Surge grows following congressional news conference

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

St. Gregory of Tours is perhaps best known for his work Historia Francorum, the History of the Franks, while the Venerable Bede is best known for his work Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, the Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Both men’s works provide us with a valuable glimpse of early Middle Age history in northwestern Europe. There are similarities and differences in both men’s works, which were influenced not only by their times and locations but also by their respective careers. Nevertheless, it is possible to make a value judgment as to which one was more reliable as a source.

In order to appropriately understand both men’s writings and their similarities and differences, it is important to pay attention to their historical contexts. Gregory of Tours (ca. 538-594 AD) was a Gallo-Roman (for those who are unfamiliar with this term, “Gallo-Roman” refers to the intermixture of Frankish and Roman cultures in what is now France in the aftermath of the fall of the Western Roman Empire) Catholic bishop of Tours. He was born and raised in Gaul, and as a bishop his writings, like other Christian writers of the time, reflected his own theological opinions. He made sure to begin the Historia Francorum with a detailed account of creation and the history of his faith up to his own time, and like other Catholic bishops, made his beliefs about the nature of Jesus Christ crystal clear to his readers. “I renounce with execration those who say: ‘There was a time when He was not,’ and I maintain that they are cut off from the Church.” (Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks (Penguin Books, 1974), p. 67) This was surely a stab at Arianism, which the Visigoths to the south in Spain embraced. This actually raises an interesting question, one which I am not certain as to whether scholars have pursued. One has to wonder if it is possible that his anti-Arian perspective might have reflected not only a theological worldview (which was probably the dominant motivating factor), but was perhaps also tied into the fact that his own Frankish kings were not always on friendly terms with the Arian Visigoths, to say the least! Could he have condemned Arianism at least in part to curry personal or political favor with his Frankish rulers against their Visigothic Arian enemies? To what extent did the theological mix in with the political? Whatever the case may be, the anti-Arian viewpoint certainly went along with the general tenor of orthodox Catholic thought at the time. After his recounting of history since the dawn of creation, Gregory then provided a detailed history of the Frankish kings (some of whom he knew). Gregory did refer to multiple sources, and displayed a remarkably critical attitude toward them for a man of his time. He was sure to note when he was relying on hearsay, which could be a serious problem when considering his reliability, but he also saw plenty of the things that he described with his own eyes.

There may be something else to consider. Recent scholarship has suggested that Gregory’s overarching theme was to show how difficult and futile ordinary life in this world could be when compared to the miracle-working saints. See Goffart, Walter, The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550-800) (Princeton, 1988). See also Mitchell, Kathleen and Ian Wood (eds.), The World of Gregory of Tours (Leiden, 2002). This would not be surprising for a Catholic bishop of his time and place to suggest, but a relevant question that scholars should ask when confronted with such an assertion is whether or not that was actually Gregory’s chief motivation for writing, or if he even intended that to be evident in his work. Even if that was one aspect of why he wrote, there were probably other factors involved. Considering that Gregory knew some of the Merovingian kings (and was also vividly aware of their more unsavory endeavors), one has to wonder just how objective he really was in his portrayals of them. Could he have favored one branch of the Frankish nobility over another out of deference (or fear) to his royal acquaintances? Overall, Gregory is definitely more reliable than some other ancient sources, but we still have to consider his own sociopolitical context, his partial reliance on hearsay and his relationships with Frankish rulers.

The Venerable Bede is a somewhat different story. Bede (ca. 672-735 AD) was born to a presumably well-to-do family in northern England (right near Jarrow) and sent to a monastery to be educated when he was still a boy. He became a priest when he was about 30 years old and was a prolific writer. There are several things that should be considered when discussing Bede. The first is that he was certainly well-educated in the monastery, but beyond that he had access to a well-known library at the monastery in Jarrow where he (as well as others) could do research (see Cramp, R. J. (1999) “Monkwearmouth (or Wearmouth) and Jarrow”, in M. Lapidge et. al. (ed.) The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford, p. 325-326). His education was also, unlike Gregory of Tours, much more diversified. Bede was educated in science, history and theology, and was familiar with classical authors. He researched the works of various authors, including classical ones, in constructing his historical accounts, not only making use of his library but also by writing to numerous individuals for information. He actually refers to some of these individuals in his preface to the Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, which he dedicated to the king of Northumbria, Ceolwulf.

While Bede had more access to sources than Gregory, and was probably more educated, he does not seem to have been connected with multiple English kings, nor does he seem to portray the violence and depravity that Gregory described as occurring in Merovingian royal circles. This could have to do with the fact that Bede himself was not, to our knowledge, involved in any royal courts, but Anglo-Saxon England certainly had its share of royal violence (Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Penguin Classics, 1990), p. 23). Bede’s own account of the Anglo-Saxon invasions also appears to have been colored by his own perceptions, since archaeological evidence suggests that the invasions were in fact a long process of resettlement. In a time when England was fragmented into multiple kingdoms and estates, Bede also showed a personal bias in favor of his native Northumbria. Scholars think that his goal was to show the unifying power of Christianity in England in the face of diverse peoples, which is perhaps one reason why he had strong feelings about the Easter date controversy that was finally solved at the Synod of Whitby (anything that could cause division would have thus been anathema to Bede).

What about the sources that Gregory and Bede both used for their works? While Gregory did use some hearsay, he did consult primary sources that are now, unfortunately, lost to us. He quoted a few Historiae that were written by other authors, as well as Eusebius (Constantine’s biographer). His attitude toward pagan sources is not all too surprising. “We ought not to relate their lying fables lest we fall under sentence of eternal death.” In one way Gregory redeems himself by inserting the actual texts from these sources into his own work, as well as to provide more than one source for some of his assertions. Gregory does deserve credit for being a good investigative reporter, and perhaps a scholar, since he was specific about his sources and did not simply accept something that was written down as absolute truth. Still, Gregory demonstrated that he could exaggerate when he felt that the occasion called for it. “Scarcely a day passed without someone being murdered (see Book X, 15).” This, combined with Gregory’s rather gruesome descriptions of some of the Merovingian rulers, could easily give one the impression that Merovingian France was a bloody mess, a perception that scholars have only relatively recently challenged. In any case, some degree of exaggeration is not surprising in ancient sources (as well as present-day ones), and Gregory is no exception.

Bede, like Gregory, consulted primary sources himself, having had access to a great deal more in his library than Gregory did. Initially, this caused me to conclude that Bede would naturally be more reliable since he was able to do more research than Gregory. However, an inconvenient confounding variable turned up. The “paucity” of his sources has been noted (Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Penguin Classics, 1990), p. 23). Also, quality over quantity must be considered. Some of the sources that Bede used were far removed from the events that they described (remember that Bede lived over 300 years after the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in England) (Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Penguin Classics, 1990), p. 23). Despite this, Bede’s research assistant obtained papal records from Rome, and Bede was in communication with multiple individuals, some of whom were well-placed, who provided him with information (Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Penguin Classics, 1990), p. 25). Also, Bede appears to have been more educated than Gregory and had access to materials that would enhance his education.

