I have been so focused on world events
recently that I feel I should take a bit of a break and do a post
about something different, if only to give us a bit of a respite.
After some thought, and false starts, I have decided to do a little
bit about my home state of Minnesota. Since we are known as the
“Land of 10,000 Lakes”, I can't think of anything more
appropriate than talking a bit about Lake Superior. It is, after
all, the largest of the Great Lakes and is shared by both the United
States and Canada. Here is a snippet of background on the Great Lakes and Lake Superior in particular.
As is mentioned in the video our city of Duluth is actually more like a seaside port, servicing the large ships carrying goods for export and import. One of the most popular tourist attractions is the Aerial Lift Bridge, which allows ships to enter and exit the port.
And this:
Lake Superior, like any large body of water, has been known to swallow ships and their crews whole. One of the more famous wrecks was immortalized in this Gordon Lightfoot song:
As you can see waves on Superior are to be taken seriously.
There, I have done my small part for the Minnesota tourism industry. :)
249 comments:
1 – 200 of 249 Newer› Newest»Where'd ya'll get the idea that Gichigami was two words?
The thing is that there are various spellings and versions of the name, even within the Ojibwe community. When translating to English the sounds can be interpreted differently. I actually thought about putting both spellings in the title, but then decided that would look "wordy". So I just went with the version that Longfellow and Lightfoot used as the song was part of the post.
I figured anyone interested enough could look into it further.
:)
It looks like ISIL is back to resorting to using car bombs in Kobani. They are also not too discriminating in firing their mortars, as again they have been falling in Turkey.
Derek Henry Flood retweeted
Kobane News ! @Shiyoki87 · 19h 19 hours ago
#ISIS is attacking Eastern #Kobane with artillery fire & tanks. It seems like they even brought reinforcements from Raqqa & Mosul
If true, this would weaken ISIL defenses at Raqqa and Mosul. Pity they don't have the forces on the ground capable of taking advantage of this.
An interesting conversation regarding the article about the chemical weapons material that was found in Iraq during the war. Hmmm...and who has control of Anbar now?
I keep noticing the unrepentant neo-cons. They seem to have totally forgotten how enthusiastically they tried to hype up the occasional discoveries of aged, rusted, and obsolete chem-weapons shells in the months after Baghdad fell.
Apparently not so aged that they didn't cause some difficulty for those who were exposed to them.
The media does seem to want to have it both ways though. Either the material is of no importance, as the media's lack of attention when they were discovered implied, or it is, as the media's current furor over them seems to suggest. If it is the latter then the media was not honest with their audience before. That implies bias on the part of the media, which is something one of the commenters in that discussion mentioned.
Whether or not the material found could be used to make weapons at this point in time might be of concern if there is more out there to be had.
*shrug*
But that should be other people's concern.
It looks like we have started air dropping supplies to the Kurds in Kobani.
Lynnette, loved the post and the vids. I'm sure you've only scratched the surface (or rather, your north eastern border), so clearly we're gonna want more. In your own good time, of course. In the mean time, maybe Marcus would write us something about Scania (or is it Halland?). Maybe even Lee would write something in the unlikely event he wants to reveal which stretch of the Michigan border he is south of. Needless to say, I am always ready to bore you with tales of this damp rock (which I now know is less than one per cent bigger than Lake Superior -- that kind of puts things in perspective).
That Gordon Lightfoot song is another one of those "folk songs" that I just assumed had been around forever, and which I instantly recognised without knowing anything about the incident it recounted. "Edmund Fitzgerald", hmmm? Seems he was descended from Limerick Fitzgeralds, immigrated in 1837, shortly pre-famine. Can't tell if there's any connection to the Fitzgeralds of JFK's middle initial. But then, they are about the most famous of the Anglo-Hiberno-Norman families, so probably even Obama has them as cousins ;-)
Hiawatha, that was another connection I hadn't made. From brief excerpts read in English classes I didn't know Longfellow actually researched supposed actual Ojibwe characters. Although it seems it wasn't very scholarly research, and the stories are highly romanticised. Too romanticised, apparently, for the New York Times reviewer in 1855 who, according to Wikipedia, gave out about "the monstrous traditions of an uninteresting, and, one may almost say, a justly exterminated race", there being "no romance about the Indian." If Hiawatha is lacking as a source on the Ojibwe, the NY Times review certainly fills us in on the contemporary prejudices of America's cultured set!
I also got sidetracked into reading about Samuel Coleridge-Taylor (not the poet of similar name), the "African Mahler" who became famous for setting some of Hiawatha to music, eventually meeting Teddy Roosevelt in the White House, before dying young just up the road from some relatives of mine in London. My own favourite musical setting of Hiawatha is from Mike Oldfield's Incantations. (In the unlikely event you don't want to listen to all 72 minutes of the double album, it starts at 29:45 here, or in the live version at 27:00 ;-)
"It looks like we have started air dropping supplies to the Kurds in Kobani."
Obama personally called Erdogan to inform him of the air drops. Administration officials refused to discuss the call any further than that; specifically, they declined to say how Erdogan took the news. Meanwhile, Erdogan had already doubled down on his position, publicly describing the PYD as an extension of the PKK.
I wasn't expecting this:
"And on Monday, Turkey's foreign minister announced his country would let
Kurdish Peshmerga from Iraq use Turkish territory to enter Syria and reinforce
fighters in Kobani"
CNN
Thanks, Pete. I didn't want to bore people with a long travelogue, so just put in a little on Lake Superior. While all the lakes are a huge draw as vacation spots, for people here the North Shore and Lake Superior are kind of special. One of my co-workers just got back from a small trip there. He tries to go every year. Another co-worker's friend and her husband just returned from a 2 week road trip driving around Lake Superior.
The whole Duluth area has some very interesting history behind it, which I won't mention right now just in case I want to do a post on it. ;) Including all of that would have made this post rather long anyway.
I figured it was about time that flyover country got a face, so to speak. :)
Besides, after my co-worker and you kind of panned the Chuck Berry thing (I wasn't aware of some of those allegations about him btw) I thought I'd try something with a little more substance, especially after listening to someone's music choices on his Twitter. The quality of music was light years apart.
I'll have to check out your links this evening.
By all means a post on something Ireland would be lovely, as would be any commenter's contribution about a unique spot they are familiar with. I've always enjoyed hearing about different regions.
Hope the paper got an "A", btw. :)
Turkey's foreign minister announced his country would let Kurdish Peshmerga from Iraq use Turkish territory to enter Syria and reinforce fighters in Kobani"
That was a surprise to me as well! Enough so, that I even used an exclamation point for that sentence. :)
I wonder if it was US pressure, internal Kurdish pressure, or the realization that ISIL may be just as bad as anything they could imagine with the Kurds?
Lebanon is starting to get a little twitchy as well, and not just because there is such a large influx of Syrian refugees either. The kidnapping of the border crossing guards and the beheading of at least one of them didn't go down too well, I'm thinking. They are starting to get more concerned about the sectarian violence spilling over and re-igniting a civil war.
"I wonder if it was US pressure…"
I'd guess there was some serious backroom pressure put on Erdogan, likely backed up by some major European/NATO pressure, and then there's the Iraqi Kurds. Turkish business interests have managed to get heavily invested in developments in Iraqi Kurdistan over the course of the last few years.
Post Script: I'm just hoping we didn't make him any unfortunate promises to go along with it.
I'm equally surprised. But let's not look a gift horse in the mouth. This is resoundingly good news.
Lynnette, forgot two things I meant to mention about those videos. Firstly, the second lift bridge video -- that's shot from the same drone that took that cool Bardarbunga footage and lots more. Seriously cool $1,000 toy -- I'm trying hard to convince myself it'd be a waste to buy one ;-)
Second thing was the mention in the first video that the shoreline of Lake Superior is the lowest point in Minnesota at 602 feet. Suddenly I'm less surprised about your "continental climate"! I'm used to spending 95% of my life within 50 feet of sea level. Just looked at the 200 metre line of the Dublin foothills on a map. Elevations above that get at least a dusting of snow most years, even in our climate. At our 400 m line (the average elevation of MN) some winter snow is more likely than not.
Speaking of winter, our official start is only ten days away. Tonight we are having extra-tropical storm Gonzalo, the one that lashed Bermuda as a hurricane on Friday. It's been incredibly overhyped. It's supposed to have passed over us already and apart from misting rain, and a stiff 20 mph breeze which has sent the first autumn leaves fluttering, it's been a non-event. The sea is like glass. And the upside of an extra-tropical system is the balmy temps -- 15 degrees as of 3am. The main action (if there is any) seems to have passed at least two hundred miles to our north.
