Sunday, January 4, 2026

Before Chanting On More Notes

I'M ALMOST RELUCTANT to give you this right now because I really want to encourage you to work on recto tono chanting on one note for a while,  you really can learn a lot from it and it is extremely useful for deeper study of texts.    Before going on to some ideas for chanting on more than one note I'll get some old stuff out of the way.  

This is the project I said I was working on last month.   Well,  me and a colleague who is also interested in encouraging a New Chant practice in which People compose new chants in their own language - I say in Esperanto as well,* potentially the "The New Latin for the Church and for Ecumenism" as well, he's not an Esperantist.  That wouldn't be as a replacement for singing Gregorian or other ancient chant but to continue with chanting as a developing and living practice instead of antiquarianism.  

And about the antiquarian stuff. 

In his highly eccentric but interesting and at times useful "Music Primer" the American composer Lou Harrison said:

Old Jewish chants** & also in both kinds of Catholic Christianity (in only slightly modified form).  [Note there are more than two kinds of even Western Catholic chant.] They are sung in Temples & Synagogues too, of course.   The Psalmtone form is lovely, & one may compose new ones at pleasure.  Its full form includes an "Intonation" (beginning tones), a "Tenor" (the "chanting-many-syllables: tone) a "Flex" (a small cadence formula used only to accommodate sentences with several subordinate clauses) "Tenor" again; the "Mediant" (a half cadence formula for the middle of a sentence) "Tenor" again, & lastly a "Termination" (a melodic, slightly ornamental ending motive).  An "Interrogation" ending should be provided for questioning sentences.  Willi Apel's book "Gregorian Chant" is good on this subject - as are authors Idelsohn & Fox-Strangways on similar subjects.   [Look for Idelsohn and Fox-Strangways at Archive.org.]

You are probably confused by that, I've studied chant and it is both confusing and, in at least one aspect wrong, I think, AND, IN ANY CASE, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT YOU DO IN YOUR OWN CHANT PRACTICE.   You can follow the several outlines of medieval practice - the ones in the Solemnes editions of the Catholic liturgy are more informative and clearer - or any other practice someone else has come up with or you can do what you want to do.  

More useful than the above,  Lou Harrison finished his Primer with this

Whether rhythmic or not - & there are two basic forms - the Chant is perdurable, a basis to underlie the serious coming together of music & words, & though it is among the oldest kinds of music, still stimulates to hear &to make. 

Speaking of "rhythmic" I should note that an alternative to chanting can be found in various traditions of folk spirituals though their purpose is somewhat different.   Walter Brueggeman suggested that Psalm settings in the style of blues or country song might helpfully express, especially, the Psalms of protest and complaint and lamentation.   I think for more on that James Cone's "Spirituals And The Blues" is especially rich.   I'll only deal with chanting here but as this continues I think you'll find information that would be useful for those who want to go on with more of a folk spiritual practice.  I intend for there to be lots of ear training involved and am already well into working on that.

I am a bit unhappy to hear someone has made a movie purportedly about the Shaker prophet Ann Lee in which a number of Shaker Spirituals are used in the music.  Other than the unaccompanied singing of them, preferably by Shakers themselves, I have never heard any use of them I didn't dislike, not even as set by Aaron Copland.  I haven't seen the movie and don't intend to but I doubt they're likely to do any better by that subject than the movies do about any others.  I recall hearing the late Sr. Mildred Barker, who was one of the living repositories of Shaker spirituals and, I believe, the last survivor of the Alfred community which had its own singing tradition, talking about how she would repeat a song over and over again to meditate on it, to "labor" on it.   I think that's probably a good approach to folk spirituals as prayer.  

* The translation of the "Old Testament" by Dr. Zamenhof, the inventor of Esperanto is very good and very singable,  it is not a Scripture Scholar's translation from the Hebrew but of someone who could read Hebrew and someone than whom there is no such thing as a more authoritative expert on the language that he invented.   Zamenhof's translation is,  I think, something of a literary classic in the same way that Jerome's Vulgate, the King James Version, even more so the Tyndale and even earlier Wycliffe translations that the KJV kind of cribbed and the Luther translation is for German culture.   Zamenhof's  many translations of secular literature are very good, especially Hans Christian Anderson's tales.  

I don't hold the New Testament translation into Esperanto done by a number of Christian scholars in as high regard, it's certainly grammatically correct and probably as accurate as any of the other such scholar committee translations are but I find it cumbersome.   I don't have the translations of the Gospels by Gerrit Berveling  to compare,  I've only read his translation of the so-called Thomas Gospel.  A good, modern not to mention singable translation of the New Testament into Esperanto probably lies in the future.   

** I would suggest, if you want to look into old Jewish chanting of Scripture you in addition to the approved academic points of view,  check in to the very controversial work of Suzanne Haïk-Vantoura who claimed to have decoded the musical indications in ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the Scriptures.  While most if not all academic experts in the topic rejected her claims, the recordings I've heard of performances informed by her theories are rather stunningly musically coherent, often unexpected and moving and anything but expected.   You can hear a number of those on Youtube, though I have to say the ones in which she composed accompaniments for them kind of obscure the musical chanting.  Whatever you make of her claims of authenticity,  it's worth hearing them put into actual music.   Its worth as music is clear to me, at least. 

Saturday, January 3, 2026

I Checked To See If She Had Before Posting This, I May Revise If I See She Has Since

IF THE VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION FIGURE  Maria Corina Machado, who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year doesn't come out soon in opposition to Trump ruling her country as he intends to,  and very soon,  the reasonable conclusion is that she's OK with that.    If she agrees to being installed by Trump - and if that happens the reasonable conclusion,  no, the absolute certainty is that she's an American puppet,  if by "America" you mean Donald Trump and his criminal regime.     She didn't oppose him blowing up fishing boats, a clear international crime,  absolute murder,  she supported him doing that, so I'm not expecting she's going to do anything to support the independence of Venezuela now.

Though I'm far from enthusiastic for the Madurro administration he did something that she has not done, he won an election.  I'll get into whether or not the election he ran was a clean one when my country gets rid of the Electoral College,  the media lying for Republican-fascists with impunity and the partisan gerrymandering that the Roberts Court is rubber-stamping.   

I am always seriously skeptical of any "opposition" figure who is a right-wing capitalist from the oligarchic class as Machado is,  if she became the president of Venezuela I'd expect she would  be far less about an attempted reform than Violetta Chamorro was in Nicaragua - her win in 1990 was heavily influenced by George H.W. Bush's quite similar illegal act in Panama the year before,  it was widely feared in Nicaragua that he would invade their country, too.   You remember,  that's the illegal war and abduction of a national leader that led to George H.W. Bush pardoning all kinds of criminals like Caspar Weinberger , Robert McFarlane, Elliott Abrams, though some interpreted that as him pardoning them so they wouldn't testify about him re Iran-Contra.   You might find this old show about how the crimes of daddy Bush set things up for Trump's grant of impunity for his many crimes prescient and very timely. 

