text:
1 Thessalonians iv. 9, 10.-"But concerning love of the brethren we have no need to write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another; for indeed ye do it toward all the brethren, and those which are in all Macedonia."
Why then having discoursed with them earnestly concerning chastity, and being about to discourse about the duty of working, and about the not sorrowing for the departed, does he introduce that which was the principal of all good things, love, as if he were passing it over, saying, "We have no need to write to you"? This also is from his great wisdom, and belongs to spiritual instruction. For here he shows two things. First, that the thing is so necessary, as not to require instruction. For things that are very important are manifest to all. And secondly, by saying this he makes them more ashamed than if he had admonished them. For he who thinks that they have behaved aright, and therefore does not admonish them, even if they had not behaved aright, would the sooner lead them to it. And observe, he does not speak of love towards all, but of that towards the brethren. "We have no need to write unto you." He ought then to have been silent, and to say nothing, if there was no need. But now by saying there is no need, he has done a greater thing, than if he had said it.
"For ye yourselves are taught of God." And see with how high a praise he has made God their Teacher in this matter. Ye need not, he says, to learn from man. Which also the prophet says, "and they shall all be taught of God." (Isa. liv. 13) "For ye yourselves," he says, "are taught of God to love one another. For indeed ye do it toward all the brethren, and those which are in all Macedonia"; and toward all the others, he means. These words are very encouraging to make them do so. And I do not merely say, that ye are taught of God, but I know it from the things which you do. And in this respect he bore many testimonies to them.
"But we exhort you, brethren, that ye abound more and more, and study;" that is, increase and study.
Ver. 11, 12. "To be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your hands, even as we charged you: that ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and may have need of nothing."
He shows of how many evils idleness is the cause, and of how many benefits industry. And this he makes manifest from things which happen among us, as he often does, and that wisely. For by these things the majority are led on more than by spiritual things. For it is a mark of love to our neighbors not to receive from them, but to impart to them. And observe. Being about to exhort and admonish, he places in the middle their good conduct, both that they may recover even from the preceding admonition, and from the threat, when he said, "He therefore that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God," and that they may not be restive at this. And this is the effect of working, that one does not receive of others, nor live idly, but by working imparts to others. For it is said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." (Acts xx. 35) "And to work," he says, "with your hands." Where are those, who look out for work that is spiritual? Seest thou how he takes from them every excuse, saying, "with your hands"? But does one practice fasting with his hands? or watchings all night? or lyings on the ground? This no one can say. But he is speaking of spiritual work. For it is truly spiritual, that one should by working impart to others, and there is nothing equal to this. "That ye may walk," he says, "becomingly." Seest thou whence he touches them? He has not said, that ye may not be shamed by begging. But he has indeed insinuated the same, yet he puts it in a milder way, so as both to strike and not to do this severely. For if those who are among us are offended at these things, much more those who are without, finding numberless accusations and handles, when they see a man who is in good health and able to support himself, begging and asking help of others. Wherefore also they call us Christ-mongers. On this account, he means, "the name of God is blasphemed." (Rom. ii. 24) But none of these things has he stated; but that which was able to touch them most nearly, the disgracefulness of the thing.
Ver. 13. "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that are asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, which have no hope."
These two things, poverty and despondency, distressed them most, which also pertain to all men. See therefore how he remedies them. But their poverty arose from their goods being taken from them. But if he commands those, whose goods had been taken from them for Christ's sake, to support themselves by working, much more then others. For that they were taken away is manifest from his saying, Ye became partakers with the churches of God. How partakers with them? "And ye took joyfully the spoiling of your possessions." (Heb. x. 34)
Here he proceeds now to start his discourse concerning the Resurrection. And why? Had he not discoursed with them upon that point? Yes, but here he glances at some further mystery. What then is this? "That we that are alive," he says, "that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in nowise precede them that are fallen asleep." The discourse then of the Resurrection was sufficient to comfort him that was grieving. But that which is now said is sufficient also to make the Resurrection eminently worthy of credit. But first let us speak of what precedes, "But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that are asleep; that ye sorrow not, even as the rest, which have no hope." See how here also he treats them mildly. He does not say, "Are ye so without understanding?" as he said to the Corinthians, "foolish"? that, knowing there is a resurrection, ye so sorrow, as those who do not believe; but he speaks very mildly, showing respect to their other virtues. And he has not said "concerning the dead," but "them that are asleep," even at the beginning suggesting consolation to them. "That ye sorrow not," he says, "even as the rest, which have no hope." Therefore to afflict yourselves for the departed is to act like those who have no hope. And they justly. For a soul that knows nothing of the Resurrection, but thinks that this death is death, naturally afflicts itself, and bewails and mourns intolerably as for lost ones. But thou, who expectest a resurrection, on what account dost thou lament? To lament then is the part of those who have no hope.
Hear this, ye women, as many of you as are fond of wailing, as many as at times of mourning take the sorrow impatiently, that ye act the part of heathens. But if to grieve for the departed is the part of heathens, then tell me whose part it is to beat one's self, and tear the cheeks? On what account do you lament, if you believe that he will rise again, that he has not perished, that the matter is but a slumber and a sleep? You say, On account of his society, his protection, his care of our affairs, and all his other services. When therefore you lose a child at an untimely age, who is not yet able to do anything, on what account do you lament? Why do you seek to recall him? He was displaying, you say, good hopes, and I was expecting that he would be my supporter. On this account I miss my husband, on this account my son, on this account I wail and lament, not disbelieving the Resurrection, but being left destitute of support, and having lost my protector, my companion, who shared with me in all things-my comforter. On this account I mourn. I know that he will rise again, but I cannot bear the intermediate separation.A multitude of troubles rushes in upon me. I am exposed to all who are willing to injure me. Those of my servants who formerly feared me now despise me, and trample upon me. If any one has been benefited, he has forgotten the benefit he received from him; if any one was ill-treated by the departed, to return the grudge against him, he lets loose his anger upon me. These things do not suffer me to bear my widowhood. It is for these things that I afflict myself, for these things I bewail.
How then shall we comfort such? What shall we say? flow shall we banish their sorrow? In the first place I shall endeavor to convict them, that their wailing proceeds not from these things they say, but from an unreasonable passion. For if you mourn for these things, you ought always to mourn the departed. But if when a year has passed away, you forget him as if he had never been, you do not bewail the departed nor his protection. But you cannot endure the separation, nor the breaking off of your society? And what can they say, who even enter into second marriages? Sure enough! It is the former husbands that they long for. But let us not direct our discourse to them, but to those who preserve a kind affection towards the departed. Wherefore dost thou lament thy child? Wherefore thine husband? The former, because I had not enjoyed him, you say; the latter, because I expected that I should have enjoyed him longer. And this very thing, what want of faith does it argue, to suppose that thy husband or thy son constitutes thy safety, and not God! How dost thou not think to provoke Him? For often on this account He takes them away, that thou mayest not be so bound to them, so that it may withdraw thy hopes from them. For God is jealous, and wills to be loved by us most of all things: and that, because He loves us exceedingly. For ye know that this is the custom of those who love to distraction. They are excessively jealous, and would choose rather to throw away their life, than to be surpassed in esteem by any of their rival lovers. On this account also God hath taken him because of these words.
