Opinions can be received in mixed ways, they can be disruptive, helpful, debate-forming, but they may also be deeply misleading and cause controversy. Is it appropriate to have opinions? Might they be dangerous? Do you tell other people about your opinions or do you keep them to yourself? Are you ashamed of your opinions or proud of them? Should other people be allowed to have opinions or should they be avoided at all costs?
Tell us about a recent experience of yours, and here to get you started is a helpful guide to the process which may help you form an opinion:
[blockquote]Most of us enter a number of discussions each day where ideas are floated around, topics are debated, and controversial issues are discussed. To have a solid basis for your opinion on these issues and topics, you should know how to form an opinion on the subject, and here are a few steps which may help:

1. Choose the subject, or issue you feel the need to have an opinion about. This may be anything from whether to fish live baits or artificial lures, the best basketball team, or which religion (or none) you will follow. Opinions come in many levels of importance.

2. Look at the process of forming an opinion as an internal argument with yourself, a mental debate, so to speak. This means looking at all sides of the issue, pro and con.

3. Learn about the subject. You may be satisfied to read only one article at an online website, or you may research for hours, but until you understand all of the sides of this hypothetical argument, your opinion should not become a conviction.[/blockquote]
Learn more… and if you feel confident to share your experience of having an opinion please feel free to comment below

One of my heroes is Karl Popper. Philosopher extraordinaire, some think he is one of the giants of all time, others think he was a bit of a fraud, including one of my philosophy teachers at the University of Canterbury where Popper once taught. One of his great works, in two parts, was The Open Society and Its Enemies. He actually wrote it while living here in Christchurch. His specific philosophical angle was the folly of esteeming Plato, let alone Hegel and Marx as exponents of historicism. Politically he was railing against totalitarianism. Well, who wouldn’t in the midst of World War 2, especially when teaching in a backwater, having been driven away from one’s native Austria. Constructively, Popper argued for the open society underpinned by liberal democracy. There is no other form of society which removes fear and provides genuine social and economic freedom. Society, whether in large or small form, must be as transparent as possible, and tolerant of dissent. That includes the church. If we are free in Christ then we are free to disagree with one another. Ergo, blogging!

So it is with some alarm that the Church Some Would Have Me Not Criticise From a Distance has embarked on a pathway in which some of its bishops may be disciplined for … dissenting! But, please, do not take my word for it, read Mark Harris, Allan Haley and commenters at Titus One Nine.

What do you think? The beginning of the end of TEC as a liberal democracy or the end of the beginning of TEC as an expression of the Platonism Karl Popper attacked? Read it all

The Rev’d Dr Peter Carrell is Director of Theology House and Director of Education for the Diocese of Christchurch, New Zealand. He is also known as Anglican Down Under

What ever else is going on, if the charge of misconduct is that of filing a brief that is wrong, then we need to stand with these bishops. Strange as it seems I have sometimes said stupid or wrong things and have even gotten together with others who agreed with me and worked to a common cause. But stupidity, wrongheadedness and bad opinion is not misconduct. Read it all

The Rev’d Canon Mark Harris is an Episcopal priest in the Diocese of Delaware

Some, I am certain, will argue about the actions of Bishop Duncan and some of the people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and seek to justify the action of the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops. My argument is not whether or not he did something, but the fact that we have a new rule of order that has evolved, and it has not been brought about by the Councils of the Church nor is in keeping with Canonical structure. As I have shared before, this is a precedent that is a danger to the dignified order of The Episcopal Church as we have known it, and this must be corrected.
During the past year we have had several matters that have been handled by the House of Bishops that have disturbed a number of bishops within the House, as well as many clergy and laity across the Church.
To begin with, two bishops, the Rt. Rev’d William J. Cox (retired) and the Rt. Rev’d John-David Schofield, (Bishop of San Joaquin) were deposed earlier this year when a vote was held under the direction of the Presiding Bishop. This action was seen by many, including me, as contrary to the Constitution and Canons of General Convention [2006], as Title IV.Canon 9.Section 2 specifically states that if the action is taken by the House of Bishops, then it must be “by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the Ministry ”¦” (Note: “majority of the whole number,” not just those in attendance) Additionally, precluded in this action was the inhibition of these two men as the three senior bishops of the Church failed to provide consent to the Presiding Bishop to inhibit them. The actions taken in both of these circumstances were done through a pre-emptive interpretation of the Constitution and Canons.

