected to Karl Marx? Well, let me show you some things that might give you pause. ACNA was formed out of several diocese and a conglomeration of bishops and laity that, down deep, does not appreciate the democratic nature of the Episcopal Church. They reject logic and reason and require a significant adherence to their beliefs, however arcane or bizarre. The laity has little or no say in how the ACNA is run nor do they seem to want to. So, how does that relate to Marxism? <br />
<br />
Here is the quote directly from Karl himself: "Religion is the opiate of the people". If you do not believe this quote then please analyze the events fomented by John David and his cronies. They allow for no real news from any source, no real congregations of the faithful that would serve as a communication device; and no real discussion of any issues unless the puppets in the audience are part of the drama. <br />
<br />
For my money, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for enough good men (and women) to do nothing". - Edmund BurkeFrank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-24711203486808843252012-08-07T23:41:00.000-04:002012-08-07T23:41:32.632-04:00RomneyhoodPresident Obama, yesterday referred to his political rival as Romneyhood. A spin-off of the legendary character in England during the time of Prince John, pretender to the throne. It turns out I am old enough to remember the original TV series. Well, I could not resist the temptation to take the president's reference just a wee bit further:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Romneyhood, Romneyhood<br />
Riding through the glen.<br />
Romneyhood,
Romneyhood<br />
With his band of men.<br />
Feared by the good, loved by the bad.<br />
Romneyhood, Romneyhood, Romneyhood.<br />
<br />
He called the fat cats to a tavern on the green.<br />
They vowed to help the people of the
king.<br />
They handled all the poor that are on the welfare scene,<br />
And still
found plenty of time to fling.<br />
<br />
Romneyhood, Romneyhood,<br />
Riding through
the Hamptons.<br />
Romneyhood, Romneyhood<br />
With his band of fat men.<br />
Feared by the
good, loved by the rich.<br />
Romneyhood, Romneyhoo, Romneyhood. <br />
</blockquote>
If there was any doubt let the truth ring out, Romney and his fat cats want to have the poor go away and the middle class become poor. (Got it?) And, remember, the Romneyhood antics that he would put in place are the same antics GWB used during his two terms. We went from a trillion dollar surplus to a trillion dollar deficit. We went from a very good economy to discovering the manipulations of the wall street financiers, the bailout of banks that had already set up the great American failure and they new wing-nut republicans that do not understand the meaning of the word politic.Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-23160715927211367712012-08-06T10:22:00.005-04:002012-08-06T10:22:52.128-04:00Can We Talk?Once again a legislature is returning from "vacation" and has targeted, guess who? I brought the paper inthis morning and found this headline: <u>Pension reform the top priority.</u> The tickler was a quote from Darrell Steinberg the DEMOCRATIC president pro tem of the California senate "I remain confident that we will have comprehensive pension reform before the end of this session". Just so no reader is confused, this comes from the San Francisco Chronicle. You can look it up.<br />
<br />
Just what do you suppose the double speak means? Well, lets look at the past first, the United Pilots got screwed when UA went into bankruptcy and their pensions were turned over to the pension guaranty fund (government run and far less than what they were receiving). Then the nationwide case of Wisconsin and it's public services. These are but two of the many pensions that were once promised, once delivered and forever taken away.<br />
<br />
In the instant case, here is how I translate the quote: "For years we have cut taxes, provided tax and other incentives for the rich, allowed the rich to incredibly influence the political process thereby placing our legistatures in a moral delimma and with much frequency deciding against the right thing to do. We have paid our political contributors off with high positions with high salaries and little work to do but sit around. We have granted ourselves pay raises and benefits that few others have, we just came back from a month's paid vacation and now we can do nothing to create a just and fair system of revenue to support the most basic of social contract issues, safety (police, fire, nurses, etc) so we have to make the middle class, the government worker, and the bargaining units of this state pay for all our ineptitudes.<br />
<br />
This from a democrat that lives in the state that HAD the 7th largest economy in the world. That HAD the premier college and university system that many states tried to model but could not. That HAD K-12 school system that was in the top ten in the nation. That had a reputation for paying a just and fair wage. That HAD and served mercy for our children and their parents in desperate need.<br />
<br />
I can only say thank you Ronald Reagan; thank you Pete Wilson; thank you Arnold the terminator; and thanks to all the legislators who over the years decided to make this state the most lowly, humble, and humilitated state in the union. Thanks for balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class because you all do not have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing.<br />
<br />
Oliver Wendell Holmes said (and this is cast in stone above the IRS building in D.C) "Taxes is the price we pay for living in a civilized society". Apparently you and the rich simply wish to return us to the state that Thomas Hobbes classifed as "short, nasty and brutish".<br />
<br />Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-41590832115733969172012-08-05T15:05:00.000-04:002012-08-05T15:05:08.199-04:00BACK TO THE FUTUREWell, time to return to the not-off-topic stuff, at least for the moment.First, it appears that GAFCOON, of which ACNA is a part, believes that we should all go backwards until we reach the future. <br />
<br />
GAFCON held a conference in of all places, London, England! The chairperson of GAFCON delivered and incredibly self-serving, self-aggrandizing, self-interpretive speech/testament for GAFCON to proceed.<br />
<br />
Here is the scripture upon which the testament is build:<br />
<br />
<div>
<span></span>In Micah 6:8 we read: </div>
<div>
He has showed you, O man, what is good.</div>
<div>
And what does the LORD require of you? </div>
<div>
To act justly and to love mercy </div>
<div>
And to walk humbly with your God.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
He, Archbishop Eliud Wabukala , then proceeded to speak over the rest of the testament explaining what this scripture meant to those of us poor, slow, dumb laity that could not understand a very simple Godly statement as, "To act justly and love mercy and to walk humbly with your God". Now, I like interpretation as much as the next person but GAFCON has made their name on the basis of solo scripturas. But, just what in the imagination of Archbishop Eliud Wabukala do we not understand about this particular passage? How is it more complicated than say, "love your neighbor as yourself."? But, in order for Archbishop Eliud Wabukala to get where he wanted to go he needed to "interrpret" scripture for us. (I guess we no longer need Bibles, we just need the Bishops of GAFCON.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Here is a direct quote form the Archbishop, " It is little surprise then that we find scripture can be bent into all sorts of convenient shapes and that so called ‘gospel’ truths can contradict the plain meaning of scriptures. " Well, what do you know? Do you suppose he is talking about him and his friends?</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
And then, buried within the golden voice and "conciliatory speech comes this little gem:</div>
<div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Our communion has come of age and it is now time that its leadership should be focused not on one person or one church, however hallowed its history, but on the one historic faith we confess. There is added urgency to these concerns and need for creative thinking so that a pattern of global governance that is no longer fit for this context is not perpetuated by default.<br />
</blockquote>
So, here is the issue: Either the Crown selects one of them or they take their marbles and go home. <br />
<br />
The Lord requires that we act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. I like Micah better than I like Archbishop Eliud Wabukala. <br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-75693273985640167782012-08-03T00:57:00.001-04:002012-08-03T00:57:14.125-04:00Companion PostThis is a companion piece to that which was just recently posted. Perhaps an example of what I find unjust.