For, tell me, on what account were there not in old times widowhoods, and untimely orphanhoods? Wherefore did He permit Abraham and Isaac to live a long time? Because even when he was living he preferred God before him. He said indeed, slay; and he slew him. Why did he bring Sarah to so great an age? Because, even whilst she was living, he listened to God rather than to her. For this reason God said to him, "Hear Sarah thy wife." (From Gen. xxi. 12) No one then either from love to husband or wife, or on account of the protection of a child, provoked God to anger. But now because we are declining downwards, and have exceedingly fallen off, we men love our wives more than God, and we women honor our husbands more than God. It is on this account that He draws us even against our will to the love of Himself. Love not thy husband more than God, and thou shalt not ever experience widowhood. Or rather, even if it should happen, thou shalt not have the feeling of it. Why? Because thou hast an immortal Protector who loves thee better. If thou lovest God more, mourn not: for He who is more beloved is immortal, and does not suffer thee to feel the loss of him who is less beloved. This I will make manifest to thee by an example. Tell me, if thou hast a husband, complying with thee in all things, one that is respected, and that makes thee honorable everywhere, and not to be despised, one respected amongst all, intelligent and wise, and loving thee, thou being esteemed happy on his account, and in conjunction with him shouldest thou also bring forth a child, and then before it has arrived at the age of maturity, that child should depart; wilt thou then feel the affliction? By no means. For he that is more beloved makes it disappear. And now if thou love God more than thy husband, assuredly He will not soon take him away. But even if He should take him, thou wilt not be sensible of the affliction. For this reason the blessed Job felt no severe suffering, when he heard of the death of his children all at once, because he loved God more than them. And whilst He whom he loved was living, those things would not be able to afflict him.
What sayest thou, O woman? Thy husband or thy son was thy protector? But does not thy God spare thee? Who gave thee thy very husband? Was it not He? And who made thee? Was it not He? He surely who brought thee out of nothing into being, and breathed into thee a soul, and put in thee a mind, and vouchsafed to favor thee with the knowledge of Himself, and for thy sake spared not His only-begotten Son, does not He spare thee? And does thy fellow-servant spare thee? What wrath is due to these words! What of this kind hast thou had from thy husband? Thou canst not say anything. For if he has even done thee any kindness, it was after he had received kindness, you having previously begun. But in the case of God no one can say any such thing. For it is not as having received any favors from us that God benefits us, but being incapable of want, from His goodness alone He does good to mankind. He has promised thee a kingdom, He has given immortal life, glory, brotherhood, adoption. He has made thee fellow-heir with His Only-Begotten. And dost thou after so great benefits remember thy husband? What has he bestowed of this kind? He has made His sun to shine, He has given rain, He sustains thee with yearly nourishment. Woe to us for our great ingratitude!
For this reason He takes thy husband, that thou mayest not seek him. But dost thou still cling to him though departed, and forsakest God, when it was thy duty to give thanks, to cast it all upon Him? For what is it that thou hast received from thy husband? The pains of childbirth, and labors, and insults and reproaches often, and chidings, and bursts of anger. Are not these the things that come from husbands? But there are, you say, other things too that are good. Of what sort then are these? Did he set off thy beauty with costly garments? Did he put gold ornaments about thy face? Did he make thee respected by all? But if thou wilt, thou shalt adorn thyself with a much better ornament than the departed. For gravity makes its possessor much more admirable than golden ornaments. This King also has garments, not of this sort, but much better. With those, if thou wilt, invest thyself. Of what sort then are they? There is a clothing which has fringes of gold; if thou wilt, array the soul. But did he make thee not to be despised by men? And what is there great in that? Thy widowhood suffers thee not to be despised by the demons. Then thou ruledst over thy servants, if at least thou didst at all rule over them. But now, instead of thy servants, thou hast mastery over unbodied powers, principalities, authorities, the ruler of this world. And thou dost not mention the troubles, in which thou sharedst with him, sometimes the fear of magistrates, sometimes the preference given to neighbors. From all these things thou art now delivered, from dread and fear. But art thou solicitous who will support the children that are left thee? The "Father of the fatherless." For tell me, who gave them? Dost thou not hear Christ in the Gospels saying, "Is not the life more than the food, and the body than the raiment?" (Matt. vi. 25)
Seest thou, that thy lamentation is not from loss of his society, but from want of faith. But the children of a father that is dead are not equally illustrious. Wherefore? They have God for their Father, and are they not illustrious? How many can I show you brought up by widows, who have become famous, how many who have been under their fathers, and have been undone! For if thou bringest them up from their first youth, as they ought to be brought up, they will enjoy an advantage much greater than a father's protection. For that it is the business of widows-I speak of the bringing up of children-hear Paul saying, "If she hath brought up children" (1 Tim. v. 10) and again, "She shall be saved through the child-bearing," (he has not said through her husband,)if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety." (1 Tim. ii. 15) Instill into them the fear of God from their first youth, and He will protect them better than any father; this will be a wall not to be broken. For when there is a guard seated within, we have no need of contrivances without: but where he is not, all our outward contrivances are vain
This will be to them wealth and glory too and ornament. This will make them illustrious, not upon earth, but even in heaven. For do not look to those who are begirt with the golden girdles, nor those who are borne on horses, nor those who shine in kings' palaces on account of their fathers, nor those who have footmen and tutors. For these things perhaps cause widows to bewail over their orphans, thinking that this my son also, if his father at least were living, would have enjoyed so much happiness; but now he is in a state of depression and dishonor, and worthy of no consideration. Think not of these things, O woman, but open to thee in thought the gates of heaven, consider the palace there, behold the King who is there seated. Consider if those who are upon the earth can be more illustrious than thy son there-and then groan. But if some are of good repute on earth, this is not worth any consideration. It is, allowed him, if thou wilt, to be a soldier in heaven, to enlist him in the ranks of that army. For those who are enlisted there are not borne on horses, but in the clouds. They walk not upon earth, but are caught up into heaven. They have not slaves to go before them, but the Angels themselves. They stand not in the presence of a mortal king, but of Him who is immortal, the King of kings and Lord of lords. They have not a leathern girdle about their loins, but that glory which is unspeakable, and they are more splendid than kings, or whoever have been most illustrious. For in those royal courts not wealth is required, nor noble birth, nothing else than virtue alone; and where that is present, nothing is wanting to their obtaining the chief place.
Nothing is painful to us, if we are willing to cultivate wisdom. Look up to heaven, and see how much more splendid it is than the roofs of palaces. And if the pavement of the palaces above is so much more grand than those below, that the one may be considered as dirt in comparison with the other; if any one should be thought worthy to see those palaces perfectly, what blessedness will not be his!
"But she," he says, "that is a widow indeed, and desolate, hath her hope set on God." (1 Tim. v. 5) To whom is this said? To those who have no children, because they are more highly approved, and have a greater opportunity of pleasing God, because all their chains are loosened to them. There is no one to hold them fast, no one to compel them to drag their chains after them. Thou art separated from thy husband, but art united to God. Thou hast not a fellow-servant for thy associate, but thou hast thy Lord. When thou prayest, tell me, dost thou not converse with God? When thou readest, hear Him conversing with thee. And what does He say to thee? Much kinder words than thy husband. For though indeed thy husband should flatter thee, the honor is not great, for he is thy fellow-servant. But when the Lord flatters the slave, then is the courtship great. How then does He court us? Hear by what means he does it. "Come," He says, "unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matt. xi. 28) And again through the Prophet He calls, saying, "Will a woman forget to have compassion on the offspring of her womb? But even if a woman should forget, yet will I not forget thee, saith the Lord." (Isa. xlix. 15, Sept) Of how great a love are these words? And again, "Turn unto Me" (Isa. xlv. 22); and again elsewhere, "Turn unto Me, and thou shall be saved." (Isa. xlv. 22) And if one was willing to select too from the Canticles, taking them in the more mystical way, he will hear Him conversing and saying to every soul that is fitted for Him, "My fair one, my dove." (Cant. ii. 10) What is sweeter than these words? Seest thou the conversation of God with then? But what? tell me, seest thou not how many children of those blessed women are gone, and are in their tombs; how many have suffered more severely, and with their husbands have lost also their children? To these things let us attend; let us be anxious about these things, and nothing will be grievous to us, but we shall continue passing all our time in spiritual joy; and we shall enjoy the eternal blessings, of which may we all be partakers, by the grace and lovingkindness, &c.