If I were a Venezuelan,  I'd count on Machado selling the country out, especially the lower classes.  She's an elite-trained capitalist oligarach.   I stopped being impressed with the Nobel Peace Prize when they gave one to that massive criminal responsible in the deaths of literally millions, both during his time in government and after,  Henry Kissinger.   I like to think of him in hell right now and I don't like to think anyone's in hell.  I expect Poppy Bush is there with him, twisting in the flames or some such torture.  They would be if anyone was.   

What Is Allowed To Happen Under The US Government IS What Is Really Constitutional, To Pretend Otherwise Is To Perpetuate The Most Dangerous Lie

 The Congress shall have Power . . . To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; . . .

BOMBING ANOTHER COUNTRY, abducting its elected leader and kidnapping them as Trump reportedly did during the night is an act of war by any unabridged meaning of the phrase "act of war."   The U.S. Constitution supposedly gives the power to make war to the U.S. Congress but that's clearly a lie,  Trump has committed war on Venezuela, certainly with the motive of getting its oil for his billionaire and millionaire friends and you can be certain that his crime family, including his in-laws are in it for their cut of the action.  

The Library of Congress website both claims that Article I of the Constitution establishes that sole power to declare war, claims  that "The Declare War Clause is a central element of Congress’s war powers," and oh, so conveniently, show how under the Constitution as it really is, that most important feature of the thing has been made meaningless by a combination of Congressional cowardice and Supreme Court corruption. 

ArtI.S8.C11.2.1 Overview of Declare War Clause: 

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; . . .

The Declare War Clause is a central element of Congress’s war powers and its meaning is among those most heavily debated.1 The Supreme Court has observed that only Congress has the power to declare war,2 but the implications of this exclusive assignment are not well-settled. In particular, the relationship between Congress’s power to declare war and the President’s war powers granted under Article II of the Constitution is a subject of significant disagreement.3

The first draft of the Constitution considered in Philadelphia in 1787 would have given Congress the power to make war, but the Framers substituted the word declare in what James Madison described as an effort to ensure that the President was empowered to repel sudden attacks.4 Under Congress’s interpretation of the Constitution, the President may introduce troops into hostile circumstances if Congress has (1) declared war, (2) specifically authorized the President to use force, or (3) there is a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its territories.5 The executive branch claims much broader authority and asserts that the Constitution empowers the President to initiate and engage in many types of military action without congressional authorization.6

While this interbranch debate remains active, other questions concerning the Declare War Clause have been settled by longstanding practice and judicial opinions. For example, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress need not issue a formal declaration of war to authorize the United States to engage in military action.

It must be pointed out that none of those loopholes apply in the case of Trump bombing Venezuela and kidnapping its president, though that won't matter in the slightest.  I doubt the Library of Congress will even bother to revise this clearly lie filled posting in the future to match reality as it really is. 

It is to be assumed that the Congress, so notably full of lawyers, some of them actually deemed "Constitutional scholars" and that those who are appointed to the Supreme Court are similarly expert in the document - though as the Republican members of the Rehnquist and Roberts Court, with exactly two exceptions, show, that assumption is, itself, bullshit - have made the most serious and momentous of powers delegated to the most democratically vulnerable branch utterly meaningless.  Such is the true nature of the U.S. Constitution, its lore and history and its reality as opposed to the lies that comprise such "Constitutional scholarship."    The next stupidly written part of that comprises not only an open barn door but an entirely open side of the horse shed that doesn't need to be escaped.  

7 Congress also can, by statute, authorize the President to use force within defined parameters that do not rise to the level of a general declaration of war.8 The United States has issued declarations of war against eleven countries during five conflicts, but it has not formally declared war since World War II.9 As a result, statutory authorizations have become the predominant method for Congress to permit military action since the Second World War.10

The Supreme Court has also observed that the Declare War Clause confers broad authority upon Congress to pursue the war effort.11 The power to Declare War, the Supreme Court stated in 1870, involves the power to prosecute it by all means and in any manner in which war may be legitimately prosecuted.12 In line with this interpretation, Congress has enacted an extensive set of statutes that trigger a host of special wartime authorities concerning the military, foreign trade, energy, communications, alien enemies, and other issues if Congress declares war.13

The United States doesn't have a Constitution that means a goddamned thing, the Roberts Court , the most corrupt Supreme Court in our history, up to and most of all legalizing open bribery and corruption, as long as payment is made after what is bought is delivered and, worst of all, making Donald Trump an absolute dictator for four years - or more if he seizes power for longer, and don't think Vance won't try that as well.   The United States is a lawless country due to the lies and dodges and corruption of the lawyers on the Supreme Courts since WWII who have allowed that power grab by the executive with the acquiescence of partisans on both sides of the Congress - again many of those giving that non-Constitutional power to presidents being not only lawyers but "Constitutional scholars."  

Once a road through the actual meaning of the Constitution has been cut by the goddamned Supreme Court, it is there until it is sealed up by an amendment.   Actually, under the real as opposed to the pretend Constitution, that's not true because the Marbury power, as has been seen over and over again, especially in the most corrupt of Courts, which is a majority of them, gives them the real power to nullify and amend the Constitution at their whim or ideological desire or, now under the corruption of the Roberts Court, as their patrons so order it up.   Destroying the Marbury power grab is essential as the history of the United States proves, any court which is granted or grabs for itself such a power means that no written or unwritten Constitution means a goddamned thing in and of itself. 

I doubt that anything but a total revision of the Constitution INCLUDING A CHANGE FROM THE INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS PRESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT OURS INVENTED will reign in the most corrupt, the most overtly and literally criminal president from committing he most serious of crimes, especially if the Court has been as corrupted as ours is.   Trump is that and the Roberts Court and the Republican-fascist congress is as guilty as he and his drunken, steroid stimulated Secretary of mayhem, Hegseth and the military officers and others who have carried out these grotesquely illegal acts.    I don't expect any of them will suffer any consequences because the United States is a lawless country.  