Following this action, which met much opposition post House of Bishops meeting, the Presiding Bishop called a special convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin for the purpose of electing a new bishop, an individual picked and nominated by her. This action, the calling of a convention by the Presiding Bishop, was also in violation of the Constitution and Canons of General Contention [2006] as it was done under the precept that there was no Ecclesiastical Authority as the Presiding Bishop had declared the Standing Committee invalid. This action, conflicts with The Constitution and Canons as they provide very clearly that the Standing Committee is the Ecclesiastical Authority when there is not a bishop, and in this particular case the Diocese of San Joaquin had a duly elected body to fill this responsibility.

I am saddened to report that this behaviour did not end here, as during the most recent meeting of the House of Bishops in Salt Lake City, the deposition of a third bishop was raised. The Rt. Rev’d Robert W. Duncan (Bishop of Pittsburgh) was deposed on the grounds of “abandoning the Communion” by virtue of a roll call vote with 88 bishops in favour and 35 opposed. I voted in opposition to the resolution to depose. Much time, in fact a tremendous amount of time was spent on this matter, which had been added to our original agenda. Also added was a “hearing” on this with the Council of Advice, and in my capacity as Chair of this body, presided over this 1/1-2 hour session. (I might point out that if you look at the vote from the standpoint of diocesan bishops, that is bishops with jurisdiction, the vote was actually 50 to 30.)

There was much debate over the rightness, or better stated, the wrongness of this entire allegation, and there was considerable opposition to the charge against Bishop Duncan. The resistance to the action being taken was centered more on what was seen as pre-emptive action pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution and Canons of General Convention [2006] and failure to provide due process. The pre-emptive action as applied to the Canons, and failure for proper process, rest in the fact that Bishop Duncan was never inhibited, nor did he have the right of a trial made available to him.

The ruling to place this before the House for deposition was made by the Presiding Bishop, and as I have previously written to the diocese, I was one of the bishops that challenged the ruling based upon the irregularities stated above. This required a two-thirds majority to overrule, and thus did not carry. This was subsequently followed by a request for a roll call vote being asked for by nine bishops, myself included. These things were not carried out in the form of a rebellious mood, but rather, with deep concern for the direction the Church is moving with total disregard for proper order, adherence to the Constitution and Canons, and a precedent being set that will enable the disruption of any bishop or diocese that does not subscribe to the present direction of General Convention or the Office of the Presiding Bishop.

Some, I am certain, will argue about the actions of Bishop Duncan and some of the people of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, and seek to justify the action of the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops. My argument is not whether or not he did something, but the fact that we have a new rule of order that has evolved, and it has not been brought about by the Councils of the Church nor is in keeping with Canonical structure. As I have shared before, this is a precedent that is a danger to the dignified order of The Episcopal Church as we have known it, and this must be corrected.

Read it all from here

A sociologist has observed that one sign of a dying organization is that it will try to exercise increasingly tighter control over its shrinking membership.

Average Sunday attendance across the Episcopal church in 2010 was 657,831 in the United States. That compares to 856,579 in 2000 (a 23% decline in only ten years). In contrast the Anglican Church in North America now numbers over 1000 congregations and reported an increase in Average Sunday Attendance of 15% in one year (2010-2011). The ACNA also reported that 13% of its congregations were in the process of planting a church during 2011.

My purpose is not to make much of these statistics other than to observe that all the signs of life seem to be on one side. Meanwhile the Episcopal Church is headed toward a General Convention in Indianapolis next week where it is sure to approve rites for blessing same sex marriages. The main reason this won’t provoke a sizable exodus is that there aren’t that many conservatives left to leave. There is a disagreement not merely over the denomination’s budget but even how the budget should be presented and by whom. Then, for good measure, there is an official “Lament Over the Doctrine of Discovery” being thrown in, complete with prayers by the Presiding Bishop and the President of the House of Deputies. For the uninitiated, this means repenting for the fact that European settlers came to America.

The “Lament” is being described as:
[blockquote]A prayerful gathering, in a Sacred Circle,
with readings, stories, prayers, songs, reflection,
giving and receiving;
In acknowledgment of and response to the tragic consequences
of the Doctrine of Discovery;[/blockquote]
Just for fun, try Googling the term “Sacred Circle” and notice how many of the results refer to anything even remotely Christian. (Hint: it’s a nice round number, i.e., zero.)