text:
I quite enjoy putting all of these solar news stories together. Is it too cheesy that Sunday and Solar start with "s," and that they're kind of related?
Who cares about cheesy. Onto the stories!
Cree LEDs Light Up Dallas American Airlines Center Video Screens
(press release from Cree)
10 First Solar Deals in the US
(article from Earth2Tech)
Solar Energy Flexes its Muscles in Arizona
Big Solar Kills Kill-Solar Bill
(both articles from CleanTechnica)
Largest Solar Plant in Europe Set to Open in Italy
Solar Plant Charges Your Gadgets with the Sun's Rays
(both articles from Inhabitat)
Apple has Patented Solar Lights for the Laptop Screen
(article from FavStocks)
University of Minnesota's Award-Winning Solar Powered House to Be Available for Purchase
(article from UMNews)
Solar Powered Gateway for Nigerian Capital Unveiled
(article from Archinect)
Robot Builds and Tests Thin-Film Solar Panels
(article from TreeHugger)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Monday, January 29, 2007
Blair to Resign This Week?
No, I don't believe it either, but if he did resign this week and I hadn't posted it, I'd never be able to live with myself.
Thank you and good night!
47 comments:
Canny, Iain. Canny!
- January 29, 2007 12:41 am
- The Military Wing Of The BBC said...
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- January 29, 2007 12:46 am
- The Military Wing Of The BBC said...
I have a feeling, this could be right.
As Jim Callaghan said about the Major govt, following the ERM exit:
"the skies are darkening with chickens coming home to roost"
12:46 AM - January 29, 2007 12:47 am
I haven't been following the news over the past few days (it's the weekend and I have clubs to go to and time to spend inebriated. Personal responsibility is my middle name.), but Dizzy mentioned a story about a paper trail in the peerages scandal leading all the way back to Blair. Is this linked?
- January 29, 2007 1:30 am
Maybe, just maybe that explains his attitude on The Politics Show yesterday. Iain, you are close to events. Surely the BBC and others will be tipped off?
- January 29, 2007 1:39 am
Whoaaah! Blair looks bad, doesn't he?
- January 29, 2007 1:41 am
Oh,Bambi, we hardly knew ye!
- January 29, 2007 1:43 am
Iain, a few weeks ago I would have laughed at this.
But over the last few weeks just looking at the scandal filled headlines and a PM who ducked the first debate on Iraq in years, it has a ring of truth about it. In fact just seeing that interview he gave today made me think he might be going sooner than anyone thought.
You just might have given away the biggest political scoop in many a year. - January 29, 2007 2:36 am
- unothordox behaviour said...
We all know that 'The Thick Of It' points the way to future reality. So what was the shock event at the end of the Xmas Special? Yup, the shock resignation of the PM.
Tucker's Scottish side-kick
'He's resigned. He just stepped of a plane in Sunderland and...'
Julius Nicholson
'Well that wasn't the date I was given...'
Oh, and I've been tipped of by one of my most accurate sources (I'm a real hack) that No10 is in-line for a search warrant anytime soon.. - January 29, 2007 3:27 am
Under normal circumstances, Blair's departure next week, should elicit feelings not encountered since the street parties on VE day.
Why is it that news like this depresses me so much? Surely it can't have anything to do with the the dark thought, that the "Hammer of the Scots", sorry I mean "clunking great, sneak-thief, fist", is poised for the take-over.
My God! wouldn't it be nice to be Rip Van Winkle. - January 29, 2007 5:38 am
- Gavin said...
Perhaps the BBC News person was just making a light-hearted joke? But I have to say, it did cast my mind back to your New Year Predictions post, when you wrote "For how many days of 2007 will Blair be PM? - (your prediction): 31". Wondered if you were also being flippant there, Iain, or else what prompted such a remark?
- January 29, 2007 6:29 am
The vainglorious egotist that is Blair has two options to determine his 'legacy'. He can eke out a few more months in the hope that everything comes good ( and he's delusional enough to believe this could happen) or he can go immediately before things get worse. My guess is that the wicked witch will calculate that future earnings will be best served by taking the latter option. So Brown will get his move just as the economy goes tits up. Blair will show us what a wonderful Britain he has created by taking the 1st plane to the USA.
- January 29, 2007 7:55 am
I agree with the early exit. He is dead in the water, it isn't as bad as it is going get. If he is a sitting PM when the balloon goes up over peerages it will devastate his earnings power, Bliar is no Clinton, who wants to be associated with a corrupt polititian. Clinton was more popular after his scandals with the US population, dont think Bliar will be able to say the same.
- January 29, 2007 8:28 am
I agree with the early exit. He is dead in the water, it isn't as bad as it is going get. If he is a sitting PM when the balloon goes up over peerages it will devastate his earnings power, Bliar is no Clinton, who wants to be associated with a corrupt polititian. Clinton was more popular after his scandals with the US population, dont think Bliar will be able to say the same.
- January 29, 2007 8:36 am
How many more "Blair (Prescott, Blunkett, Clarke, Kelly, Hewitt, Pardew, Sven) to resign this week" stories are you going to run before you get one right, Iain? Eventually the law of probability must mean you'll score soon and claim an incredible scoop, but so far even when some of them have resigned it is when you haven't predicted it.
- January 29, 2007 8:42 am
He is certainly considering it.
It's on a knife edge as they say. - January 29, 2007 8:43 am
- January 29, 2007 8:44 am
I believe it - watching the interview closely yesterday Blair is a man without his eye on the ball.
If he got an agreement for a job at Davos from Bill Gates he will will have discussed it with Cherie yesterday. With the ploice closing down on him fast he will want a quick exit strategy. - January 29, 2007 8:44 am
I think he will be consistent and, assuming he has been studying Zen, He will resign in an attempt to bury the bad news of his resignation. It might just work.
- January 29, 2007 9:27 am
From Bob Piper's own site:
"Industry: Government"
Some sort of oxymoron, surely? - January 29, 2007 9:51 am
- Philipa said...
Oh stop it, don't tease.
- January 29, 2007 9:51 am
It certainly seems feasible.
Other problems aside, does he really want his last act as Leader of the Labour Party to be responsibility for heavy losses in the Welsh, Scottish and council elections? Probably not, and it's inevitable that a new Leader at this time would boost Labour's chances in May. - January 29, 2007 9:52 am
You are Guido do I win £5
- January 29, 2007 9:57 am
what do the BBC want whelan's number for? one of the few people who would make me run into the arms of the blairites...
- January 29, 2007 10:10 am
Being interviewed under caution about those hand-written comments being the final srtraw????????
- January 29, 2007 10:14 am
I think that is quite beliveable Iain .Blair is chiefly interested in his career and at this point money is the drive . I can quite believe he will time his departure to coincide with some lecture tour or the publication of his book.
By the way how do you feel about David davies coming down on the side of Freedom from gay Lobby oppression? Perhaps he`s paying you back for writing the "That speech".
BTW Been catching up on old Doughty Streets , you are very good. - January 29, 2007 10:18 am
- Iain Dale said...
Newmania, it's a free country. It's a conscience issue. He takes one view, I take a different one. We had a robust exchange of views on the phone about it yesterday nand agreed to disagree!
