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!
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, June 07, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, June 04, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
+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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)