Friday, January 2, 2026

How to do a spiritual reset for 2026


To kick off 2026 and the second season of “The Spiritual Life" podcast, host James Martin, S.J., welcomes Trappist monk, poet and photographer, Br. Paul Quenon, to do a "spiritual reset." Br. Paul entered the Trappists in 1958 at the Abbey of Gethsemani in Kentucky, where Thomas Merton was his novice master. Together they discuss:

00:00 Who is Br. Paul Quenon?
2:30 Doing a spiritual reset
8:00 How Br. Paul became a monk
13:55 Living with Thomas Merton
18:34 How to do a "spiritual reset"
24:27 Making sense out of tragedy
28:47 Does our hubris anger God?
34:31 Should I give all my possessions away?
38:07 How to focus less on yourself during prayer
43:00 Building a personal relationship with God

Among the good ideas is to not make New Years resolutions.  
To encourage you to listen,  James Martin drives right wingers nuts on a regular basis,  probably at least as much as the late Fr. Richard McBrien did 

More On Chanting On One Note

THE PASSAGE from Willi Apel's book on Gregorian Chant given yesterday was right, the primary value of the musical recitation of Psalms,  Canticles such as the Magnificat or Nunc Dimittis, passages from the Prophets, Writings, Gospels and Epistles isn't the music, it's the words.   You could write your own psalm or canticle or paraphrase of scripture, you get to decide what you're going to do at home on your own. 

But that doesn't mean that there isn't any musical value to it.  When the rhythm of the text is the focus you can learn a lot about the rhythm of it, which in musical terms means lengths of notes, different lengths of notes and pauses of different length.  To an extent also the varying loudness of softness of what is sung .   Just learning how to sustain a tone on pitch has musical value.  Added to that is the clarity and naturalness of pronunciation of the consonants as well as the vowels.   But those can't be separated from the meaning of the words in the context of the text. 

You can learn a lot from recto tono chanting, it will be a lot more subtle than chanting with elaborate melodies, which have their own lessons to teach.  But those subtle lessons are some of the most important if meaning in music is what you're after. 

If you have an instrument you can play, checking the pitch with it can help a lot.  If you have a keyboard or guitar (make sure it's in tune) accompanying yourself with it with a single chord or note can help a lot.  This is your practice, you get to decide how you're going to do it.  


Thursday, January 1, 2026

Wicked Is Pure Torture

IN THE COURSE of my new years day,  I was involuntarily exposed to the movie Wicked.   L. Frank Baum must have gone to hell because if he's aware of what they did to his story it must be torture for him.  

My advice, read the book and forget the movies. 

Update:

Well, I felt eternally damned after about an hour of the thing. 


I'm With Tabitha And Hunter Biden When It Comes To Clooney Chickening Out To His Estate In Provence


And this is after Clooney not only played a major role in sandbagging the most successful Democratic president since LBJ - also sandbagged by media figures and celebrities - in not only after having a hand in handing the country over to something much worse than the 50s red-scare and being unapologetic for it.  It's after he did that he struck that pose on Broadway rehashing the legend of Edward Murrow WHO VERY MUCH DID NOT CHICKEN HIS WAY TO AN ESTATE IN PROVENCE AS THE SHIT HE HAD NO HAND IN CREATING GOT DEEP.  

George Clooney,  good bye and fuck off.  I sure as hell won't be watching anything that he's in from now on. 

I agree with Tabitha,  Hunter Biden is fast becoming one of my favorite commentators on the scene.   He said it just right, except I think Clooney likes his celebrity and money and public image a hell of a lot more than he does the United States.  Tapper and the others mentioned, too. 

Start The New Year Singing

100 Sing to the Lord, all the world!
2 Worship the Lord with joy;
    come before him with happy songs!

3 Acknowledge that the Lord is God.
    He made us, and we belong to him;
    we are his people, we are his flock.

4 Enter the Temple gates with thanksgiving;
    go into its courts with praise.
    Give thanks to him and praise him.

5 The Lord is good;
    his love is eternal
    and his faithfulness lasts forever.

Good News Translation

The most elementary stage of the liturgical recitative is represented by the melodic formulae used for the musical delivery of the readings and prayers that form a part of the Office and the Mass.  In view of the close relationship which generally exists between degrees of musical elaboration and degrees of liturgical significance, it is perhaps surprising to encounter such rudimentary types of chant not only in the Office Hours, but also (in fact, much more prominently) in the solemn liturgy of the Mass.  The explanation is that these are not musical items in the proper sense.  They are essentially spoken texts, the meaning of which would be destroyed by any but the simplest manner of musical delivery.  Here, as well as in the slightly more developed formulae used for the Psalms, the music has no independent significance and value,  but only serves as a means of obtaining a distinct and clearly audible pronunciation of the words so they will resound into the farthest corners of the church.  Today, these texts are often recited recto tono,  that is on one unchanged pitch and with a slight pause to mark the end of phrases or sentences.  This, however, is not a medieval practice.  It was introduced, together with many other modifications, through the reforming work of Giovanni Guidetti (1530-92) whose Directorium chori of 1582 is perhaps the most important of the various reform editions of that period,  much more so than the notorious Editio Medicea of 1614.  

Willi Apel, Gregorian Chant p. 203

Even the most vocally challenged among us can manage singing on one tone.  And you can build on that. 

Good News Translation is better for singing than the Common English Bible I think.  I hate to say it but some of those more influenced by the KJV are pretty good for that too, as are the Coverdale translations, the Douay-Rheims translation, too though those aren't really in current English.   


Wednesday, December 31, 2025

Because if my faith rests on ignoring such tensions . . . my God is going to be the presiding spirit of whatever makes me comfortable.

LISTENING YESTERDAY TO A LECTURE by Rowan Williams,  One being with the Father, given last September,  I thought I would transcribe it and go over it during the first week or so of the new year.   But this morning, looking at RMJ's blog I read this comment originally from bluesky:

The thing to remember is that destroying the Kennedy Center is the point of all of this. Shut down arts, shut down science, shut down academia so that radical Christianity can take over.

Reading that I realized that instead of me writing something of less value,  Rowan Williams had said something far more apt and a far better refutation than anything I could come up with.  Here from about 35:20 in the lecture .

Engagement with the ongoing risky time-taking business of finding where life is under threat and asking how we may receive and give life there. Yes, that is a crucial element in what the Christian community is summoned to do.

But for that to go on happening, the imagination must be served day by day and century by century. An imagination which helps to give us the tools for seeing where that reciprocity, that communion is challenged or where it is failing. 

And that is where the life of the arts so profoundly comes in as part of our belief in the eternal word who is of one being with the father. This creativity exercised realized within time involves us in the kind of imaginative enterprise in the arts which has the courage to live with irresolution, incompleteness, to give breathing space to the questions.

To listen hard and attend hard to those who seem impenetrably different and threatening. To listen hard and attend hard to those who barely know what it is to be listened to.

Which is why, of course, art that comes from a Christian soil is not always consoling.  Art that comes from fidelity to the Gospel should be and so often is an art that is not afraid of discord.

In this moment, the most important thing may not be to look for what feels like or sounds like reconciliation, but to listen intently for what is not yet resolved and to make sure that that is drawn in.

