Specious Ranting

I just watched Lonnie Thompson's Frontiers of Geophysics Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's (AGU) Fall Meeting. It was an excellent talk. Thompson is the world's leading expert on tropical glacial climate records, and his work has given him perspective on the Earth's past and a fear for Earth's future as he watches the glaciers he samples melt all around him. One of the more interesting points was that tropical glaciers currently are about as extensive as they were ~3200 BC, which depending on your exact chronology is the time of Noah and other evidence of mass disruption of the climate system. It reminded me that the Lord's promise was that He would not destroy all flesh again. Our free will now exceeds the power of the natural releases on the climate system by orders of magnitude. We may become our own destruction if we don't engage in some major metanoia . I'm glad to see that almost all Presidential candidates of both parties (John McCain was especially good) proclaim with their lips how serious an issue this is. Let us pray the seriousness of the crisis does not exceed the seriousness of our leadership in finding solutions. The Lecture has encouraged me to write the paper about low-frequency ocean variability one of my bosses wants me to write.

Some comments on bls's blog by our favorite Quebecois about the brevity of the election cycle has made me seriously think about the possibility of drastic reform in the frame of government in the United States. I would suggest we adopt a Commonwealth-style parliamentary democracy with nationally-drawn constituencies in the House of Representatives and state-based constituencies in the Senate with six or seven year bounds on the length of Congresses. Such a reform would have advantages such as a more responsive executive and a potentially longer election cycle. But the most immediate advantage would be in budgetary matters. Commonwealth constitutions either mandate in law or convention that the government must pass the budget to stay in power. Currently, the funding of many agencies (including my beloved NASA) is very much on hold due to horse trading in Congress. They call it a "continuing resolution." Of course, such a system probably would move much of the pork to the proposed budget, but it would allow more time for popular outrage to be heard and less doubt in government agencies about what projects can be funded each year. At present, one of my bosses is awaiting a decision about whether a mission he helped to propose is being funded. But NASA can't announce the decision, because the budget that funded the mission has languished for two years.

Despite my viewing of Thompson's lecture, I am not in San Francisco at AGU. One of my colleagues came into my office and asked me why I wasn't there, praising to the skies the parties, the available women, and the amazing ability of one of my other colleagues to attract non-conference attendees during conference travel. And, yes, reading the many blogs from AGU, I discovered all sorts of interesting folks with whom I could be spending time instead of sitting in my office being less productive than usual thanks to the emptiness of the building. But I can't go to every conference, and it's worth remembering that very few graduate students can go to two conferences per year with the level of effort I expend.

This week marks the first anniversary of my first and only visit to Fresno, the seat of the Dioceses of San Joaquin (that isn't a typo). I've gone through many waves of thought on this issue, especially reading the thoughts at Thanksgiving in All Things, Haligweorc, AKMA's Random Thoughts, Carioca Confessions, and the ENS coverage. My conclusion is that the parishes (and missions) should go where they wish, but that Bishop Schofield should be deposed and deprived of control of the temporalities by civil process. It seems harsh, I know, but I argue that the bishop should not be the only person in the Diocese with a conscience unbound by his prudence. Knowing the example of Bennison in Pennsylvania, it's fairly easy to see what mischief a bishop can do with a majority of the Diocese quite uninspired by his leadership. A bishop can intimidate vestries by restricting their choice of rector, those in the ordination process by sending them to a particular seminary, the clergy by countless other means. Liberal bishops use these means. Conservative bishops use these means. They have the most power under the canons. They deserve the greatest penalty for their violation. I'm betting I could get agreement from both Chrysostom and Winthrop on that score. As for the parishes and missions, the mission of parishes for and against the bishop likely has been hurt by this illegal fiction of secession. The gospel will be furthered by a free choice. The diocesan corporation (sans Schofield) should forgive or maintain mission debts on an equal basis no matter their affiliation. That will be justice tempered with mercy.