I struggle with the international Anglican communion on a number of levels, too numerous to go into here. Similarly, the controversy of homosexual clergy and bishops is complex and while I stand happily on the liberal wing, I find myself frustrated by people's inability to understand what it means for the church as a whole and to engage with questions of authority of the college of bishops (for the record, I'm in favour), unity (I'm not), and a swathe of sacramental theology (Don't know, but clearly an issue). Given this, I've not tended to pay any real attention to the American at the heart of the debate or ever listened to him say much.
This morning I did, and I regret doing it, for he is a fool. He was interviewed by BH this morning and so incensed was I by it that I went to the trouble of downloading it to listen to his rubbish answers again. They weren't quite a bad the second time round, but they were still illogical and inconsistent. Here's what I didn't like:
1. His inability to understand research: One of the things is so interesting ... all the research shows that the children of same-sex parents are no different in any way to the children of heterosexual parents
I don't know this corpus of research well, but it is bound to have some problems:
i. In order to get a baby as a same sex couple you really have to try, meaning you are probably pretty committed. So it's not like for like.
ii. There is no long term data. We simply don't have research for what happens over a long period of time
iii. (slightly nitpicking, but it's simply not true to say that all the research supports this. This largely biased analysis certainly doesn't
iv. For the record I also think there are probably a number of socio-economic and geographical biases in where same sex couples are recorded, but happy to be corrected
2. His smug arrogance: he claims that he doesn't claim to speak for the church of England, but he is quite linked to it. I mean, the Anglican communion does pay him and everything, but of course we know that those who oppose him simply "happen to be wrong." Lovely. OK for Jesus (and even he contradicted himself, as I once had to explain to an evangelical engineer at a recruitment dinner once) but not for a minor bishop.
3. His rank ignorance: what's so disturbing is why aren't the MPs arguing that there should be mothers? ... they sound misogynist, even patriarchal.
As was gently pointed out (and ignored) this is because it's part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill. Has he in fact read the papers? Does he understand why this is happening? It would appear not. And "patriarchal," really.
In addition, he also accused Iain Duncan Smith of wanting to talk about fathers only when he specifically called for the addition of mothers anyway. Sigh.
4. His inconsistency. Having claimed already there is no difference between mixed and same sex unions on children, we get this gem: Most mothers are the ones we learn empathy and unconditional love from, not fathers. So, no contradiction there then.
Anathema indeed.
Sunday 25 May 2008
Monday 19 May 2008
My favourite Louis
I've just bought what is probably a rubbish novel based on Louis XI from a charity shop, whom I described to Anna as my favourite Louis when justifying this purchase (I use a version of this excuse a lot), not least because of his glorious nickname, the universal spider.
Of course I didn't actually mean that he is my favourite person called Louis, though he might be. I really meant my preferred French King called Louis. As Anna is away this week and I don't have a great deal to do, I think this bold statement could do with some qualification, so I thought I'd list them in order of preference. This doesn't quite work at the bottom as I get a bit hazy with some of the later Carolingians, but they didn't do much so that's probably best. I should stress though that this is personal preference list, not a greatness in history ranking, but merely the ones I most like to read about and it inevitably contains almost all my biases. I've excluded Louis XVII (because there is nothing to say) and the non-reigning claimants. Wikepedia's helpful list with helpful dates is here. Anyway:
1. The Universal Spider (XI) - as above
2. The Sun King (XIV), inevitably high
3. Louis the Fat (VI). Many of the middle kings had to shrewd rather than bombastic and while Louis VI had an excellent biography, he was a master at playing his rather limited hand well.
4. Louis XIII. Often sandwiched between his glorious son and brilliant father (who is my favourite French king of all), but he did well to consolidate after the assassination of his father could have blown the wars of religion open again. And bonus points for Dumas' classic being set in his reign
5. Louis the Pious (I). I think a much glossed over figure, but he held his father's Empire together and passed it on intact.