Read it all

O God, whom the pure in heart alone can see: Give us such singleness of eye and of heart that we may truly seek thee; and seeking, find thee; and finding, grow in the knowledge of thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen

So Paul, standing in the middle of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you.

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.”

Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from among them. But some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

Acts 17:22-34

Stalinist Tactics Deployed to Silence ECUSA Bishops in Court
……….
Needless to say, these “charges” should never have made it past the Intake Officer, and would not have done so without the implicit approval of the Presiding Bishop herself.
For Canons IV.5.4 and IV.5.5 state in part as follows (note that in the case of charges against bishops, Canon IV.17.2 (c) provides that “Bishop Diocesan” shall mean the Presiding Bishop):
[blockquote]Sec. 4. Upon receipt of such information, the Intake Officer may make such preliminary investigation as he or she deems necessary, and shall incorporate the information into a written intake report, including as much specificity as possible. The Intake Officer shall provide copies of the intake report to the other members of the Reference Panel and to the Church Attorney.

Sec. 5. If the Intake Officer determines that the information, if true, would not constitute an Offense, the Intake Officer shall inform the Bishop Diocesan of an intention to dismiss the matter. If the Bishop Diocesan does not object, the Intake Officer shall dismiss the matter…[/blockquote]
Bishop Matthew’s email does not notify the bishops that he is dismissing the charges. To the contrary: he states that he will “initiate a disciplinary process according to Title IV Canon 6 Sec. 3 & 4 …”. Those Canons spell out the offenses for which clergy may be charged, and would be irrelevant if the charges were being dismissed. Consequently, either Bishop Matthews wanted to dismiss the charges, and the Presiding Bishop objected; or else Bishop Matthews truly believes the charges may constitute an offense under the Church canons, and so he is proceeding with his investigation.

But just what does it mean to say that ECUSA is or is not “hierarchical”? In legal proceedings, such a statement is called a “conclusion of law”, reached after an inquiry into all the relevant facts. Attorneys and judges differ all the time over conclusions of law, and so it is fair to say that what the law will conclude on a given set of facts is a matter of opinion. And that is why the bishops filed their various affidavits and brief: ECUSA had given its opinion to the judges in each case that it was “hierarchical,” and the bishops simply wanted to give the contrary version of that opinion.

After all, it is for the judges ultimately to decide which view is more correct (or to modify their holding to yet another version, if they are so inclined). That is what judges are paid to do. So how can the Episcopal Church (USA) possibly charge someone with discipline for expressing an opinion? Such a right is guaranteed to everyone in America by the First Amendment.

Well, if it is not opinion in the case of the Episcopal Church (USA), then is it a matter of Church doctrine? Is the polity of the Episcopal Church (USA) truly a “doctrinal” matter?

It does not matter if it were, because then the following provisions of Canon IV.17.7 would apply:
[blockquote]Notwithstanding any provision of this Title to the contrary, no proceeding shall be brought under this Title against a Bishop in which the Offense alleged is violation of Canon IV.4.1(h)(2) for holding and teaching, or having held and taught, publicly or privately, and advisedly, any Doctrine contrary to that held by the Church unless a statement of disassociation shall have first been issued by the House of Bishops as provided in Canon IV.17.7 (a) and thereafter the consent of one-third of the Bishops qualified to vote in the House of Bishops has been received to initiate proceedings under this Title as provided in Canon IV.17.7 (b).[/blockquote]
Needless to say, no such “statement of disassociation” has been issued by the House of Bishops. Thus Bishop Matthews cannot be treating the bishops’ alleged offense as a matter of advocating false doctrine.

That takes us back to expressing a matter of opinion. One searches in vain through the new Title IV for any offense that consists of expressing an opinion at variance with the leadership of the Church. The loosest of all the provisions is for engaging in “conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy”, and if it is “conduct unbecoming” to disagree with the position that ECUSA is hierarchical, then a considerable number of clergy in the Church would have to be charged.

The idea, of course, is ridiculous on its face. And that is why these “charges” against these bishops should never have made it past the Intake Officer. In fact, if the Presiding Bishop did approve the bringing of these charges, then she herself should be charged under the provisions of Canon IV.3.1 (c):
[blockquote]Sec. 1. A Member of the Clergy shall be subject to proceedings under this Title for: (c) intentionally and maliciously bringing a false accusation . . . in any investigation or proceeding under this Title.[/blockquote]
(Emphasis added.) These charges are certainly intentionally brought, because it takes, as noted above, the concurrence of the Presiding Bishop not to have dismissed them in the first instance. And are they “maliciously” brought as well?

