Texas Court Declares The Episcopal Church is Very Silly

Well, yes, my headline is slightly inaccurate. But The Episcopal Church and its puppet diocese trying represent themselves in court as the Diocese of Ft. Worth reminds me of the Monty Python sketch in which a variety of disreputable characters declare themselves to be the Bishop of East Anglia – in other words, very silly. The Second Court of Appeals of Texas did not exactly declare TEC’s strategy to be silly, but close enough. The strategy was very firmly disallowed in their ruling.

More erudite analysis may be found over at the Anglican Curmudgeon, of course. The real Diocese of Ft. Worth’s statement on the ruling may be found here.

More Oil Spill Failure from Obama

If you read my last post and thought, “But surely Obama is cutting through the red tape and stepping up efforts to clean up the oil spill now,” think again.

The A-Whale, which sounds like the Mother of All Skimmers, is finally on the way to the Gulf. But the Coast Guard and the EPA still have not signed off on it joining skimming efforts. And that after it has already been delayed for months.

Meanwhile, there was not a skimmer to found off the Mississippi coast this weekend. More utter failure from Obama.

Obama’s Feds Stop Oil Spill Efforts . . . Again.

Shortly after the BP oil spill, I had disdain for efforts to blame Obama. I feel most efforts to blame Bush for Katrina were rubbish, and I was not about to do the same to Obama. And just as Bush did not blow up the World Trade Center, Obama did not make the Deepwater Horizon blow out.

But it is becoming clear that Obama is more of an obstacle than a solution to the oil spill clean-up. While he is busy playing golf and using the oil spill to practically shut down the Gulf of Mexico oil industry, and that based on lies and borderline forgery, his Feds keep getting in the way of actually fighting the spill.

Fish and Wildlife stopping the building of berms to protect the Louisiana coastline is only the latest episode.

At the very beginning, feds delayed burning off the oil spill. Since burning doesn’t work on oil slicks after they intermingle with water for a time, this harmed anti-spill efforts at the start.

Then the EPA stopped use of an effective type of dispersant on the spill. What? The dispersant is worse than the oil? I don’t think so.

And Obama hardly lifted a finger to provide skimmers even though many are available worldwide and though state and local officials were begging for them.

And then the Coast Guard shut down 16 Louisiana skimmers with red tape.

And how long did Obama take to meet with BP officials? 57 days?

Really this episode is the flip side of Katrina. If Bush can be faulted, it is for not being fast and pushy enough in going over the heads of incompetent state and local politicians who were getting in the way. Instead, Obama is the one getting in the way of state and local and private authorities doing the work of fighting the spill. Those officials have often found themselves trying to do what the Feds should be doing . . . and then Obama’s Feds stop them.

What part of “Lead, follow, or get out of the way” does Obama not understand?

South Carolina Raaaacists About to Elect Black Republican??

Interesting news from South Carolina overnight. South Carolina voters selected Tim Scott as the Republican nominee for SC's 1st Congressional District. Scott happens to be a Black gentleman who was running against Strom Thurmond’s son . . . and beat him by a 68% to 32% margin . . . among South Carolina Republican primary voters.

Yes, raaaaacists.

The First District has elected a Republican for three decades. So unless those raaaacists discover that he’s Black, his chances are good. ;^)

In all seriousness, I am glad to see this. The House has lacked a Black conservative voice since the retirement of J. C. Watts. It looks like South Carolina will remedy that.

No Safe Place: Christ Church San Antonio Splits

Sad news comes this month from Christ Church San Antonio: this large heretofore orthodox parish is splitting over whether to remain in The Episcopal Church. This comes after the retirement of rector Chuck Collins. His reason:

. . . my decision to take early retirement is because of a crisis of conscience. Even though I was born and raised in The Episcopal Church, it has moved further and further away from the Gospel to which I committed my life and I have concluded that there is no future for me in this spiritual environment.

And now a majority of the vestry and both wardens have also decided there is no future for them in the Episcopal Church and are leaving.

From time to time, I have asserted that there is no safe place for the orthodox in the Episcopal Church. And this sad episode illustrates one reason why. It is difficult to impossible to keep committed faithful orthodox people in this heretical denomination. Even a seemingly strong orthodox parish in an orthodox diocese, such as Christ Church, can keep its orthodox heart for only so long in such an environment.

