Daily Archives: October 24, 2015

John Kerry meets Palestine’s president in Jordan to discuss West Bank violence


John Kerry meets Palestine’s president in Jordan to discuss West Bank violence

http://gu.com/p/4dtgf?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_WordPress

Egypt has developed a game-changing low-power water desalination technique


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/egypt-developed-game-changing-low-211511213.html
Egypt has developed a game-changing low-power water desalination technique

This Unwelcome Aspect of Obamacare Is Going to Surprise a Lot of People in 2016


http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/24/this-unwelcome-aspect-of-obamacare-is-going-to-sur.aspx?source=eogyholnk0000001&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=article
This Unwelcome Aspect of Obamacare Is Going to Surprise a Lot of People in 2016

Mystery of Murdered Saints|National Geographic


Mystery of Murdered Saints

A History of the Popes, Saints & Sinners 1, upon this rock


A History of the Popes, Saints & Sinners 1, upon this rock

historic musical bits: Shostakovich: Symphony No. 5 / Bernstein · New York Philharmonic Orchestra


Shostakovich: Symphony No. 5 / Bernstein · New York Philharmonic Orchestra

Sodium Correction Practice and Clinical Outcomes in Profound Hyponatremia


Article Outline Patients and Methods Study Design and Setting Study Participants and Data Collection Statistical Analyses Results Discussion Conclusion Supplemental Online Material References Abstract Objectives To assess the epidemiology of nonoptimal hyponatremia correction and to identify associated morbidity and in-hospital mortality. Patients and Methods An electronic medical record search identified all patients admitted with profound hyponatremia (sodium <120 mmol/L) from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2012. Patients were classified as having optimally or nonoptimally corrected hyponatremia at 24 hours after admission. Optimal correction was defined as sodium correction in 24 hours of 6 through 10 mmol/L. We investigated the association between sodium correction and demographic and outcome variables, including occurrence of osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS). Baseline characteristics by correction outcome categories were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical variables. Odds ratios for in-hospital mortality between groups were assessed using logistic regression. Adjusted differences in hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS were assessed using the Dunnett 2-tailed t test. Results A total of 412 patients satisfied inclusion criteria of whom 174 (42.2%) were admitted to the ICU. A total of 211 (51.2%) had optimal correction of their hyponatremia at 24 hours, 87 (21.1%) had undercorrected hyponatremia, and 114 (27.9%) had overcorrected hyponatremia. Both patient factors and treatment factors were associated with nonoptimal correction. There was a single case of ODS. Overcorrection was not associated with in-hospital mortality or ICU LOS. When adjusted for patient factors, undercorrection of profound hyponatremia was associated with an increase in hospital LOS (9.3 days; 95% CI, 1.9-16.7 days). Conclusion Nonoptimal correction of profound hyponatremia is common. Fortunately, nonoptimal correction is associated with serious morbidity only infrequently.

Source: Sodium Correction Practice and Clinical Outcomes in Profound Hyponatremia – Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Kerry: Israel, Jordan Agree to Reduce Tensions at Holy Sites


 

Source: Kerry: Israel, Jordan Agree to Reduce Tensions at Holy Sites

Kerry: Israel, Jordan Agree to Reduce Tensions at Holy Sites Kerry: Israel, Jordan Agree to Reduce Tensions at Holy Sites U.S.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday that Israel and Jordan had agreed on specific steps, including video monitoring, to reduce tensions that have led to violent clashes in Jerusalem’s holy sites sacred to both Jews and Muslims.

“All the violence and the incitement to violence must stop,” Kerry said. “Leaders must lead.”