Those who know the history of the Presiding Bishop’s disregard for the canons will have no hesitation in answering that question.

Read it all

The legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which I advocated as a law professor before representing the National Federation of Independent Business as a lawyer, was about two huge things: saving the country from Obamacare and saving the Constitution for the country.

On Thursday, to my great disappointment, we lost the first point in the Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 ruling to uphold the health-care law. But to my enormous relief, we won the second. Before the decision, I figured it was all or nothing. But if I had been made to choose one over the other, I would have picked the Constitution.

Read it all

The logic in the majority opinion is the jurisprudential equivalent of passing a camel through the eye of a needle. The logic is so tortured, unexpected and unprecedented that even the law’s most fervent supporters did not make or anticipate the court’s argument in its support. Under the Constitution, a tax must originate in the House, which this law did not, and it must be applied for doing something, like earning income or purchasing tobacco or fuel, not for doing nothing. In all the history of the court, it has never held that a penalty imposed for violating a federal law was really a tax.

Read it all

Addressing the “Muslims and Christians of Egypt”, Mursi promised a “civil, nationalist, constitutional state”, making no mention of the Brotherhood’s dream of creating an Islamic order.

Mursi promised to work for the release of Omar Abdul Rahman, a blind Egyptian militant cleric jailed for life in the United States over a 1993 bomb attack on New York’s World Trade Centre.

That seemed to signal an intention to carve out a more independent line towards the United States, which provides $1.3 billion a year in military aid in support of Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel. Mursi has said he will respect his country’s international obligations, an oblique reference to the treaty.

Read it all

Read it all

People crowded the aisles and craned their necks from all angles to see Wellington’s new Anglican Bishop ordained today.

About 2000 people packed Wellington Cathedral to see Justin Duckworth installed as the capital’s new bishop.

……As someone who has always shied away from the mainstream church, Mr Duckworth acknowledges he would not have been on many people’s list of likely contenders but believes he now has a mandate to shake things up.

“I’m just there to help them do that. I think we recognised that we needed to, in some sense, re-engage with younger generations and work out how to make sure that the church doesn’t die in the next few generations. It is a little bit of pressure but it is also a lovely generous thing.”

Read it all and check out the 3 News video report here

Almighty God, you have broken the tyranny of sin
and have sent the Spirit of your Son into our hearts whereby we call you Father:
give us grace to dedicate our freedom to your service,
that we and all creation may be brought to the glorious liberty of the children of God;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.
Amen

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For he who has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Romans 6:1-11

The fire that started in the popular hiking destination of Waldo Canyon west of town has consumed more than 19,000 acres and 346 houses. It has taken the efforts of 1,008 firefighters to reach only 10 percent containment. Now, tragically, it has claimed a life, as well as led to some 32,000 people being evacuated.

I am one of them, and I can tell you what it is like.

Read it all

Also: CNN: Colorado city looks to Obama for aid as fire turns deadly
and White House: President Obama Signs Colorado Disaster Declaration
Please pray for those affected including the response teams

In this week’s Anglican Unscripted Kevin and George discuss the Arab Apocalypse and the effects on the Anglican Church in Egypt. Also, the two June Birthday boys discuss General Convention and the illogical musings of Rowan Williams. Alan Haley delves into the mess we call the Supreme Court and special guest Bishop Dan Martins gives us a sneak peak on GC2012. #AU44
from here

The Ordinariate has paid back a £1-million grant it received from the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament (News, 8 July 2011) after the Charity Commission ruled that the payment was “unauthorised”.

The Commission announced the conclusion of its investigation of the grant yesterday. Its statement says that the decision to make a grant to the Ordinariate, a Roman Catholic body for former Anglicans, “was taken at an inquorate meeting, the majority of the trustees having a (financial) personal interest in the decision” and was “in breach of the charity’s governing document”.

Since the meeting was inquorate, it says, the decision to award the money was “invalid. There was no valid exercise of the power to make a gift to the Ordinariate and the payment was unauthorised.”

Read it all and the Charity Commission case report is here

On Thursday the 24th of May, Bishop Mouneer met with former President of the United States Jimmy Carter. They discussed the situation in Egypt, and Bishop Mouneer shared about the role and ministry of the Anglican Church in Egypt.