I liked the live version of the Hiawatha incantation the best. :) While I did not listen to all of the incantations I did catch the section that came right after that, which I liked quite a bit.
I happened to run across this when I was looking for videos for the post. I thought it very well done, as well as very beautiful. One of the more rational commenters in the thread below the video said the prayer was set to a Celtic song?
From brief excerpts read in English classes I didn't know Longfellow actually researched supposed actual Ojibwe characters. Although it seems it wasn't very scholarly research, and the stories are highly romanticised.
That wouldn't surprise me at all. A bit like the dime novel. An American cousin of the penny dreadful. Although I think you can probably find present day versions of those kinds of publications. So I shouldn't be too snobbish. :)
Don't forget, as well as the drone you'll need something like this. With that set up and some music to accompany it, you can make anything look spectacular. ;)
Thank your lucky stars the storm passed you by. We've had some beautiful weather the last few days. The trees are doing some serious shedding of their summer dress. I spent a good 3 1/2 hours on Friday picking up leaves and mowing. I also managed to blow a hole in my leaf bag. Fortunately I was able to find a replacement at a local store. I've still got a lot of leaves to suck up. :)
I just got new tires for my car today, so hopefully I am prepared for winter snows. But I still wouldn't mind if they waited until after Dec. 1.
Kobane on Oct. 20, 2014.
"Don't forget, as well as the drone you'll need something like this."
The Go Pro comes with this particular drone package, as well as a gyro-stabilised mount. Stop making me want it even more! ;-)
[Lynnette]: "I happened to run across this when I was looking for videos for the post. I thought it very well done, as well as very beautiful. One of the more rational commenters in the thread below the video said the prayer was set to a Celtic song?"
Oh gawd ... Enya's been churning out that schlocky schmaltzy trash for ever! Sorry, not a comment on the Ojibwe prayer, but it's a sign of the generic Celticky dross that she churns out that it could be set to anything.
(Now you've started me on one of ranty negative X-Factor-style reviews ;-)
Ok, so the song is Ebudae by Enya. Enya is Eithne Nà Bhraonáin, ex-member of Clannad who went solo. We were all driven demented in the 1980s by non-stop airplay for the song Orinoco Flow, the first time Enya's massively multi-tracked signature style was unleashed.Every song she's ever produced since is exactly the same. She fancies herself as being a cultural cut above the average. Not to put too fine a point on it, her stuff drives me to distraction ;)
She lives just up the hill from me. This is her house. Yes, those are fake battlements. I believe the house is actually called Camelot (just the latest in a series of pretentious names). An acquaintance of mine built the studio up there for her. He's a bit of an electronics genius, and built her a sound desk that could subtly alter her voice on hundreds of channels instead of up to five hundred separate tracks that she used to lay down to achieve that painful dirgelike sepulchral sound of hers.
Ok, that's my homage to Enya :) Now for the song in question. If she hadn't slaughtered it, it's a genre that I like very well. It's from the Scottish Hebrides (Ebudae being Latin for Hebrides), and it's a so-called waulking song. Basically it's a working song that would have been sung unaccompanied by women at work to pass the time.
Like a lot of such songs, the lyrics are mostly "port-a-bheul" as the Scots would call it -- "mouth music" composed of mostly nonsense words designed for rhythm rather than meaning, as befitting repetitive work. There is one verse of real lyrics -- the bit between 0:40 and 1:00 in your video:
Amharc, mná ag obair lá 's mall san oÃch',
Ceolann siad ar laetha geal, a bhÃ,
Bealach fada anonn 's anall a chóich'.
Women working late by day and night,
They sing of the bright days that were,
A long road back and forth, continually.
Here is a more traditionally performed beautiful example (although, as I said, it would normally be unaccompanied). I can catch just enough words to know that the first phrase of each verse is a proper lyric, while the next three phrases are nonsense.
And here's my favourite expositor of the genre to explain "waulking songs" (which I may have posted before), and here's the full version of her example (which I definitely posted before).
"This is resoundingly good news."
Resupply and reinforcements. ISIS raised; we called; it's now their move. How good a piece of news is that?
And, it seems we are going along with the story that the supplies we air-dropped in were provided out of Kurdish Peshmerga stocks. This figment appears important to somebody, probably Erdogan, maybe Obama; I don't know why; domestic political consumption one would suppose.
Not that I agree with all of it but I thik ya'll will find this piece about Putin quite interesting:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/vladimir-putins-coup-112025.html?hp=l7#.VEZ-zfmsXyQ
My main beef with that article is that it presumes Putin/Russia is acting the way it is.... well just for the sheer hell of it. It doesn't much take into account that some of those actions could be a RE-action to precieved threats, possibly very real threats.
The Myth of Russian "Humiliation"
Stop making me want it even more! ;-)
Hey! It's my turn to try to lure someone into spending their money! :)
Hmmm...I still like the Ojibwe prayer song video. It's relaxing. I may have to start calling you Simon though. :) But I see what you mean about Enya, and the house...er...castle is a little over done for my taste. I also preferred the more traditional version of the waulking songs. I do remember Julie Fowlis, beautiful voice and instrumentation.
And, it seems we are going along with the story that the supplies we air-dropped in were provided out of Kurdish Peshmerga stocks. This figment appears important to somebody,...
Maybe not necessarily a figment. Perhaps we just diverted something we had already put together for the Iraqi Kurds as Kobane was the more pressing threat. It will be interesting to see if we start dropping Iraqi Kurds into Kobane as well. :)
Marcus,
I am still reading the Amnesty International article about the Shia Militias that you left for me. It is looking a lot like the sectarian fighting in 2006 or 2007, very depressing. If Iraq is to have any peace the militias will have to be dealt with.
Btw, I heard a rumor that Russia seems to have misplaced a sub in Swedish waters. I don't know if there is any truth to that?
"Perhaps we just diverted something we had already put together for the Iraqi Kurds…"
I'd call that a figment too--in fact, even if it was stuff that had already delivered but not yet dispersed in Iraqi Kurdistan, it was still American stuff; they want to downplay that.
"It will be interesting to see if we start dropping Iraqi Kurds into Kobane as well."
That thought had occurred to me. However, the Kurds aren't trained in air-borne deployment, and I wasn't sure the ISIS forces could be kept back far enough to make it safe for American choppers to put down and disgorge their charges. I'm not sure Kobani is big enough for there to be a safe for that. Some risk involved there. Possible that Obama made the threat anyway. (I've read that France and Germany backed us with their own threats to start supplying the Kobani Kurds openly and directly if Erdogan didn't make that move to allow reinforcements--anti-tank stuff too.)
Good article, Lee.
...it was still American stuff; they want to downplay that.
Maybe, although most people know that it isn't the tooth fairy that is supplying the Iraqi Kurds. It could also be they are hoping to emphasize the willingness of the Kurds to help each other in the fight against ISIL. A one for all and all for one kind of thing.
Oh, and the Turks lost a bid for a two-year voting seat on the UN Security Council. They'd been angling for the spot for three years. The vote (secret ballot) went against them two-to-one. Stinging surprise, some indications it was the result of a general, world-wide displeasure with Erdogan's policy towards Kobanê, which has started to make the news world-wide. May have helped him along a new path.
I think a lot of it is internal Turkish politics. The Turks have managed to get on decent terms with the Iraqi Kurds, who've promised in return to not incite or support separatist Kurds in Turkey. (At least, not for now.)
"I thik ya'll will find this piece about Putin quite interesting…"
I did find it interesting, although I'd seen it a few days ago, Saturday I think it was, maybe Sunday. I though about linking it to here at the time, but didn't for some reason. I think it was mostly this line:
"Bildt and Sikorski are taken very seriously in Brussels: they have the ear of
Europe’s leaders on all matters concerning Russia."
Struck me as a case of wishful thinking on the author's part.
"thought" Thought has a ‘t’ at the end.
Channel 4 News here showed an IS video of a box of American grenades and other supplies being opened. Seems they didn't all make it into Kurdish hands. I'm hoping it's IS being desperately anxious to show what a clever resourceful bunch they are, who can't be outwitted by the dumb Yanks. They need things to be unfolding according to their apocalyptic script.
"Seems they didn't all make it into Kurdish hands."
We knew that; also know they blew up at least one pallet that went wide.
ISIS might easily be showing supplies they'd grabbed earlier in Iraq. Or, they may have gotten their hands on a few that were meant for Kobanê. Our military spokesmen have said that ‘most’ of the supplies made it to their intended recipients, but they've not said categorically that ISIS got to none of them.