He was speaking in Amman, where he met with Jordan’s King Abdullah II and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Spiraling violence in recent weeks has resulted in the deaths of at least 10 Israelis and about 50 Palestinians. On Saturday, Israeli police killed a Palestinian man who allegedly had attempted to stab a security official at a crossing point between Israel and the Palestinian-administered West Bank. Kerry has met during the past three days with all parties to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He said that all the leaders had pledged themselves to end the violence, which he saw as a “a first step” toward broader agreements. Specifically, Kerry said, there is general agreement on a plan for around-the-clock video monitoring of the holy site known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif and to Jews as the Temple Mount — the focus of the recent tensions. The top U.S. diplomat also said he relayed Israel’s pledge that it had no intention of changing the status of the site, which is shared by representatives of both religious groups and the Jordanian and Israeli governments. Under long established rules, Israel is responsible for security at the site and governs access to the compound, while a Jordanian-run Islamic society maintains administrative control of the site. Israel recently lifted an age restriction on Muslim worshippers at the site, which had been in place on Fridays since clashes erupted in mid-September and had barred younger Muslim men from entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound. On Friday, an Israeli police spokesman said the decision to lift the age restriction followed a security assessment. Kerry said Israel would reject any attempt or suggestion that control over Temple Mount be altered, and that it reaffirmed Jordan’s historic role as custodian of the site. Based on his talks Saturday in Jordan and a meeting with Netanyahu in Berlin on Thursday, Kerry said he hoped “we can finally put to rest some of the false assumptions [and] perceptions about the holy site … [that] are stoking the tensions and fueling the violence.” Kerry said video monitoring of Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount would provide “comprehensive visibility and transparency” of conditions throughout the holy site at all times. He said he saw such an arrangement as “a game-changer” that would discourage any attempts to provoke disorder. Further talks will be necessary to arrange details, Kerry said, adding that his special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian issues, Frank Lowenstein, was remaining in Jordan to continue meetings with senior officials in the kingdom. Kerry said he understood that there are “serious additional issues” between Israelis and Palestinians apart from the recent incidents in Jerusalem. “But this is the first step,” he said, “to creating some space to resume those steps and that dialogue.” Anticipating “future efforts to advance peace and stability,” Kerry also noted that Israel’s prime minister would visit Washington on November 9. Following his talks in Amman, Kerry flew to Saudi Arabia late Saturday for meetings in Riyadh with senior figures from the royal family and government. 24/10/2015 12:21 by: Voice of America

Source: Kerry: Israel, Jordan Agree to Reduce Tensions at Holy Sites

Power Plant Families Experience Pain | Power Plant Men


This hard hat sticker expresses the bond that exists within the Power Plant family more than it was originally intended.  After Randy Dailey gave me a stack of these a few years after I left the plant, I have kept these stickers handy to remind me of that bond.

I was reminded of this bond this past week when Ben Davis reached out to me to let me know that Ray Eberle’s wife Barbara passed away the previous Friday.  I knew that Barbara was very ill, and that Ray has been by her side almost constantly for the past year caring for her, so I was not surprised by the news.

Source: Power Plant Families Experience Pain | Power Plant Men

historic musical bits: Stravinsky|The Firebird / Gergiev · Vienna Philarmonic · Salzburg Festival 2000 (Wikipedia article on the musical piece


Stravinsky: The Firebird / Gergiev · Vienna Philarmonic · Salzburg Festival 2000

 

great compositions/performances: Rimsky Korsakov Capriccio Espagnol Op 34 Berliner Phil Dir Zubin Mehta YouTube


Rimsky Korsakov Capriccio Espagnol Op 34 Berliner Phil Dir Zubin Mehta YouTube

historic musical bits: Itzhak Perlman – Pugnani Kreisler-Preludium and Allegro


Itzhak Perlman-Pugnani Kreisler-Preludium and Allegro

great compositions/performances: Peter von Winter – Oboe Concerto No.2 in F-major


Peter von Winter – Oboe Concerto No.2 in F-major

Kozeluh: Concerto For Oboe And Orchestra In F Major




Kozeluh: Concerto For Oboe And Orchestra In F Major – 1. Vivace

What If They Gave a War and Everyone Came? | BillMoyers.com


US Marines take cover after a mortar attack during a sandstorm on a road south of Baghdad, Iraq in March 2003. (AP Photo/Laura Rauch, File)

What if the US had not invaded Iraq in 2003?

How would things be different in the Middle East today? Was Iraq, in the words of presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, the “worst foreign policy blunder” in American history? Let’s take a big-picture tour of the Middle East and try to answer those questions. But first, a request: After each paragraph that follows, could you make sure to add the question “What could possibly go wrong?”