The role of miracles in both men’s works should be examined as well. Consider Earnest Brehaut’s analysis of miracles during the time of Gregory of Tours:

“To society in general the miracles were the important thing. In the first place they served the immediate purpose for which a miracle might be needed, healing the sick or driving out a demon or something of the sort; in the second place they encouraged society by evidencing the fact that things in general were right and that their spiritual leaders had the right ‘medicine.’ Incredulity is not to be expected in such a situation. The miracle played an integral part in the life-theory of the time. It was the proof of religion and it did not need to be proved itself. Furthermore many miracles were real; for example, the cessation of a pain or natural recovery from a sickness would be regarded as a miracle.”

One can see that miracles in the time of Gregory, and probably Bede, were not subject to as much skepticism as they might be today. The two men were about a century removed from one another and about 300 miles apart, but even so miracles were an expected part of religion (Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Penguin Classics, 1990), p. 26). Gregory of Tours cites miracles, or at least things that appear to be supernatural in nature, such as a glowing cloud (see Book VIII, 17), as does Bede (consider the story of King Edwin’s conversion). Remember that events that could have medical or natural causes could easily be perceived as miracles in a time when modern medicine and science did not exist as such. I do not consider the fact that both men cited miracles in their works to be overly important, as this was something that is to be expected of men of their time, place and clerical status. Miracles were simply an example of their religious worldview reinforcing itself. This does not mean that one should simply discard the miracles, which could reflect true occurrences, but rather that they should be regarded as an inherent part of Gregory and Bede’s worldviews that should be taken with a grain of salt considering present-day scientific knowledge.

I consider both Gregory and Bede to have been, relatively speaking, reliable sources considering their personal contexts and circumstances. Both had their own biases, whether theological, political or regional in nature. Despite his error with the history of the Anglo-Saxon invasions, his references to miracles and his own regional sympathies, Bede’s educational background and resources still compel me to side with him as being the more reliable source. While one could perhaps argue that his relative lack of connections to his rulers makes his account more plausible, this in itself does not prove much. He could still have other biases, such as the regional one described earlier. I do not find his use of miracles to be particularly problematic, since that was typical of men of his time (including Gregory), especially in the church. This is not to say that Gregory’s account should be ignored or repudiated. On the contrary, both sources need to be further studied and compared to other contemporary sources, but on the whole I must consider Bede’s access to resources, however imperfect, that Gregory did not possess to be the deciding factor that makes me consider him more reliable.

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.

Cover of Paul Fouracre and Richard A. Gerberding, Late Merovingian France

A luxury that we don’t often get with the early Middle Ages is being able to contrast two opposing sources. It is kind of the key of how we try to teach students, or at least I would like it to be, but nonetheless it’s rather rare in any situation from our period to be able to clearly define two or more sides to a question and then find sources from those sides. However, sanding down my mental rust patches for the QMUL teaching led me to take a rapid run through Paul Fouracre’s and Richard Gerberding’s Late Merovingian France and somewhat to my surprise that is one of the things it can offer, in the form of two saints lives, that of Leudegar and that of Præjectus, who almost through no fault of their own wound up as leaders of opposing factions at the same royal court in 675, a court which saw the arrest and blinding of one and the murder of his chief ally, a murder for which the other was then blamed and murdered by his opponents when he got home.¹ This, when sewn together by the cunning of the editors’ commentary, makes quite a good thing to learn with. I am more convinced than ever that Roger Collins might have been right when, at a legendary seminar held shortly after the publication of The Da Vinci Code, he told us all that that proved what he’d known all along, that the real money was with the Merovingians.

The blinding of St. Leger, Bishop of Autun, from a French Bible of c. 1200 via Wikimedia Commons

Statue of Saint Præjectus (Saint Pry) at Saint-Prix (Val-d'Oise), from Wikimedia Commons

As our government spends more and more it seems wise to have more control over the money we have to give them.

There is a new bill out, HR1919, that will make it possible to stop the withholding of money from your paycheck (No more mandatory W-4).

I love this for multiple reasons. First, it will allow you to keep your money and spend it on things you want and need. If you want to, you can invest it and make some money with it. This is versus giving it to the government and earning nothing off of it. (In other words, $500 in your bank account earning interest for a year is better than paying $500 to the government and earning no interest).

Secondly, it will cause the government to be more responsible. It is easier for us to ignore the fiscal doings of government when the money never even hits our pocket. If it is in our pocket and we have to cut a check at the end of the year, we are more likely to wonder where that money is going. I also think that it will make people more aware of how wasteful the government is and how much we TRULY do give up to the government.

Third, and this may not make sense to some of you, it will cut the presumption that we are voluntarily indulging in taxable activities. What is and what is not a taxable activity.

111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1919
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of income and social security taxes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009
Ms. FOXX (for herself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. BARTLETT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. PENCE, Mr. KINGSTON, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means——————————————————————————–
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of income and social security taxes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Withholding Tax Repeal Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) At the onset of the Civil War, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which imposed a tax on personal incomes and to assure timely collection, taxes were ‘withheld at the source’ by employers.
(2) The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and in 1872, the income tax was abolished and along with it, the Federal withholding mandate.
(3) With passage of the 16th amendment to the Constitution, Congress swiftly passed legislation creating a Federal income tax, withheld before employee salaries were paid.
(4) In response to growing taxpayer criticism of the withholding mandate, Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo stated that ‘it would be very advantageous to . . . do away with the withholding of income tax at the source’ because it would ‘eliminate a great deal of criticism which has been directed against the law’; a statement reflecting the sentiment which ultimately led to the repeal of Federal withholding authority in 1917.
(5) In the 1920s and 1930s, income taxes were due on March 15 following the end of the tax year and could be paid either in one lump sum on that date or in quarterly installments.
(6) With the onset of World War II, fearing that taxpayers might refuse to pay the higher tax rates and surcharges associated with funding the war effort, Federal officials, lawmakers, and political leaders such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the military crisis to draw on Americans’ sense of patriotism and resurrect the Federal withholding authority as a ‘temporary wartime measure’.
(7) The campaign to reinstitute a permanent system of withholding overcame public hostility with the passage of the Withholding Tax Act of 1943 which incorporated suggestions proffered by Beardsley Ruml to eliminate individuals’ 1942 tax liabilities by counting amounts paid or withheld in 1943 as tax payments for that year.
(8) Since that time, Congress has stubbornly refused to repeal the Federal withholdings mandate contained in the Withholding Tax Act.
(9) In fiscal year 2007, the Internal Revenue Service refunded overpayments amounting to over $248,625,001,000 more than actual individual income tax liabilities, effectively denying interest payments otherwise owed to taxpayers and amounting to a hidden tax.
(10) These overpayments are returned annually in the form of tax refunds to taxpayers who often confuse the payments as a reward.
(11) According to an April 2007 report released by the Joint Economic Committee, millions of families, many in the bottom fifth income percentile, have either zero tax liability or receive a net transfer from the Government due to the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Tax Credit. Those without Federal tax liability would benefit the most from keeping their entire paycheck, rather than temporarily surrendering portions to the Government.
(12) The absence of the Federal withholdings mandate leaves employers and employees free to negotiate alternative, private means of collecting and paying Federal income taxes, thereby allowing individuals to voluntarily earn interest on their withhholdings.
(13) The Federal withholdings mandate allows the Federal Government to disguise tax increases and hampers Federal accountability and transparency by requiring the assistance of an intermediary tax collector.
(14) Complying with the Federal withholdings mandate imposes costly burdens and legal liabilities on employers forced to act as de facto IRS agents, without compensation for lost time and resources.
(15) Referring to the Federal withholding mandate in his work Public Finance in Democratic Process: Fiscal Institutions and Individual Choice, 1986 Nobel Prize winning economist James Buchanan stated that ‘The individual who does not have possession of income before paying it out cannot’ sense ‘the real cost of public services in a manner comparable to that experienced in a genuine act of outpayment.’.
(16) In CATO Institute study, Charlotte Twight has noted that ‘[W]ithholding is the paramount administrative mechanism enabling the Federal Government to collect, without significant protest, sufficient private resources to fund a vastly expanded welfare state.’
(17) The Federal tax withholding mandate was listed by Human Events in 2005 as the fourth ‘Most Harmful Government Program’ and seventh ‘Worst Tax Law’ in 2006.
(18) The National Taxpayers Union notes that the incremental nature of withholding masks the true cost of Federal income taxes, which would be much more apparent if individuals had to write monthly, quarterly, or annual checks to the Federal Government.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to increase transparency and accountability in the Federal tax system by providing the public with a more accurate account of–