Oh, and they're already talking about doing another air-drop, which means they were generally pleased with the results of this one.
NBC Nightly News showed not only boxes of grenades (three different types) but what was clearly the drop harness for at least one pallet. Likelihood much increased that it was indeed from a drop intended for the Kurds in Kobanê. If one's all they got (or even a couple), that's no reason to cut off the air-drops. The supplies are much more significant for the Kurdish defenders than to ISIS, which is already ammo-rich.
"NBC Nightly News showed not only boxes of grenades (three different types) but what was clearly the drop harness for at least one pallet. Likelihood much increased that it was indeed from a drop intended for the Kurds in Kobanê."
The likelihood hasn't changed. We're talking about the same footage.
BBC aired a half hour interview with Mehmet Fatih Ceylan, Turkey's permanent ambassador to NATO. To say he was evasive would be an understatement. He was grilled on Turkish border controls for Kurds vs. Islamists, on Incirlik airbase, on general Turkish commitment to NATO, on its interactions with the US, and more. The unconvincing answer to pretty much everything was "we are working on a strategy with our NATO partners".
"The likelihood hasn't changed. We're talking about the same footage."
Then you neglected to mention the harness.
Lynnette: "Btw, I heard a rumor that Russia seems to have misplaced a sub in Swedish waters. I don't know if there is any truth to that?"
That's been on top of the news here for several days. Could be there was a sub, could be there wasn't one. If there was one it was probably not misplaced at all but on an intelligence mission, and I'd doubt it remains here now. So I doubt we'll ever get an answer.
It's not really unrealistic that Russia could be spying on Sweden via submarines. But then again in the 80's there was a huge issue with this where it turned out our navy was chasing minks. Yes minks as in the animal.
The thing that stikes me here is our diminished abilities to counter an intrusion. We have zero helicopters for anti U-boat missions, for one thing. Because we've dismantled our defence so extremely.
It's not really a defence at all any longer but more of a reactions-force that can assist NATO in a small way in limited arenas.
We do have very good offensive submarines though. But they are really only useful in a "hot" situation.
Lee C. ― U.S.A. said...
The Myth of Russian "Humiliation"
Tue Oct 21, 12:35:00 pm
That might be one of the most misguided and erroneus articles ever written. And Lynnette replies "good article Lee". Is it in the water over there or why are ya'll so clueless?
If I ever get to Misnnesota I'll have to make sure never to have a swim in that Gitche Gumee in case it really is in the water. Wouldn't want to got for a nice swim and come out a blinkered dimwit.
"That might be one of the most misguided and erroneus articles ever written."
Misguided perhaps, tunnel-visioned certainly. I had a similar reaction to it when I first read it (also last Saturday or maybe it was Sunday--I had them both up on the screen the same morning, didn't link either of them). Erroneous? Nah, not so much, the author's got her facts straight for the most part.
The thing is, nobody in our government was going ‘triumphalist’ over the carcass of the Soviet Union. (Right-winger radio and FoxNews don't count as even semi-official voices of the Democratic Clinton Administration.) And nobody was threatening the Russians nor their legitimate interests, neither from Washington nor from the EU.
Thomas Friedman re: Putin and the Pope
Marcus, what did you disagree with in that article? Did you read the one linked at the bottom of it that presents the almost diametrically opposite view -- that the west screwed up after the Cold War by treating Russia as a loser?
I don't agree entirely with either of them, although I'm inclined to blame a lot of ills on flawed Russian leadership, especially Yeltsin and Putin's.
That Friedman article that Lee just linked says some interesting things, although I can't trust it either since it attributes statements to the Pope that he didn't even make.
I suspect that, if you asked Friedman, he'd readily concede that the quotes you refer to were from the draft proposal and not direct quotes straight from the lips of Francis. (I got that part on the first reading, although you seem to have missed it.) He's got space requirements to meet so some compression was implimented.
Well Pete, it's written by Anne Appelbaum for one thing. Have you read her 700 page withwashing of her own ethnic groups responsibility for the Commissars and the Gulag system, called "Gulag"? I have. I have it in my bookshelf.
She has ZERO credibility with regards to Russia. Hardly ONE Russian would agree with her (unless they were tortured to do so like in the past).
She dismiss the reign of the Oligarcs completely. When the former USSR fell down and a few tens of individuals aquired almost all of the wealth from that crumbling empire. She for sure dismissed just WHO those oligarchs were, and from where they got their support in plundering Russia to the point that its own people were starving.
THAT is where Putin comes from, in case ya'll didn't know it. Russians, the vast majority of them, see Putin as a guarantor that the bad days of the 90's with "liberalisation" won't come back.
I mean if someone raped you with a barbed condom right in the ass and you laid there bleeding in the street, who would you trust the next week? The rapist or the guy who pulled him off of you?
"…and from where they got their support in plundering Russia…"
That's because the NATO invasion of Russia, which installed those folks in power and backed them up at the point of western European and American guns, passed almost entirely unnoticed in the western press.
"Hardly ONE Russian would agree with her (unless they were tortured to do so like in the past)."
I'm not familiar with the Swedish stories about how Russians were once tortured until they agreed with op-ed columnists for American newspapers. Perhaps you would like to share those with us?
"how Russians were once tortured until they agreed with op-ed columnists for American newspapers."
Nope, but they were tortured into supporting communism. Many, many were. And in the coming years it was mostlty not FOR the russians but against them. Look at this:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2c7340%2cL-3342999%2c00.html
Has Canadian John finally flipped in Ottawa? :(
"…they were tortured into supporting communism…"
And how does this connect to Anne Appelbaum?
Gotta go. Be back later.
[Less]: "I suspect that, if you asked Friedman, he'd readily concede that the quotes you refer to were from the draft proposal and not direct quotes straight from the lips of Francis. (I got that part on the first reading, although you seem to have missed it.) He's got space requirements to meet so some compression was implimented."
What on earth are you talking about? The text referred to was not written by the Pope. They are not the words of the Pope. They are not a proposal from the Pope, draft or otherwise. They are not endorsed by the Pope. You're right they are not "direct quotes straight from the lips of Francis", but is that meant to imply that they are therefore "indirect quotes" (whatever that would mean)? Friedman attributes the words directly to the Pope, saying he asked bishops to embrace a particular notion which Friedman gives in quotation marks. Which part of what Friedman is saying contains a scintilla of accuracy in your view?
Oops, spell checker turned "Lee C" into "Less" :)
Warren Buffet loses $2 billion in 2 days. Soup kitchen anyone?
Marcus,
If there was one it was probably not misplaced at all but on an intelligence mission, and I'd doubt it remains here now.
There was speculation that the sub may have had some kind of mechanical difficulties.
The thing that stikes me here is our diminished abilities to counter an intrusion. We have zero helicopters for anti U-boat missions, for one thing. Because we've dismantled our defence so extremely.
I don't think this situation is unique to Sweden, it is a concern for quite a few other countries too.
And Lynnette replies "good article Lee".
Yes, I did, Marcus. Because it raised an important point. By creating NATO and the EU Europe and America have managed to tie together countries that in the past engaged in some horrendous fighting, creating a more peaceful Europe. This was certainly not done to humiliate Russia. Unless her facts are totally bogus it would also appear that we are relatively cautious about who is allowed to join NATO, as well as giving some consideration to Russia's feelings on the placement of bases.
Perhaps there were individuals who were not exactly sensitive to Russia's feelings about the end of the Cold War, but I doubt that the majority of Americans felt anything but a sense of relief about the possibility that we could have closer ties to Russia.
If I ever get to Misnnesota I'll have to make sure never to have a swim in that Gitche Gumee...
You may not want to do that anyway, it tends to be cold. :)
Has Canadian John finally flipped in Ottawa? :(
I was wondering the same thing! It sounds like they have had multiple shooting incidents there today, in three different locations. There is no confirmation that they are linked.
Blackwater Guards Found Guilty
"What on earth are you talking about?"
I'm talking about a meeting of Chief High Muck-a-mucks of the Catholic Church held here just recently in Rome. It was called up specifically by Pope Francis, especially for the purpose of considering ‘The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization'. (citation)
Those of us who do not feel any need to pretend that the Pope is sympatico to the severly conservative Irish Catholic interpretations of Catholicism (‘Irish Catholic’ being considered a generic pejorative for ‘radically conservative’ among some of the more liberal elements of the Catholic Church, as I've come to understand from listening to some Catholics I know who're not of that school)…. Those of us not ‘Irish Catholics’ (so understood) are free to suspect that the Pope knew what he was going to ask the lesser chiefs to ‘consider’; i.e. he had a proposal in mind and he had the chops within the Catholic bureaucracy to get that proposal on the agenda. (In point of fact, the word ‘endorse’ did not appear in Friedman's column.)