Let the History Begin

In March 2003, when the Bush administration launched its invasion of Iraq, the region, though simmering as ever, looked like this: Libya was stable, ruled by the same strongman for 42 years; in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak had been in power since 1983; Syria had been run by the Assad family since 1971; Saddam Hussein had essentially been in charge of Iraq since 1969, formally becoming president in 1979; the Turks and Kurds had an uneasy but functional ceasefire; and Yemen was quiet enough, other than the terror attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Relations between the US and most of these nations were so warm that Washington was routinely rendering “terrorists” to their dungeons for some outsourced torture.

Soon after March 2003, when US troops invaded Iraq, neighboring Iran faced two American armies at the peak of their strength. To the east, the US military had effectively destroyed the Taliban and significantly weakened al-Qaeda, both enemies of Iran, but had replaced them as an occupying force. To the west, Iran’s decades-old enemy, Saddam, was gone, but similarly replaced by another massive occupying force. From this position of weakness, Iran’s leaders, no doubt terrified that the Americans would pour across its borders, sought real diplomatic rapprochement with Washington for the first time since 1979. The Iranian efforts were rebuffed by the Bush administration.

The Precipitating Event

Nailing down causation is a tricky thing. But like the June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that kicked off the Great War, the one to end all others, America’s 2003 invasion was what novelists refer to as “the precipitating event,” the thing that may not actively cause every plot twist to come, but that certainly sets them in motion.

Obama is now the fourth American president in a row to have ordered the bombing of Iraq and his successor will almost certainly be the fifth.

There hadn’t been such an upset in the balance of power in the Middle East since, well, World War I, when Great Britain and France secretly reached the  Sykes-Picot Agreement, which, among other things, divided up most of the Arab lands that had been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Because the national boundaries created then did not respect on-the-ground tribal, political, ethnic and religious realities, they could be said to have set the stage for much that was to come.

Now, fast forward to 2003, as the Middle East we had come to know began to unravel. Those US troops had rolled into Baghdad only to find themselves standing there, slack-jawed, gazing at the chaos. Now, fast forward one more time to 2015 and let the grand tour of the unraveling begin!

The Sick Men of the Middle East: It’s easy enough to hustle through three countries in the region in various states of decay before heading into the heart of the chaos: Libya is a failed state, bleeding mayhem into northern Africa; Egypt failed its Arab Spring test and relies on the United States to support its anti-democratic (as well as anti-Islamic fundamentalist) militarized government; and Yemen is a disastrously failed state, now the scene of proxy war between US-backed Saudi Arabia and Iranian-backed Houthi rebels (with a thriving al-Qaeda outfit and a small but growing arm of the Islamic State [ISIS] thrown into the bargain).

Iraq: Obama is now the fourth American president in a row to have ordered the bombing of Iraq and his successor will almost certainly be the fifth. If ever a post-Vietnam American adventure deserved to inherit the moniker of quagmire, Iraq is it.

And here’s the saddest part of the tale: The forces loosed there in 2003 have yet to reach their natural end point. Your money should be on the Shias, but imagining that there is only one Shia horse to bet on means missing just how broad the field really is. What passes for a Shia “government” in Baghdad today is a collection of interest groups, each with its own militia. Having replaced the old strongman prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, with a weak one, Haider al-Abadi, and with ISIS chased from the gates of Baghdad, each Shia faction is now free to jockey for position. The full impact of the cleaving of Iraq has yet to be felt. At some point expect a civil war inside a civil war.

Iran: If there is any unifying authority left in Iraq, it is Iran. After the initial 2003 blitzkrieg, the Bush administration’s version of neocolonial management in Iraq resulted in the rise of Sunni insurgents, Shia militias and an influx of determined foreign fighters. Tehran rushed into the power vacuum, and in 2011, in an agreement brokered by the departing Bush administration and carried out by President Obama, the Americans ran for the exits. The Iranians stayed. Now, they have entered an odd-couple marriage with the US against what Washington pretends is a common foe — ISIS — but which the Iranians and their allies in Baghdad see as a war against the Sunnis in general. At this point, Washington has all but ceded Iraq to the new Persian Empire; everyone is just waiting for the paperwork to clear.