(A) the annual tax burden; and
(B) the Federal budget deficit;
(2) to decrease the overall tax burden and increase the personal wealth of taxpayers by allowing for the personal collection of interest during the fiscal year on overpayments that are otherwise used by the Federal Government to partly avoid interest payments;
(3) to decrease the burden on employers by freeing them from the task of collecting income tax withholdings from their employees; and
(4) to end the deceptive practice of masking higher tax rates from taxpayers.
SEC. 4. REPEAL OF FEDERAL INCOME AND SOCIAL SECURITY TAX WITHHOLDING MANDATE.

(a) In General- The following sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are hereby repealed:

(1) Section 3102 (relating to deduction of social security tax from wages).
(2) Section 3202 (relating to deduction of railroad retirement tax from compensation).
(3) Chapter 24 (relating to income tax withholding).
(b) Requirement of Estimated Tax Payments for Employee Social Security Taxes- Subsection (f) of section 6654 of such Code is amended by striking ‘minus’ at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ‘plus’, by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4), and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:

‘(3) the taxes imposed by section 3101(a) and 3201(a), minus’.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid on or after the first January 1 occurring after 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. CONTINUED VOLUNTARY TAX WITHHOLDING.

(a) Authority of the IRS- Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to accept voluntary tax payments from employers electing to continue collecting Federal income taxes from employees.
(b) Voluntary Employer Participation- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent voluntary employer sponsored withholding of Federal income taxes on behalf of employees.
(c) Voluntary Employee Participation- Nothing in this Act shall be construed–

(1) to require any employee to participate in an employer Federal income tax withholding system, or
(2) to prevent any election of an employee to opt in to an employer Federal income tax withholding system, with all terms and conditions for participation being negotiable between the employee and employer.

If you support such an idea, I urge you to write your Representative.

The penny item at Publix this Sunday (11/15) & Monday (11/16) is:

Publix Jumbo Franks

The penny item coupon can be found on the lower right corner of your Sunday paper Publix advertisement.

Your total must be $10 BEFORE coupons to get the jumbo franks.

Seeding Into Others,
Catrina

Seful delegatiei Fondului Monetar International (FMI) in Romania, Jeffrey Franks l`a felicitat azi pe Directorul Directiei de Supraveghere din BNR, Nicola Cinteza si pe viceguvernatorul Popa pentru modul in care au stiu sa aduca indicatorii sistemului bancar la parametri optimi. Asta mi`a spus`o la telefon un nene apropiat discutiilor. Acelasi nene foarte de treaba mi-a mai spus ca directorul Cinteza va lipsi o saptamana din BNR, dar nu m-a lasat sa spun despre ce e vorba.

Day 34 – Ken here
(writing, of course, on Day 51)
Sorry about the silence for so long, I’m a little behind to say the least. In my own defense I have realized something about blogging and reading every day – to wit:

I’m not complaining, but I have been sick and away, and although I had my computer and Gibbon at my side, I didn’t get a heck of a lot done. So it’s catch-up time for me big time. I’m reading way ahead and writing to catch up with myself.

Gibbon continues chapter 13:

That’s a LOT to have happen in 6 years. It’s not called the 3rd century Time of Crisis for nothing.

Probus

Probus Emperor. Note the otherworldly, very 3rd century spiritual upward glance

The Fictitious Walls
This from an appendix to another edition of Gibbon:

From an online version of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall

“PROBUS AND THE LIMES GERMANICUS
The statement of Gibbon that Probus “constructed a stone wall of a considerable height, and strengthened it by towers at convenient distances” is not warranted by the evidence, which consists entirely of two remarks in his Life in the Hist. Aug.: —

(1) c. 13. contra urbes Romanas et castra in solo barbarico posuit atque illic milites collocavit.
(2) c. 14. sed visum est id non posse fieri nisi si limes Romanus extenderetur et fieret Germania tota provincia. (id refers to the command of Probus, that the German dependent tribes should not fight themselves, but, when attacked, seek the aid of the Roman army.)

It will be observed that the only statement of fact is in the first passage, from which we learn that Probus constructed and garrisoned some forts on soil which was then barbarian. The second passage states no fact, but ventilates a, perhaps wild, hypothesis.

It is also to be noticed that the actual Wall, constructed long before the time of Probus, was not a regular wall of hewn stone, and that its length between the points that Gibbon roughly marks was more than 300 (not “near 200”) miles.

It may be added that the limes (both the trans-Rhenane and the trans-Danubian) was probably due chiefly to Domitian and Hadrian.

There is a considerable literature on the Imperial limes; but all previous works will be superseded by “Der Obergermanischraetische Limes des Römerreichs,” edited by O. von Sarwey and F. Hettner, and published under the auspices of the Reichs-Limes-Kommission. This work is appearing in parts.”