Please, for the sake of the gospel and of your parish, if you can take your parish out of the Episcopal Church, pray and consider doing so as quickly as possible. And that even if you will lose the building. Better to lose even the most beloved property than to lose the faithful heart of your parish.

++Canterbury, ++York Take Up for Traditionalists

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have been visibly distressed that, in the Church of England’s rush to women bishops, traditionalists are being thrown under the bus. Dr. Williams held his head in his hands at the shameful 2008 Synod. Now they will take up for traditionalists by jointly proposing an amendment to provide a tenable place for those who cannot accept the sacramental ministry of women bishops. Here is today’s statement on their intentions. Additional links may be found here.

The femifundies will not be pleased, and the Daily Mail cheerfully warns of a “bloodbath.” On the other hand, Forward in Faith is cautiously hopeful after having little for which to hope for some time.

But there is no question that the Archbishops are angering many in the Church of England by defending the space of the traditionalists. Their brave effort, which has no guarantee of success, merits our support and prayers.

And, yes, my respect for ++Canterbury is growing. I may even have to eat some of my past words about him one day.

CONFIRMED: ++Canterbury has asked Schori to withdraw from Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion

In the midst of one of his erudite and painstaking posts, the Anglican Curmudgeon confirms “through an independent source” the report I passed on to you on Monday – the Archbishop of Canterbury has indeed asked Katherine Schori to consider withdrawing from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. But that is not all. She may have been also asked not to attend the next Primates Meeting.

. . . according to reports received by the Rev. George Conger (which I have confirmed through an independent source), the Presiding Bishop's Chancellor, David Booth Beers, told some ECUSA bishops gathered for the Living Our Vows training session at the Lake Logan Episcopal Center in North Carolina (held from May 24-28) that the Archbishop had conveyed to the Presiding Bishop a private request that she withdraw from her position on the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, and not attend the next Primates' Meeting. It would thus appear that since there was a letter delivered, the request either was in the letter itself, or else the letter asked Bishop Jefferts Schori to listen to what Canon Kearon would say to her in private. (The latter option, if true, would permit spokespersons on both sides of the Atlantic to deny that any "written request to step down" had been sent.) But Chancellor Beers left no doubt: the request was made. And whichever way it was made, it also would seem, to put it mildly, that the request was not well received.

You think? For more titillating details of just how unpleasant matters have become, read the whole post.

But again, it is confirmed that Katherine Schori has been asked to withdraw from the Standing Communion of the Anglican Communion. In addition, it is reported she has been asked not to attend the next Primates Meeting.

Hillary: Obama Will Sue Arizona

If what Hillary Clinton told the Ecuador media is true, that Obama’s Justice Dept. will sue Arizona over its immigration law, then November will be a political bloodbath wonderful to behold.

Why do I assert that with such confidence? First, a majority of Americans and Arizonians support Arizona’s immigration law. Obama might as well sue them. And illegal immigration is the sort of issue that gets people angry and voting. Heck, up to 40% (including yours truly) are of a mind to boycott those who boycott Arizona. That’s a lot of anger out there. You can imagine what they would think of Obama suing Arizona. Second, a lawsuit would educate and/or remind people of the Obama Left’s contempt for democracy and the rule of law.

And, of course, things already look bad for the Democrats. If Obama flips off the American people with a lawsuit, it will turn out downright Biblical.

As much as I would detest a lawsuit against Arizona, the political fallout makes me furtively hope Obama brings it on. But, even after Hillary’s remarks, I doubt it happens before November. Surely someone in the White House has a clue how self-destructive that would be.

Schori’s Mitre

The sharp eye of Christopher Johnson has picked up a very interesting tidbit from the Presiding Heretic’s missionary trip to England. It turns out the Archbishop of Canterbury gave the usual permission for her to preach in his domain, but attached unusual conditions – that she not carry a bishop’s crosier or wear a mitre.

Perhaps, he was playing by the book in that the Church of England does not yet have women bishops. But it sure looks like playing by the book to send a signal.

--Schori complied . . . by carrying the mitre into Southwark Cathedral instead of either wearing it or leaving it at the hotel. Juvenile.

With Mr. Johnson, I am wondering if ++Rowan has finally had enough of her and her church.