The Iranians continue to meddle in Syria as well, supporting Bashar al-Assad. Under Russian air cover, Iran is increasing its troop presence there, too. According to a recent report, Tehran is sending 2,000 troops to Syria, along with 5,000 Iraqi and Afghan Shia fighters. Perhaps they’re already calling it “the Surge” in Farsi.

The Kurds: The idea of creating a “Kurdistan” was crossed off the post-World War I “to do” list. The 1920 Treaty of Sèvres at first left an opening for a referendum on whether the Kurds wanted to remain part of what remained of the Ottoman Empire or become independent. Problem one: the referendum did not include plans for the Kurds in what became Syria and Iraq. Problem two: the referendum never happened, a victim of the so-called Turkish War of Independence. The result: some 20 million angry Kurds scattered across parts of modern Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria.

That American invasion of 2003, however, opened the way for the Kurds to form a virtual independent statelet, a confederacy if you will, even if still confined within Iraq’s borders. At the time, the Kurds were labeled America’s only true friends in Iraq and rewarded with many weapons and much looking the other way, even as Bush administration officials blathered on about the goal of a united Iraq.

In 2014, the Kurds benefited from US power a second time. Desperate for someone to fight ISIS after Iraq’s American-trained army turned tail (and before the Iranians and the Shia militias entered the fight in significant force), the Obama administration once again began sending arms and equipment to the Kurds while flying close air support for their militia, the peshmerga. The Kurds responded by fighting well, at least in what they considered the Kurdish part of Iraq. However, their interest in getting involved in the greater Sunni-Shia civil war was minimal. In a good turn for them, the US military helped Kurdish forces move into northern Syria, right along the Turkish border. While fighting ISIS, the Kurds also began retaking territory they traditionally considered their own. They may yet be the true winners in all this, unless Turkey stands in their way.

Turkey: Relations between the Turks and the Kurds have never been rosy, both inside Turkey and along the Iraqi-Turkish border.

Inside Turkey, the primary Kurdish group calling for an independent state is the Kurdistan Workers party (also known as the PKK). Its first insurgency ran from 1984 until 1999, when the PKK declared a unilateral cease-fire. The armed conflict broke out again in 2004, ending in a ceasefire in 2013, which was, in turn, broken recently. Over the years, the Turkish military also carried out repeated ground incursions and artillery strikes against the PKK inside Iraq.

As for ISIS, the Turks long had a kind of one-way “open-door policy” on their border with Syria, allowing Islamic State fighters and foreign volunteers to transit into that country. ISIS also brokered significant amounts of black market oil in Turkey to fund itself, perhaps with the tacit support, or at least the willful ignorance, of the Turkish authorities. While the Turks claimed to see ISIS as an anti-Assad force, some felt Turkey’s generous stance toward the movement reflected the government’s preference for having anything but an expanded Kurdish presence on its border. In June of this year, Turkish President Recep Erdogan went as far as to say that he would “never allow the establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Syria.”

In light of all that, it’s hardly surprising that early Obama administration efforts to draw Turkey into the fight against ISIS were unsuccessful. Things changed in August 2015, when a supposedly anti-ISIS cooperation deal was reached with Washington. The Turks agreed to allow the Americans to fly strike missions from two air bases in Turkey against ISIS in Syria. However, there appeared to be an unpublicized quid pro quo: the US would turn a blind eye to Turkish military action against its allies the Kurds. On the same day that Turkey announced that it would fight the Islamic State in earnest, it also began an air campaign against the PKK.

Washington, for its part, claimed that it had been “tricked” by the wily Turks, while adding, “We fully respect our ally Turkey’s right to self-defense.” In the process, the Kurds found themselves supported by the US in the struggle with ISIS, even as they were being thrown to the (Turkish) wolves. There is a Kurdish expression suggesting that Kurds have “no friends but the mountains.” Should they ever achieve a trans-border Kurdistan, they will certainly have earned it.