And perhaps a bit of explanation of the last piece posted.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlK1ddUzoynqvZXcSPK1EPFS0cBqta1OpSqEMTHmRa4k672puyNRsrjZl6TuWzTHJPJBpON0bWhmYS-UPaYticD1qRYQRGjBI6_KQNruMVCgQ6srZEzNe0l20cfhypAzQgaUY5yY6U1s0/s1600/abbie-hoffman+american+flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlK1ddUzoynqvZXcSPK1EPFS0cBqta1OpSqEMTHmRa4k672puyNRsrjZl6TuWzTHJPJBpON0bWhmYS-UPaYticD1qRYQRGjBI6_KQNruMVCgQ6srZEzNe0l20cfhypAzQgaUY5yY6U1s0/s320/abbie-hoffman+american+flag.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Does anyone remember this person? Abbie Hoffman and guess what he is wearing? Yep, that is indeed an American Flag. He was tried for wearing the American Flag but not before some police officers tore it off his body.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now, here is another image:
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAzBW9AnWmS9-UqyVWN0ecjJMaPTCogB1cs1iReAi8n1XWsvXxSnPLd0-nTEt6zpIT2U22MDu8Auno0gMgcRvTboiru4eRIFu8OpvX2HAoJEmoIaLn0wbvqE7TnxyU4VA_P0PpNuUU92I/s1600/kesha+in+american+flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAzBW9AnWmS9-UqyVWN0ecjJMaPTCogB1cs1iReAi8n1XWsvXxSnPLd0-nTEt6zpIT2U22MDu8Auno0gMgcRvTboiru4eRIFu8OpvX2HAoJEmoIaLn0wbvqE7TnxyU4VA_P0PpNuUU92I/s320/kesha+in+american+flag.jpg" width="235" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This picture is from not too long ago. First, I hope no one rips the flag of her body - that could be embarrassing. Second, to the best of my knowledge she was never tried for un-American activities and certainly was not brutalized by the Chicago police.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Justice"? Well, time wounds all heals but let's face facts, people wear the American Flag all over -- just look at those at the Olympics? Am I upset about people wearing the American flag? No. I am upset by the injustice of it all. It seems we have a double standard. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Sound familiar? Sound like it is happening all over again?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
By the way, the day that Hoffman was arrested for wearing the American flag Jerry Rubin was there also wearing a flag and absolutely nothing happened to him. Of course the flag was the flag of the North Vietnam. Wowsers! Three in a row!</div>Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-33405919412561897422012-08-02T20:05:00.002-04:002012-08-03T00:23:29.065-04:00Point of Personal PrivilegeMost of the readers may not know "some" of my background. My father was a United States Marine. I am a United States Marine. Once a Marine always a Marine. I also understand many readers abhor violence of any kind. Well, this is one of those quirks in my life - I guess, I believe there are certain principles that one needs to abide by and when threatened, one choses one's own course -- I choose freedom -- not just one sided but freedom for all - I firmly believe that each and every person in this country gets to speak their mind without fear or retaliation - I am willing to protect that freedom. Sorry - this is not meant to be an apology (in the definitive meaning), just an explanation for what is about to follow. Marine Corps commercials still send a chill up my back, here is one of the latest.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hB59OUJKDUw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Thank you for your indulgence.Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-78360619284101600032012-07-25T04:36:00.001-04:002012-07-25T04:36:36.994-04:00Let's Get One Thing StraightOut of the convention comes more rhetoric by his Eminence Mark Lawrence, "high who ha" of the diocese of South Carolina. Can we get at least one thing straight: Mark Lawrence and Daniel Martins were tutored by John David Schofield. They are following JDS' plot/plan. When JDS was approved by the House of Bishops he assured everyone that certain sensitive issues (such as female ordination) would not separate him from his beloved Episcopal Church. Then for nearly 40 years he tried every trick in the book to reverse his "statements" finally just doing what he had intended to do all along, form his own version of Anglicanism. Mark Lawrence comes along and during the ratification process promises to never leave the Episcopal Church. Well, it appears, and right on cue, that while he and his diocese are not leaving the Episcopal Church the Episcopal Church is leaving him. What a tired and worn out argument but true to his mentor's form (and the Chapman Memo) he is on his way out. The House of Bishops ratifies Daniel Martins as grand poo bah of Indiana as Mr. martins promises to never leave the Episcopal Church. His rhetoric is about 18 months behind Mark Lawrence but it is growing in it's adversarial nature.Just how long is it going to go on? Hey, let's ratify all the "good Anglicans" to be bishops and allow the Episcopal Church to fall apart one diocese at a time? What a great strategy! We already have had it proven that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is dealing with the Gordian knot by trying to untie it -- rather than pulling the sword out of the scabbard and cutting the knot.<br />
<br />
Death, slow or fast, an inch at a time or all at once is still death. As I have said before, when good guys and bad guys fight, good guys usually lose. Why? Because the good guys play by the rules and the bad guys have no rules. It certainly will not be pretty and it obviously will not be easy but "fighting" for even a principle, is worth it, win or lose, it is worth it. The ACNA believes and relies on the Episcopal Church as the compromise, let's take it slow and easy, lets keep as many folks in as we can, let's out last the "bad guys". The "bad guys" are following the scorched earth policy.<br />
<br />
Let us allow the Who to finish this post. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Wont Get Fooled Again</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
by the Who</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
We'll be fighting in the streets<br />With our children at our feet<br />And the morals that they worship will be gone<br />And the men who spurred us on<br />Sit in judgment of all wrong<br />They decide and the shotgun sings the song<br /><br />I'll tip my hat to the new constitution<br />Take a bow for the new revolution<br />Smile and grin at the change all around<br />Pick up my guitar and play<br />Just like yesterday<br />Then I'll get on my knees and pray<br />We don't get fooled again<br /><br />The change, it had to come<br />We knew it all along<br />We were liberated from the fold, that's all<br />And the world looks just the same<br />And history ain't changed<br />Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war<br /><br />I'll tip my hat to the new constitution<br />Take a bow for the new revolution<br />Smile and grin at the change all around<br />Pick up my guitar and play<br />Just like yesterday<br />Then I'll get on my knees and pray<br />We don't get fooled again<br />No, no!<br /><br />I'll move myself and my family aside<br />If we happen to be left half alive<br />I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky<br />Though I know that the hypnotized never lie<br />Do ya?<br /><br />There's nothing in the streets<br />Looks any different to me<br />And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye<br />And the parting on the left<br />Are now parting on the right<br />And the beards have all grown longer overnight<br /><br />I'll tip my hat to the new constitution<br />Take a bow for the new revolution<br />Smile and grin at the change all around<br />Pick up my guitar and play<br />Just like yesterday<br />Then I'll get on my knees and pray<br />We don't get fooled again<br />Don't get fooled again</div>