6. Louis XVIII gets this ranking largely because of his spectacular refusal to acknowledge reality in almost any way, dating his reign ignoring Napoleon, maintaining hardline reactionary views and succumbing to gout such that his body literally disintegrated: one evening in 1823, as his valets were removing the king’s shoes, a gouty toe accidentally came away with his sock. A triumph.
7. Saint Louis (IX). I've never warmed to the Saint, associating him with the diversion of the crusades to more tactical and pointless theatres of war and cannot supress a slight shimmer of pleasure when he dies in Tunis in the lands of the infidel. But there is a reason for him prominence
8. Louis XVI. I almost put his disastrous reign higher, but just couldn't in the end. Nonetheless, despite the sadness of the end of the ancien regime in France, he is personally interesting.
9. Louis XII. A kind of management consultant (bland, but quite effective) of the early modern period, he piggybacks effectively on other policies in Italy for example and pulls in Brittany for which credit muct be given
10. Louis the Young (VII). Sufficiently interesting to drive Eleanor of Aquitaine to his greatest rival, but insufficiently challenging to be a match for Henry II in other spheres
11. Louis VIII. Not really around for long enough, but played a pretty good game in consolidating to the south, though most of the work had been done by Philip Augustus
12. Louis X. Likewise a short reign, and triggered off the succession crisis. The most interesting thing about him was his son, who has the glorious distinction of being born after his father died thus leaving the entire French court on tenterhooks over the succession.
13. Louis XV. By contrast, a massive reign, but very dull, like much of the eighteenth century
14. Louis IV. Quite fun this one, with a good English background, but ultimately restricted in scope by the Capetians and others so a limited story to tell.
15. Louis V. Only makes it this high because he represents the end of the Carolingians, who by this time tended to die young and not trouble the body politic much. Louis V was the apogee of this development, by also managing not to leave an heir.
16. Louis III
17. Louis II. Truly rubbish with one of the worst epithets - the stammerer - of all medieval monarchs (save of course Henry the impotent)
Astute observers will note this is really a top ten with padding, but there are limits even to my desire to list things. I probably should have stuck to Henrys (for the record: IV, II, I, III - though I don' t think that's controversial)
Of course I didn't actually mean that he is my favourite person called Louis, though he might be. I really meant my preferred French King called Louis. As Anna is away this week and I don't have a great deal to do, I think this bold statement could do with some qualification, so I thought I'd list them in order of preference. This doesn't quite work at the bottom as I get a bit hazy with some of the later Carolingians, but they didn't do much so that's probably best. I should stress though that this is personal preference list, not a greatness in history ranking, but merely the ones I most like to read about and it inevitably contains almost all my biases. I've excluded Louis XVII (because there is nothing to say) and the non-reigning claimants. Wikepedia's helpful list with helpful dates is here. Anyway:
1. The Universal Spider (XI) - as above
2. The Sun King (XIV), inevitably high
3. Louis the Fat (VI). Many of the middle kings had to shrewd rather than bombastic and while Louis VI had an excellent biography, he was a master at playing his rather limited hand well.
4. Louis XIII. Often sandwiched between his glorious son and brilliant father (who is my favourite French king of all), but he did well to consolidate after the assassination of his father could have blown the wars of religion open again. And bonus points for Dumas' classic being set in his reign
5. Louis the Pious (I). I think a much glossed over figure, but he held his father's Empire together and passed it on intact.
6. Louis XVIII gets this ranking largely because of his spectacular refusal to acknowledge reality in almost any way, dating his reign ignoring Napoleon, maintaining hardline reactionary views and succumbing to gout such that his body literally disintegrated: one evening in 1823, as his valets were removing the king’s shoes, a gouty toe accidentally came away with his sock. A triumph.
7. Saint Louis (IX). I've never warmed to the Saint, associating him with the diversion of the crusades to more tactical and pointless theatres of war and cannot supress a slight shimmer of pleasure when he dies in Tunis in the lands of the infidel. But there is a reason for him prominence
8. Louis XVI. I almost put his disastrous reign higher, but just couldn't in the end. Nonetheless, despite the sadness of the end of the ancien regime in France, he is personally interesting.