Carus Emperor Augustus, revloted against Probus

Carinus Caesar, son of Carus - a handsome young man

Numerian Caesar, another son of Carus

Delegaţia FMI a venit pe 28 octombrie şi va sta până pe 8 noiembrie. Discuţiile purtate până acum sunt mai mult protocolare. Este evident pentru orcine, că orice oaspete sau delegat străin, fie el om politic, diplomat sau reprezentant al unui organism internaţional este obligat de cutumele diplomatice ca în timpul unei camapnii electorale să nu dea impresia că susţin un candisat sau un partid anume. Din această cauză şi-au pierdut timpul în scurte şi amabile întâlniri de-o cafea cu PSD-ul şi PNL-ul atât Joe Biden, cât şi misiunea FMI, delegaţia CE şi a Băncii Mondiale. Discuţiile tehnice de analiză şi evaluare a rezultatelor pe primele 9 luni – căci acesta este scopul vizitei celor trei delegaţii – vor urma cu guvernul şi cu BNR în zilele următoare. De altfel, întâlnirea cu Crin Antonescu şi cu ceilalţi lideri ai PNL – bine relatată pe Capital.ro – nici nu putea depăşi nivelul unor comentarii privind situaţia meteorologică atâta timp cât liberalii n-au înţeles nici acum ce rost are acordul cu FMI-ul.

Concluzia scurtă, clară şi lipsită de echivoc pe care a tras-o astăzi Jeffrey Franks, şeful delegaţiei FMI, este că tranşa a treia din împrumut, în valoare de 1,5 miliarde de Euro, destinată derogatoriu şi acoperirii unei părţi a deficitului bugetar, inclusiv partea privind plata salariilor şi pensiilor, va fi eliberată numai dacă vor fi îndeplinute, până la jumătatea lunii decembrie, trei condiţii esenţiale, negociate cu guvernul PDL-PSD şi incluse în acordul de împrumut votat de parlament. Este vorba despre:

1. un proiect de buget pentru 2010 care să aibă deficit de 5,9 %;
2. adoptarea legii pensiilor;
3. adoptarea legii responsabilităţii fiscale;
4. adoptarea legii unice a salarizării

Dacă aceste condiţii nu vor fi îndeplinite, apare riscul despre care vorbea astăzi Theodor Stolojan: plata parţială a salariilor bugetarilor şi a pensiilor.

Problemele în calea îndeplinirii acestor condiţii sunt mai multe.

Prima este de natură “organizatorică”: actualul guvern, fiind interimar, nu mai poate avea iniţiative legislative, deci nu mai poate elabora şi propune parlamentului un proiect de lege a bugetului pe 2010. Soluţia propusă de Franks era una cam… inaplicabilă, anume ca parlamentul să facă bugetul printr-o iniţiativă legislativă proprie. De aceea, conform declaraţiei lui Geoană, trebuie găsită o soluţie juridică care să dea posibilitatea guvernului de a face totuşi bugetul. Şi această soluţie cred că e imposibilă întrucât chestiunea ţine de constituţie. Vom avea aşadar, probabil, o mică-mare surpriză când guvernul Croitoru va trece bine-mersi în uralele parlamentarilor care tocmai au declarat, cică, necorespunzători 12 ministeriabili.

Celelalte probleme sunt de natură mai ales politică. Viziunile asupra principiilor şi arhitecturii bugetare ale PSD şi PNL sunt total divergente şi chiar ireconciliabile din temelie. De aceea, chiar mă întreb cum va motiva PNL renunţarea la cota unică şi la celelalte măsuri liberale pe care – e drept – Antonescu ne se mai înghesuie să le promoveze ştiind că misiunea lui este doar să facă agitaţie pentru Iliescu în favoarea lui Geoană în schimbul unor sinecuri viitoare.

Legile din pachetul negociat şi cerut acum de FMI sunt acele legi pe care actuala opoziţie, împreună cu sindicatele-marionetă,  le-au obstrucţionat luni de zile. Va fi chiar ridicol dacă îi vom vedea pe parlamentari, cu chiloţii în vine, votând rapid aceste legi pentru care Emil Boc şi Traian Băsescu şi-au asumat carierele politice.

Mircea Geoană a avut un tupeu maxim când a declarat că acum trebuie trecut, cum-necum, un buget pentru a lua ochii şi banii FMI-ului, buget care, dupa 1 ianuarie, va trebui supus unei serioase rectificări. Rectificare bineînţeles în interesul baronilor proprii.

Cert este că Jeffrey Franks a venit să facă ordine în gaşca recalcitrantă a opoziţei, care se bucură de avantajele iresponsabilităţii.

Ce-ar fi fost dacă aveam acum cele 3,5 miliarde de Euro, prăpădite, în câteva luni la sfârşitul lui 2008, pe “consumabile” şi “curente” de guvernul Tăriceanu 2.

***

© Alexandru Dan Mitache • 2009

Wow. This video speaks for itself.

Reps. John Shadegg (Ariz.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Trent Franks (Ariz.) and Sue Myrick (N.C.) have been advocating that the House Sargeant at Arms investigate the Council on American Islamic Relations for “trying to infiltrate Capitol Hill with interns and staffers.” … are you serious? Interns and staffers?

Shame on these four representatives (and the people who voted for them). Such patriots! It’s ironic how those who settled this country initially came here to escape religious persecution.

Let me be clear, my intention isn’t to defend CAIR or debate anything related to the merits of the organization. My issue is that these reps are solely focused on this group because it’s a Muslim one and because of their own Islamophobia.

Placing Muslim interns & having a lobby day as conspiratorial? What’s the issue? That they’re openly engaged in the political system? Or that they’re Muslim? (rhetorical question obviously)

Placing interns and having organized lobby days are a basic part of issue advocacy. Check with the National Rifle Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Israeli Political Action Committee, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Council of La Raza, and basically any other organized group – all of which place interns on the hill to teach them about the legislative process and have lobby days for policy issues they advocate for.

Were these reps speaking out when Chinese spies were recently caught? Did they get upset about interns and staffers of Chinese decent on the hill? What about when Israeli spies were caught at the Pentagon? What kind of mess would have Shadegg caused he’d recommended investigating Jewish interns on the hill?  Would love to see the JDL all over that! Oh, and all of the Catholic interns on the hill – spies for the Vatican? Each one of these examples is crazy and would be seen as laughable (and prejudiced). But of course it’s ok because they’re Muslim.

Would like to share this… it’s a piece attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller. It is essentially about how people in Germany were complacent when the Nazis began targeting groups for extermination:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Can’t wait to see what Jon Stewart has to say about this…

My first review is going to be about Steak-N-Shake’s new foray into the world of specialty hot dogs.  The restaurant has just put out a new line of specialty franks with various toppings on them, with the frank on a toasted bun, sliced down the middle and loaded with toppings.  They have the standard steak franks and a chili frank, but also a new Guacamole frank, a Chicago Style frank, a Southwest frank, and the Carolina Slaw frank.  All of these can be combined with fries for the low price of just $3.99, and all of it sufficiently filling.