Demobigots

For years and years, Blacks have been told that if they don’t stay on the Democrat liberal/left plantation, then they aren’t really Black. Now that Republican women are pulling off a string of political victories, they are being told by Democrat harpy Rep. Janis Sontany that if they don’t vote left then they are hardly women at all. In her bigoted words:

You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote.

Can you imagine the howls from the “mainstream” news media if a Republican said something that bigoted? But I searched for “Sontany” over at CNN and got nothing (except in non-CNN “web results”). And if any Democrats have denounced her statement, I haven’t found them. And I have looked.

So, hey, if you are a woman, Democrats think they are entitled to you and that you aren’t a real woman if you don’t . . . vote for them. Just letting you know.

BREAKING: ++Canterbury Asks --Schori to Withdraw from Standing Committee?

This could be big:

The Archbishop’s Pentecost letter is the public half of a campaign to rein in the Episcopal Church, The Church of England Newspaper has learned, and follows a private letter delivered to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori asking her to consider withdrawing from active participation on the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

A letter from the Archbishop is believed to have been given to Bishop Jefferts Schori at the April 17 consecration of the Bishop of Connecticut, Dr Ian Douglas. Neva Rae Fox, a spokesman for the Presiding Bishop said she could not comment as she was not present at the Connecticut consecration. Dr Williams’ office would neither confirm nor deny the story, citing its policy of not commenting on the Archbishop’s private correspondence.

The public discipline already announced is significant mainly in that it is a shift in ++Rowan’s policy in dealing with The Episcopal Church. But if he has gone further and asked --Schori to consider withdrawing from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion . . ., like I said, that would be big and hardly a token move. It might even be the beginning of the end of The Episcopal Church’s involvement in the Anglican Communion. Yes, I think this could be that important.

George Conger is a very reputable and reliable reporter. But I would nevertheless like to see confirmation before going all in on this story, hence the question mark in the title.

Hat tip to Baby Blue.

Why Now?

In the aftermath of ++Rowan Williams’ surprising shift toward actual discipline of The Episcopal Church (Well, at least I was surprised.), some are asking, “Why now?” Why after years of conversation, indaba and, yes, enabling has ++Rowan now decided to spank the “ecclesiastical child”?

One interesting theory is that ++Schori’s noises toward forming an alternative communion pressed ++Rowan’s hand:

KJS announced to the HoB that she feels called to a ‘global mission’ (we know of this announcement to the HoB) , by which of course she means taking TEC’s ‘prophetic voice’ to the wider Communion. Very thoughtful of her.

We suddenly hear of her offer to assist differing provinces in their ‘listening processes’ - hence her spate of visits to Canada, Scotland, and the UK. Also a visit to Aotearoa-New Zealand (talk of her being an official guest at the Hermeneutical Hui (meeting) is apparently declined). Do we know of any other international visits in coming months?

Lambeth Palace and the ACO are quite aware of what she is doing - trying to convince as many like-minded activists that this is the time to stand up and push the envelope. TEC has burnt her bridges, cut loose from the AC and is looking to take as much of the Communion with them as possible. They will be challenging like-minded re-appraisers to match TEC’s clarity - hence her disparaging talk of those living in a state of double-standards. As many as possible expressing support for TEC or taking similar stands the better. Failing that, sowing greater discontent and discord wherever possible, and make the picture outside TEC as blurred and messy as possible, so that talk of any consistent perspective outside TEC can be denied.

As I say, I suspect the ABC and ACO are very aware of this, and this letter from Kearon, in this particular place at this time, is an attempt to cut TEC/KJS off at the pass. I think they are pragmatic enough to know that TEC is in one sense a lost cause - they will not change course, so it is a question of damage control. But they are also most concerned about any widening of support for TEC and the formation of an alternate coalition - hence the speed, opportunism and bluntness of this letter - it is aimed at ACoC and any other like-minded provinces thinking of discovering the value of expressing official ‘clarity’ on these matters. Ambiguity and local options the ABC and the ACO can work with, sufficiently to keep the moderates onside - but clarity such as TEC is now urging upon others is politically disastrous for the ‘crisis management’ bureaucracy at the ACO, and even more so with the prospect of finally losing the GS on one hand, and TEC gathering an alternate communion on the other.