If you google up "Pope draft proposal" you will discover that it is commonly assumed that the Pope called that meeting specifically to have that particular draft proposal placed under consideration; i.e. he had a plan and he executed on that plan. That's the common assumption on account of that's just how it works. It's not like I ran out on a limb there.
I liked this from Lee's Putin and The Pope article:
“The best leaders don’t set timid and selfish goals that are easy to meet but instead set bold and inclusive goals that are hard to achieve,” remarked Timothy Shriver, the chairman of the Special Olympics, who has just written a book on leadership, “Fully Alive: Discovering What Matters Most.” “We’re all looking for ways to make sense of a world without a center, but we’ll only find that in people who lead with authentic humility and reckless generosity.”
"Because it raised an important point."
Better than that, even though it was ‘tunnel-visioned’, as I first called it, it was a clear and concise, generally fact-based presentation of her argument. (With her conclusions clearly separated out at the end.)
[Lee C]: "Those of us not ‘Irish Catholics’ (so understood) are free to suspect that the Pope knew what he was going to ask the lesser chiefs to ‘consider’; i.e. he had a proposal in mind and he had the chops within the Catholic bureaucracy to get that proposal on the agenda."
I'll skip over your attempt to personalise the issue. Did your Catholic confidantes have any idea why their scheming Pope would be so politically naive to "propose" something that his own handpicked synod shot down in flames?
"Did your Catholic confidantes have any idea why their scheming Pope…"
We haven't been involved in any religious or theological or spiritual discussions here of late, nor anything involving this Pope or the recent synod. (I didn't raise the subject of 'Irish Catholics’ either, and now that I think about it, the term they actually used as a generic perorative was ‘Irish priests’, not quite so broad as ‘Irish Catholic’, but the point was clear, and the connection to your theological bent was impossible to ignore.)
As for the ‘scheming Pope’ thing, I'd guess that the Pope thought it a good thing and a good time to finally put these issues to the Chief High Muck-a-mucks directly, and make them take a public position on it (hence his insistence that the draft be published, even the proposals that didn't pass) even if it wasn't a good bet to get their approval on the first presentation. I figure he figured it time to break the ice, even if he couldn't pierce it on the first swing at it.
‘Indirect quote’, yeah, I'll go along with that as a reasonably accurate descriptive term for how the Pope likely looked at the language of the draft proposal. That works. Gets the idea across.
Why do you imagine he wants their approval? The Church isn't a democracy. He can write a post-synodal apostolic exhortation and still say whatever he likes.
"He can write a post-synodal apostolic exhortation and still say whatever he likes."
It's customary to have the synod convene before that post-synodal thing, ain't it?
That would be the normal implication of "post", yes.
You seem to have answered your own question then.
You're mistaken.
Why do you imagine he wants their approval?
Hmm. I didn't realise we had a closet papist in our midst. I see Lynnette has decorated the blog page in Papal colours.
"Why do you imagine he wants their approval?"
Oh, that. Well, I don't recall that I'd been imagining on that; but, now that you've brought it up, I suspect everyone appreciates the approval of their peers, even Popes.
Ok, so the Pope has a plan to radically rewrite fundamental Catholic doctrine -- to use your words: "he had a plan and he executed on that plan" -- but he's seeking the approval of his peers just for a warm fuzzy feeling. Even though he risked -- and got -- a vigorous backlash at the synod, with the bishops insisting on their groups' observations being published along with the relatio. Mmmmkkaaayyy...
"…to radically rewrite fundamental Catholic doctrine…"
Those are definitely not my words.
Tell ya what. Let's see what we can agree on first. I'll pick one of the few things you didn't try to obscure. Can we agree that the Pope probably had a plan for the meeting when he called the meeting?
(We can move on from there if we can even get to there.)
Sure, he had a plan for the meeting. (That is not, of course, to say whether he had a plan for the outcome).
Can we agree that he executed his plan for the meeting (i.e. the introduction of that draft proposal and specifically of its clauses on homosexual relations and divorce, in substantially the form in which they appeared)?
Hmm. I didn't realise we had a closet papist in our midst. I see Lynnette has decorated the blog page in Papal colours.
There now, and I was thinking it had taken on the gentle shade of an autumn day. lol!
No. We can't agree that. Which is not to say that you are wrong. Just that there is no evidence for it (notwithstanding your assertion that "that's just how it works"). As counter-evidence, there is the Pope's own assertion that he did not predetermine any outcome.
"There now, and I was thinking it had taken on the gentle shade of an autumn day. lol!"
Just promise me it can go back to white with the first snowfall. In Minnesota, that is -- might be waiting a long time for one here. Maybe with a splash of red for cannibal season :)
"As counter-evidence, there is the Pope's own assertion that he did not
predetermine any outcome."
That is not counter-evidence. My proposed agreement was as to the ‘introduction of that draft proposal and specifically of its clauses on homosexual relations and divorce etc.…". I made no mention of the outcome.
"I was thinking it had taken on the gentle shade of an autumn day."
Doesn't look yellow on my browser either.
Interesting. It looks gold on my browser.
I meant predetermining the content of the interim document. You do realise it was -- or at least was supposed to be -- an interim account of the proceedings of the synod?
That is, of the bishops' initial written submissions, and then of their "interventions" at the synod. When do you imagine the Pope concocted or approved (or whatever it is you are saying he did) the "draft proposal and specifically of its clauses on homosexual relations and divorce"?
Again, you appreciate that the "proposal" was not supposed to be a matter of the Pope (or anyone else) saying "here's what I propose", but a proposal as to how the already completed proceedings of the synod would be summarised? Doesn't leave too much room for the Pope leppin' in to impose his own scheme.
Just promise me it can go back to white with the first snowfall. In Minnesota, that is -- might be waiting a long time for one here. Maybe with a splash of red for cannibal season :)
lol! Changing it up might be rather fun. I'll have to look at what's available for holidays. ;)
New topic @ Lynnette:
I notice that Rich Lowry (Republican Party Operative) is arguing in favor of their push for more restrictive voting laws on the theory that:
"The hard numbers suggest that the number of voters getting locked out by voter ID
laws is diminishingly small."
Politico
I'm not entirely sure what size is ‘diminishingly’ small, but I'm guessing he means to say not many people get excluded by the new restrictions. This seems to me to be a stupid, counter-productive argument to make. (Aside from the fact that it's demonstrably not true, I'll not even get into that.)
If the new law isn't excluding people, then what is the point of the new restrictions? He needs to argue that it is excluding enough people to justify the burden on the folks it burdens.
(And now, back to our interrupted previous programming.)
"It looks gold on my browser."
I'm not especially attuned to colors and the various names for all the tones and tints and such. I think it helps if ya buy makeup, which I don't do.
But, I'll go with gold, kind of a dull gold, touch of amber or brown in it.
"You do realise it was -- or at least was supposed to be -- an interim account of the
proceedings of the synod?"
Interim account? I distinctly recall it being damn near universally called a ‘draft proposal’. I suspect you are now talking about some different document. I do know there was an interim document (by which time the offending clauses had been much watered down) and that some of that didn't pass either. What passed gets to be considered the ‘final document’. I'm talkin’ ‘bout the first one, not the middle one, not the final product.
Then you better provide some links to what you consider the "first" one. The one of which I'm aware is entitled Relatio post Disceptationem (Report after discussion). You were at pains earlier to understand the meaning of "post", so I presume that bit's uncontroversial.
P.S. I'm sure you're right about it "being damn near universally called a ‘draft proposal’". Unfortunately, you've never been prepared to take my word for it that 110% of what you read in the MSM on such matters is hogwash.
And just to guide you in your searches and reassure you I'm not keepin' anything sneaky up my sleeve, here's my understanding of the sequence of events:
1) The Pope announces the synod, b) a questionnaire is distributed to the synod participants, c) the bishops put forward their discussion ideas for the synod in written submissions, d) part one of the synod convenes, e) the bishops make verbal "interventions" at the synod, f) the Relatio post Disceptationem is drafted to summarise discussions so far and drive further debate, g) the bishops convene in ten smaller discussion groups called Circuli Minori to discuss and amend the Relatio, h) a second draft of the Relatio is issued and voted on, i) the final report is published, j) the bishops discuss the report in their local congregations, k) the second part of the synod convenes (next year).