PS I didn't write that speech. Just so you know. But I am happy to take collective responsibility for it ! - January 29, 2007 10:27 am
In favour of the suggestion he'll go soon is Northern Ireland progress providing him with a high, the damage he is doing to Labour and his reputation by staying, Reid's demise making Brown's assent virtually unstoppable (if only Blair had given way before Reid's problems?) and the risk of being forced out by his cabinet a la his heroine. On the other hand he wants to make 10 years and outlast Chirac, may still have dreams of stoppping Gordon, is a power hungry narcissist, has tenants to kick out of his place in London, can always hope that a big crisis comes which gives him a new reason for being there, will be reluctant to go if too many people start predicting it. Cherie is probably urging him to stay but if he is finally flipping then those close to him may persuade him to step down.
- January 29, 2007 10:40 am
Will NL cancel local elections in England If they can ram home unitary authorities with the aid of their quisling English coucillors? I seem to remember that one a couple of years ago.
- January 29, 2007 11:11 am
- neil craig said...
In the same way newspapers & TV keep obituaries on file. Doesn't mean they have advance information from Himself & it seems unlikely Tony would have confided in a BBC researcher.
Ask a stupid question... - January 29, 2007 11:16 am
- Man in a Shed said...
You don't have an arrest warrant also ?
- January 29, 2007 11:17 am
General Election on May 3rd then Iain?
- January 29, 2007 11:20 am
So when's the party?
- January 29, 2007 11:30 am
I D-Newmania, it's a free country....etc.
How fascinating !!!
ID-I didn't write that speech......
I am happy to take collective responsibility for it !
(You`ll make a fine Minister) - January 29, 2007 11:30 am
I suspect Tony will be there until May at least. That way he'll be able to boast about ten years in office.
- January 29, 2007 12:35 pm
How much money will Blair's "friends" make (with insider knowledge) on betting when he goes?
- January 29, 2007 12:55 pm
At the risk of saying "I told you so" I posted this on the "Blair losing the plot pt 94" thread yesterday.
If NI falls into place, it is virtually the only "legacy window" available before the 10 year point. There are some othe potential windows beyond his control, not least a "prosecution window"!
Reminiscent of the last days of Hitler, as portrayed in the film Downfall.
I wonder if Bliar will go within the next week. Sinn Fein have voted to accept the PSNI. If the DUP return to power-sharing, Bliar could be tempted to reiterate the "hand of history" speech and to pretend that peace in Northern Ireland is all his doing. There aren't many other palatable legacy options! - January 29, 2007 2:02 pm
Interesting theory - but the bookies still make it around 19 to 1 that he will leave before the end of March.
So it doesn't look as though there is a weight of money on it yet. However the 'spread betting exchanges' may be a better guide to how many weeks left. - January 29, 2007 2:13 pm
After watching Blair on Sunday, I realise the man is quite deluded. It has all gone past him.
He is also a stubborn sort of guy, with the repartee of a second hand car salesman.
So. He could even hang in there by his fingertips, until parliament goes down for the summer.
He does want to screw Gordon after all, doesnt he? - January 29, 2007 3:20 pm
ACL Blair has a week or so after your departure date to meet my Xmas wish list retort from Secret Santa to Luke Akehurst. Luke said six months, I said I preferred six weeks. Sorry to quote the Sun again but they are insisting on a summer departure - presumably this would help NL as many of the members with school age children, who are teachers, and who are students would be unavailable for polling. This moves the party rightwards.
- January 29, 2007 3:29 pm
Considering the "scoop" aspect of this story ... if Iain prints this every few days after some slight calm he will eventually get it right. It is "The End of the World is Nigh!" for Conservative fantasists. But one day it will come true. One day Iain's check shirt will be handed in to Oxfam or otherwise pass beyond the reach of our TV screens. But not necessarily the day aftre tomorrow.
- January 29, 2007 3:33 pm
I have long believed the answer lies in France. My money has always been on Blair leaving office (as opposed to announcing his resignation) some day after 21 May. That's the day that the new French president takes over, and barring some incredible upheaval it's au revoir Jacques. Blair will just love to be still in No 10 to put that final phone call through to the Elysee. Equally he won't want it the other way round with Jacques calling him to commiserate.
- January 29, 2007 3:55 pm
Hold on. This might mean he is resigning as leader of the Labour Party NOT as PM. Which would make sense. Not only is their website is all excited about the prospect of the membership being asked to elect a PM but given the logistics etc it would take about three to four months to run the election allowing for Easter. This would mean he would still be in office as PM until May 3 a date that must loom large in his mind. But would then be able to recommend to The Queen a successor able to command the confidence of the Commons.
- January 29, 2007 4:23 pm
Reminiscent of the last days of Hitler
Inside the Führerbunker:
"30th April would make a good date for departure, Mein Führer.
"Meanwhile you can play with these imaginary divisions on this map of the Middle East." - January 29, 2007 4:46 pm
Isn't Davos in [or near] Switzerland?
Cue 'swiss toni' used car salesman gag - January 29, 2007 7:02 pm
Much as I'd like to believe it, I don't think Blair is sane enough to realise the best thing he could do is resign now, although I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
- January 29, 2007 8:28 pm
Yoy will know TB is going when you hear his nails scratching down the cliff face.
Even then someone will need to stamp on his hands for him to let go. - January 30, 2007 1:52 pm


text:
Grace of God - continued
Posted by ESC on September 01, 2003
: : I am trying to find the meaning and origin of
: : "There But for the Grace of God go I"
: : The phrase appears on a list of proverbs at:
: : www.phrases.org.uk meanings proverbs.html
: : but that page doesn't explain what each proverb
: : means.
: : Dave
: Under different circumstances, you could be in the same sad shape as someone else. If you had bad parents like the person in question, for example, you could be in prison, messed up mentally, etc.
: THERE BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD GO I - "On seeing several criminals being led to the scaffold in the 16th century, English Protestant martyr John Bradford remarked, 'There but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford.' His words, without his name, are still very common ones today for expressing one's blessings compared to the fate of another. Bradford was later burned at the stake as a heretic." From the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins by Robert Hendrickson, Facts on File, New York, 1997.
Grace of God, The. The free and unmerited love and favour of God. 'There but for the grace of God go I' is a phrase used by the self-righteous or smug when others are faced with disaster, disgrace or the like as a result of their actions. It implies that they could well have been in the same position but have been fortunate enough to escape. The phrase is usually traced back to the Protestant martyr John Bradford (c. 1510-55), who on seeing a group of criminals being led to their execution, remarked, 'But for the grace of God there goes John Bradford.'
From Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable by Adrian Room
There, but for the grace of God goes God. (Attributed to Winston Churchill)
So many television plays are like this, self-absorbed and tiny, so that no onlooker could dream of thinking that there, but for the grace of God, went he. (_The Listener_)
I know her mother drinks and has lovers and things. But her husband's dead and so you really can't blame her, can't you? There-but-for-the-Grace-of-God Department. (Peter Shaffer, _Five Finger Exercise_, 1958)
I've got to disagree with Brewer's. At least the way I've understood it, the phrase isn't smug and self-righteous. It means "I am no better than the unfortunate person, I've just had advantages/the grace of God/good luck," etc.


text:
Does Automobile Insurance Follow the Car or the Driver?
There are a few questions in life that are more confusing than their answers. The blanket query into whether or not insurance follows the car or the driver in a particular jurisdiction is such a question — one we see regularly. It isn't a dumb question. It is more like a MENSA brain teaser than a legitimate insurance question, and it is usually the wrong question to ask.
The answer to whether insurance follows the car or driver depends on many variables, most notably the kind of insurance coverage being referred to. There are coverages that follow the car and coverages that follow the driver. In general, auto insurance follows the car instead of the driver, but the specifics of a claim can differ since insurance laws and coverage vary depending on the policy, coverage and state being dealt with.