I do not think this is the reason. But I find the theory intriguing and wanted to pass it on.

My more prosaic theory is twofold:

1. Dr. Williams’ strategy since 2003 has been to stall and delay, even to the point of stringing along a majority of the Anglican Communion, in hopes that the conflict would eventually die or at least cool down so that it would not split the communion.

This strategy is failing. And I think ++Rowan knows it and sees that to continue it would only hasten the demise of the Communion.

2. A few years ago, to discipline The Episcopal Church would have provoked a wave of opposition from liberals and moderates in the Communion. But TEC has so shat on the rug that now disciplining TEC risks losing only the most liberal fringe of the Communion. Even many who are sympathetic to the theology (if it can be called that) of The Episcopal Church are fed up with its divisive conduct. ++Rowan therefore now feels he can discipline TEC with more support and with less risk of losing much of the Communion.

As you can see, my theory is not very profound, and it is only my opinion. But for what it’s worth . . . .

Shocker.

Hey kids, it’s time for a pop quiz!

[GROAN]

Enough of that. O. K. This a one question, pass-fail quiz. Who said the following?

Given that the development in Los Angeles [the consecration of a non-celibate lesbian] meant that gracious restraint was not being exercised, I think the Archbishop did have to act. What I think he’s done is say, “Look, the consecration of Mary Glasspool is a full, well-thought out decision of the Episcopal Church. There are implications to that decision. In that action, it is clear that The Episcopal Church does not share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion as expressed through the Instruments of Communion time and time again. . .
.
.
.
O. K. Time’s up. Pass in your answer.

Let’s see. Someone put Chris Sugden. FAIL! Another put the Bishop of Durham. FAIL! Another, Bob Duncan. FAIL! In fact, I don’t think anyone got the answer.

[wailing and gnashing of teeth]

Now I admit this was a tough one. So I might be merciful on how this affects your grades. The answer is Anglican Communion Secretary General Kenneth Kearon.

[utter silence]

Yes, rather shocking, isn’t it. He has a history as an enabler of liberals. I wouldn’t believe he would say that, but he did. And you all fail. What’s that Johnny?

Yes, you’re right. If Kenneth Kearon of all people said that, then The Episcopal Church’s standing in the Anglican Communion is not good, and their days as full members of the Communion may actually be numbered even after all these years of dithering from the Archbishop of Canterbury. Very perceptive.

But please use clean language next time, thank you. I know. I was so shocked, I said some words when I first heard this, too. I’ll let it pass this time.

Temper Tantrums

What happens if a child is never actually disciplined but merely spoken to with weak words with no follow-up? Unless the child is virgin-born you end up with a demon only their insipid parents can tolerate. What happens if the parents finally get fed up and decide to begin actually disciplining the said child? You get a nuclear temper tantrum. The discipline is needful and must continue. The parents must not reward the tantrums by backing down. But when real discipline begins . . . wow.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has been all about “conversation” and “indaba” towards The Episcopal Church. All talk with no follow through. But now, finally, he is engaging in actual church discipline. The immediate result?

You got it: Temper Tantrums.

And, yes, the discipline is nevertheless needful. And it must continue.

A Bittersweet Day

This morning, I finally let my web site for my first published book, God Knows What It’s Like to be a Teenager, die. Its time had come. It had served its purpose. I hadn’t even updated it in over two years.

Letting it expire is still bittersweet, however. This day brings back a lot of memories. Promoting the book (which, on purpose, did not make me a dime) gave me good excuses to go to punk rock shows and skate parks and have fun with teens and with those who also made it a priority to reach teenagers. I even had a unique book and skate tour in which I did book signings and skated excellent skate parks. And, yes, I made some good friends through all that. Good times.

And, of course, there was the excitement of finally being a published author.

The book is long out of print, and I still have boxes of books in my garage. I hope they prove useful someday. I am thankful for how God used my book while it was out there. Maybe He is still using it for all I know. If God can use the jawbone of an ass . . . .

The site is still up last I checked: www.godknows99.com. Better check it out quick if you want to see it one last time.

Publishing Pilot Point could take just a little while.

As I note on my book site, getting my novel published could take a while. I submitted Pilot Point to a publisher and received back the following:

Thank you for submitting your work to **** Books. Your manuscript has now been received and will be reviewed by our editors. Please know that our reviewing process is currently taking between 4 to 6 months and that we are reading now for our 2013 list.