I see no place for this ab initio "draft proposal" you are talking about. Yes, the MSM have represented it as "powerful conservative bishops" rejecting the Pope's proposal, which is entirely to be expected given the general MSM adulation for Francis. What seems to be lost on them (and you) is that nothing except the bishops' own proposals were ever up for discussion.
"…110% of what you read in the MSM on such matters is hogwash."
Well, that's what happens when Catholics are forbidden to have media jobs. (Well, that plus your insistence that people must use your chosen terms and your chosen definitions, else all is ‘hogwash’ even if it happens to be true) Be that as it may…
If you're suggesting that somebody else slid that stuff in there past the Pope without his active support, indeed his connivance, probably his conception, then we've got ourselves a disagreement that cannot be gotten past. I'm not willing to declare all that reporting as ‘hogwash’ just to support that unlikely proposition.
But… You're more than welcome to try to convince us of your proposition here. Have at it. Floor's yours.
Well hang on ... before we go there we need to ascertain if this supposed "draft proposal" exists in some form other than the one I've set out. Do you have anything to add on that one, or are you agreeing that the "draft proposal" was not some prior invention of the Pope as you had thought?
"Well, that's what happens when Catholics are forbidden to have media jobs."
Some ideas are too strange to know how to engage with them. I'm putting that one in that category.
"Well, that plus your insistence that people must use your chosen terms and your chosen definitions, else all is ‘hogwash’ even if it happens to be true"
No, you're perfectly entitled to have your own terms and definitions. It's just that if we don't agree on any of them, we'll be talking past each other. So if I correct your MSM quotes on technical points it is just in the interest of clarity. We can then understand what each other are talking about.
"…c) the bishops put forward their discussion ideas for the synod in written
submissions…"
The bishops submit to whom?
"…the Relatio post Disceptationem is drafted to summarise discussions so far
and drive further debate…"
Drafted by whom? Under whose supervision?
I'm planning to address all that. Can you close off the point about the "draft proposal"?
In favor of ‘Relatio post Disceptationem’? Hell no. That's a totally unnecessary complication. I'm not interested in participating in one your jargon circles.
You've lost me then. I don't see how we can discuss the matter when you believe there is a "draft proposal" drawn up from scratch by the Pope and handed down to the bishops as a required starting point for discussion, versus my belief that the "draft proposal" is the interim post-discussion document. Do you have any timeline for when the Pope drew up the document, what was in it, whether it was published and, if so, a link to it?
"…drawn up from scratch by the Pope and handed down to the bishops as a required starting
point for discussion…"
You seem to be having your own imaginings going on now. Those aren't my words either, nor a reasonable rephrasing of any of my words. But enough of this dancing around looking for some place you might want to begin. Just begin.
"If you're suggesting that somebody else slid that stuff in there past the Pope
without his active support, indeed his connivance, probably his conception, then…
Have at it. Floor's yours."
" Those aren't my words either, nor a reasonable rephrasing of any of my words."
Then let me quote you directly:
"Interim account? I distinctly recall it being damn near universally called a ‘draft proposal’. I suspect you are now talking about some different document. I do know there was an interim document (by which time the offending clauses had been much watered down) and that some of that didn't pass either. What passed gets to be considered the ‘final document’. I'm talkin’ ‘bout the first one, not the middle one, not the final product."
You agreeing that there is an "interim" and a "final" document, both of which are distinct from "the first one". Precisely what document are you referring to as "the first one"? You can't reasonably expect me to discuss it without even being aware of its existence.
Ah, a jargon maze. Ain't doin’ the circle, got the maze going this time.
I think I can save us some time.
"Can we agree that he executed his plan for the meeting (i.e. the intro-
duction of that draft proposal and specifically of its clauses on homosexual
relations and divorce, in substantially the form in which they appeared)?"
Lee C. @ Wed Oct 22, 11:32:00 pm
"No. We can't agree that. Which is not to say that you are wrong."
Petes @ Wed Oct 22, 11:37:00 pm
I think we were done there. The rest of this has just been ‘bout you looking for some way to color over the fact that we do not agree on the probable influence of the Pope on the inclusion of the offending clauses. You are welcome to clutch tightly your own opinion. I shall not try to disturb your religious notions.
That's a pity then. Because I was entirely prepared to discuss the possibility that the Pope influenced "the document", and several flavours of that particular theory. You don't know whether I agree with you on it or not because we haven't discussed it, although I can tell you with certainty you're leaping to some wrong conclusions on that score.
Was it really too much for you to fact-check your assertions about the "first document" and realise that you slipped up? I wasn't exactly trying to make a big point of it. It's just that it obviously pertains to when, where, and how the Pope might have wielded his influence.
P.S. You're not a stupid person. Does the fact that you did not glean from the MSM reports that the bishops were supposed to be discussing and voting on their own proposals, and not the Pope's, tell you anything about the accuracy and objectivity of the MSM reports?
"You don't know whether I agree with you on it or not…"
I'm gonna go with the theory that you were telling the truth the first time, i.e. you refuse to agree ‘which is not to say’ that you disagree either. (I think you're just looking for something else to argue in the hopes of obscuring that point.)
You can only go with that theory if you insist on truncating my quote as you have. I disagreed because there was counter-evidence. Before we got onto discussing the counter-evidence you came out with: "My proposed agreement was as to the ‘introduction of that draft proposal and specifically of its clauses on homosexual relations and divorce etc.…". (emphasis yours).
It then transpired that you were mistaken about the so-called draft proposal, how it was introduced, and what it was supposed to represent. If we can't get passed the part where you agree you were mistaken on that rather important point (which was not a big deal until you made it one), then how am I supposed to get back to presenting the counter-evidence (which would be the logical next step). There is also counter-counter-evidence, but we never got onto that.
"I disagreed because there was counter-evidence."
Yeah, that's what ya said; ‘cept there wasn't any; you imagined that up.
"It then transpired that you were mistaken about the so-called draft proposal, how it
was introduced, and what it was supposed to represent."
‘Cept I never went into the weeds with you on ‘how it was introduced, and what it was supposed to represent’. We never got past you refusing to either agree or disagree on the influence exerted by the Pope.
"Yeah, ‘cept there wasn't any [counter-evidence]; you imagined that up."
LOL. We never even got past the first sentence on the subject. You've no idea what I was going to say on the matter.
"‘Cept I never went into the weeds with you on ‘how it was introduced, and what it was supposed to represent’. We never got past you refusing to either agree or disagree on the influence exerted by the Pope."
I can't agree or disagree because I don't know, and neither do you. However, I have a range of pertinent evidence. You may want to present your own too.
First we need to get over the little hump of which document we're talking about. I've been clear about which one I mean. If you would just do likewise we could get started.
"You've no idea what I was going to say on the matter."
But I do know that whatever you were going to argue about how the Pope ‘did not predetermine any outcome’ wasn't particularly relevant to an argument over the draft proposal. You keep trying to change the subject. You been seriously workin’ that for some time now.
"However, I have a range of pertinent evidence."
Floor's yours. Go for it. Let me know when you're done.
"But I do know that whatever you were going to argue about how the Pope ‘did not predetermine any outcome’ wasn't particularly relevant to an argument over the draft proposal."
And this brings us right back to where your confusion started. Because I am talking about a document that purports to be the draft report on the already completed synod proceedings, that is the outcome. I presume you would accept that if the Pope wrote the synod's conclusions and handed them to the bishops it would be reasonable to describe it as predetermining an outcome.
You, on the other hand, have imagined a "draft proposal" which is nothing to do with the outcome, which precedes all of this -- to quote you: "the first one, not the middle one, not the final product."
I presume you're not still alleging that such a document exists, otherwise you would be doing more than trying to avoid the issue. So can we accept that there is no such document -- as you now well know -- and that the only document in question is the interim report? It sounds pretty simple to me. Am I missing some complication that could otherwise explain your reticence?
As I said, I've been clear about which document I mean. If you would just do likewise we could get started.
"I am talking about a document that purports to be the draft report on the already
completed synod proceedings"
I got that. I'm not remotely confused.
(‘Cept I'm wondering now why you'd try to call that a draft if they'd already voted and the synod was ‘completed’. Are you seriously trying to argue the synod was complete before they voted?)
"I got that. I'm not remotely confused."
Ok, so you know which one I'm talking about.
Your turn now.
I think I got it figured. You're gonna try to say there were only two documents. That the final product was the same thing as the draft they put to the vote.
Ingenious.