9. Louis XII. A kind of management consultant (bland, but quite effective) of the early modern period, he piggybacks effectively on other policies in Italy for example and pulls in Brittany for which credit muct be given
10. Louis the Young (VII). Sufficiently interesting to drive Eleanor of Aquitaine to his greatest rival, but insufficiently challenging to be a match for Henry II in other spheres
11. Louis VIII. Not really around for long enough, but played a pretty good game in consolidating to the south, though most of the work had been done by Philip Augustus
12. Louis X. Likewise a short reign, and triggered off the succession crisis. The most interesting thing about him was his son, who has the glorious distinction of being born after his father died thus leaving the entire French court on tenterhooks over the succession.
13. Louis XV. By contrast, a massive reign, but very dull, like much of the eighteenth century
14. Louis IV. Quite fun this one, with a good English background, but ultimately restricted in scope by the Capetians and others so a limited story to tell.
15. Louis V. Only makes it this high because he represents the end of the Carolingians, who by this time tended to die young and not trouble the body politic much. Louis V was the apogee of this development, by also managing not to leave an heir.
16. Louis III
17. Louis II. Truly rubbish with one of the worst epithets - the stammerer - of all medieval monarchs (save of course Henry the impotent)
Astute observers will note this is really a top ten with padding, but there are limits even to my desire to list things. I probably should have stuck to Henrys (for the record: IV, II, I, III - though I don' t think that's controversial)
Sunday 18 May 2008
Long words
In one of my less prescient moments, a few weeks ago I decided that it would be good to go for a day of test cricket this weekend, but instead of going today, where it appears to be rather good weather, I went yesterday, when it rained, and rained, and rained. We missed the first two overs that were played, little realising that such a loss represented 25% of the action.
The interminable rain delays meant that we wandered around Lord's for much of the day. Even in an almost abandoned test, the museum was not that busy (though it did have last year's exhibits in), Andrew played famous person spotting and - in a fit of weakness - we bought Ed Smith's new book, What sport tells us about life (Note how it's £6 cheaper on Amazon). Ed Smith is a very well educated man, who has a better degree than me. However, shockingly, while we dithered about buying his book, he accused us of pontificating - he meant prevaricating. I should stress that while am no stranger to pontificating, but I am assured I was not on this occasion.
Sport may teach you about life, but it would seem not much about words.
The interminable rain delays meant that we wandered around Lord's for much of the day. Even in an almost abandoned test, the museum was not that busy (though it did have last year's exhibits in), Andrew played famous person spotting and - in a fit of weakness - we bought Ed Smith's new book, What sport tells us about life (Note how it's £6 cheaper on Amazon). Ed Smith is a very well educated man, who has a better degree than me. However, shockingly, while we dithered about buying his book, he accused us of pontificating - he meant prevaricating. I should stress that while am no stranger to pontificating, but I am assured I was not on this occasion.
Sport may teach you about life, but it would seem not much about words.
Thursday 8 May 2008
Change (and why it's bad)
Unsworths opposite the British Library has changed hands; it's very unclear what is in fact going on, their website no longer lists it, and there is the suggestion here that it went in March. It has been replaced by a vile cheap remaindering bookshop. No longer will I be able to browse for obscure treasures after doing a hard day's (well, afternoon's - till 5, because of their absurd opening times) work in the BL on a Saturday. It is especially irritating as they doubtless had a clearance sale that I failed to attend.
On the plus side, the Hellenic bookservice is moving, which is about time; the old premises were dire, but I remember it fondly - I bought a very nice Greek Septuagint (here, for the uninitiated)there once.
On the plus side, the Hellenic bookservice is moving, which is about time; the old premises were dire, but I remember it fondly - I bought a very nice Greek Septuagint (here, for the uninitiated)there once.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)