Did I mention this could take a while? :)

But I fully understand that with all the submissions publishers receive and with the way the business works, it usually takes a while.

Patience is not only a virtue; it is a necessity!

Yes. Actual Sanctions Against The Episcopal Church

When we noted the unhappy tone of --Schori’s response to ++Canterbury’s Pentecost letter, we speculated that she had already been informed that his missive was not merely more words.

Although I am not privy to the exact moment Her Apostasy was informed, it indeed turns out that His Grace’s words actually have teeth. Kenneth Kearon has informed TEC that certain of their representatives are booted off Anglican Communion bodies:

Last Thursday I sent letters to members of the Inter Anglican ecumenical dialogues who are from the Episcopal Church informing them that their membership of these dialogues has been discontinued. In doing so I want to emphasise again as I did in those letters the exceptional service of each and every person to that important work and to acknowledge without exception the enormous contribution each person has made.

I have also written to the person from the Episcopal Church who is a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO), withdrawing that person’s membership and inviting her to serve as a Consultant to that body.

Certain intervening provinces, namely the Southern Cone, may also be in danger of sanctions. We’ll leave that issue aside for the moment.

Now, some may say that the sanctions against TEC are no big deal and dismiss them as too little, too late. However, they do mark a transition. No longer is the Archbishop of Canterbury engaging merely in more conversation, more concern, more indaba. He is actually imposing sanctions with the door open for more.

It is yet to be seen how much Dr. Williams will follow through on discipline. But he finally is engaging in actual church discipline. And that is significant.

The (Expensive) Irresponsibility of Our Dear Misleader

(This is being posted late due to a Blogger outage. But since the market went down another 115 points today, it is that much more timely.)

It’s bad enough that Obama began his administration with a roughly 1 trillion dollar stimulus program that has stimulated little but the size of the federal government and its deficits. He has already proven himself the most financially irresponsible president in history – quite an accomplishment for less than 18 months.

But last Wednesday he had to add to his record of financial irresponsibility by touting the upcoming employment number as a big one. Biden chimed in, too. Cheered, the stock market went up 225 Dow points.

But then Friday came, and the job gains were almost entirely census workers. Private employment was anemic. Sorely disappointed, the market went down 324 points.

Obama’s irresponsible talk Wednesday is inexcusable. It is contributing to turmoil in the financial markets. And it was pointless. If the jobs number was going to be so good, then wait until it comes out and then tout it. Don’t set the markets up for a disappointment.

What Obama did is also unpresidential. My memory is not the best, but I cannot ever recall a president touting an employment number beforehand like Obama did. There’s a good reason for that, and we saw it last Friday.

It’s not for nothing that Obama is now dubbed The Great Misleader.

The Shamelessness of Linda Sanchez RETRACTED

RETRACTION:

An observant reader has noticed that it was LORETTA Sanchez, sister of Linda Sanchez, who was elected with the help of illegal non-citizen votes back in 1996. So instead of a brilliant post pointing out how no one from the Sanchez political family is in a position to attack those concerned about how illegal immigration undermines the rule of law, I have to make an embarrassing retraction.

Linda Sanchez is still shameless, but I am not. I goofed. Mea culpa.

Just to let you all know what happened: When Linda Sanchez (D-CA) made her comment, I thought that maybe this is the same L. Sanchez (D-CA) who was illegally elected back in the day. When I looked online, I read “Linda” when it was clearly “Loretta.”

I’ve always wondered if I was slightly dyslectic.

And last week was a high stress time when I literally had trouble remembering my phone number. Maybe I should just take a break from blogging when life gets like that.

In any case, I goofed. And I apologize.

One would have to be quite shameless to pronounce Arizona’s immigration law the work of white supremacist groups, as Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) has. But in her case, that is only part of the story.

Her first election to the House in 1996 was aided by the illegal votes of non-citizens. Moreover, illegal non-citizen votes may have been the decisive factor. She won by 984 votes. An investigation by the House found that 547 non-citizens voted. But that number is very conservative. Even the restrained Almanac of American Politics (1998) acknowledged that Sanchez’s election was questionable at least.