Actually, you were probably gonna try to not say that, you were gonna hold that back for a ‘gotcha’ when you needed to further obscure the fact that you will neither agree nor disagree about the influence the Pope had on the first draft proposal.
No, you got it right first time.
And unfortunately, no, you don't got it figured. There were only two documents. There was the interim Relatio which was not voted upon. Then there was the final one, which was voted upon and published along with a record of the bishops' votes. That's it. Just two.
You, on the other hand, refer to "the first one, not the middle one, not the final product." Unless my powers of counting have severely diminished throughout the night, that's three.
It is quite reasonable for me to ask you to point out this -- as I would have it -- non-existent third document (or "first one", as you would have it).
"Then there was the final one, which was voted upon and published along with a record of
the bishops' votes."
Yeah, I'm going with the notion that adding tallies of ‘the bishops' votes’ alters the document. That makes for the third version, the one with the votes tallied.
And, no, I'm not confused. I just don't buy your definition. (Which, no doubt, you were intending to keep as a surprise for later.)
"…with the bishops insisting on their groups' observations being published along
with the relatio."
Petes @ Wed Oct 22, 10:46:00 pm
Not the usual ‘final document’ is it?
"I just don't buy your definition. (Which, no doubt, you were intending to keep as a surprise for later.)"
Doesn't compute. If you know what my definition is, I cannot have been keeping it for later.
"Not the usual ‘final document’ is it?"
I get neither your meaning or your point. Perhaps you are suggesting that by publishing the bishops' observations it makes the final document "different". However, they were not published as part of the final document. Only two documents were published. Here is an MSM report that mentions both documents. Do you have another source that mentioned three documents?
Here is the published version of the interim document. As you can see it is entitled "Relatio post disceptationem -- report after the discussion.
In response to my reference to the interim report, you referred to: "the first one, not the middle one, not the final product." I'm still waiting for you to say which one that is.
And just to help you find that last reference should you require it, it's at Thu Oct 23, 12:14:00 am above.
"…it is entitled "Relatio post disceptationem -- report after the discussion."
And another ‘it’ calls itself The Democratic Republic of Korea. But in spite of what the North Koreans assert, it's not a democracy. The bishops had themselves quite a set of discussions after the draft proposal was introduced to them. I believe you've called it a ‘vigorous backlash’.
"Doesn't compute. If you know what my definition is, I cannot have been keeping it for
later."
The utter failure of your logical processes here is nothing short of breathtaking.
"I'm still waiting for you to say which one that is."
Which one which is?
"The bishops had themselves quite a set of discussions after the draft proposal was introduced to them. I believe you've called it a ‘vigorous backlash’."
That's correct. So you are now saying that the document that I referred to as the "interim account" is the self-same one that you are referring to as the "draft proposal". And your confusion at Thu Oct 23, 12:14:00 am above where you declared that not to be the case is now resolved?
"And your confusion at Thu Oct 23, 12:14:00 am above where you declared that not to be the case is
now resolved?"
I'm saying there was no confusion to resolve.
Good. And where you said (in the same comment) " I suspect you are now talking about some different document", you no longer suspect that?
What I suspect is that you wish to have an argument about how many documents there were. Let's dispense with that.
1. draft proposal (much discussion ensues--‘vigorous backlash’ etc.)
2. interim document (to be voted on after said much discussion and vigorous backlash)
3. Final document (interim document with vote tallies for each individual paragraph voted on)
"… g) the bishops convene in ten smaller discussion groups called Circuli
Minori to discuss and amend the Relatio [draft proposal--first document], h) a
second draft of the Relatio is issued [second document] and voted on, i) the final
report [third document] is published…"
Petes @ Thu Oct 23, 12:44:00 am
Have fun with that. I think I may go to bed. It somehow got way past my bedtime. But, I'll be back to see what ya got.
No, don't be ridiculous. If you Google "interim synod report" you will find multiple MSM articles referring to the same document which others call the "draft proposal". If you look at the Wikipedia article's section on the Report of the Synod it says there were two reports, an interim and a final one and that "[a]fter the interim report was published, it was discussed in ten small groups of bishops who were organized by language. After 'all the concerns expressed by the small groups [had] been taken in consideration,' a final document was produced."
I had some sympathy for your confusion before you spent six hours denying that it existed. I'm certainly not entertaining your notion that there were three documents just to save face on your part now, when we will then be forced to enter into a ridiculously confused discussion of evidence from MSM and church reports, none of which remotely entertain your chronology.
Tell you what: find me any two media reports that refer to the second document you are alleging above and I will concur. Here are two that refer to the "interim report", clearly talking about your first one. (1, 2).
Better still, since we both know that if Pope Francis himself told you that there was no separate "draft proposal" and "interim report" you would disagree with him, how about this:
I'm going to refer to the "draft proposal" and the "interim report" interchangeably, since both are referred to by the media and both refer to the same document. I'll be using links to media reports to back up my arguments. You can refer to the "interim report" any way you want, as long as you say specifically what you're talking about each time. Alternatively, you can provide supporting references, but since there are aren't any, you might have difficulty with that.
That ok?
"Tell you what: find me any two media reports that refer to the second
document you are alleging above and I will concur."
No you won't; I know better than that. You will continue to try to argue that having two documents defined as ‘reports’ now means they only produced two ‘documents’, just as you've used your Wiki example just above. (This in spite of your earlier characterization @Thu Oct 23, 12:44:00 am)
So, is that all ya got then? Some sleight-of-hand with your definitions and some babble to distract the marks? (Street magicians call it ‘patter’.)
"I'm going to refer to the "draft proposal" and the "interim report" interchangeably…"
So what are you gonna call the second one, the one they voted on?
"So what are you gonna call the second one, the one they voted on?"
I'm going to call that the final report, in agreement with every single one of the media reports on the matter, both secular and Church. For instance, the official Vatican news service says that the synod: "concluded with a final synodal report (Relatio Synodi), the different points of which were subject to a vote by the Synod Fathers". The NCRegister says: "In an electronic vote this afternoon, the synod fathers approved the final report".
Unless, of course, you can find me any two media reports that say otherwise. Then I'll call it whatever you want.
"I'm going to call that the final report, in agreement with every single one of the
media reports on the matter, both secular and Church."
That's not true either. For instance, this one calls it a ‘midterm’ report.
Whadda ya propose to the final document?
"With unprecedented transparency, the Pope called for the Synod's [final]
report to be openly distributed. It includes a full list and the votes on the proposals
being considered.
The document is the edited and approved version of the [final] report…"
RomeReports.Com
(I changed the quote to use your ‘final report’ terminology. Figured
that'd keep your attempts at some more sleight-of-hand to a minimum.)
So, what do you propose to call that third document, the ‘edited and approved version’ which also contains the vote tallies?
Correction: "Whadda ya propose to call the final document?"
[Me]: "I'm going to call that the final report, in agreement with every single one of the media reports on the matter, both secular and Church."
[Lee]: "That's not true either. For instance, this one calls it a ‘midterm’ report."
Are you really talking about that one with the large headline saying: "Final Synod Report on the Family is Released by the Vatican"?
[Lee]: "Whadda ya propose to call the final document?"
Mmmm... how about "the final document"?
Wanna talk instead ‘bout all the others, many of them Catholic oriented sites, that also use the phrase midterm report
(I just googled that up and ‘Oh my, bunches and bunches’. Personally, it looked to me like the RomeReports site was using ‘midterm reports’ for the version voted on by the bishops, and the term ‘Final Report’ for the ‘edited and approve’ version complete with the added vote tallies.)
[Lee]: "So, what do you propose to call that third document, the ‘edited and approved version’ which also contains the vote tallies?"
I'm going to call that the final document too. Keep Googling, I'm sure there must be some rogue page on the Internet that supports your case.
Final document works for me.
1. draft proposal
2. final report
3. Final Document
Three documents.
"I'm going to call that the final document too."
So you're gonna declare the ‘final report’ to be identical to the ‘final document’? Do I got that right?
[Lee]: "Wanna talk instead ‘bout all the others, many of them Catholic oriented sites, that also use the phrase midterm report"
Yeah, no problem -- "also" being an important word, since as you already know the words "midterm report" are used of both the interim and final documents. I'm sure you're able to figure out why, too.
"…are used of both the interim and final documents"
I don't think anybody can figure that one out.
[Lee]:
Final document works for me.
1. draft proposal
2. final report
3. Final Document
Three documents.
Works for me too.
"So you're gonna declare the ‘final report’ to be identical to the ‘final document’? Do I got that right?"