My choice of frank was the Carolina Slaw.  I’ve had it twice now, and although the second time they skimped a little on the toppings, both times it was absolutely delicious.  The Carolina Slaw toppings are mustard, onions, and a generous amount of a semi-sweet cole slaw.  The bun is, as I stated, toasted and the frank is quite meaty and long, and split down the middle and full of toppings.  Both times, at my local Steak-N-Shake in Wood River, Illinois, the fries were fresh and hot, and I supplemented my meal with a Vanilla Coke.  Heather will have to give her opinion on the Guacamole frank and the Chicago frank.  I had a bite of her Chicago Style frank, and that’s what I’m getting next.  Overall, I was quite impressed. If you can get out to Steak-N-Shake in the next few weeks, give the Carolina Slaw frank a shot.   I don’t think you’ll regret it.

TPM and Politico came out with a silly story about four Reps. who thought it’d be a good idea to lend legitimacy to a silly group of people who targeted the Center for American-Islam Relations as a bed of corruption and scandal… in that they employ interns… and lobby… and represent Muslims to Congress.

I really don’t quite know what the story is on why the Reps would be involved but I figured today was a day I had 20 minutes to bang out a letter to the group of four.

The nuts and bolts, emphasis on the nuts, of this is that by spying on an organization a group of people who wrote a book titled Muslim Mafia allegedly discovered that, if it was possible, CAIR would help people get jobs with government.  Which is not unusual.  The group who spearheaded this preception of the CAIR as being epically sinister used an over elaborate scheme involving an intern spy in the form of “Dave Marshall” a cover for the son of one of Muslim Mafia’s authors who is their primary source.

Politico Article.

TPM Article(s).

Sent via Congress.org.

Rep. John Shadegg,

Recently I’ve become aware of your actions regarding Islamic believers in intern positions. To denounce a people of a particular faith for organizing is an unfortunate piece of judgement on yours and Reps. Broun, Franks and Myrick’s part and I would encourage you to reflect on what you are doing before you continue on.

This is not a secret strategy document. It’s a goal of a very ordinary lobbying organization attempting to represent an underrepresented group. Until I hear a concrete reason that these people deserve more of your attention than energy independence, the rightful treatment of our veterans or the proper allocation of government money of multi-billion dollar contracts with inept contractors, I refuse to recognize this as a valid use of your time.

In this you have managed to offended a Lutheran independent from a traditionally Republican area with you ridiculous hijinx. You represent the United States of America and I am particularly disappointed in you allocation of our collective resources to this endeavor. I urge you to reconsider your further involvement.

Sincerely,

K.

Soo… at the end of it, this is a stupid waste of time that smacks just a lot of religious prejudice, which I’m not alright with.  Tell your friends and take care.

URL : http://www.flashgame-girl.com/Adventure/Franks-Adventure.html

Game description :

Another great and exciting adventure game.

Game controls :

Arrow keys to play the game

Day 27 – Ken here

Unfortunately, I think I’m coming down with something – at least it just got a lot harder to think – but then it’s past midnight too…

We continue in Chapter 10. Gibbon’s plan is to take the long series of disasters and approach them in a kind of ethnic order – chaos by race:

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

1. The Franks (or Free-men, in other words the (distant) ancestors of the modern French),
2. The Alemanni (a confederation of Germans from Lower Germany – All-Men),
3. The Goths, and
4. the Persians.

Franks

The Franks, or Free-men, were a confederacy something like the loosely-bound Swiss cantons. The same, but different as Gibbon explains: “An inconstant spirit, the thirst of rapine, and a disregard to the most solemn treaties, disgraced the character of the Franks.” (DEF x, p.270).

During Gallienus reign alone (253-268) during 12 years the Franks crossed the Rhine, devastated Gaul, crossed the Pyrenees, and plundered Spain (a country untouched by war for 300 years or more) (actually, for most of the empire, the last 300 years had been pretty peaceful, except for civil wars). Tarragona the capital was sacked and destroyed, and the province thoroughly plundered to the point that Orosius (writing in the late 300’s, early 400’s – that is 150 years later) found only “wretched cottages, scattered amidst the ruins of magnificent cities” (DEF x p.271).

My question – where was Gallienus during these 12 years of war?

`http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allemanni

Alemanni
The Alemanni, an agglomeration of tribes from Upper Germany, headed by the Suevi (an extremely fierce tribe of Germans) soon after the disastrous battle of Decius in 251, crossed the Alps and entered Lombardy as far as Ravenna. Valerian was in the East (in Persia), Gallienus on the Rhine, so the city of Rome itself sent out an army which caused a retreat (without battle) by the Alemanni back across the Rhine.

The Alemanni crossed again later, but were stopped (supposedly) (we are still relatively source-less during these troubled times) by the marriage of Gallienus with the daughter of a Suebian king of the Marcomanni – Pipa (a marriage apparently not recognized by Rome itself as she was referred to as his concubine).

Again, is this all Gallienus could do?

Goths
Again, we hit the Goths, and this time they mean business. The amazingly, move out of southern Sweden, down the Dneiper, take the Crimea and the Kingdom of the Bosporus for themselves (this was the limit of Roman influence into Russia, the Bosporus had been a province briefly, then a client kingdom for the last 250 years or so). In a way, this (with Dacia) were the 1st Roman pieces of territory to be irrevocably lost.

In quick succession, in the last part of Gallienus reign (262-267) the Goths launched 3 naval expeditions out of the Crimea. In an amazing turn of event, they systematically looted 1st the east coast of the Euxine Sea (Black Sea) down to Trebizond, the next year the west coast down to the Propontis, the next year (with 15,000 men) they ravaged all Greece, and threatened Rome itself (were they to come up through Illyria. Gallienus stopped them by recognizing Naulobatus, chief of the Herule as a consul – the majority of the horde fought its way overland back to the Black Sea, a small number took their boats back up.

Things were falling apart for Gallienus.

And the worst is yet to come.

Gallienus

So what is there to learn from all of this?

Global Warming
The world was a different place in the 260’s than it was just a hundred years earlier. Actually a case could be made that the unusual calm in the world of barbarians from say 100 BCE through the 160’s CE was extraordinary. It was like an inter-glacial period between 2 Ice Ages – a period when growth could occur unmolested, but unfortunately, not a “normal” state of affairs between the fluid North and the settled South.

At some point, like that point when an inter-glacial starts to shut down and the ice-caps begin to grow again, the North began to move, and enormous waves of people were thrown into motion. It had to happen at some point. So perhaps, it wasn’t the Romans fault at all.

Degeneracy
How could this have happened? Gibbon makes the (predictable) complaint that it was degeneracy and laziness and lack of civic spirit which killed the pagan empire in the 200’s. Well, all well and good, but how would the modern citizens of St Louis deal with an assault by a hundred thousand armed and violent eskimos (not that eskimos would do that sort of thing)?