</blockquote>Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-54794249604303251382012-07-17T03:02:00.001-04:002012-07-17T03:02:16.382-04:00A Drop of Water in the Pacific OceanI know that everyone is coming back from convention and most are overjoyed by the happenings and some are not. Everyone is now discussing those things but I want to call your attention to a "drop in the ocean". Yep, the goings on of the Anglican/Orthodox Diocese od San Joaquin. As you all must know Mr. Schofield has retired (this time for real; and collects a pension from TEC pension fund). Now, the new guy is Mr. Eric Menees. His "first convention" is coming up and here is a portion of what he is looking forward to:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The convention will focus on the themes of development that I would like to see for the coming year: Congregational Development, Clergy Development and Development of Youth Ministries. Over the next few months as we lead up to the convention I will be focusing on one aspect of these themes of development and <strong><u><em>this month I would like to discuss the development of Youth Ministries.</em></u></strong> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
As I visit churches each week <strong><em><u>I hear over and over the desire to reach out and minister to the youth of the congregation and the youth of the community</u></em></strong>. These are words that warm my heart and stir my spirit. "<br />
</blockquote>
Several years ago this diocese, specifically Mr. Schofield had two respected senior wardens that tried to get an explanation of what happended and both were rebuffed by JDS and the "henchmen". No one was every allowed to comment or challenge the budget. (After that year the budget was passed on a Friday night to avoid those nasty little interruptions.)<br />
<br />
Since that time the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin has poured thousands of dollars into the Southern Cone including the rebuilding of the then archbishop's home.<br />
<br />
Now, Mr. Menees is intent on youth services? Once again the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin is going to try and slip everyone a "mickey". Too bad for the youth.</span>Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-62194372567190437342012-07-07T20:32:00.000-04:002012-07-07T20:32:32.616-04:00Letters - We Get LettersWho besides John David Schofield has an incredible command of the English language. Permit me to show you. Remember for years JDS was leaving the church and not leaving the church and then the name PECUSA was absconded with, and then JDS told all of use no one was going anywhere and then finally, the Episcopal Church "made him" become a member of the Anglican whatever. Compare all that with this, I make no comment other than draw your own conclusions. Look closely at the signatories. (Seems John Hancock is missing.)<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><div align="LEFT">
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE HOUSE OF BISHOPS</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
6 July 2012</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
The Most Reverend Katharine Jefforts Schori</div>
<div align="LEFT">
Presiding Bishop</div>
<div align="LEFT">
The Episcopal Church</div>
<div align="LEFT">
815 Second Avenue</div>
New York, NY 10017<br />
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
Dear Presiding Bishop:</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
We write to address allegations that have been made against us—both those made by Bishops</div>
Ohl and Buchanan in their letter of yesterday and unknown others made in Title IV disciplinary<br />
complaints that we have not seen. Bishops Ohl and Buchanan have asked that the record be set<br />
straight. That is our intention in this letter.<br />
<br />
No charge is more serious to us than the one that we have acted against our own Church—in<br />
other words, that we have been disloyal. We assure each of you that we have acted out of a<br />
profound loyalty to this Church we love. We knew our decision to file an </span><div align="LEFT">
<i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;">amicus </span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;"></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">brief in Texas </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">and affidavits in Illinois authenticating our earlier statement on Church polity would be controversial. We took these actions, however, precisely because we thought it our duty to do so in order to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church as we all have</span></div>
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
pledged to do. We hope that if you agree with us about nothing else, you will recognize that<br />
upholding the constitutional polity of the Church as we understand it is not disloyalty.<br />
Because our views have been mischaracterized, we welcome this opportunity to clarify what we<br />
believe and what we have said in our legal submissions. Our primary concern is that the polity<br />
that has defined this Church for two centuries is being transformed due to momentary legal<br />
objectives in the secular courts. We do not question these objectives. We only believe that the<br />
constitutional polity of the Church—the discipline we pledge to uphold—should not be<br />
sacrificed in pursuit of these goals.<br />
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
We can summarize what we were taught years ago and still believe about our governance as</div>
follows:<br />
</span><span style="font-family: Symbol;">• </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol;"></span><div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">The Episcopal Church is a hierarchical church and the hierarchical authority for matters</span></div>
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
within a diocese is the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese, which according to our</span><br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
Constitution is the diocesan bishop. Ours is not a metropolitical church, but a church</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">with a dispersed hierarchy. We did not invent this understanding of our governance. It</span><br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><div align="LEFT">
has a long and venerable pedigree. For example, in “The Church’s Teaching” series</div>
<div align="LEFT">
volume on polity, Canon Powel Mills Dawley of General Seminary (working with a committee of church leaders under the auspices of the Church Center) concluded that:</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
“the dioceses possess an independence far greater than that characteristic of most</div>
<div align="LEFT">
other Churches with episcopal polity….Diocesan participation in any national</div>
<div align="LEFT">
program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced.</div>
<div align="LEFT">
Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is</div>
<div align="LEFT">
restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan</div>
<div align="LEFT">
Convention or the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of</div>
<div align="LEFT">
the Church is almost complete.”</div>
</span><span style="font-family: Symbol;">• </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Symbol;"></span><div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">As noted, we are not a metropolitical church. Our Constitution has no “Supremacy </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">Clause”; it specifies no office or body with supremacy or hierarchical authority over the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese for matters within a diocese. And as bishops, we take no vow of obedience to any other office or body. Priests and deacons pledge conformity to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church </span><i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;">and </span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;"></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">obedience to the </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">diocesan bishop. Bishops only give the Declaration of Conformity. This was a matter of extreme importance to our founders. Church of England bishops give an oath of “Due</span></div>
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><div align="LEFT">