You might perhaps expect me to refer to Dostoevsky here, so I shall.  [Williams is a respected Dostoevsky scholar.]

But when Dostoevsky in his last and most formidable novel, Brothers Karamazov,  talks about what he's doing, he says, I'm trying to make a better case for atheism than an atheist can.  I'm trying to show that a Christian can look harder and listen harder to the actual stress, tension, and incompletion of the world.  Because if my faith rests on ignoring such tensions, my God is not going to be the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. My God is going to be the presiding spirit of whatever makes me comfortable.

And as you will be aware, the church has refined that kind of theology to something of a specialism in many areas of its life across the centuries. And I dare say it's not wholly unknown these days. Maybe not even in the United States of America.

Instead of looking for the consolation of familiarity and making God the ultimate sanctioner of the familiar and the safe, the Christian artist seeks to make sure that the worst, the hardest is not ignored. The Christian artist allows breathing space for difficulty, for tension,
breathing space for the expression of despair,  the expression of hopelessness, even though the very act of imagining that is an act of hope.

In the terms of the comment which is about Trump plastering his name on the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC,  I can guarantee the fashionable despiser of Christianity that, in these most profoundly Christian terms, such art, seldom if ever made it to the Kennedy Center, at least in so far as what I used to see from there on PBS or recall reading about.   Even the more challenging of high-overhead art is, in the end, dedicated to whatever makes its audience comfortable.   Such art might, once in a while, show up on the best sellers list at the NYT or at least it used to, but in the performing arts, it's seldom given such a big stage.   Looking at what else he posts on bluesky,  I doubt he has much use for such art as Rowan Williams says a committed Christian artist has to produce to be true to their profession of faith.  

I hope to revisit this passage when I go through it,  if I don't get distracted by the news or something else.  If you have the time to go through the lecture it's probably about as worth doing as anything else I can think of right now.   I was listening to one of the more erudite and learned of current theologians on something like this, going through the early history of Christology and its conception of the cosmos in relation to the identity of Christ with the Father, which was very interesting but I couldn't find much to apply in my life from it.  I wouldn't refute anything that was said, though I am left with my very Catholic conclusion that that relationship is mysterious and that human reasoning through it is probably for the most part irrelevant, no matter what the Neo-Platonists among the Church fathers may have believed.   I found much in Rowan Williams lecture that I could apply as well as think on.  

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

Why Isn't Anyone Mentioning Louis Freeh In Regard To The Enabling Of Epstein And Maxwell?

LISTENING TO THE LATEST information from Maria Farmer, one of the sisters who first informed the FBI about the Epstein pedophile rape ring only to have the FBI ignore their report for years,  I have to wonder why no one is asking what role the then FBI director, Louis Freeh had in facilitating the continued abduction, rape and trafficking of children after HIS FBI did exactly that.  

Along with Janet Reno as Attorney General, Bill Clinton's appointment of the DC establishment-media darling Louis Freeh as the director of the FBI have to stand as his worst appointments.   But what can a Democratic president who appoints a frickin' Republican to head the FBI expect?   By that time the Republican Party was well on its way to becoming the anti-democratic as well as anti-Democratic, fascist party it has become.  I can't believe that it was solely due to the deliberate idiocy of the legal profession that pretends that "the law" is above politics because Clinton certainly should have known better by then.  Though I've come to never underestimate the power of training in the law to allow you to pretend to not know what you know very well. *  

Maybe I'll rehash the vileness of Freeh another time but let me get to the other obvious figure who should be questioned and investigated as to what he knew about the enabling by his bureau of the massive child-rape-trafficking-blackmail ring with clear international features to it,  Freeh's successor, the absurdly lauded and idolized Robert Mueller.    His FBI sat on the same information from the Farmer sisters that Freeh's did.   

I will stand second to no one in my criticism of the epic malfeasance trough nonfeasance of Merrick Garland who should go down in history as the man who cared more for his own reputation than for American democracy or even the rule of law but he doesn't stand alone among those who could have saved countless children from being abducted, raped and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell and the others who ran that child-rape-blackmail scheme.   I have enough disdain for all of those who facilitated that crime spree to continue and one of its major figures,  Trump to gain and regain power.   I find that the powers of disdain expand to the size of those who deserve it.   There are certainly others,  such as the politicians and scientists and figures of finance, etc. who knew about it all along.  I think there is every reason to believe that Bill Clinton was someone who was aware of it even as he did nothing to stop it.  He may have never gone to the island but he was no babe in the woods.   I will remind you Republicans who troll me that I have said from the start if Bill Clinton raped children they should lock him up and throw away the key.  I say the same for everyone who did that,  I don't believe that pedophiles can ever be safely assumed to reform.   Though I'm sure there are some who give it up,  I doubt most do. 

-------------

* Which brings me to that other major figure of both those accused of pedophile abuse and getting Epstein off so he could continue raping and trafficking and blackmailing for years,  Dershowitz.   Someone didn't care for me talking about what a damned liar he is and how that kind of lying is not only typical of those who take up the profession of lawyering, learning not only how to lie your lying face off to the media and only slightly reigned in in court so as to gull jurors from master liars such as Dershowitz at law schools such as Harvard where he taught the art of lying and Yale, where he learned it.  

I don't think I had listened to this exchange between that expert in the lies of Dershowitz  Norman Finkelstein and Katie Halper before the other day - I listen to way too many such things - but he had about the best explanation of how that works in regard to the epic lying of Dershowitz and how academia, which considers the minor sin of alleged plagiarism as a mortal sin that damns the accused for eternity even as it gives a pass to the most flagrant of lying by their faculty members, even those who get their lying puss on TV so much that they come to represent some place like Harvard Law. 


  Finkelstein's analysis that Dershowitz can both know he's lying while believing that his lies are true may be over psychologizing it,  I think he's just a shameless liar who knows he'll get away with it because a. Harvard isn't going to punish him for it,  they won't even investigate it, b. the media he lies in isn't going to make him pay in any way for it, c. he tells lies he knows he'll be rewarded for telling, d. he's got absolutely no moral core.   I can't imagine he has not lied in court to a jury and he's gotten away with it,  as I have said,  the legal profession, including judges and, probably most of all "justices" have elevated lying by lawyers into what passes as an ethical obligation.    I will point out that all of the men other than Epstein named above were trained as lawyers, all of them products of elite, private universities and law schools - they didn't graduate from some lesser regarded school, perhaps they'd have something like a chance of being less dishonest if they had.  