The basic engine that drives a society has to change between the frontier and the “inner” empire, between times when a society is young and expanding, and times when it is mature and stable. What works in an entreprenuerial start-up wreaks havoc in a well-established, large company. Small entities are about risk-taking and quick changes, large entities are about coordination and protection of resources/assets.

Perhaps (and this is personally what I think happened), Augustus’ decision to limit the extent of the empire and stop the growth, began (unwittingly) to change the very economic/social engines of the empire into a very different kind of engine. A kind of engine the world hadn’t seen before – a stable, western empire. The Romans were in the process of developing institutions to truly become a Roman “nation”, just when the barbarian invasions brought everything to a screaming halt.

The response was the military empire and evenutally the Dominate. Which, under Diocletian (285-305), became essentially a Stalinist state which assumed total control over its citizens and resources, and designed a rigid class structure created solely to combat the barbarians and ensure the survival of the state. It worked. Diocletian was right. But perhaps, if the Migration Period of the Northern people’s hadn’t begun quite so soon, the empire would’ve assumed a very different form and possibly have survived.

Gibbon had his own views of why Rome fell, and his were just as ethno-centric as mine. Both of us are talking about Rome, but thinking of Great Britain or the United States.

more tomorrow…

“God said: ‘What prevented you (O Satan) that you did not prostrate when I commanded you?’  Iblees (the Satan) replied: ‘I am better than him (Adam).  You created me from fire, and him You created from clay.” (Quran 7:12)

So begins the history of racism.  Satan thought himself superior to Adam on account of his origins.  Since that day, Satan has misled many of Adam’s descendants into also believing themselves superior to others, causing them to persecute and exploit their fellow man.  Quite often, religion has been used to justify racism.  Judaism, for example, despite its Middle -Eastern origins, is readily passed off as a Western religion; but the entry of Jews into all levels of Western society actually betrays Judaism’s elitist reality.  A pious reading of the bible verse:

“There is no God in all the world but in Israel.” (2 Kings 5:15)

…would be to suggest that in those days God, or God, was not worshipped except by Israelites.  However, Judaism today remains centered around its boast of ‘chosen’ racial superiority.

“Say: ‘O Jews!  If you pretend that you are the beloved slaves of God to the exclusion of the rest of humanity, then long for death if you are really truthful.’” (Quran 62:6)

Conversely, while most Christians are overwhelmingly non -Jew, Jesus, as the last of the Israelite Prophets, was sent to none but the Jews.

“And (remember) when Jesus, son of Mary, said:    ‘O Children of Israel!  I am the Messenger of God sent unto you, confirming the Torah before me and bearing glad tidings of a Messenger after me whose name shall be Ahmad…’” (Quran 61:6)

And likewise every Prophet was sent exclusively to his own people,every Prophet, that is, except Muhammad.

“Say (O Muhammad): ‘O People!  I am the Messenger of God sent to you all…’” (Quran 7:158)

As Muhammad was God’s final Prophet and Messenger, his mission was a universal one, intended for not only his own nation, the Arabs, but all the peoples of the world.  The Prophet said:

“Every other Prophet was sent to his nation exclusively, while I have been sent to all of humanity.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari)

“And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) except as a bearer of glad tidings and a Warner to all mankind, but most of people know not.” (Quran 34:28)

Bilal the Abyssinian

One of the first to accept Islam was an Abyssinian slave named Bilal.  Traditionally, black Africans were a lowly people in the sight of Arabs who thought them to be of little use beyond entertainment and slavery.  When Bilal embraced Islam, his pagan master had him brutally tortured in the scorching desert heat until Abu Bakr, the Prophet’s closest friend, rescued him by buying his freedom.

The Prophet appointed Bilal to call the believers to prayer.  The athanheard from minarets in every corner of the world since, echoes the exact same words recited by Bilal.  Thus, a onetime lowly slave won a unique honor as Islam’s first muezzin.

“And indeed We have honored the Children of Adam…” (Quran 17:70)

Western romantics hail ancient Greece as being the birthplace of democracy. The reality was that, as slaves and women, the vast majority of Athenians were denied the right to elect their rulers.  Yet, Islam ordained that a slave could himself be ruler!  The Prophet ordered:

“Obey your ruler even if he be an Abyssinian slave.” (Ahmad)

Salman the Persian

Like most of his countrymen, Salman was raised a devout Zoroastrian. However, after an encounter with some Christians at worship, he accepted Christianity as ‘something better’.  Salman then traveled extensively in search of knowledge, from the service of one learned monk to another, the last of whom said: ‘O son!  I do not know of anyone who is on the same (creed) as we are.  However, the time of the emergence of a Prophet is at hand.  This Prophet is upon the religion of Abraham.’ The monk then proceeded to describe this Prophet, his character and where he would appear.  Salman migrated to Arabia, the land of the prophecy, and when he heard about and met Muhammad, he immediately recognized him from his teacher’s descriptions and embraced Islam.  Salman became renowned for his knowledge and was the first person to translate the Quran into another language, Persian.  Once, whilst the Prophet was amongst his Companions, the following was revealed to him:

“It is He (God) Who had sent among the unlettered (the Arabs) a Messenger (Muhammad) from among themselves… and (also to) others (i.e. non -Arabs) among them who have not yet joined them (as Muslims)…” (Quran 62:2-3)

God’s Messenger then placed his hand on Salman and said:

“Even if the Faith were near (the stars of) Pleiades, a man from amongst these (Persians) would surely attain it.” (Saheeh Muslim)

Suhayb the Roman

Suhayb was born into privilege in the luxurious house of his father, who was a client governor for the Persian emperor. While he was still a child, Suhayb was captured by Byzantine raiders and sold into slavery in Constantinople.

Suhayb eventually escaped from bondage and fled to Mecca,a popular place of asylum, where he soon became a prosperous merchant nick-named ‘ar-Rumi’, the Roman, due to his Byzantine tongue and upbringing.  When Suhayb heard Muhammad preach, he was at once convinced of the truth of his message and embraced Islam.  Like all the early Muslims, Suhayb was persecuted by the pagans of Mecca.  So, he traded all his wealth in exchange for safe passage to join the Prophet at Medina, whereupon the Prophet, delighted to see Suhayb, greeted him thrice: ‘Your trade has been fruitful, O [Suhayb]!  Your trade has been fruitful!’  God had informed the Prophet of Suhayb’s exploits before their reunion with this revelation:

“And there is a type of man who ransoms himself to earn the pleasure of God.  And God is full of kindness to His servants.” (Quran 2:207)

The Prophet loved Suhayb a great deal and described him as having preceded the Romans to Islam.  Suhayb’s piety and standing among the early Muslims was so high that when Caliph Umar was on his deathbed, he selected Suhayb to lead them until they could agree upon a successor.