Obedience” in which they “profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the</div>
<div align="LEFT">
Archbishop and to the Metropolitical Church of Canterbury [York] and to their Successors.” Our founders very intentionally rejected such an oath for The Episcopal Church. We pledge obedience neither to an archbishop nor to a metropolitical church.</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
We pledge to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church, but each diocesan bishop is the Ecclesiastical Authority in the diocese.</div>
</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">Under the First Amendment, secular courts may not make extensive and searching </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">inquiries into, and thereby interfere with, church doctrine or polity in order to decide secular legal cases. This is standard Supreme Court jurisprudence. If you do not immediately agree with all these points, we invite you to read our Bishops’ Statement on the Polity of The Episcopal Church, which we published in April 2009. It is a comprehensive examination of these issues.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
This puts succinctly what we have said in our court submissions. We made these submissions,</div>
<div align="LEFT">
however, only after we became concerned that the courts were misinterpreting—and thereby</div>
<div align="LEFT">
forever changing—our constitutional polity based on what we believed was erroneous information about our history and governance.</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
We began this letter by reiterating, however briefly, what we did</div>
</span><div align="LEFT">
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">say because most of the </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">objections seem to be directed at things we </span><i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;">did not </span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;"></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">say. Turning now to the specific charges ma</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">de by Bishops Ohl and Buchanan, we can only say that none of them accurately describes what we actually said in our submissions.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
1. We do not represent or argue that “dioceses can unilaterally leave.” We stated explicitly</div>
on the first page of our</span><i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;">Amicus </span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;"></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">brief that “the </span><i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;">amici </span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;"></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">oppose the decision by the Appellants</span><br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
(“Diocese of Fort Worth”) to leave The Episcopal Church, but in its ruling against them</span><br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
the court has misunderstood, and thereby damaged, the constitutional structure of The<br />
Episcopal Church.” We do not address in the brief whether withdrawal is permitted<br />
under the Constitution. Indeed, some in our number have at great cost ruled such<br />
proposals out of order in their own dioceses. Our legal submissions are concerned only<br />
with the nature of authority in our Church; we do not address the exercise of that<br />
authority by Bishop Iker or any other bishop.<br />
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
2. We do not “deny the Dennis Canon.” In fact, we do not address property issues at all.</div>
The Dennis Canon and property trusts are not even mentioned in our </span><div align="LEFT">
<i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;">amicus </span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;"></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">brief. The </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">Episcopal Church parties in the Texas litigation have presented extensive argumentation to the Texas Supreme Court that they are entitled to the disputed property even under</span></div>
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
neutral principles of law. We do not address this issue at all, but our legal analysis that<br />
secular courts must use neutral principles of law if they cannot readily identify the nature<br />
of a church’s hierarchical authority can hardly be prejudicial to the Episcopal Church<br />
parties when they argue themselves that they win under such a standard.<br />
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
3. We neither deny that this Church can “recognize its own bishops” nor claim that Bishop</div>
Iker is still the bishop of the diocese recognized by our Church. In fact, we explicitly<br />
state in the</span><i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;">Amicus </span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;"></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">brief that “The Episcopal Church clearly has the constitutional right to</span><br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
select a new bishop.” We recognize Bishops Ohl and Buchanan as the bishops of the</span><br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
TEC-recognized dioceses. Indeed, one of our number participated in the installation of<br />
Bishop Ohl’s predecessor. We acknowledge that Bishop Iker was the Ecclesiastical<br />
Authority of the diocese until the vote to withdraw, which is the crucial time period in<br />
this dispute, but that is undeniable. We conclude that if the court applies a deference to<br />
hierarchy standard—an issue on which we explicitly take no position—the Ecclesiastical<br />
Authority at the time of the vote to withdraw was Bishop Iker. We consider that<br />
conclusion inescapable given our polity. To the extent that this is a question of<br />
nomenclature, the Texas Court has previously ruled that Bishop Ohl and his diocese are<br />
not yet entitled to claim the name of “The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth” pending the<br />
final result of this litigation. Thus, Bishop Iker and his diocese continue to use this name.<br />
This ruling, however, plays no role in our analysis. It is not our concern.<br />
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
4. Strangest of all is the claim that we have violated episcopal jurisdiction. We have</div>
performed no episcopal acts in another diocese. All we have done is exercise our civic—<br />
not ecclesiastical—rights to petition the government. To our knowledge, no one has ever<br />
before suggested that petitioning the legislatures or courts in Washington or state<br />
capitols—our brief was filed in Austin, not Fort Worth—requires the consent of the local<br />
bishop. To the extent that the claim really is that our submission might have an effect in<br />
</span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">another diocese, we would reply that we are simply responding to submissions by others</span><br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
that will themselves have what we believe to be very profound and harmful effects on all<br />
our dioceses, not only in Texas but across the Church. And we note that we are not the<br />
first bishops of our Church to file an </span><i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;">amicus </span></i><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;"></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">brief this year with the Texas Supreme </span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">Court. Others filed a brief in another property dispute involving Bishop Ohl’s former diocese. Clearly, it is the views we express, not the act of filing a brief, to which objection is taken.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT;">
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
This brings us back to where we started. We are convinced that the venerable polity of our</div>