Bishop Mouneer presented President Carter with a booklet about the new Harpur Memorial Hospital in Sadat City (see below). President Carter gave Bishop Mouneer a copy of his book “Through the Year with Jimmy Carter” a book of reflections drawn from his 30 years of experience teaching Sunday School classes.

After this meeting, Bishop Mouneer and President Carter went to the Coptic Orthodox Patriachate in Abbasiyia to meet with leaders of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Coptic Catholic Church.

Peace and Reconciliation
The Story Began Here…Two people (President Sadat of Egypt, and President Carter of USA) committed to reconciliation and who were ready to put their lives at risk to bring peace. One of the outcomes of the 1979 Camp David Accord, the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, was the creation of Sadat City, the city of peace.

The Fruits of this Peace are”¦.

Harpur Memorial Hospital in Sadat City; a practical interfaith dialogue and a tool to bring peace among faith communities.

Read it all

A return visit
…the world famous Westminster Abbey choir is here in the Vatican this week to sing alongside the Sistine Chapel choir at the Papal Mass for the feast of Saints Peter and Paul on Friday morning. In issuing the invitation, Pope Benedict stressed that such an event may serve to encourage the enriching mutual exchange of gifts between the two liturgical and cultural traditions.

To find out more about the choir’s history and about the programme of events for this visit, Vatican Radio’s Philippa Hitchen spoke to the Dean of Westminster Abbey, Rev Dr John Hall”¦..

Read and listen to it all

Update: Westminster Abbey Choir in St Peter’s this morning with the Sistine Chapel Choir

from here where there are more videos

O God, who hast willed that the gate of mercy should stand open to the faithful: Look on us, and have mercy upon us, we beseech thee; that we who by thy grace are following the path of thy will may continue in the same all the days of our life; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Article Updated 9:30 pm 28th June – see the full article on the Anglican Curmudgeon link
The Supreme Court has ruled, 5-4, that the individual health care mandate passes constitutional muster as a tax, even though it is invalid under the Commerce Clause:

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

In other words, if you don’t want to follow the mandate, you pay the tax (penalty/fine … whatever). Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberals in upholding it as a tax, and joined the conservatives in finding that it violated the Commerce Clause, and could not be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause. (That is actually a big win, because it puts a limit on Congress’ ability to enact future social welfare laws.)

At the same time, the conservatives (again with the Chief Justice) managed indirectly to limit the application of, but not invalidate entirely, the Medicaid provisions. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan would have upheld the Medicaid provisions just as Congress wrote them, including the discretion granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to withhold “all or any part” of a State’s Medicaid reimbursements unless it provided the expanded coverages that Congress added through the Act. Chief Justice Roberts viewed the grant of this discretion as too coercive

Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.

The four dissenters agreed, but regarded the rest of the Medicaid provisions as non-severable. For them, accordingly, the invalidity of the discretion granted to the Secretary meant the invalidity of all of the Medicaid expansion provisions. This would have left the rest of the Medicaid provisions in limbo, with four voting to strike them down in toto, four voting to uphold them in their entirety, and the Chief Justice wanting only to limit the application of one particular part. By concurring in part IV.B of his opinion (agreeing to keep the rest of the Medicaid provisions intact), therefore, the liberals led by Justice Ginsburg produced five votes in favor of keeping the other provisions as enacted, while the Chief Justice and the conservatives constituted five votes to curb the Secretary’s discretion. And that, dear readers, is an instance of the politics of the Supreme Court in action.

Bottom line: we are stuck with Obamacare largely as passed. The vote of Chief Justice Roberts saved most of the Act, 5-4, and limited (by the same margin, 5-4) the one part of the Act he did not like. He voted with the four liberals to uphold the mandate, but with the four conservatives to limit the conditions that Congress can attach to Medicaid funding……….

Read more here and [the unofficial but well informed] SCOTUS liveblog is recorded here with links to press coverage and articles.

NPR: Interactive: Inside The Health Care Ruling

A vicar… [has] defended government proposals for same-sex marriage against the official policy of his own Church….

…Michael Bowie, Anglican vicar at St Peter’s Church in Berkhamsted High Street, described the [Church of England] stance as “disappointing and legalistic”.

In an emailed newsletter, he writes: “As usual we are seen to be providing a mean-spirited reaction to something that our society sees as not only acceptable but just.