Abdullah the Hebrew

The Jews were another nation that the pre-Islamic Arabs held in contempt.  Many Jews and Christians had been expecting a new Prophet to appear in Arabia during the time of the Prophet Muhammad.  Jews from the Levite tribe in particular had settled in large numbers in and around the city of Medina.  However, when the much  anticipated Prophet came, not as a Hebrew son of Israel, but as the Arab descendant of Ishmael, the Jews rejected him.  Except, that is, for a few like Hussein bin Salam.  Hussein was the most learned rabbi and leader of the Medinan Jews but was denounced and vilified by them when he embraced Islam.  The Prophet re-named Husayn, ‘Abdullah’, meaning ‘Servant of God’, and gave him the glad tidings that he was destined for Paradise.  Abdullah addressed his tribesmen saying:

‘O assembly of Jews!  Be conscious of God and accept what Muhammad has brought.  By God!  You certainly know that he is God’s Messenger and you can find prophecies about him and mention of his name and characteristics in your Torah.  I for my part declare that he is the Messenger of God.  I have faith in him and believe that he is true.  I (for one) recognize him.’  God revealed the following about Abdullah:

“And a witness from the Children of Israel testified to this (Quran being from God) like (the Torah).  So he believed while (most of) you (Jews) are too proud (to believe).” (Quran 46:10)

Thus, in the ranks of the Prophet Muhammad’s Companions could be found Africans, Persians, Romans and Israelites; representatives of every known continent.  As the Prophet said:

“Indeed, my friends and allies are not the tribe of so and so.  Rather, my friends and allies are the pious, wherever they may be.” (Saheeh Al-Bukhari,Saheeh Muslim)

The bible agrees.  Jesus is reported to have said: ‘I have not been sent except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.’ (Matthew 15:24).  Hence, every one of his famous twelve disciples was an Israelite Jew.  The one biblical passage where Jesus tells them to: ‘Go and preach unto all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.’ (Matthew 28:19), commonly quoted to prove the Gentile mission as well as the Trinity, is not found in any pre-16th century manuscript and thus considered ‘a pious fraud.’

One of the names of Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him.

And We sent to every nation a Messenger (saying): ‘Worship God (alone) and shun false deities.’ (Quran 16:36)

Democracy is a Middle-Eastern invention, first seen in the civilization of Ebla in 3rd millennium BC, and then in Phoenicia and Mesopotamia during 11th century BC.  It did not appear in Athens unti15th century BC.

So one of the folks Stark (finally wearing a suit and asking respectfully instead of chasing them with a sweaty shirt on) asked was Rep Trent Franks (R-AZ). Stark thought he caught another birther but Franks said he believed barry was born in Hawaii – Stark said great – Franks interjected a little Republican message – Stark said he’d posted in on the internet – Franks said great. And then Rep Franks became the 11th cosponsor in Rep Posey’s birth certificate bill Bill H.R. 1530 that simply requires the presidential candidate to prove he is eligible for the office by producing at the very least his long form birth certificate.

Wonder if Mike Stark feels played?

From the Huffington Post:

A Republican member of the House of Representatives accused President Barack Obama of being “an enemy of humanity” during a conservative values forum this past weekend.

In a speech Saturday before the How to Take Back America conference, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) made comments that went far beyond the limits of traditional White House criticism.  At one point, Franks demanded that Obama release his birth certificate to prove his constitutionally eligibility to hold office.  The bluntest charge, however, centered on the president’s position on abortion, which the congressman derided as “insane” and godless.

WOW.  I have nothing more to say.  WOW.

Posted by Audiegrl

An enemy of humanity? I’m left speechless…

GOP Rep. Trent Franks

Huffington Post—A Republican member of the House of Representatives accused President Barack Obama of being “an enemy of humanity” during a conservative values forum this past weekend.

In a speech Saturday before the How to Take Back America conference, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) made comments that went far beyond the limits of traditional White House criticism. At one point, Franks demanded that Obama release his birth certificate to prove his constitutionally eligibility to hold office. The bluntest charge, however, centered on the president’s position on abortion, which the congressman derided as “insane” and godless.

“Obama’s first act as president of any consequence, in the middle of a financial meltdown, was to send taxpayers’ money overseas to pay for the killing of unborn children in other countries,” said Frank. “Now, I got to tell you, if a president will do that, there’s almost nothing that you should be surprised at after that. We shouldn’t be shocked that he does all these other insane things. A president that has lost his way that badly, that has no ability to see the image of God in these little fellow human beings, if he can’t do that right, then he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.”

More @

Watch his disgraceful video:

RightWingWatch.org, who provided the video, also has a follow up to this story

A spokesperson for Trent’s office attempts to clarify:

Trent Franks of Arizona said in a speech to conservatives Saturday in St. Louis that Obama’s decision to fund international family planning organizations that support legal abortion shows “he has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity.”

Bethany Haley, spokeswoman for Franks, said the congressman was referring to “unborn humanity” and should have clarified his statement.

Right… As you can see we have another example of an elected Republican official throwing red meat to his base, and then being forced to ‘clarify‘ his comments after the event has concluded and the damage has been done.

These attempts to de-humanize the President will only continue to increase the climate of hate.

At the How to Take Back America Conference in St. Louis, I talked to Franks and asked if he wanted to clear the air on the whole controversy. He jumped at the chance, explaining that he had always known that “it would hurt me politically, people would say ‘he’s a right-wing wacko’” if he filed a lawsuit. The president, said Franks, is American, “even if he acts un-American.” But he should release his long-form birth certificate.

At last the truth can be revealed. Why was I writing a paper about nuns all of a sudden? Why hadn’t it been in the sidebar as my next due paper? What was all the foreshadowing in that earlier post about? Now it can be told.

Very recently Professor Rosamond McKitterick had a significant birthday and, seeing this coming from some way off, various of her students had had the idea of a birthday conference. This, and its title which forms the subject header, was largely the brainchild of Richard Pollard, who also designed the monogram you see above and generally did the bulk of the donkey-work while the rest of us who were in one way or another participating kept quiet, tried not to tell ask anyone for help that wouldn’t be able to do similarly and, in the case of David McKitterick, her husband, made sure she kept the relevant weekend free without explaining why. And duly at 14:00 on September 12th she was escorted into Trinity College in Cambridge and found a gathering of about forty of her fellows, erstwhile and current students there basically to say thanks. As the person in that gathering with, I think, the longest hair other than Rosamond herself, and possibly one or two of the younger women, I feel myself uniquely qualified to say, “there was a whole lot of love in that room, man”. She’s had an awful lot of students and a lot of them have gone on to be important themselves. Some of us still hoping, also. But, well, it’s a conference. With due discretion and all that, obviously I’m still gonna blog it, if only to list the names…

Rosamond McKitterick, Professor of Medieval History and Fellow of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge

The folder I have my notes stashed in has the monogram on the front. It contains a short biography of Rosamond, the programme, a map and contact details (all very well to hand out on arrival, but surely only useful before! this is my only criticism of the organisation) and a full or as-near-full-as-possible bibliography of Rosamond’s work, which registers (deep breath) six monographs, another co-written, six volumes of essays that she edited, another that she co-edited, and two volumes of collected papers, and eighty-two articles and chapters (not including stuff in the volumes she edited), one alone of which was co-written. If you don’t know Rosamond’s work, this may give you an idea that she is an important scholar in quantity as well as quality. Then, on the specially-printed notepaper (why yes, they did get some funding since you ask…), we have notes on the following papers.