Liability insurance coverage on a personal auto policy follows the driver no matter whose vehicle is being operated, provided it is an eligible vehicle. All states, except for one (New Hampshire), require at least liability coverage. Liability coverage protects the insured (i.e., follows the driver) when the insured operates a vehicle owned by someone else. In such a situation, they will still usually be covered under their own auto insurance policy. However, the best rule of thumb in looking for coverage under a policy is to begin with the exclusions.
While an "insured vehicle" may include a friend's or neighbor's vehicle or a rental car, if the vehicle was available for regular use, it might be excluded. A "replacement" vehicle will probably be covered, but in some cases only under circumstances where the insured's vehicle cannot be operated for some specific reason, such as a repair. Coverage might not follow anyone if the insured is driving a vehicle other than a "private passenger vehicle not owned and listed on the insured's policy." There really is no such thing as a standard auto policy anymore and coverage for non-owned autos will be different under some policies and non-existent under others.
Comprehensive and Collision
Comprehensive and collision auto insurance coverage, on the other hand, are tied to the insured vehicle (they follow the car). These coverages pay for damage that befalls the insured vehicle as a result of an accident or vandalism. One could say that if you loan your vehicle, you loan your insurance. With comprehensive insurance which covers almost everything, it is the car rather than the driver that is covered. This, however, requires many stipulations to be put in place, such as who is allowed to drive the car. If someone other than the insured is driving a vehicle covered by comprehensive coverage and is not listed as a covered driver — even if the other person has permission — the other person might not be covered in an accident. Family members (such as children or a spouse) are generally already included in the policy definition of "insured." However, rarely will insurance cover a driver operating a vehicle without the owner's permission.
Other Drivers Driving the Insured's Vehicle
When an insured allows other drivers to drive his vehicle, then, and only then, does the question of whether insurance follows the car or the vehicle become even awkwardly relevant. The right question to be asking is not whether insurance follows the car or the driver, but whether or not other drivers will be covered by the insured's auto insurance.
Unfortunately, there is no bright line answer to the question, and it depends greatly on the language of the policies involved, the jurisdiction you are concerned with, and the specific facts involved. Permissive use is generally covered under the liability terms of an auto policy. As always, however, there are exceptions.
There are certainly insurance carriers and policies that will not cover any driver not specifically named in the policy. Other relevant facts include where the "other driver" resides and if they are related to the insured. In general, if someone is living in the insured's household and regularly drives the insured's vehicle, many insurance carriers expect you to have that person named on the policy. They will need to undergo the same underwriting and qualification process as any other policyholder.
In some cases, if a family member is visiting and has permission from the insured to drive the family vehicle, there will be coverage if there is an accident, but the coverage may be limited. All policies should be reviewed to determine if there are any excluded drivers and any limitations on coverage for anyone driving the car that is not specifically named on the policy.
When the policy of the vehicle owner and the policy of the permissive user have different limits, the matter becomes even more complicated. If the damages caused by the permissive user's negligence exceed the owner's liability limits, the policy of the permissive user might be tapped as secondary coverage, but usually only where the permissive user's liability limits are higher than the owner's liability limits.
The Insured Driving Someone Else's Vehicle
In general, insurance coverage for an insured driving someone else's vehicle is the coverage he carries for his own vehicle. The driver's personal coverage will apply in most cases when driving a vehicle he does not own. This includes any uninsured motorist coverage he carries and the medical portions of his policy. The driver's property damage coverage might carry over while driving another's car as well, depending on the policy language, the respective limits of the two policies involved, and the facts. If a person drives his own vehicle without insurance, he should not expect that he is covered when driving someone else's vehicle.
Certain factors must be considered in determining if an insured is covered when driving someone else's vehicle, including the reasons for driving the vehicle, if the insured had permission or not, or if it was a rental or dealership loaner. In each case, the individual circumstances and state law involved will factor into the outcome, but another policy might be considered primary over the insured's.
When an insured borrows a vehicle from a friend, the insured's liability coverage usually steps in only when the insured's policy limits are exceeded. Collision and comprehensive coverage do not apply to a borrowed vehicle. Medical Payments (Med Pay) and Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage, as we will see below, also follow the insured into a borrowed vehicle.
Med Pay and Bodily Injury Insurance
Med Pay and bodily injury insurance are two other types of coverage that usually follow the person, not the car. Med Pay coverage pays for any injuries that an insured or his passengers may incur in an accident, regardless of who is at fault. Such coverage usually follows the driver. It is based on people, not the vehicle. In fact, such coverage sometimes covers the insured when he is walking or biking. This coverage also usually follows the driver when he rents a car, because the rental vehicle is a substitute for the insured's own vehicle. However, Med Pay coverage sometimes follows the car. If the passengers in a vehicle don't have coverage of their own, Med Pay and PIP coverage can extend to their injuries.
Drivers from Other States
Auto insurance will generally cover a driver from any state as long as he has the insured's permission to operate the vehicle. However, this isn't always the case. In all instances, when someone else operates the insured's vehicle, the auto coverage and policy terms may vary greatly depending on the carrier and insurance options selected by the insured. That said, if an insured is driving a company/commercial vehicle which has Med Pay/PIP coverage, that coverage is usually primary over the driver's personal auto policy, which will be secondary in terms of coverage. There are some exceptions.
Insurance Coverage When the Insured Is Not Present
In order for insurance to cover an accident when the insured is not present, there will need to be comprehensive auto coverage. The facts of each such case definitely matter. If the driver is a relative, then most likely the absent insured's insurance will cover the accident. The driver also needs to have had permission, express or implied, or the insured's insurance may not cover the claim, unless the vehicle was stolen. Individual insurance companies and policies may vary in regard to these rules.
Sub-Standard Policies
Cheap, sub-standard auto carriers write insurance for insureds with bad driving records. They are able to do this by setting their own limited conditions under which they will provide coverage. These sub-standard carriers do not cover claims that would be covered under a more standard policy. These policies can contain "named-driver exclusions" which limit coverage to persons specifically named in the policy. "Step-down" policies often lower liability coverage to a state's minimum limits for permissive users, even if the insured pays for higher limits. Deductibles can be higher and/or a policy won't extend coverage to a rental vehicle. Therefore, policy terms vary and directly affect whether a particular coverage follows the car or the driver.
So Does Insurance Follow the Car or the Driver?
As we have seen, this is usually not the right question to ask. However, that won't prevent inquiring minds from asking — over and over. An answer to the question that isn't going to be universally correct, therefore, is that insurance that follows the car usually has the vehicle listed in the policy. If anyone who has your permission drives the car, that person is probably covered by virtue of the fact that the car is covered. However, as we've seen, this kind of insurance does not cover everyone. There are qualifications for the drivers covered. Other types of coverage such as collision or comprehensive insurance will usually follow the car. These coverages will usually not "follow the driver" to any vehicle which the " covered" driver operates.
Insurance that follows the driver will usually be limited to some form of liability coverage.
When an insured drives someone else's vehicle, such as a rental car, a dealership loaner, or a friend's car, he is usually covered for liability insurance. However, other policies which may be deemed "primary" over the insured's personal auto policy may also come into play.
Therefore, a very basic and often incorrect answer to the wrong question is that auto liability coverage generally follows the driver, while auto physical damage coverage generally follows the vehicle. However, more often than not, you will be asking the wrong question. As long as a driver has the vehicle owner's permission to operate the vehicle, the owner's policy will provide coverage no matter who the driver is. The vehicle owner's policy should cover injuries and property damage. However, exceptions do exist. In most cases, therefore, the right question to ask would be "Is there insurance coverage under these specific facts?"