Church is under threat due to the temporary exigencies of secular litigation. However much we<br />
may understand and sympathize with these objectives, we consider it our greater duty to uphold<br />
our constitutional polity. Whether or not you agree with our interpretation—and we all must<br />
acknowledge that our polity is in some ways obscure—we hope you will recognize that we are<br />
doing our duty to uphold the good order of the Church as we perceive it and that it is no small<br />
part of the burden of that duty to know that others take offense from our actions.<br />
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
Faihfully,</div>
<br />
<div align="LEFT">
The Rt. Rev. Peter H. Beckwith</div>
<div align="LEFT">
The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe</div>
<div align="LEFT">
The Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert</div>
<div align="LEFT">
The Rt. Rev. William H. Love</div>
<div align="LEFT">
The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson</div>
<div align="LEFT">
The Rt. Rev. Daniel H. Martins</div>
<div align="LEFT">
The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon</div>
The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton</span><br />
<br />
I apologize for the break up of the letter but here it is. Enjoy your reading.Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-28853046115843166352012-06-15T10:26:00.002-04:002012-06-15T10:29:27.330-04:00Remember Jefferson?Food for thought -- <br />
<br />
"Dear Sir,<br />
<br />
My last to you was of the 16th of December; since which, I have received yours of November 25 and December 4, which afforded me, as your letters always do, a treat on matters public, individual, and economical. I am impatient to learn your sentiments on the late troubles in the Eastern states. So far as I have yet seen, they do not appear to threaten serious consequences. Those states have suffered by the stoppage of the channels of their commerce, which have not yet found other issues. This must render money scarce and make the people uneasy. This uneasiness has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of indignation; and those characters, wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily that nature has formed man insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth or experience.<br />
Societies exist under three forms, sufficiently distinguishable: (1) without government, as among our Indians; (2) under governments, wherein the will of everyone has a just influence, as is the case in England, in a slight degree, and in our states, in a great one; (3) under governments of force, as is the case in all other monarchies, and in most of the other republics.<br />
<br />
To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has its evils, too, the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.<br />
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.<br />
If these transactions give me no uneasiness, I feel very differently at another piece of intelligence, to wit, the possibility that the navigation of the Mississippi may be abandoned to Spain. I never had any interest westward of the Allegheny; and I will never have any. But I have had great opportunities of knowing the character of the people who inhabit that country; and I will venture to say that the act which abandons the navigation of the Mississippi is an act of separation between the Eastern and Western country. It is a relinquishment of five parts out of eight of the territory of the United States; an abandonment of the fairest subject for the payment of our public debts, and the chaining those debts on our own necks, in perpetuum.<br />
I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character and physical advantages of the people, who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as soldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers and sons, or rather, to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide.<br />
Nor would that country quit the cost of being retained against the will of its inhabitants, could it be done. But it cannot be done. They are able already to rescue the navigation of the Mississippi out of the hands of Spain, and to add New Orleans to their own territory. They will be joined by the inhabitants of Louisiana. This will bring on a war between them and Spain; and that will produce the question with us, whether it will not be worth our while to become parties with them in the war in order to reunite them with us and thus correct our error. And were I to permit my forebodings to go one step further, I should predict that the inhabitants of the United States would force their rulers to take the affirmative of that question. I wish I may be mistaken in all these opinions.<br />
Yours affectionately,<br />
Th. Jefferson"<br />
<br />
Jefferson liked to borrow from the likes of John Locke and I know John Boehner has tried to cite this as his reason for doing some of the most atrocious things to the middle class on down, but this brand of Republican is scared - that's why they do what they do. They are in effect scared to death of change. Progrssives/liberals can only be pushed so far- particularly those who marched in the 60's (wink wink nod nod).Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-42488238746352330842012-04-03T02:08:00.000-04:002012-04-03T02:08:54.008-04:00Are We Tired?I am tired of all the "grab-ass". We have lost our vision and with it I fear the high ground. Where is the love?<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="height: 978px;"><tbody> <center> </center><center>
<tr> <td height="35" valign="middle" width="80%"> <b><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: medium;"><table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="3" style="height: 311px; width: 500px;"><tbody>
<tr><center> <td height="303" rowspan="7" valign="top" width="369"><b>FOR THE LOVE OF IT ALL</b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Noel Paul Stookey<i>- <br />
©1991 Neworld Media Music Publishers, ASCAP</i></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;">In the beginning, as life became form,<br />
The oceans heaved, the mountains were cleaved,<br />
The firmament stormed.<br />
At the center of being, immensely small<br />
Was the master of now, don't ask me how<br />
The Love of it all</span> <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">And the seasons were many.<br />
Creation was new.<br />
And there on a tree (deceptively free)<br />
A forbidden fruit<br />
Upon leaving the garden, after the fall,<br />
One thing was clear; we chose not to hear<br />
The Love of it all</span> <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">But for the Love of it all<br />
I would go anywhere.<br />
To the ends of the earth,<br />
What is it worth if Love would be there?<br />
Walking the thin line between fear and the call<br />
One learns to bend and finally depend<br />
On the Love of it all</span> <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"Irresistible targets"<br />
I heard someone say.<br />
They were speaking of angels<br />
Who are so courageous day after day<br />
Gunned down on a highway (as we often recall)<br />
I hear a scream; I have a dream<br />
The Love of it all</span> <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Still the world is in labor,<br />
She groans in travail.<br />
She cries with the eagle, the dolphin,<br />
She sighs in the song of the whale.<br />
While the heart of her people<br />
Prays at the wall.<br />
A spirit inside is preparing a bride<br />
For the Love of it all</span> <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For the Love of it all,<br />
Like the stars and the sun,<br />
We are hearts on the rise,<br />
Separate eyes with the vision of one.<br />
No valley too deep, no mountain too tall,<br />
We can turn back the night with merely the light<br />
From the Love of it all.</span> <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">And so we are marching to 'to give peace a chance'<br />
Brother and sister as one in this mystery dance.<br />