Those stupid shows that have led Americans to have an absurdly high respect for what is a pretty grimy profession,  everything from Perry Mason to the newer ones and movies like To Kill A Mockingbird have sold us a ridiculous image of lawyers.   I tell that truth because there is no hope of there ever being a reform of it unless those of us outside of that racket see through it and demand change.   Lawyers will never ever reform themselves, not even those who may disdain lying themselves because they know that they'd suffer professionally if they admitted what a bunch of fucking liars their colleagues are. 

And while we're at it,  I want to know which governments were in on it.  And what other child raping and trafficking and blackmailing rackets are there.  Between just those known here and in the UK, I have every confidence that those are the tip of a shitberg.   The elites seem to like to rape children.  Which is just one of the reasons why we should level elites out of existence.


Monday, December 29, 2025

Christmas is a child born in transit

WE'RE HAVING AN ICE STORM so the electricity has been going in and out, the reason I haven't written anything today.   Here's the beginning of an excellent article with the excellent photo that was published with it. 

Christmas is a child born in transit


Guests at the Buen Samaritano shelter for migrants participate in a candle lighting ceremony in anticipation of Christmas in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, across from El Paso, Texas, Dec. 22, 2022. (AP/Morgan Lee)

by Yolanda Chávez
For migrants, returning to the story of Jesus' birth is not just a devotional gesture, but an act of memory. Christmas, read through the experience of human displacement, reveals a truth we often prefer to soften: Jesus was not born at home.
He was born in transit, out of place, without belonging to any secure space. Mary and Joseph were not traveling by choice, nor driven by the romantic notion of a spiritual journey. A decree set them in motion. A political decision forced them to leave, far from their support networks, their history and the minimal protection that familiarity provides.
The road was not pilgrimage; it was imposition. And the birth took place in exposure.
The lack of lodging is not a pious detail of the story. It is not a romantic anecdote nor a pastoral backdrop. It is structural exclusion. "There was no place for them" does not mean they arrived too late; it means they did not count. They were not a priority. There was no space for their bodies, for their exhaustion, for the vulnerability of a woman about to give birth.

God does not correct this precarity from the outside; God agrees to be born there.
The mystery of the Incarnation does not unfold at the center, but at the margins; not under a roof, but exposed; not protected, but vulnerable. God chooses to enter history without guarantees, entrusting his body to displaced parents and his first breath to exposure to the elements.

That is why Jesus does not merely resemble today's migrants and displaced people; Jesus is with them. He shares their uprootedness, their fear, their lack of place. His body is born already marked by transit, by borders, by the absence of refuge. From his very first day, the life of the incarnate God is bound to those who have nowhere to stay

Candelmas

With certitude
Simeon opened
ancient arms
to infant light.
Decades
before the cross, the tomb
and the new life,
he knew
new life.
What depth 
of faith he drew on
turning illuminated
towards deep night.

Denise Levertov

Saturday, December 27, 2025

Eĉ Pli Rara - An Esperanto Christmas Movie

 


Eĉ Pli Rara – Kristnaska Filmo en Esperanto
Geedzoj diskutas sian kristnaskan butikumadon. 
Even More Rare – A Christmas Film in Esperanto 
A couple discusses their Christmas shopping. 

Written, Directed, and Edited by Alex Miller 
Starring Callie Johnson and Alex Miller 
Filmed by Alan R. Frias and Anaregina Frias 
This short film has subtitles in English and Esperanto. 

I won't tell you the joke unless requested. 

I'll point out Callie Johnson is the same actress-writer-producer who was in that last Esperanto movie I posted. 

More True Than The Facts Which We Don't Have Anyway

IT'S A CHRISTMAS SEASON EVERGREEN, the inevitable rehashing of the claims that either no one knows the "real" date of the birth of Jesus or that there is "good reason" to believe it happened some other time of year - the only real evidence of that is the presumption that shepherds wouldn't have been out in the field tending their flocks this time of the year. I don't know how well documented the practices of shepherds in the early 1st century Palestine are but I doubt it's anything like something that well founded in the written literature that survives.  I officially am skeptical of any claims made by 20th, or 21st, 19st, 18th, . . . century academics and scribblers who make confident claims about such things without there being that kind of contemporaneous documentation as they proclaim we must be about early 4th century claims about Jesus being born on December 25th.  I think there's a lot more reason to be skeptical about such claims made millennia after the undocumented fact than there is three centuries after it.  

One problem I have is the creation of a "typical" or "normal" life or way of life based on one or two documents or less, especially when you base that from something said centuries before of after the period you're making claims for.  If one thing is likely, it was that life and lives were in no way as uniform as that kind of pseudo-scientific anthology and sociology would have it.  It wouldn't surprise me if the poorest of the poor among shepherds had no alternative to having their flocks out in the open during the coldest weather. 

In passing, I will point out that anything, such as Luke's story about the census, for which there is no corroborating document only means that Luke's account is the only evidence we have of it happening.   Many things taken as historically accurate are based in one and only one source and many times those sources come from centuries after, not decades, within possible living memory of what is documented.  Much of the documentation we have of things like shepherds in those times COMES FROM WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY ABOUT THEM.    And such texts do comprise evidence.  

I might have caused a couple of brows to raise when, in one of my skimpy Advent posts to say that something claimed in one of the Gospels never having happened having little to do with whether or not it was true - a truth I got from Bishop Gene Robinson.  But the writers of the Gospels, including Matthew and Luke, weren't writing history as such, they were proclaiming a deeper truth than that.  The truth they were after was deeper than the kind of truth that the best and most serious novelists try to present in their use of fiction instead of expository writing.  And they were far more successful.  I think for that truth December 25th is a particularly excellent date for the birth of God incarnate, born into our enfleshed condition, not as the empowered royalty that the common conception of the messianic prophecies expected.  I will point out that, especially considering how many offspring ancient monarchs produced, there was an excellent chance of Jesus having been of "the house of David" as there is any European having had anyone who had many grandchildren a thousand years ago having them in their ancestry - especially in any group that had tendencies to marry within their own group.  There is every reason to believe that claim considering that David lived probably at least nine-hundred to a thousand years before Jesus was born to a Jewish mother.  

But that doesn't really interest me.  It is that Jesus was born into the lowest of the lower classes of Roman occupied Palestine, his official father a carpenter or stone-worker, his mother certainly not of any economic class above that.  At every point in both of the infancy gospels, Jesus is identified as being at risk, at risk due to the irregularity of his mother's situation when she found herself pregnant - what would have happened if Joseph divorced her and it got round that he wasn't the father?    As, in fact, the earliest anti-Christian literature claimed.  His birth in a barn, as it were, certainly put him at increased risk, as I'd guess they'd realize even back then.  Then there's Matthew's story of Herod wanting to kill him and the perils of the Flight Into Egypt, life of the young family as an alien there - though they may have gone to one of the well established Jewish communities in Egypt.  Then going back only to have Joseph decide they needed to avoid Herod's son so he set up new in a new town.  Even when he was 12 and he stayed behind, lost for days in Jerusalem as a vulnerable child.  