So for Ms. Sanchez to smear those concerned about illegal immigration when she is a living example of how the rule of law and our political system is subverted by willful illegal conduct by non-citizens . . . “shameless” is about the only adequate polite word that comes to mind.

Schori (and I) Respond to ++Rowan’s Pentecost Letter

Some of my patient readers may be wondering if I am sullenly ignoring the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost letter. I am not. But I was so preoccupied this past weekend that I did not even become aware of it until the past two days. So kindly excuse my tardiness.

However, the delay may be providential. For TEC’s Presiding Heretic Schori’s response, in its own way, sheds more light than I possibly could on the Pentecost letter. To say she doesn’t like it would be an understatement. That suggests ++Rowan’s missive may have more teeth than we have come to expect from him.

A close reading of the letter reveals that may indeed be the case. The money passages:

And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its House of Bishops as a body declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard (as noted in my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues, where our partners (as they often say to us) need to know who it is they are talking to, and our internal faith-and-order related groups.

I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice.

That appears to be real actual sanctions. ++Rowan then briefly informs, “Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future.”

It appears from her response that --Schori has gotten that call . . . and that it was not a pleasant one.

Further, ++Rowan appears to leave the door open to further sanctions from the Primates:

I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone, and there will have to be further consultation as to how they are affected. I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.

Therefore, like Matt+ Kennedy, although I am *Anglican understatement alert* not a tremendous fan of the current Archbishop of Canterbury, I am pleasantly surprised by this letter. It appears the man may be actually capable of saying, “Enough.”

Yes, I am indulging in the wild and wishful speculation that His Grace may think the Episcopal Church has finally gone beyond the boundaries that his grace can accommodate. I still would not exactly bet on that. But I may indulge myself and burden you with further useless speculation later.

In any case, --Schori’s response is pushing me to respect Dr. Williams again . . . somewhat . . . for now. And that is quite an accomplishment on her part.

Other notable (and fun) responses to the Presiding Heretic may be found at MCJ and Baby Blue.

Bob Casey’s Priorities

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania got elected because he was thought to be similar to his revered dad: a somewhat reasonable, non-kneejerk liberal who is strongly pro-life. But this Spring he betrayed his father’s values by placing the passage of Obamacare above the lives of unborn children.

Now we get to see a further glimpse of his real priorities. He is pushing a bail-out of union pension plans.

Thus Bob Casey throws unborn children under the Obamacare bus, but does his best to take care of his union buddies.

What a sleaze. What a disgrace to his father’s good name.

+Tom Wright (finally) Condemns Bureaucratic Gulag UK

The Bishop of Durham is hardly a man of the right. So it is interesting to note that even he has had enough of Labour’s bureaucratic authoritarianism (although he is not bold enough to use those words):

The last Government, and this isn’t a party political point it’s just a fact, produced more legislation from the Home Office in 13 years than the Home Office has produced in the previous 100 years and most of it is microscopic, micro-managing rules and regulations.

This applies to businesses, to churches, hospitals all over the place, you can’t move. We are drowning in legislation. Rules and regulations are not the way to create a good, wise, human society but our last Government tried to do that.

When it comes to child protection, we all have to fill in these forms again and again. I’ve done several of them – I’ve got one for the diocese but then there was a youth project in the diocese that was organised independently so I had to have another CRB check.

We have people come to my office all the time, frankly wasting their time and my staff’s time in order that there be a paper trail for every single person just in case something happens and somebody has to sue somebody.

Until all filing cabinets in the country get so full that they are over-flowing it looks like we are going to go on just doing this, and that is not the way to be responsible. That’s the way actually to avoid it, it’s a pseudo-responsibility and we need to learn character instead.

Durham’s statement begs the question of where was he when Labour was in power? But better late then never.

And he is right on target. I have frequently tagged Labour misgovernance as Gulag UK. But it is not the gulag of political opponents and other non-persons rotting in prison or of being sent to Siberia or Scotland, not yet at least. It is a gulag of intrusive, stifling, and often absurd bureaucracy nannying just about every area of life. Nu Labour reminds this blogger of the Vogons.

Their mindless by-the-book bureaucracy destroyed the Earth in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, by the way.

Not that I have any confidence that the new coalition government will roll back Labour’s Vogonism to any notable degree. I don’t.

Do I have to fill out a form for saying that?