Keynote Address

• Janet Nelson, “New Approaches to Carolingian Reform, or 1969, 1971, 1977 and All That”. The keynote address, which placed Rosamond in the context of her teaching by Walter Ullmann, something that Jinty also went through, and drawing the roots of Rosamond’s first work into the many branches it now has, full of shared remembrance and intriguing background that could have been supplied by no-one else.

Session 1. The Reformatio monastica karolina

• Marios Costambeys, “Paul the Deacon, Rome and the Carolingian Reforms”. Argued that Paul the Deacon’s conception of Rome deliberately ignores its Christian and recent Imperial heritage, referring to it in terms of its earliest history to place both its history and the new Frankish rule in inarguable and uncontested Antiquity.
• Rutger Kramer, “The Cloister in the Rye: Saint-Seine and the early years of Benedict of Aniane”. More or less as title except that that was the only terrible pun involved, a critical reading of the Vita Benedicti Anianensis pondering whether Benedict was in fact at first one of Carloman’s party not Charlemagne’s and how far his initial monastic conversion might have been a political retreat, then moving into questions of how his initial drive for asceticism apparently transformed to a desire for uniformity ‘that we can believe in’.
• Sven Meeder, “Unity and Uniformity in the Carolingian Reform Efforts”. Argued that the Carolingian ideal of unity should not be mistaken for uniformity and that it was always ready to accept a good deal of diversity to which its own efforts only added. Arguable, but probably not with the Oxford English Dictionary definitions used; Susan Reynolds would have been unable to stay quiet in questions had she been there.

Some critical questions here especially for the latter two papers, and perhaps most notable among them James Palmer asking if, in fact, Carolingian reform could ever have succeeded adequately for its proponents or whether a perception of failure was built in. Sven responded, I think wisely, that the ultimate aim was to make the kingdom favoured by God and so the proof would be seen in events. It’s an interesting cycle of paranoia that this kind of drive might have set up, however. I think we see something similar with Æthelred the Unready’s vain attempts to prescribe extra piety when the Danes just keep coming in his autumn years.

Session 2. Reform from without, reforms to without

• Benedict Coffin, “The Carolingian Reformation in the Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Churches”. Drawing out even more similarities between Carolingian and English reform movements as well as a few crucial differences, not least that in England it was primarily Benedictine not royal.
• Jonathan Jarrett, “Nuns, Signatures and Literacy in late-Carolingian Catalonia”. You basically saw a chunk of this paper already, and I had to leave a lot of detail out, but it went OK and did everything I hoped for. Completely overwhelmed however by…
• Julia M. H. Smith, “Wrapped, Tied and Labelled: importing Jerusalem, recycling Rome in the early Middle Ages”, exploring the contents of the altar in the Sancta Sanctorum in the Lateran in Rome, which transpires to have been installed by Leo III and to have contained, in 1906 when it was last opened, a mind-boggling assortment of Holy Land soil, branches, twigs, etc. from significant places there, as well as martyr relics probably from the other patriarchal sees, replacing Rome’s pagan history with a new one imported from Jerusalem and elsewhere. The illustrations were fascinating and it was a really interesting paper.

Behind those grilles is the box installed by Leo III

The evening was rounded off, well, for me at least, with a pre-dinner paper given by Yitzhak Hen. I won’t attempt to describe that here except to say that what I’ve written about his work here before may have failed to take his sense of humour into account. Then, there was a wine reception and a dinner, but I, with my usual mismatch of engagements, ran into London for one of the best gigs I’ve been to for a long time. But I was back the next day, aching of neck and back and short of sleep, and I will describe that later.

 Sunday? Saturday? Which day is it   Hey hey bloggie buds, how is everyone doing on this lovely holiday extended weekend?  I hope the sun is shining wherever you might be!

First things first, here’s a quick recap of last night’s eats since I didn’t get to posting (football & movie watching took over!)

• Mesquite turkey burgers w/ bacon (mesquite seasoning, frank’s hot sauce, worcestershire, bread crumbs, salt/pepper) + cheese for The Man

Awesome flava combo -- Mesquite seasoning ROCKS!!

• Sweet tater fries
• Italian tomato/feta salad  (tomatoes, feta, Ken’s Olive Oil/Vinegar dressing, salt/pepper, oregano)

This Ken's EVOO/Vinegar combo is actually really good for bottled dressing!!!

Finished product - yum! The longer it sits the better p.s.

All I have to say OMG these turkey burgers turned out soooo superfab!!  I am pretty pumped about using the other half of the ground turkey to make them again very soon, I really loved them THAT much.  They were super moist and the flava combo was perfection, it musta been those glasses o’ wine that helped this lady to get her cook on so well   So we devoured dinner and then devoured the rest of the no-bake PB cookies  (cooooookie monsterrrrrrrrr) ala Tina — ya’ll I know I said it before, but I’ll say it again, these things are the shizzzz and you should go to your cabinets and scrounge up some oats (you know you gots some bloggertons) and make them now!!  Fo’ realzzzz.

We stayed up late watching the VA Tech game & “I Love You Man” (soooo good btw) so this morning I slept in til 9:30am (late for me!) and got up excited to try my new oat bran in lieu of my usual regular ol’ oats. 

Hello Bob

And what do I think of this oat bran?  It is DEEEE-LIGHTFUL!!!  I actually think I may like it better than regular oats?! :/  Crazy, I know.  I really liked the texture of the cooked oat bran (1/3 cup + 1 cup water) which I made with the addition of:

• mashed banana
• organic raw blue agave
• 1/2 tblsp. peanut butter
• 1/8 cup soy milk

I also made an egg white omelet w/ some sharp cheddar and doused in Frank’s hot sauce o’love along with some more chocolate soy milk iced coffee!

Now that'll start your day right!

Who says chocolate can't buy love

for our Labor Day pool party we will be heading to later today at his parents… bloggies, I have to tell you that these parties can get pretty awesomely crazy so I am excited!  His parents have some friends in town, some of his friends & his brother’s friends are coming & my parents as well… let’s just say that this will most likely NOT be a healthwise day in this lady’s book and plenty of alcohol may or may not be consumed… gotta let loose sometimes!  But know this, I will be sure to post plenty of fun pics from the festivities when I get the chance whoop whoop!  K bloggertons, have a superfab Sunday whatever you may be doing!!