I think the idea that Jesus was born during the period of greatest danger to an infant - don't know if was true then but these days the winter months are those with some of the highest infant mortality - has a truth to it that having it verified by a birth certificate showing he was born on December 25th whatever year they'd have called it a 12:17 AM wouldn't enhance.  

God becoming like us except in regard to sin is the whole point of the Incarnation.  That is sharing our embodied life up to and including our death in the most possibly terrible of ways, is the truth of it.  A truth that modern notions of history and the absurd quest for "the historical Jesus" can't start to tell.  I say December 25th is the true date even if he was born in April or May. 


There's nothing at all that's truer than Mary's song when she went to visit Elizabeth.  

Friday, December 26, 2025

Reese Waters Is One Of Those I Listen To Every Time He Posts A New Video

 


Here's what he has to say about Vivek seeking the Republican-fascist vote for the SECOND public office he's run for in his lifetime.      Poor Vivek,  he'll never get to be a real MAGA for the same reason no Person of Color will be anything but their patsy.   ESPECIALLY IN THE OHIO REPUBLICAN PARTY WHICH IS WHAT MAKES IT LOUISIANA NORTH.  

Reese Waters is a master at what he does. 

Thursday, December 25, 2025

The Visible Revelation Of God

 Theophany 

(Luke 2 & Matthew 1-2)

What are we who tried so hard
to keep you far from us,
addressing you as God Most High.
Lord, King, and offering gold on gold, 
clouds of incense, myrrh,
to make of this?

What are we who tried so hard
to save you from the smell
of those below the bottom rung
 and now must step around still steaming
 dung to reach your manger bed
 to make of this?

What are we who tried so hard
to pick and purchase gifts of royal ilk
and now see you, despite malodorous
incense, drafty cold, move toward
your mother's milk with infant bliss
to make of this?

Sr Irene Zimmerman SSF

O Magnum Mysterium 

Tomás Luis de Victoria


O magnum mysterium
et admirabile sacramentum,
ut animalia viderent Dominum natum
jacentem in praesepio.
O beata Virgo, 
cujus viscera meruerunt
portare Dominum Jesum Christum.
Alleluia!

O great mystery, and wonderful sacrament,
that animals should see the new-born Lord, lying in a manger!
Blessed is the Virgin whose womb was worthy to bear Christ the Lord.
Alleluia!

After Praying For Justice, Justice Demands That Alan Dershowitz's Slander Against Maria Farmer Be Exposed Even Today

THAT QUINTESSENTIAL LIAR-LAWYER the Dersh is at it again, attacking some of the earliest victims of his client Jeffrey Epstein his pimpess and co-sexual criminal, Ghislaine Maxwell in the lowest end-American fascist media.  

I don't really feel like writing this so here a long passage  from Guilt by Accusation: Alan Dershowitz and Maria Farmer by Vernon Thorpe , August 12, 2020.   After a summary of Dershowitz's smears against Maria Farmer (I won't actually quote that liar unless I have to) a more accurate version with analysis is given. 

Most readers, on seeing these statements, would conclude that whoever uttered them was someone with very bigoted attitudes towards Jews in general and prone to the kind of conspiratorial thinking that takes hold in the minds of people with paranoid tendencies.

What happens if we actually listen to the interview, to which Dershowitz provided no link or reference? As there is no transcript of the interview I have transcribed the relevant sections of it myself, together with timings so that readers can check for accuracy.

Exhibit 1

“They think Jewish DNA is better than the rest of us.”

This is cited by Dershowitz as an example of the“bigotry Maria Farmer spewed during a recorded two-hour interview that can be heard online.”

What Farmer actually said, in the relevant section of the interview (a

“When I called Ghislaine [Maxwell] and asked why I couldn’t eat there [at a private and exclusive country club] she said “it’s a Jewish country club, you’re not Jewish, they’re not going to serve you.” This is how this woman spoke to me, yeah. This is how these people think Whitney. They, honest to God, think their DNA is better than everybody else’s, I swear to you. It was a theme all the time with them. With Eileen Guggenheim, with Jeffrey Epstein, with Ghislaine. It was a theme.”

It is quite clear from the context that Farmer, when she says “They”, is referring to the set of people she mentions and not all Jewish people. Yet Dershowitz, by stripping away the context of the quotation, leads the reader to assume that “They” is a universal ascription of certain views to Jews in general of the kind that might be made by a genuinely bigoted person.

Exhibit 2

“I had a hard time with all Jewish people.”

“I think it’s all the Jews”.

“All the Jewish people I met are pedophiles that run the world economy.”

The context of these quotations can be seen below.

“1hr 24.05 “I was actually glad I was in hiding in obscure hillbilly town. Like I’ve had to live in horrible places full of ignorant hillbillies and it was a relief because they weren’t elites, you know. It was just, it’s, for a long time I had a hard time with all Jewish people, I’m gonna be honest with you. For a long time I was like, I think it’s all the Jews. Like I don’t know, because my sister is like, “Maria, it’s just the ones you met, it’s these people.” It’s just unfortunate that all the Jewish people I met also happen to be pedophiles that run the world economy, you know. So it gives like a bad taste in your mouth. But David Icke has kind of helped me with that. I kind of understand it better now, but like er that looks hard. You know, they did a number on all of us. We’ve all had a hard time with, like, a lot of it because of the abuse, you know. So it’s hard to not then go, all these people are like this when it’s not true, not all of them, just a huge chunk of elites are like this.”

The first thing to notice here is that Dershowitz removes the words “For a long time” from both the first and second quotes. Had he kept the phrase in, this might have led readers to ask what Maria Farmer’s evolving attitudes were and whether she has distanced herself or is in the process of doing so from previous attitudes. Compare how you might react on hearing that someone had said, “For a long time, I thought, black people are inferior”, as opposed to hearing the person had simply said “black people are inferior”.

Farmer explicitly distances herself from a bigoted stance towards “all Jewish people” seeing herself as trying to recover from such an attitude. In this context, she refers to the advice of her sister and, alarmingly, that of David Icke who certainly has trafficked in wild conspiracy theories concerning lizards and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Not the best choice for a guide, to put it mildly, and a worrying sign of Farmer’s naivete – but the point here is that she is actively resisting a tendency to bigotry she presents as arising from her traumatic experiences.

Again she refers to the specific people she came across in the Epstein set, who she claims are powerful pedophiles that run the world economy. And she suggests that as a result of the abuse she says she suffered at the hands of people within this elite set, she developed an attitude towards Jews that was bigoted and which she is trying to resist. She does not deny that she has sometimes blurred the line between Jews generally and the arrogant criminal conduct of the elite set, but it must be recalled that she was a young woman at the time of the alleged abuse and has since struggled with her prejudice, hoping to overcome it.