Let us help you find the right auto insurance coverage for your needs and budget. Contact G & H Financial Insurance Services, Inc. at (281) 395-5497 for more information on Houston auto insurance.
(Article courtesy: Claims Journal)
Tags: auto insurance, collision, comprehensive, coverage, driver, Houston, Texas, vehicle


text:
Vedi tutti i modelli qui sotto
SV6100 Series 2-way solenoid valves are internally piloted with assisted lift valves featuring Brass, stainless steel construction and FKM seal material. The temperature range from -10 to 137°C (14 to 280°F) and FKM O-ring material is ideal for neutral media such as compressed air, inert gases, synthetic oils and water. A strain-relief connector is supplied with each unit. A ½" conduit plug is also available.


text:
Copyright is the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something.
Overview - U.S. Copyright Act
The U.S. Copyright Act, (codified at 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 - 810), is federal legislation which protects the writings of authors. Note that advancements in technology have led to an ever expanding understanding of the word "writings." The Copyright Act now reaches architectural design, software, the graphic arts, motion pictures, and sound recordings and more. All works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression and within the subject matter of copyright were deemed to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Copyright Act regardless of whether the work was created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished.
Under § 102, copyright protection exists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
Derivative Works
Under § 106, the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, license, and to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work.
Fair Works
Under § 107, the exclusive rights of the copyright owner are subject to limitation by the doctrine of "fair use." Fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research is not copyright infringement. To determine whether a particular use qualifies as fair use, courts apply the multi-factor balancing test from § 107.
Limits on Copyright Protection
Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery. For example, if a book is written describing a new system of bookkeeping, copyright protection only extends to the author's description of the bookkeeping system; it does not protect the system itself. This view was expressed in Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).
In addition to being independently created by the author, to qualify for copyright protection a work must also exhibit a minimum of originality. In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991), the Supreme Court held that a work must have "some minimal degree of creativity." Thus, a mere alphabetical list of data is not protected, but other original aspects of the work (page layout, design, format, or even the specific selection of data points) might be. This underscores the idea that information itself is not copyrightable, only the specific arrangements or presentations of it.
Copyright Registration
According to the Copyright Act of 1976, registration of copyright is voluntary and may take place at any time during the term of protection. See § 408. Although registration of a work with the Copyright Office is not a precondition for protection, under § 411, an action for copyright infringement may not be commenced until the copyright has been formally registered with the Copyright Office.
Deposit Requirement
Deposit of copies with the Copyright Office for use by the Library of Congress is a separate requirement from registration. Under § 407, failure to comply with the deposit requirement within three months of publication of the protected work may result in a civil fine. The Register of Copyrights may exempt certain categories of material from the deposit requirement.
Copyright Notice
In 1989 the U.S. joined the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. In accordance with the requirements of the Berne Convention, copyright notice is no longer a condition of protection for works published after March 1, 1989. This change to the notice requirement applies only prospectively to copies of works publicly distributed after after March 1, 1989.
However, lack of notice might be a relevant factor in determining the merits of an innocent infringement defense. See § 401(d).
The Berne Convention also modified the rule making copyright registration a precondition to commencing a lawsuit for infringement. For works originating from a Berne Convention country, an infringement action may be initiated without registering the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. However, for works of U.S. origin, registration prior to filing suit is still required.
The federal agency charged with administering the act is the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. See § 701 of the act. Its regulations are found in Parts 201 - 204 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Federal Material
U.S. Constitution and Federal Statutes
- U.S. Copyright Act
- CRS Annotated Constitution
Federal Agency Regulations
- Code of Federal Regulations: 37 C.F.R., Chapt. II - Copyright Office
Federal Judicial Decisions
- Selected Historic Copyright Decisions
- liibulletin Oral Argument Previews
International Material
Conventions and Treaties
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
- Universal Copyright Convention
- Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms
- International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations
- GATT 1994 (including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property)
Federal Agencies:
- U.S. Copyright Office
- Forms
- US Patent and Trademark Office
- CENDI Copyright FAQ (Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information Managers Group)
- Copyright Clearance Center
- Report of NII Working Group on Intellectual Property
Additional Resources:
- Coalition for Networked Information
- Association of Research Libraries Copyright and Intellectual Policy
- European Union Directives on Copyright and Related Material from the EU Legal Advisory Board
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
- Database of Intellectual Property Laws
- ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law
- Copyright Advisory Network Tools
- Senate Judiciary Committee
- House Judiciary Committee (includes information from Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property)
- American Intellectual Property Law Association
- LII Downloads
[Last updated in July of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]


text:
I know that I may be letting off airs of a particularly vile curmudgeon-ness, but as we drive further and further down this toll road we call life I for one for one am pretty glad to see the year 2008 in my rear view mirror. Not that the year was particularly bad, and on some levels it was one of the best years I've lived through in recent memory if the wide array of old fanzines and rare recordings that have made it to my portals will attest to, but in most respects 2008 has been one of the most cringe-inducing and unpleasant ones in my life since such dog years as 1983 and even 1997, a year that I'm surprised didn't end with my committal to the nearest booby hatch considering all of the mental upheaval I hadda go through. Really, the way '08 turned out with all of the high anxiety it poured forth from its vile bowels it's a wonder I even survived at all. Despite all this I did put up a pretty good front, eh? Really, I broke my own record for the yearly number of posts on this blog and only the snootiest of anti-BLOG TO COMM zealots would not agree that as far as upturning some nice rock & roll stones goes, I sure flipped over a few beauts (of which I dutifully am proud of...see entries below). But then again during this past year there were so many downright sad, disturbing and tension-enveloping periods that I'm surprised I survived with my sanity intact. Most if not all of these things happened during the late-winter and spring which much account for the massive blogging I did during those times, probably in order to blow off the pressure that was building inside me. I'll tell ya, I didn't feel this bound and gagged since the spring of 2004 when Dave Lang, Jay Hinman and their minions (some of whom I considered close enough "pen pals") decided to do their little sucker punch not only exhausting my own sense of well being, but squashing any serious attempts I had a selling a load more copies of BLACK TO COMM #25 than I had ever dreamed I would.
Enough moaning and boo-hooing and other forms of self-pity (a virtue which I must say I find healthy for all...after all, how far would the Music Machine have gone without it?) and onto my much-admired and awaited BLOG TO COMM BEST OF 2008 YEAR-END WRAP-UP AND RITUAL BARBEQUE where I get my time-honored chance to lay down the law as to what exactly was worth your while and not quite so during the past 366 days of pressure-cooker-induced everyday living. As usual I will tell you, the ever anxious BLOG TO COMM reader, just exactly what it was that made this particular year either so ginchy goochy fantab or worse than a weekend in Brad Kohler's laundry hamper for that matter and remember, if you read about it anywhere else it just ain't the proper year-end roundup that you've been waiting for. You have been warned.
***ALBUM OF THE YEAR!: A hard one to call considering a number of non-reissued goodies that I've had the pleasure of hearing during '08, but as far as the bestest of the best go the hands down WINNER of the year just hazta be The Figures of Light's SMASH HITS on the ever-popular Norton label! True a small portion of this release is made up of archival material from the group's early-seventies existence, but for the most part this reunion disque is top notch hard-rockin' fun and games that goes to show ya that maybe guys in their late-fifties have more of an idea as to what rockaroll is all about than some of those multi-pierced ding-dongs you see all over the place. Runner up award goes to Simply Saucer's HALF HUMAN-HALF ALIVE via Canada's Sonic Unyon, an album that I do continue to drool buckets about only there's something fishy about this release that kept it from hittin the numero uno spot this past solar rotation. Maybe it's the cover???