Not if it makes you happier that I don't. I'll probably slip up, only because I see no point in making the distinction -- they're the same text -- but feel free to correct me. To reiterate: "Final" as applied to the report voted on, and the document published are fine by me.
"Draft proposal" is fine too. You may find me calling that the interim report whenever my sources do likewise.
[Lee]: "I don't think anybody can figure that one out [ -- referring to the use of 'midterm' for both the draft proposal and final report]."
Well, if you can't figure it out, will you at least accept that it happens: this one saying "the mid-term report ... will now be examined in by the bishops... in the ‘minor circles’ or small working groups" (i.e. the draft proposal), whereas this one (which you linked yourself) says: "the edited and approved version of the midterm report" (i.e. the final document).
They are "mid term" because they are the document (in draft and final form, respectively) to be studied in the term between the first (2014) and second (2015) sittings of the synod.
"I'll probably slip up, only because I see no point in making the distinction -- they're
the same text"
I can't agree that the ‘edited and approved’ version is the ‘same text’ as the unedited version. (I place much less importance on the thought that it's been ‘approved’ or not.) I also think the inclusion of the vote tallies constitutes the addition of new information. This would show which paragraphs ‘passed’ and which did not, and, perhaps more importantly, the degree of consensus among those bishops voting.
I cannot accept your definition of two documents so easily distinguishable in their contents are identical.
1. draft proposal (not voted on)
2. final report (or interim report, or midterm report as you please--this one voted on.)
3. Final Document
Three documents; not two.
So, now that we've officially disagreed on that…
We can get finally back to the part where you refused to agree, but likewise would not be seen to disagree with my opinion about how much chops the Pope has and put into that ‘draft proposal’.
I'm willing to leave you right there. I've had enough of your word games for the night.
So, we seem to have come to some agreement about which documents were published?
Correction: "I cannot accept your definition of two documents so easily distinguishable in their contents as identical."
"…some agreement about which documents were published?"
Now you want to generate a new argument over which documents were ‘published’? Get real. I'm not gonna fall for that.
Oh, my bad. Apparently we don't agree any more. Even though I was perfectly fine with your post of Thu Oct 23, 05:52:00 am
Now you've changed your terminology again:
1. draft proposal (not voted on)
2. final report (or interim report, or midterm report as you please--this one voted on.)
3. Final Document
No. We cannot use the words "interim report" except as synonymous with the "draft proposal" since that is what all the media articles do. It is pointless and confusing to adopt a terminology completely at odds with all the articles.
Also, as I explained "midterm" report refers to either the draft or final document -- they are both midterm. The draft midterm document, and the final midterm document. The term "midterm" refers to the term between the 2014 and 2015 sittings of the synod.
"I can't agree that the ‘edited and approved’ version is the ‘same text’ as the unedited version. (I place much less importance on the thought that it's been ‘approved’ or not.) I also think the inclusion of the vote tallies constitutes the addition of new information. This would show which paragraphs ‘passed’ and which did not, and, perhaps more importantly, the degree of consensus among those bishops voting."
No problem with me. I don't expect the distinction to be relevant in any further discussion. If it is, I'll call it anything you like.
"Three documents; not two."
But only two published. Can we agree on that?
"Now you want to generate a new argument over which documents were ‘published’? Get real. I'm not gonna fall for that."
You don't think each of the small groups produced their own edited versions? Why aren't you including those?
I declare that distinction, ‘publication’, to be irrelevant and I further declare that agreement on such irrelevancy is pointless. You may present your case to the contrary. Knock yourself out. Floor's yours.
"…small groups produced their own edited versions. Why aren't you including those?"
Also irrelevant.
"No. We cannot use the words ‘interim report’ except as synonymous with the ‘draft proposal’."
Not a problem.
1. draft proposal (not voted on)
2. final report (or midterm report as you please--this one voted on.)
3. Final Document
Three documents.
[Lee]: "I declare that distinction, ‘publication’, to be irrelevant"
Good for you.
Ok, where do you want to go from here?
Do you mind dropping the misleading and irrelevant term "midterm report". It is not irrelevant to me what was and wasn't published, since some of my argument about the Pope's involvement will hinge on that. Other than that I agree. My notes in square brackets:
1. draft proposal (not voted on) [also called interim report; published]
2. final report (xxxxx or midterm report as you please xxxxx --this one voted on.) [not published]
3. Final Document [published]
We go here:
"Can we agree that he executed his plan for the meeting (i.e. the intro-
duction of that draft proposal and specifically of its clauses on homosexual
relations and divorce, in substantially the form in which they appeared)?"
Lee C. @ Wed Oct 22, 11:32:00 pm
"No. We can't agree that. Which is not to say that you are wrong."
Petes @ Wed Oct 22, 11:37:00 pm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Do you mind dropping the misleading and irrelevant term ‘midterm report‘."
You still have a chance to concede the point, i.e. there was indeed a second document, and indeed even a third (although you seem still bent on blurring that one out somehow, eventually.)
"[also called interim report…"
Not here.
Fine by me. Just to re-establish a point that may have gone by the wayside ... we are agreed that the "draft proposal" is (in principle) intended to be a summary of the synod up to and including the bishops' interventions? That is the purpose of the Relatio in the normal course of events.
___________________
Don't know which point you are offering me a chance to concede? If it is to do with "midterm report", I've addressed this twice already.
That post was in reply to yours of Thu Oct 23, 07:03:00 am. As for your comment about the "interim report", you will have hopefully noticed that I am calling it "draft proposal" now. However, I will be calling it "interim report" when I am quoting an article that refers to it as such, and there are many. I presume you are not going to ask me to change article quotations to suit your preferred terminology?
These interleaved comments are getting confusing. So here we go again:
1. draft proposal (not voted on) [also interchangeably referred to as "interim report" in media articles; published]
2. final report (this one voted on.) [not published]
3. Final Document [published]
The term "midterm report" is also used, mostly to refer to the fact that the report will be studied "midterm" between the 2014 and 2015 synods. Thus, item 1 above may be referred to as the "draft or interim midterm report" and item 3 as the "final midterm report".
"[W]e are agreed that the "draft proposal" is (in principle) intended to be a summary of the
synod up to and including the bishops' interventions?"
Odd. I'm specifically remember that I alleged that the Pope had a plan and he executed on said plan, (i.e. he arranged for the introduction of that draft proposal and specifically of its clauses on homosexual relations and divorce, in substantially the form in which they appeared). The odd part is that you would now allege that we'd agreed on something different.
Ah yes, here it is:
"Those of us not ‘Irish Catholics’ (so understood) are free to suspect that the Pope
knew what he was going to ask the lesser chiefs to ‘consider’; i.e. he had a
proposal in mind and he had the chops within the Catholic bureaucracy to get that proposal
on the agenda."
Lee C. @ Wed Oct 22, 04:33:00 pm
Ok, my mistake. I will rephrase.
1. Do you agree or disagree that in the normal course of synod proceedings, the Relatio post disceptationem is (in principle) intended to be a summary of the synod up to and including the bishops' interventions?"
(You may not know enough to either agree or disagree -- I am asking because I want to check if I need to provide evidence that this is, in fact, the case).
2. Is the document you are referring to as the "draft proposal" the one published here, entitled Relatio post disceptationem?
"1. Do you agree or disagree that in the normal course of synod proceedings…"
I declare that agreement about the ‘normal course’ of a synod is irrelevant. This was not a normal course event. You, yourself, called it a ‘radical…rewrite [of] fundamental Catholic doctrine."
"2. Is the document you are referring to as the ‘draft proposal’ the one published
here, entitled Relatio post disceptationem?"
Ah, Bruno's old trick. Try to send them off to study something to burn up their time and energy. But, I know that trick. What's your point? Maybe it's worth my time; probably not.
"I declare that agreement about the ‘normal course’ of a synod is irrelevant."
Your declaration doesn't get us anywhere. If you hope to further the discussion, you'll have to accept that you're not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't relevant. In this case you'll have to take my word that it will be shown to be relevant as the discussion progresses. Failing that, we cannot progress.
"Try to send them off to study something to burn up their time and energy."
I didn't ask you to study it. I merely asked you to identify it. You stated that: "he arranged for the introduction of that draft proposal and specifically of its clauses on homosexual relations and divorce, in substantially the form in which they appeared". I presume you're able to identify the document you're talking about? If you have another copy of the one you're talking about, point me at it and I'll do the identification. I am not placing an unreasonable burden on you.