It is hardly unusual for abuse victims to develop negative and irrational attitudes to groups of people who share features with their abusers. Female rape victims not uncommonly struggle not to have negative attitudes to all men, or to all men who share certain physical characteristics with the men who raped them. Very often such victims know that such attitudes are irrational and struggle with them. Or think of the attitudes to ‘all Germans’ of some Holocaust victims, or to ‘the Japanese’ of British prisoners of the Japanese in World War II, or of the attitudes of Jewish and Palestinian victims of Palestinian and Israeli terrorism to those they identify with the terrorists. To quote Maria Farmer in a way that deliberately suppresses her struggles with past attitudes and depict her as a straightforward bigot to be excoriated is to suppress the voice of someone who may simply be trying to recover from damage inflicted upon her.

Exhibit 3

“These people truly believe they are chosen every one of them.”

Maria Farmer does not actually say what Dershowitz has her saying (by combining two clauses in different sentences). Again, “every one of them” clearly refers to a specific group, the Epstein set.

1hr 32.04-1hr 32.47

“You wouldn’t believe the way Jeffrey and Ghislaine spoke about African-Americans. It was like, it made my skin crawl. Anybody who was not Jewish, and you should write about this, but the way they spoke about them, it was really horrifying and it showed me a great deal about how these people truly believe that they are chosen to do something here. I don’t know, it’s unbelievable to me. I mean, and it was every one of them, the way they spoke. And one time I heard Isabelle say to her mother Eileen [Guggenheim] “Mommy, why do you call Maria a nobody” and she said “Honey, Isabelle, Maria is not a Jew, she is a nobody. So you can see why, for about 20 years…”

Exhibit 4

“They are “Jewish Supremacists”

1hr 33.45-1hr34.04

“This is a problem, this elitism is very deep and these are the people pushing racism, these are the people saying, pushing white, saying there is White Supremacy, which maybe there is in some ignorant Southern hillbilly groups, but I don’t know any White Supremacists but I know a lot of Jewish Supremacists they’re all elites and they are all connected. And they are the biggest Supremacists I have ever met. And the things they said about Black people made me cry. Honest to God. It made me sick.”

Note that Dershowitz completely misquotes Farmer here and again, by stripping the quotation of context leads his readers to assume that “They” refers to all Jews, rather than Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and their set. Presumably for Dershowitz, someone condemning White Supremacists they had met, and referring to that particular group as ‘they’, could be condemned as having a bigoted attitude to all white people – even if they said in the same interview that they know this isn’t about white people as a group.

It is worth now quoting Farmer at length to gain an insight into the levels of dishonesty Dershowitz is to employ.

PART 2

34.19 – 37.27

“So Jeffrey and Ghislaine they were at the estate, they came like three times to visit Wexner while I was there. And they would go meet with him and then they would come back. And Ghislaine said they were working on all these Israeli charities for students and for,you know,Jewish people. And I remember thinking, oh that’s weird. And she was like, she was like “you don’t understand our loyalty to Israel, Maria. You don’t understand our loyalty.” She’s like, “unless you’re a dual citizen you just don’t get it”. She’s like “your people could never understand.” She would say “My people, your people, The Chosen Ones”, all that bullshit. And I’m just like…Let me tell you something, if I walk out of here not at all racist it’s a freaking miracle. Because I struggle every day with it. I’m like urgh I was so abused. I guess it could have happened from any group but because they are the ones that happen to control the world. It’s hard, it’s really hard, like this specific group of elites. It’s really hard to not just hate them, you know. So I haven’t gotten over hating that Ghislaine and the way she…

WW: I think they try and lump everyone in by design too, you know, in order to give themselves protection.

MF: Yes.

WW: I think it’s very intentional.

MF: It is very intentional.

WW: I can’t blame you for feeling that way considering what you had to go through so.

MF: Right. Well I don’t really feel that way. Let me tell you my background. Every boyfriend I’ve ever had was very Jewish, like 100 per cent, and never, I mean I had the best relationships in New York, I mean these were like the most patient guys, I don’t know why they put up with me, I think back on it and like those were the nicest guys. So there were the four boyfriends I had and everybody who got in touch with them says you know what Maria your boyfriends loved you so much and say nothing but nice things. So I have had very good experiences.But it was the Eileen Guggenheim thing and the Ghislaine all of that really soured me on like the religious, on religion in general, if you wanna know the truth. Like religion being used against people. And erm just all of it. It just really soured me. And I don’t, I don’t totally trust people, even though I have friends that are Jewish, like I still have fraught trust issues because, and it’s so unfair to them – rationally I know it’s unfair, but I was so, you know, scalded by the hot water, you know, I just can’t, I just can’t, I just can’t stick my hand back in. Like it’s too hard right now.

WW: That’s ok, it makes sense.

MF: But I don’t totally feel that way. I’m just being honest. I’m like a really honest person Whitney. And so, most people will never talk about that stuff. And I’m not…and the other thing that pisses me off is this whole anti-semitic bs because they call Bernie Sanders anti-semitic.

WW: Oh yeah, I know.

MF: I’m like, when is it going to end.

WW: It’s out of control. And the whole dual loyalty thing, you can’t say that even though you just mentioned what Ghislaine told you, right? Sheldon Adelson, he’s on video saying, all I care about is being a good citizen of Israel and he’s the top political donor in the United States. So the fact you’re not allowed to talk about is I think very troubling, right so…”

Whatever one makes of Farmer’s claims, there can be no doubt that Dershowitz has concocted a grotesque smear, depicting her as something she is not to a wide readership who will never hear the interview. Perhaps, using his own standards, we should begin to question his own reliability as a witness, using his actual – not fabricated or misleadingly presented – words.

It is not as though Dershowitz doesn’t have an impressive track record when it comes to smears and character assassination; in particular, blaming victims is something he has shown himself very willing to do.

Just a few examples will suffice here, but those looking for more documentation on Dershowitz’s reliability should consult, for starters, David Samel; Norman Finkelstein and Tim Wilkinson.

Dershowitz falsely claimed that Norman Finkelstein suspected his mother of being a ‘kapo’ by distorting a moving account of her experiences Finkelstein had recalled. He falsely and without evidence claimed that Walt and Mearsheimer drew from “neo-Nazi” websites for their work on the Israel Lobby. He called Richard Goldstone a “moser” and accused Robert Fisk of anti-Semitism when he attempted to look for the possible motivational causes of the hijackers of 911, telling listeners that Fisk was anti-American and that “anti-Americanism is the same as anti-Semitism”.