***SINGLE OF THE YEAR!: Not that singles really have that much of an impact as they did say...twenny/thirty/forty years back when some pimple-encrusted teenage goof could pick up his fave at the local five 'n dime for a mere ninetysome cents, but at least they still actually have the nerve to make 'em! And as far as this year goes, the hands-down winner just hasta be the Ruth's "Mon Pote"/"Mescalito" wowee-zowee that kinda took us all (or at least us smarter than the average blogger types) by surprise! OK it was recorded in '78, but these Gallic gosharooties really had the electric eurobeat down pat and, like classic Pere Ubu, knew how to mix the new electronic music with the standard punk drive of the times to create a sound that sure stands for everything good and high energy that the seventies really were. It's what I'd call a top spin at least here at BLOG TO COMM central, and who knows, if more records like this came out of France back then maybe the fallacy that the French play lousy rock 'n roll would have gone down the proverbial chute along with a lotta other false assumptions regarding that at least once-noble nation.
***BEST PACKAGE OF THE YEAR!: Remember the days when album covers were just as important as the goodies that were stashed inside, with peelable bananas and zippers and spinning things galore making for scrumptious eye candy even if the record inside might've been the dregs? Well, as the old song says "those days are gone forever" but at least we still have things like box sets with posters and extensive booklet notes as well to jump right into! This year the winning award for Best Package goes to the Suicide 1977-1978 Five-CD set, which I think will keep more than a few kiddoes out there quiet for at least a few hours before the next archival rush hits the market.
***BOOTLEG OF THE YEAR!: Lotsa good boots popped up this go 'round including the Can four-CD box set that is easily enough downloadable if you have the technology and the smarts (unlike me), not to mention a gaggle of Pink Floyd longplaying albums including a live pic disc featuring Frank Zappa sitting in with 'em for a side-long "Interstellar Overdrive" which is boss enough even for a guy like myself who hasn't cared about Zappa since ZOOT ALLURES. However as far as I'm concerned the best bootleg of the year just has to be THE VELVET UNDERGROUND LIVE AT THE GYMNASIUM release that's available in a number of formats best suited for your own personal hell while you snuggle up in the low-rent hovel of your choice. It was downloadable and still may be, but I cherish my green vinyl take with the professional cover that reminds me of the days when bootlegs started goin' upscale in the late-seventies in an attempt to look like the real deal, usually upstaging the real deal in the process! As usual, these classic Velvet tidbits only make me hunger to hear more, which is why I ask when in the name of Sam Hill is someone gonna start releasing all of those reel-to-reels of those 1965 Falling Spikes/Warlocks rehearsals we've all heard about??? What are they gonna do, piecemeal this stuff for the next bazillion years to the point where it's nothing but archival gunch for brainy college students to dissect like some dead rat???
***ARCHIVAL DIG OF THE YEAR!: Lotsa good unpchucks gone 'round in '07, but I gotta say that the best reissue out of a sea of millions (well, at least seven) was the SOGGY album from the wilds of France circa 1981. High energy rock has been in pretty short supply over the past few decades, so it's sure a wonderful, resensifying experience listening to these French guys do the heavy metal game without succumbing to the trappings and tastes of the time. Plus they rock out a whole lot more than any of the alternative quap of the eighties on and if you think "rocking out" is some sort of detrimental quality in rock music (as one decidedly anti-BLACK TO COMM Latin major opined in a late-eighties article on yours truly!) then may I point you towards your Cat Stevens albums which you and your significant other can listen to in the solemnity of your hot tub? Runner ups! Anything Norton released this year, with hefty salutes to the MAD MIKE collections which makes me wish I was smart enough to know what was what in the flea market bins of Western Pee-YAY back in the day!
***JAZZ ALBUM OF THE YEAR! Not that many to choose from this time, so the award goes to a disque of "questionable" legality, mainly the TONY WILLIAMS LIFETIME LIVE VILLAGE VANGUARD '69 one that you'll have to do a little effort to search out considerin' that Amazon ain't exactly gonna have this one in stock. Great pounding, nerve-twisting intense jazz cum rock with the classic three-piece lineup, and if even a doof like Ralph Gleason could acknowledge the greatness of this group what more can I say?
***POST OF THE YEAR!: Back when I was doing my fanzine in the eighties and nineties (and beyond) I tried to uncover some major rockism mystery that has bugged my beanie for a much longer time than I can imagine as often as I could. It might not have mattered to any of my readers, but if I could get the low down on a rock acts of the past that drank from the same well of Velvets/Detroit energy as I did I sure felt like I had accomplished something very important. Sure it would've been better if you readers actually PAID ATTENTION to acts like Umela Hmota and Lou Rone, but at least I made their existences known and if you're too stoopid to take the bait, what else could I do?
Well, just this past month I finally got some of the hardcore facts straight with regards to the ultra-elusive Titfield Thunderbolt, a group whose lone single "Born on the Wrong Planet"/"In The Can" has finally graced my ears after twenty years of deep addled mystery. And you can betcha that I am proud of my little writeup on this act that I published on this blog only a mere two weeks ago. Excuse me if I do a little self-back-patting on this 'un, because I'm sure someone will reference this when they write a history of underground rock music a good fifty years from now.
***DEATH OF THE YEAR!: Hard one to call here...I mean, was it that of Bo Diddley. or Jim Jones or perhaps some celebrity whom I personally could care less about, like George Carlin??? (He being the guy who spent a hefty portion of his career posing as the outside-the-establishment maverick while, as one astute commenter on the TAKI'S TOP DRAWER site noted, he was every much as part and parcel of that same dreaded establishment as the moaxes he was supposedly railing against! At least his was a death that I could really rally around!) Maybe it was William F. Buckley's or Klaus Dinger's or Jimmy Giuffre's or even Forrest Ackerman's, who had the good sense to die twice and thus throw everyone off!
Naw, if you must know, the real honest-to-goodness death of the year was that of none other than Bill Harris, better known to the kids of the channel 33 viewing area as BARNEY BEAN who passed away this June even if I only heard about it via wikipedia this past Christmas Eve.
It probably doesn't mean much to anyone born outside of the tri-county area nor would it mean anything to people born after at least 1967, but for the baby boomer gang (and I mean "baby boomer" in the most suburban ranch house fun and garage band games way possible!), THE BARNEY BEAN SHOW was thee afternoon draw in these parts, unless you count the z-movie/sci-fi flicks that channel 21 ran opposite him for a few years. And yeah, some of you locals probably heard all the stories about the guy swearin' at the kids before goin' on the air as well as his "old tricks" as it was put to me, but I gotta admit that I was one bozo who was more or less front-and-center for the BEAN show every weekday at least until I got older (age 11) and 21 began a long string of GILLIGAN'S ISLAND reruns, oddly enough a staple at 33 throughout the seventies and early eighties. But despite the stories and rumors that were flying around everybody's neighborhood during the day it's pretty obvious that Harris/Bean, or at least what he represented on the tube, made up a big part of my growing up sense of cheapazoid television tastemongering along with Saturday afternoon JD flicks and tornado warnings, and learning about his passing was...well, another indication about these changing for the worse times yabetcha!