“It appears to the world that ”˜morality’, for us, is about sex and nothing more….”

Read it all. Also, you may find the parish website there.

O gracious and holy Father, give us wisdom to perceive thee, diligence to seek thee, patience to wait for thee, eyes to behold thee, a heart to meditate upon thee, and a life to proclaim thee; through the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ our Lord.

–Saint Benedict

South Carolina’s tried-and-true formula proved successful once again Friday night at the College World Series.

This USC team won its way into the championship series against Arizona with its calling cards from the past two seasons: pitching and defense. If it is to capture a third consecutive national championship, USC is certain to do it with its gloves and its arms.

In USC’s 3-2 victory against Arkansas, USC played errorless ball and got a sliding catch from right fielder Adam Matthews with runners on second and third base in the third inning that prevented a big inning for the Razorbacks.

Read it all.

No, I didn’t make it up. Read it all.

And the people complained in the hearing of the LORD about their misfortunes; and when the LORD heard it, his anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them, and consumed some outlying parts of the camp. Then the people cried to Moses; and Moses prayed to the LORD, and the fire abated. So the name of that place was called Tab’erah, because the fire of the LORD burned among them. Now the rabble that was among them had a strong craving; and the people of Israel also wept again, and said, “O that we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt for nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic; but now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at.” Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. The people went about and gathered it, and ground it in mills or beat it in mortars, and boiled it in pots, and made cakes of it; and the taste of it was like the taste of cakes baked with oil. When the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell with it. Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, every man at the door of his tent; and the anger of the LORD blazed hotly, and Moses was displeased. Moses said to the LORD, “Why hast thou dealt ill with thy servant? And why have I not found favor in thy sight, that thou dost lay the burden of all this people upon me? Did I conceive all this people? Did I bring them forth, that thou shouldst say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse carries the sucking child, to the land which thou didst swear to give their fathers?’ Where am I to get meat to give to all this people? For they weep before me and say, ‘Give us meat, that we may eat.’ I am not able to carry all this people alone, the burden is too heavy for me. If thou wilt deal thus with me, kill me at once, if I find favor in thy sight, that I may not see my wretchedness.” And the LORD said to Moses, “Gather for me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know to be the elders of the people and officers over them; and bring them to the tent of meeting, and let them take their stand there with you. And I will come down and talk with you there; and I will take some of the spirit which is upon you and put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself alone. And say to the people, ‘Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow, and you shall eat meat; for you have wept in the hearing of the LORD, saying, “Who will give us meat to eat? For it was well with us in Egypt.” Therefore the LORD will give you meat, and you shall eat. You shall not eat one day, or two days, or five days, or ten days, or twenty days, but a whole month, until it comes out at your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have rejected the LORD who is among you, and have wept before him, saying, “Why did we come forth out of Egypt?”‘” But Moses said, “The people among whom I am number six hundred thousand on foot; and thou hast said, ‘I will give them meat, that they may eat a whole month!’ Shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, to suffice them? Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to suffice them?” And the LORD said to Moses, “Is the LORD’s hand shortened? Now you shall see whether my word will come true for you or not.”

–Numbers 11:1-23

The fond wish of markets is that the ECB will act once Europe’s leaders have sketched a “road map” for fiscal union at this month’s summit. But it will disappoint.

Token bond purchases by the ECB will not help at this late stage. Half measures will accelerate the crisis by pushing other creditors down the ladder.

It will require monetary stimulus on a crushing scale to restore confidence, and arguably a pledge to do whatever it takes to cap real Italian and Spanish bond yields at 3pc.

Read it all.

(This is the interview referenced in the previously posted article on the blog–KSH).

In 2009 he entered into a civil partnership with his long-term partner, Jason Eades. Although he wears what he calls a “wedding ring”, he thinks it is unfair that they could not marry. “The longer this debate has gone on, the more strongly I have felt about it. I am getting fed up with people metaphorically jabbing a finger in my chest and saying, ”˜You should put up with a civil partnership’. I don’t think they would like it if I said, ”˜Well, sorry, you should accept a civil partnership too’.”

Although he describes civil partnership as a “wonderful thing”, he says: “It’s not the same as marriage.

“I have a powerful belief in the institutions in this country, and the institution of marriage is one. I want to cherish and protect and build on it. I think that extending it to gay people would be a strengthening of that institution, and I think an institution that is so important in our society should be available to everyone.”

Read it all (requires subscription).