Readers can look up Finkelstein’s thorough refutation of Dershowitz’s book The Case for Israel in Beyond Chutzpah, for examples of his deeply biased, deeply unreliable approach and well-documented attempts to justify numerous war crimes and his defence of torture.

As Finkelstein points out, Dershowitz asserts in Chutzpah,

“Anti-Semitism is the problem of bigots…Nothing we do can profoundly affect the twisted mind of the anti-Semite”. As Finkelstein puts it, “In sum, Jews can never be culpable for the antipathy others bear towards them: it’s always of their making, not ours.” (p81 Beyond Chutzpah)

Such a point is worth remembering when examining Dershowitz’s book The Case Against Israel’s Enemies. In this later book, he argues that the dispossession of the Palestinians was deserved because of their support for Hitler during World War II (in this he differs from Joan Peters whom he heavily relied on in writing his earlier The Case for Israel which largely adopted her debunked conclusions). He states that “The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust.” (p. 196) There is, of course, not the slightest evidence of this ‘significant role’, but Dershowitz thinks it acceptable to smear an entire people and use such statements to justify ongoing human rights abuses against that same people to this day.

It’s a familiar story. Ignoring the historical context, the Occupation, “they” deserve what they get because, well, they are bigoted towards Zionists for no reason whatsoever. And as a result, we can safely ignore their testimonial authority with regard to what Dershowitz calls the “so-called Palestinian Nakba” (p.206).

Maria Farmer is only the latest victim of Dershowitz’s smears. Before you throw people under the bus, it’s best to dehumanise them, ignoring the harms done to them in order to justify your character assassination (or, when it comes to Israel, the ‘targeted’ assassinations Dershowitz supports).

Dershowitz’s latest article is of a piece with his advocacy for Israel’s crimes over the years. Blaming the victim, while making oneself invulnerable to criticism by demeaning those who dare to criticise, is a hallmark of Dershowitz’s career.

I can't say that my early disgust over Dershowitz which centered on his support for torture as much as his practice of getting millionaire wife murderers off as I was seeing through his and the general pose of lawyers who made a reputation as a "civil liberties" lawyer - a lot of that has to do with thinking through the ACLU and the Nazis at Skokie -   has much to do with my far more recent disgust with the legal profession in general.   That came to a head with watching lawyer after lawyer covering his ass during the hearings leading up to Trump's first impeachment.  But he is a quintessential example of what's wrong with everything from the teaching of law at elite institutions, its embedded practices of and elevation of lying as what that profession holds as an ethical obligation, the successful practice of which is often tied to success in the profession.   He is, in fact, one of the foremost examples of everything that is evil about that profession.   And, look,  I haven't mentioned his deputed association with Judaism once.   I would, of course, add his many clients who are millionaire murderers he's gotten off by duping juries and wearing down or exploiting judges' all too lawyerly weaknesses (Ito, I'm thinking about you).   In this case,  anyone in the world would be entirely justified to believe he's lying, as the article makes clear.   He's smeared all kinds of People whose reputations are real, not based on lawyerly lying and being promoted by the gutter media in America Babylon,  Here from an article at Mondoweiss about his smearing the victims of his client and friends  Epsteine and Maxwell:  

For many years, Dershowitz has unleashed a torrent of vitriolic accusations of anti-Semitism against those who dared stray from the exceptionally narrow boundaries of Dersh-approved “legitimate” criticism of Israel. Some of these targets are almost universally admired as human rights icons, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, whom Dersh describes as “one of the most evil men in the world”; Daniel Berrigan, who was “an evil, evil man”; and Jimmy Carter, for whom there is a “special place in Hell” (where people who build houses for the poor into their 90’s are themselves housed). And of course, that’s just a tiny sample of Dershowitz’s targets. Apparently, Dershowitz’s theory is that these men, and Richard Goldstone, Jeremy Corbyn, Roger Waters, etc., who have led very public lives for many decades, are secretly consumed with hatred for the Jewish people but in a transparent attempt to camouflage their bigotry, they express their anti-Semitism only with criticism of Israel.

As you can see from the dates on these articles,  he's been at it for years now.   And now that he is appearing in more and more of the sloppily suppressed Epstein material, he's doubling down on it.   I would expect that Harvard Law and Yale Law are still proud of their association with him.   I wouldn't expect that he, like Roy Cohn was, will finally, far, far too late, suffer professional consequences for his life of lying and,  I fully believe he fears being exposed soon, far more.   He lied when he claimed the Epstein didn't pay him for his legal services,  that's already come out. 

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

Magnificat - Cecilia McDowall

 


The Evans Choir
Catherine Sailer, Conductor
St. John's Cathedral,  Denver, Colorado 

I'd like to give credit to the hard working and very fine piano player but I can't find his name. 

Tawnie Olsen - Magnificat

 


Navidad Nuestra, December 2018
Under the direction of Dr. Anne J. Matlack
Harmonium Choral Society
Morristown United Methodist Church, Morristown, New Jersey
Solo: David Thomson, Ken Short
Featuring: Canens Vocem - Columbia High School; Jamie Bunce, Director

Denise Levertov - Two Dead Serious Poems For The Season

On The Mystery Of The Incarnation

It's when we face for a moment
the worst our kind can do, and shudder to know
the taint in our own selves, that awe
cracks the mind's shell and enters the heart:
not to a flower, not to a dolphin,
to no innocent form
but to this creature vainly sure
it and no other is god-like, God
(out of compassion for our ugly
failure to evolve) entrusts,
as guest, as brother,
the Word.


Advent 1966

Because in Vietnam the vision of a Burning Babe
is multiplied, multiplied,
                         the flesh on fire
not Christ’s, as Soulthwell saw it, prefiguring
the Passion upon the Eve of Christmas,

but wholly human and repeated, repeated,
infant after infant, their names forgotten,
Their sex unknown in the ashes,
set alight, flaming but not vanishing,
not vanishing, as his vision but lingering.

cinders upon the earth or living on
moaning and stinking in hospitals three abed;

because of this my strong sight,
my clear caressive sight, my poets sight I was given
that it might stir me to song,
Is blurred.
           There is a cataract filming over
my inner eyes.  Or else a monstrous insect
has entered my head, and looks out
from my sockets with multiple vision ,

seeing not the unique Holy Infant
burning sublimely, an imagination of redemption,
furnace in which souls are wrought into new life,
but, as off a beltline, more, senseless figures aflame.

And this insect (who is not there-
it is my own eyes do my seeing, the insect
is not there, what I see is there)
will not permit me to look elsewhere,

or if I look, to see except dulled and unfocused
the delicate, firm whole flesh of the still unburned.

Christmas is too important to just let it be just merry.