"If you hope to further the discussion…"
You appear to still be searching for something to discuss. I've already got a subject on the table and I'm still willing to let you pick a side:
"Can we agree that he executed his plan for the meeting (i.e. the intro-
duction of that draft proposal and specifically of its clauses on homosexual
relations and divorce, in substantially the form in which they appeared)?"
Lee C. @ Wed Oct 22, 11:32:00 pm
"No. We can't agree that. Which is not to say that you are wrong."
Petes @ Wed Oct 22, 11:37:00 pm
"the introduction of that draft proposal"
Which one?
Are you actually gonna try to go with the argument that the term ‘draft proposal’ has not been sufficiently identified and agreed to? You really wanna do that, or you just bein’ pissy now?
"Are you actually gonna try to go with the argument that the term ‘draft proposal’ has not been sufficiently identified and agreed to? You really wanna do that, or you just bein’ pissy now?"
Given that you spent over eight hours getting to the point of agreeing which documents were produced, having initially laboured under the misapprehension that were separate "draft proposal" and "interim report" documents, are you seriously suggesting that it's now too much trouble to read the one-sentence title of a document I linked you to, to confirm it's the right one? Are you serious? As I said, if you think identifying it is to onerous a burden, give me a link to your document, and I'll do the identifying.
And, just by the way…
"In this case you'll have to take my word that it will be shown to be relevant as the
discussion progresses."
That's absurd; I don't have to do any such thing. Just make your point, demonstrate its relevance as you go along. Nobody's stopping you. I've been urging you on for it. Floor's yours; go for it.
"Just make your point, demonstrate its relevance as you go along. Nobody's stopping you."
I accept that point. Now could we just agree what document we are talking about before I start quoting from it?
"Given that you…initially laboured under the misapprehension that were separate ‘draft proposal’
and ‘interim report’ documents…"
I had no such misapprehension as you call it. I simply didn't agree with your definitions, specifically, that there were only two documents (now amended to two ‘reports’, probably soon to be cluttered by whether or not they meet your definition of ‘published’, whatever that is.)
"Now could we just agree what document we are talking about before I start quoting from it?"
An agreement will not change the document. You keep chasing irrelevancies.
We seem to have lost Petes for the time being, however long a time that is. I guess I'll get some sleep then. Be back later.
[Me]: " you spent over eight hours getting to the point of agreeing which documents were produced, having initially laboured under the misapprehension that were separate "draft proposal" and "interim report" documents"
[Lee C]: "I had no such misapprehension as you call it. I simply didn't agree with your definitions, specifically, that there were only two documents"
[Lee C, Thu Oct 23, 12:14:00 am]: "I distinctly recall it being damn near universally called a ‘draft proposal’. I suspect you are now talking about some different document. I do know there was an interim document (by which time the offending clauses had been much watered down) and that some of that didn't pass either. What passed gets to be considered the ‘final document’. I'm talkin’ ‘bout the first one, not the middle one, not the final product."
In the light of the above, you're maintaining you didn't think the draft proposal and interim documents were two different documents? You honestly think that's credible?
Quite credible, and it has the additional advantage of being true. I figured you must have been referring to what you now call the ‘final report’ when you used the term ‘interim document’ mostly on account of you were trying to say it came after the discussion, and we both knew that the most heated discussions, the ‘vigorous backlash’, came after the draft proposal was presented to the bishops, not before
That doesn't get you off the hook. You must, then, have supposed that your "draft document" was produced before any discussion took place. Therefore you suppose that the Pope handed it down as a directive.
And you want me to believe that even though you completely misunderstood the context of the interim report, this has no bearing on the validity of your decision to "suspect that the Pope knew what he was going to ask the lesser chiefs to ‘consider’; i.e. he had a proposal in mind and he had the chops within the Catholic bureaucracy to get that proposal on the agenda".
Well, I have to concede, you'd surprise me if it wasn't for past form.
Oh! It's...it's...like walking into a dorm room after an all night "kegger".
I haven't read through the comments yet, hopefully they haven't broken anything.
:)
Hmmm...on this computer the colors look more orangey yellow. And the cool pattern is gone. Hmmm...
"You must, then, have supposed that your ‘draft document∴ was produced before any discussion
took place."
Not before ‘any discussion’ I had no reason to think the bishops walked into it totally blind. But the major blowback came after they saw the draft proposal for the first time, and you were further confusing the issue with your repeated (and erroneous) assertions that there were only two documents. If you only recognized two, then you had to figure the draft proposal to be one of them and the one they voted on to be the other, and you kept bringing up the ‘interim document’. Seemed reasonable that it must have been the one you thought they voted on ‘cause they sure never voted on the draft proposal
This is what happens to you when you try to set up a jargon maze on the fly. You risk walking into one of your own dead ends.
"Seemed reasonable that it must have been the one you thought they voted on ‘cause they sure
never voted on the draft proposal"
In fact, I suspect that's exactly what you first thought, but you've since come to your senses after a fashion, and that's the reason for you trying to slip in the new argument about which of the three documents (there were indeed three, not two) were ‘published’.
"Not before ‘any discussion’ I had no reason to think the bishops walked into it totally blind."
You have no reason to think they didn't either. Do you have any actual information about what they knew?
"But the major blowback came after they saw the draft proposal for the first time"
Why was there blowback? He's the Pope, right? He can tell them what's what.
"...and you were further confusing the issue with your repeated (and erroneous) assertions that there were only two documents"
Wasn't erroneous. It's a fact. Tell you what, I fancy I've been reading Vatican documents slightly longer than you have. Ain't never yet come across one that didn't have a title. The interim document, now known to you as the "draft proposal" is entitled Relatio post disceptationem. The final document is entitled Relatio Synodi. What's your third one called? Got a link?
I notice that Rich Lowry (Republican Party Operative) is arguing in favor of their push for more restrictive voting laws...
While trying to minimize voter fraud is certainly important I have never thought a picture ID to be necessary at the time of voting. Here we simply sign in next to our place of residence listed in the voting register when we vote, eliminating the possibility of voting twice. Large scale voter fraud in that process seems highly unlikely.
What is more important, one would think, is having enough polling places available for the higher population areas to allow everyone an opportunity to vote.
I also question allowing early voting. That would seem to lend itself to mistakes or fraud.
During the registration process requiring proper identification would seem to eliminate the need later on.
ff you have an hour to spare, I'd like to share this (and I can really recommend it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMa3w8L92Xs
It's about a basically forgotten war but one that was of real importance at that stage (It also explains why some Scandinavian officers ended up fighting for Hitler later on).
"You have no reason to think they didn't either."
Of course I did. Simple human nature. They're Chief High Muck-a-mucks. They'd resent being summoned to consider God only knows what. Resentment would decrease their inclination to be cooperative with the Highest Chief Muck-a-muck. After a couple thousand years even a hide-bound system like the Catholic Church would have corrected a system that pissed off Chief High Muck-a-mucks just before they were supposed to do something important for da boss.
"Why was there blowback?"
One would have to presume some of them shared your theological bent. And apparently him being Pope didn't impress them enough.
"Ain't never yet come across one that didn't have a title."
You ever been invited to work an official closed confab among the chiefs? They ever invite you to examine their confab documents with them?
"While trying to minimize voter fraud is certainly important…"
It certainly sounds important. I believe there's been a grand total of less than twenty cases of in person voter fraud discovered all around the country in the last ten years. (It's not worth the effort. Real voter fraud always comes down to stuffing ballot boxes or hiding ballot boxes.)
Post Script: ‘in person voter fraud’ means somebody voting as somebody else, either using someone else's name and registration or making fictitious registrations to vote as multiple, fictitious people. It is, quite simply, too inefficient to be worth the risk. If they're gonna wanna rig an election they're gonna wanna get more than one vote at a time with separate risk of discovery attached to each and every vote.
"Petes said...
***
Other than that I agree. My notes in square brackets:
1. draft proposal (not voted on) [also called interim report; published]
2. final report (xxxxx or midterm report as you please xxxxx --this one voted on.)
[not published]
3. Final Document [published]"
Petes @ Thu Oct 23, 06:52:00 am
1. draft proposal (not voted on) [also called interim report; published]
2. final report [...not published]
3. Final Document [published]"
Yep, still no problem. If it suits you to have published and unpublished version of "final" in order to save face, so be it.
"If it suits you to have published and unpublished version of "final" in order to
save face, so be it."
It was your choice to call #2 the ‘final report’ and #3 the ‘final document’. I hardly think you can sell the proposition that you made that choice in order for me to supposedly ‘save face’.
(I can point out where you made that choice should you need it pointed out.)
Post a Comment