Long ago on a hilltop where now the curious crawl<br />
A man on a cross paid the ultimate cost<br />
For the Love of it all</span> <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">For the Love of it all<br />
We are gathered by grace<br />
We have followed our hearts<br />
To take up our parts<br />
In this time and place.<br />
Hands for the harvest,<br />
Hear the centuries call:<br />
It is still not too late to come celebrate<br />
The Love of it all</span> <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"Eli, eli, lemana shabakthani"<br />
The Love of it all</span></td></center></tr>
<tr> <td align="left" height="101" valign="top" width="107"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><b>VIDEOS:</b><a href="http://www.peterpaulandmary.com/music/f-videos.htm#vll">LifeLines <i>Live</i></a></span> </td></tr>
<tr> <td align="left" height="101" valign="top" width="107"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><a href="http://members.cox.net/billandleann/ftloia.htm">Guitar Chords</a></span> <span style="font-size: xx-small;"><b><br />
</b></span></td></tr>
<tr> <td height="81" width="107"></td></tr>
<tr> <td height="30" width="107"></td></tr>
<tr> <td height="29" width="107"></td></tr>
<tr> <td height="29" width="107"></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div align="left"> l</div></span><div align="left"></div></b><div align="left"></div></td></tr>
</center>
<tr> <td height="880" valign="top"> <div align="center"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div></span><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></td><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><td height="880" valign="top"><div align="left" style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div></td></tr>
</tbody> </table>Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-8641560863142344322011-07-04T00:45:00.000-04:002011-07-04T00:45:47.644-04:00SPREAD IT All AroundWell folks, here is the GAFCON latest idea on what constitutes an Anglican Communion. Let's start with their statement, written by Charles Raven.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Events between the 1998 and 2008 Lambeth Conferences demonstrate decisively that the Communion's present "instruments of unity", including the See of Canterbury itself, are no longer fit for purpose when confronted with deep theological confusion in which evil is held out as good and good as evil. A merely institutional unity not firmly rooted in the revealed truths of God's Word written is not only counterfeit but also toxic, exposing the whole Communion to the false teaching and immorality absorbed by the Western Churches. SPREAD seeks to guard against this danger and to encourage the emergence of new Anglican structures able to support a coherent and confident proclamation of the gospel around the globe.<br />
</blockquote><br />
Two key elements are attacked here by those revisionists that would fashion an Anglican Communion in the image of peter Akinola, or perhaps more to the point, Michael Nazir-Ali. Notice that the <span style="color: #990000;">"see of Canterbury is no longer fit for purpose"</span> Conveniently, GAFCON now takes on the titular head of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury. These folks have lost all moral compass, at least in so far as the Anglican Communion is concerned. My feeble brain with my minimalist logic says: The Church of England, founded by the English, also known as Angles (hence Anglican) was the originator of the the Anglican Church. I think my history calls me to account for Henry the VIII, Elizabeth the I, Cranmer, Richard Hooker, etc. When the British, also known as Angles, created their empire away back when, they brought to all the new lands, the English Church, that is, the Church of England. This happened in as unusual a place as the 13 colonies, India, Nigeria, Australia and so on. As these countries became independent such as Canada, they formed their own variation of the Church of England, in this case called the Anglican Church of Canada. The archbishop of Canterbury, appointed by the crown in England, has been the titular head of this loose confederation of provinces including the Episcopal Church of the United States. How can the head of the Church of England, the tree from which all the branches have grown, suddenly not be "fit for purpose". Nothing has changed in a thousand years.<br />
<br />
<br />
Then, Mr. Raven goes to the what ought to be the first argument but turns out to be his second argument. <span style="color: #990000;">A merely institutional unity not firmly rooted in the revealed truths of God's Word written is not only counterfeit but also toxic, </span><span style="color: black;">Just what the heck is going on? It appears Mr. Raven and the fellow Conelonialists want to move this loose confederation of provinces gathered under the titular head, the Archbishop of Canterbury, into a clear, top don, organizational structure with like rules and regulations and a magisterium and everything roman. After all, how can any province be punished if we can all think for ourselves? How can there be any sense of unity unless we can snap a string and straighten out the entire communion. Why do we need to talk and discuss when all we really need to do is have Mr. Akinlola, Mr. Nazir-Ali, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Orombi et al make these decisions for us. Boy, how much pressure can we take off all the provinces.</span><br />
<br />
What a crock! First, one cannot change facts and one cannot change history. The Anglican Communion is a confederation of provinces that celebrate diversity and welcome discussion and discernment. If we do not ask questions, if we do not posit interpretations, how does the living word of God stay alive? <br />
<br />
What SPREAD/GAFCON/FCA/CANA/AMiE/AMiA and all the other groups want is a new church built on new "standards", pillars if you will. Well, no one is stopping you all, go ahead. Create a "new communion" that has all the trappings you like but, please do not call it Anglican and please do not include me.Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-415119379366754082011-07-01T00:27:00.000-04:002011-07-01T00:27:16.324-04:00Moving Toward A New Anglican ComunionIn a recent post by <a href="http://jintoku.blogspot.com/2011/06/thought-for-063011.html">Tobias Haller</a> our good friend says, <br />
<br />
<blockquote>But it is the <i>idea</i> of being a fellowship, a communion — not a "church" or a "federation" — of self-governing churches whose individual decisions do not bind the others, even as they cooperate in mission and ministry, that forms our only <i>peculiar</i> offering to the tapestry of world Christendom. <strong><em><u>It is a model of service and fellowship, of work with rather than power over, commended by Christ himself as a model of churchly governance. </u></em></strong>If <i>that</i> is not worth preserving, then we have little else to offer.</blockquote>The highlights are mine. The words, the very capable words, are Tobias'.<br />
<br />
Then, in a recent post here at Off-Topic Allowed, Mad priest and I had a heartfelt exchange that cut to the quick of this communion issue. Here is where it drew to a point: This is MadPriest writing:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>It is my contention that the New World is no longer geographically located in the same way that the Kingdom of God is not geographically located. But, in respect of New Anglicanism the main locus is in the Americas and is strongest in the USA. In fact, I do not think it is strong enough anywhere else to survive, let alone thrive. Outside of the Americas the "New World" is dependent on its success in the USA and this is why we absolutely need TEC to include the rest of us within its God-given destiny. Of course, this will be painful for the Church in the US, and like Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane you can choose to accept or reject this role. But the goal, if eventually achieved, will bring TEC far more joy than breaking away and going it alone ever would.<br />