Fortunately his YOUNGSTOWN VINDICATOR obit didn't mention any of his personal troubles, but it didn't go into his role on local television that much either. Of course you wouldn't expect such a writeup to go into how he would make drawings out of kids' initials for their birthdays and mail 'em out, nor how he would use the same ol' joke book humor week after week while doing his ventriloquist routine with Sherwood the City Slicker (one oft-used joke had to be the one about how Sherwood bought stock in an underwear manufacturer, but the bottom fell out) nor even how Bean would always pronounce Wednesday "Wed-nez-day" which is how my Italian-Swiss aunt (born and raised in Cairo) does as well. He was 79, and the obit said he worked in the sales department at Gordon Brothers (water softeners) until 2004 which means he probably was still in contact with his former employers at channel 33 for quite a long time after his show went off the air which must've been painful for him trekking back and forth to the station which gave him the heave-ho so long ago. Funny, nobody I knew who was connected with the Youngstown-area media seemed to have known his whereabouts...it sure would have been great if he opened up and told us about the old days of local kid shows and television in general as it was back when it was actually a fun experience to turn on the dial!
***ROCK MAG ON THE YEAR!: Best "new" mag...UGLY THINGS of course...best "archival dig"...that issue of HYPE with the New York Dolls on the cover and the Stooges on the inside. SIGNAL TO NOISE also made a very good impression on my already-impressed head even though their latest didn't quite gel with me like a thick junket of a rock read should. Maybe it's because some of the more "modern" stuff they write about gets in the way of the old faves I like to read the mag for. Very disturbing, just like when I'm watching a classic 1958 YOGI BEAR cartoon and all of a sudden some modern graphics appear ruining the great mid-Amerigan suburban UHF feel. DAGGER is always worthwhile to look into even if most of these new underground groups they cover seem to have as much name recognition in my beanie as Jan Garber. Other'n that, it all tumbled into the abyss long long ago...
***BOOK OF THE YEAR!: Lotsa good reads this past 366, and although the promised TRUMP collection was canceled and HUMBUG delayed I found myself more'n satisfied when it came to my usual late-night reading sessions, usually accompanied by the soothing strains of some early-seventies Velvet Underground wannabes. However, I must admit that as far as '08 goes the ultimo hands-down winner of the best book category just has to be Byron Coley and Thurston Moore's history of the New York underground rockin' no wave movement. Don't get me wrong, Mark Master's own no wave histoire was what you would also call essential and necessary, but Coley and Moore, being at the heart of the matter for a longer time than anyone could imagine really deliver the meat and inner guts truth about this late-seventies En Why phenom that dishes out a whole load of previously-revealed facts in a totally new way, then tops it off with more information on such obscurities of the scene as Terminal and the Gynecologists that makes you beg for moremoreMORE!!!! Like a good rock article that creates an instant obsession for a certain group's style and substance, NO WAVE answers many old questions only to create new ones, and for that we should be thankful that even this much of the story has been told at all!
***BIG SURPRISE OF THE YEAR!: Yes there were many big surprises bound to make even the stodgiest of BLOG TO COMM readers sit up and take notice including the return of none other than Hackamore Brick to the one-off Mirrors reunion in Cleveland, but after all is said and done it's just gotta be the re-discovery of the Titfield Thunderbolt (which also made my post of the year choice above). With something this monumental, you just can't honor it in just one single category!
***LETDOWN OF THE YEAR!: That Dave Lang, Jay Hinman, Ken Shimamoto etc. and so forth didn't do the right thing and off themselves like any good blooches should. Sorry guys, the Christmas magic just wore off.
***POLITICAL COMMENTATOR OF THE YEAR!: Jack Hunter, The Southern Avenger, who is one of the few political commentators on the right (forget the left!) worth paying any attention to these days. Other than the usual Taki's Top Drawer/CHRONICLES/"paleoconservative" crowd whom I've been mentioning on this blog for quite a long while, I could care less about what the usual conservative commentators who've sold out more than they'll ever realize have to say these day (but I will listen in at times!), while the left remains as evil (though for a "good cause") as ever, playing race-based political games and getting even more "touchy feely" in their quest for the elusive "we are all one"-ness than ever now that Barack Obama is going to be the US of Whoa's next president. (Expect to see more than a few people dismayed by the Obama administration but too afraid of being called "reactionary" to admit it.) So amidst all this it's sure good to read (and watch) people like Hunter as well as other smart pundits like Justin Raimondo and Clyde Wilson give forth with the real deal while everyone else seem to be stumbling all over themselves trying to see who could bob for the most turds outta the toilet. And you know the Avenger is effective since most of the comments left on his CHARLESTON CITY PAPER column are the snittiest of precious liberal pearly-goo one can see in any comment section anywhere on the web, including my own!
***LAFF OF THE YEAR!: Jay Hinman apologizing for using a photo of George W. Bush "out of context" on his political blog. I mean, if any guy knows about taking things out of context, it's Jay himself!
***BLOG OF THE YEAR!: Hands down fave has to be PUREPOP where Barracuda Robin Wills presents for us singles-ignorant proles some of the best glam-unto-punk rarities that most of us would pay $15 for on an annotated Cee-Dee collection, but here we can get it free! Now if I only had the smarts to know how to download these songs and slap 'em on a shiny pancake so's I could go driving around while these obscurities blare from my speakers just like it was 1974 and these songs were miraculously being played on the local top forty stations!
***'n so THAT'S 2008 which you could have taken or leaven, but if you didn't do either too late because it's over, and good riddance! Unfortunately who knows what bedevilment lies ahead in '09? Not me but I don't care right now...gotta run and watch some TELECOMICS, which come to think of it was probably the most IMPORTANT television show of 2008, or at least it was for Bill Shute!


text:
5 May, 1938 | Thursday, 19 days to the counting of the Omer, 5698 |
Mother and Pessie already wrote you, I remained the last one. My heart told me that I should wait for a letter from you, and then, I will write you. And indeed, today we received the letter that you wrote us during the intermediate days of Passover. We should thank God that you're healthy. My dear children, we only want to hear good news from you. My beloved children! You already wrote us in your previous letter that you spoke with Herbert Fishel's wife about the money that we should get from your uncle, but despite that, I think that we need to talk to him, it would be better for him if we settle it peacefully. It costs money to litigate in court, and who knows what the verdict would be. It'll be much more expensive for him. You understand what you need to do. There's no news here, thank God all of us are healthy. Miriam traveled today to Keidan. She'll write you if she'll get home before the mail. Be healthy and happy. Your father A friendly and loving greeting to Avraham's parents, we wish everyone good health. Freida and Avraham! We thank you for the 5 dollars and for the package that you sent to Shoshanna it will be useful for her. Be healthy. My beloved daughter Freida and Avraham, May you live in happiness. We waited impatiently for your letter, we think that we haven't received a letter from you for a month, and it took a long time for this letter to arrive, 20 days. Thank God that you feel good. We received letters from Reizale and Leah and they were written before Passover. Now we hope to receive the letter that they wrote in Raanana on Passover. They enjoyed the holiday more than the previous year because they were able to be together and talk like sisters. It's unfortunate that the riots haven't ended in the country, and it causes a lot of distress. Let's hope for better times to come. The girls are waiting for your letters and they wonder why you don't write them. What's up with you my dear children, how do you feel, you had a visitor, Hieman's wife. What is she telling about the family? She has a son and he's already a big guy, if he's alive. And how is her mother-in-law. I want to know about them. Do you get letters from my sister Elka, how is she? Freida, write letters often and be healthy.
Wishing you,
Warm regards to my cousin Chaya and her beloved children. |
JewishGen, Inc. makes no representations regarding the accuracy of
the translation. The reader may wish to refer to the original material
for verification.
JewishGen is not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in the original work and cannot rewrite or edit the text to correct inaccuracies and/or omissions.
Our mission is to produce a translation of the original work and we cannot verify the accuracy of statements or alter facts cited.
Dotnuva, Lithuania Yizkor Book Project JewishGen Home Page
Copyright © 1999-2024 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 5 Jan 2013 by LA