</blockquote>In other postings at other times many have put an emphasis on "saving the Anglican Communion". I have contended from the beginning that the Episcopal Church just move forward and if any other province wants to tag along, then fine otherwise -- oh well.<br />
<br />
Tobias Haller and MadPriest along with Mark Harris The Pluralist and a few others have made an impression to the point I have reconsidered my approach. The basic facts remain the same, the implementation of those facts is what becomes a little different.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, what do we do? Well, we call a "special plenary session" of bishops and lay leadership to meet in a neutral site, say, New Orleans, Louisiana (you are welcome Mimi) to consider a New Anglican Covenant. This special session will be hosted by the Episcopal Church of the United States and chaired by a group from The Episcopal Church of the United States, The Anglican Church of Canada, The Church of England, and the Anglican Church of New Zealand. Everyone is invited from all corners of the world. The sole purpose of this special session is to create: <strong><em><u> a model of service and fellowship, of work with rather than power over, commended by Christ himself as a model of churchly governance.</u></em></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
No one leaves the conference until a new Communion is born that allows for inclusion of all God's children and an approach to modeling Christ like behavior that involves resolving issues within one's own province prior to telling other provinces what needs to be done in their province. The honors each other's decisions as appropriate for them though not necessarily appropriate for all. That embarks upon the worldwide work of eliminating hunger, disease, child abuse and torture and terror. That we live those goals at home as we seek to eradicate them abroad. That those who can fund and finance do so and those who can staff and work do so in a spirit of love and forgiveness. This is not just our God-given destiny but all those who claim Christianity as their own.Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-4452746650607181522011-06-26T12:09:00.000-04:002011-06-26T12:09:43.631-04:00The Cornerstone has been laid -- And it Ain't JesusOur favorite miscommunicator which shall remain virtueless, has opened up his pulpit to one Charles Raven. Mr. Raven takes the opportunity to espouse more of the stuff that the Anglican Mission in England is all about. And, what it is all about is supplanting the existing Church of England, and therefore by extension the Anglican Communion, with their own branded Anglican Communion.<br />
<br />
Read this my friends and tell me if I am wrong.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>There are no direct answers in the AMiE press release which has of necessity to be brief and there is no doubt much detail to be worked out, but I think we can join some of the dots. The logic seems to be the same as that of the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration which affirmed that the GAFCON movement was very firmly staying within the Anglican Communion, but would not allow biblical conscience or mission to be held captive by the discredited Lambeth governance structures. It is worth quoting a section of the Jerusalem Statement at length:<br />
<br />
'Our fellowship is not breaking away from the Anglican Communion. We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans, is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it. While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see,<em><strong><span style="color: red;"> we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.'</span></strong></em></blockquote>There is no doubt that virtually everyone can and should be able to read the handwriting on the wall -- The Church of England and the Anglican Communion as we know it and have known it for centuries is about t o disappear. Our friend stationed in Canterbury has lost his battle. It is now time to turn to a new partnership -- that of the Church of England and The Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada to lead us into a more complete and inclusive communion.<br />
<br />
Much more later.Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-79325830971417916422011-06-24T10:03:00.000-04:002011-06-24T10:03:12.931-04:00A Manifesto and A Course of ActionThe multi-pronged assault on both the Episcopal church in the United States and the latest incursion into jolly old England is part of an unfolding plan by the Global South and the Conelonialists to literally reshape the face of the Anglican Communion. The British, from the Archbishop of Canterbury down to the nice little publications on the web seem to want to alternating discount what Robert Duncan and Peter Jensen and Peter Akinola et al are doing and help them. The help is not unlike climbing on the boxcars back in 1939 Since the AMiE is now in their backyard. The help them also is sitting on the fence and not resoundingly denying any and all priestly/episcopal actions of those that have been deposed a way back when. Help them is sending "observers" to a convention of a province that does not exist the view something that has no real bearing on the Anglican Communion and will not play nice even if the silly British think that is the civilized thing to do. <br />
<br />
This would be laughable except many of the Episcopal writers, blog and otherwise, have a longstanding history of wanting to appease -- can't we all just get along. Those of us in places like San Joaquin and Pittsburgh and Fort Worth and Qunicy have seen first hand the utter devastation of people places and things that these folks have brought down all the while they lust after more and more power. The comments like we need to move slowly, they mean us no harm, the Covenant needs to be thoroughly reviewed are all delaying tactics designed by the Conelonialists to confuse, distract and diffuse any opposition while their plan is put in place. Well Jim and Mark and Lionel and Tobias the time is now upon us and we as well as the Anglican Communion as we know it is about to cease to exist. Please do not "pat me on the head and send me on my way" once again -- the writing is on the walls. <br />
<br />
We need to come to grips with the facts of Anglican life. We need a course of action that will steer us through these waters with or without the Archbishop, Rowan Williams. We need to stop playing with the godforsaken Anglican Covenant and unbury ourselves long enough to face facts. We are being attacked from all sides and must do something soon else we shall cease to exist -- at least as we know us now. <br />
<br />
First, and foremost, we need to grab ++Williams by the lapels and tell him life is not "a bowl of cherries" and you are not Neville Chamberlain so stop acting the part. If everyone is so desperate to keep the Anglican Communion, and it seems the majority of the Episcopalians here seem inclined to do so, then lets officially be rid of those in ACNA and tell GAFCON/FCA/CANA/AMiE/AMiA and all the other alphabet soup folks to get with the program or get off the damn bus, now!<br />
<br />
(I have no idea why we are so struck with the Anglican Communion. We went from 1786 to about 1868 or so without them and I think we can probably do it all over again. When they come to their senses about women and LGBT participating fully in the life of the church then we can talk but not till then).<br />
<br />
We, the Episcopal Church, needs a reformation of our own and it needs to start now. Everyone needs to know what we stand for, why we stand for it and we need to get about our Father's business, like right now. Leave these other poor fools to play with each other. Let's get on with a new course of action!Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-18924357174539797802011-06-23T19:44:00.000-04:002011-06-23T19:44:09.317-04:00The Chickens Come Home To Roost<span style="color: #38761d; font-size: large;">Just a short period of time ago, Father Mark Harris asked this question/made this statement,</span> <span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<blockquote>I have heard nothing of the CofE sending anyone from Faith and Order to ask The Episcopal Church what it thinks of ACNA in its midst. One day, when the CofE finds its own Anglican Church in England, Scotland and Wales (ACESW) claiming to be the Province of record in the Islands off the coast of Europe, they will understand.<br />
</blockquote>Well, Father Mark, it did not take long --<br />
<br />
<br />
AMIE has been established as a society within the Church of England dedicated to the conversion of England and biblical church planting. There is a steering committee and a panel of bishops. The bishops aim to provide effective oversight in collaboration with senior clergy.<br />
The AMIE has been encouraged in this development by the Primates’ Council of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON) who said in a communiqué<br />
The AMIE is determined to remain within the Church of England. The desire of those who identify with the society is to have an effective structure which enables them to remain in the Church of England and work as closely as possible with its institutions. Churches or individuals may join or affiliate themselves with the AMIE for a variety of reasons. Some may be churches in impaired communion with their diocesan bishop who require oversight. Others may be in good relations with their bishop but wish to identify with and support others.<br />
<br />
Sure, sure, sure, they "said" they will do this all "within the Church of England" but I am from the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and I say, if you believe that I have some swamp land in Florida just for you!Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-21397186433817283892011-06-21T00:43:00.000-04:002011-06-21T00:43:25.657-04:00It's Time To Put New Lipstick On The PigEarly on, like late 1998 or 1999 John David Schofield began his machinations to eventually move "his" diocese from the Episcopal Church to, ultimately, The Southern Cone. Mark Lawrence is in the process of tearing a page right out of John David Schofield's book and write his own chapter.<br />
<br />
Here is how this has started:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Early in 2009, Bishop Lawrence called for the creation of the Anglican Communion Development Committee to replace the World Mission Committee (WMC). The intention was to create a committee that would serve to reflect the changing environment of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion in this global age and to reflect the vision that Bishop Lawrence believes we as the Diocese of South Carolina are called to fulfill - “To help shape the future of Anglicanism in the 21st Century through mutually enriching missional relationships with dioceses and provinces of the Anglican Communion (Romans 1:11-12; 2 Corinthians 9:1-15), and through modeling a responsible autonomy and inter-provincial accountability (Philippians 2:1-5; Ephesians 4:1-6) for the sake of Jesus Christ, his Kingdom and his Church.” </blockquote><br />
Bishop Lawrence has decided to create a world vision that reflects the Anglican Communion?! Oh, really, and who died and left him Archbishop of Canterbury? Really, where do these folks get this stuff from? Do they stay awake nights trying to think up the next thing to outfox our Presiding Bishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury and grab as much worldly power as their two hands can possibly hold?<br />
<br />
So, now we get to the real takeoff:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>A recent visit to the diocese by The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis, Bishop of Egypt, and Archbishop of the Anglican Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East resulted in a partnership and new companion relationship between South Carolina and this province of the Anglican Communion. Additionally, because Archbishop Anis’ province is already in partnership with the Province of South East Asia, by extension, the door has opened wide for further exploration and relationship -building there as well. While the ACD Committee will support and facilitate both existing missional relationships, and many of these exciting new initiatives, it will remain parish-based missions and relationships that yield the fruit of building up God’s Kingdom.<br />
</blockquote>So, figure this one. A local bishop, Mr. Lawrence, makes a deal with a primate from another province in order "explore and build relationships". For those of you not accustomed to "Conelonialist speak" this is the kind of happy nonsense John David Schofield used to spread on the ground, ultimately leaving the Episcopal Church for the Global South. (And make no mistake, the Communion Partners, including our favorite new bishop, Dan Martins, are knee deep in this. But that is for a later posting). The language and the approach is classic Chapman Memo crap that has been used over and over by those who would try to crush the Episcopal Church in the United States. But I digress. Mark Lawrence is the bishop of South Carolina and to be sure he is NOT a primate. He has entered into a relationship with a Primate, the equivalent of our Presiding Bishop. Who is lusting for power? Well, I will leave that up to you. The inexorable march continues!<br />
<br />
Anybody want to kiss the pig now?Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-22430733153494983762011-06-18T22:00:00.000-04:002011-06-18T22:00:01.064-04:00Happy Father's DayI know this will turn out to be just a tad early, but I thought I would be in a hurry to salute Father's Day. <br />
<br />
So, allow me to begin with a picture of my father. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJbnjLCpe8EM7iVbpVYXONkqEomLhg6f42CPCUVAd_ymt4dSuY23auBHo_X7eFKviJULfwi68l8PWu0J_nb4HerTsWAqzksBbU2iqdNC4cjiTjX5Xwx3M0r5Uj0k5WBPdqtolGjdgqfYQ/s1600/mydad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJbnjLCpe8EM7iVbpVYXONkqEomLhg6f42CPCUVAd_ymt4dSuY23auBHo_X7eFKviJULfwi68l8PWu0J_nb4HerTsWAqzksBbU2iqdNC4cjiTjX5Xwx3M0r5Uj0k5WBPdqtolGjdgqfYQ/s1600/mydad.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div>As one might surmise, this is a picture of my dad shortly after he was promoted to Battalion Chief. He died about two years after that, I was seventeen at the time. What I remember most vividly is when he would go out as a mutual aid department to the fires in the Santa Monica mountains. He would be gone for a week or more sometimes. (This was before people actually lived in this area.) He was usually gone for a day or so but that was to be expected on shift work. Our house had what we referred to as the "doghouse" which was nothing more than a partitioned section of the garage where our washer and dryer were. At any rate, When he would get back after 10 or more days my mom would insist his clothes be removed in the "doghouse". However, you cannot imagine what a warming smell burnt weeds and grass can create until your dad is gone for days. That is how we knew he was home. And I have always had that memory whenever I smell burnt grass. <br />
<br />
Happy Father's Day!Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1365306689589006129.post-77931754093435120652011-06-17T00:04:00.000-04:002011-06-17T00:04:19.922-04:00Don't Look Now!Sometime help ccomes from some of the strangest places. Ever think that bankruptcy would forge gay rights issues? Well look at this <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/15/MN261JTSHR.DTL">"Bankruptcy Court Blasts Defense of Marriage Act"</a> <blockquote> In Los Angeles the judge stated, "This case is about equality, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, for two people who filed for protection" from creditors, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles said Monday. </blockquote>The Defense of Marriage denied certain rights to same-sex couples wed in other states. It allowed for the denial of claims for joint income tax filing, Social Security survivor benefits and even joint bankruptcy filings. Thaat is all over now.<br />
<br />
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." Matthew 23:37Frank Remkiewicz aka “Tree”http://www.blogger.com/profile/00501821790434895826noreply@blogger.com0