Syria: Through a series of events almost impossible to sort out, having essentially supported the Arab Spring nowhere else, the Obama administration chose to do so in Syria, attempting to use it to turn President Bashar al-Assad out of office. In the process, the Obama administration found itself ever deeper in a conflict it couldn’t control and eternally in search of that unicorn, the moderate Syrian rebel who could be trained to push Assad out without allowing Islamic fundamentalists in. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda spin-offs, including the Islamic State, found haven in the dissolving borderlands between Iraq and Syria and in that country’s Sunni heartlands.

An indecisive Barack Obama allowed America’s involvement in Syria to ebb and flow. In September 2013, on the verge of a massive strike against the forces of the Assad regime, Obama suddenly punted the decision to Congress, which, of course, proved capable of deciding nothing at all. In November 2013, again on the verge of attacking Syria, the president allowed himself to be talked down after a gaffe by Secretary of State John Kerry opened the door to Russian diplomatic intercession. In September 2014, in a relatively sudden reversal, Obama launched a war against ISIS in Syria, which has proved at best indecisive.

Russia: That brings us to Vladimir Putin, the Syrian game-changer of the moment. In September, the Russian president sent a small but powerful military force into a neglected airfield in Latakia, Syria. With “fighting ISIS” little more than their cover story, the Russians are now serving as Assad’s air force, as well as his chief weapons supplier and possible source of “volunteer” soldiers.

The thing that matters most, however, is those Russian planes. They have essentially been given a guarantee of immunity to being shot down by the more powerful US Air Force presence in the region (as Washington has nothing to gain and much to worry about when it comes to entering into open conflict with the Russians). That allows them near-impunity to strike when and where they wish in support of whom they wish. It also negates any chance of the US setting up a no-fly zone in parts of Syria.

The Russians have little incentive to depart, given the free pass handed them by the Obama administration. Meanwhile, the Russian military is growing closer to the Iranians with whom they share common cause in Syria and also the Shia government in Baghdad, which may soon invite them to join the fight there against ISIS. One can almost hear Putin chortling. He may not, in fact, be the most skilled strategist in the world, but he’s certainly the luckiest. When someone hands you the keys, you take the car.

World War I

As in imperial Europe in the period leading up to the First World War, the collapse of an entire order in the Middle East is in process, while forces long held in check are being released. In response, the former superpowers of the Cold War era have once again mobilized, at least modestly, even though both are fearful of a spark that could push them into direct conflict. Each has entangling regional relationships that could easily exacerbate the fight: Russia with Syria, the US with Saudi Arabia and Israel, plus NATO obligations to Turkey. (The Russians have already probed Turkish airspace and the Turks recently shot down a drone coyly labeled of “unknown origin.”)

Imagine a scenario that pulls any of those allies deeper into the mess: some Iranian move in Syria, which prompts a response by Israel in the Golan Heights, which prompts a Russian move in relation to Turkey, which prompts a call to NATO for help… you get the picture. Or imagine another scenario: with nearly every candidate running for president in the United States growling about the chance to confront Putin, what would happen if the Russians accidentally shot down an American plane? Could Obama resist calls for retaliation?

As before World War I, the risk of setting something in motion that can’t be stopped does exist.

What Is This All About Again?

What if the US hadn’t invaded Iraq in 2003? Things would undoubtedly be very different in the Middle East today. America’s war in Afghanistan was unlikely to have been a big enough spark to set off the range of changes Iraq let loose. There were only some 10,000 America soldiers in Afghanistan in 2003 (5,200 in 2002) and there had not been any Abu Ghraib-like indiscriminate torture, no equivalent to the scorched earth policy in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, nothing to spark a trans-border Sunni-Shia-Kurd struggle, no room for Iran to meddle. The Americans were killing Muslims in Afghanistan, but they were not killing Arabs and they were not occupying Arab lands.

The invasion of Iraq, however, did happen. Now, some 12 years later, the most troubling thing about the current war in the Middle East, from an American perspective, is that no one here really knows why the country is still fighting. The commonly stated reason — “defeat ISIS” — is hardly either convincing or self-explanatory. Defeat ISIS why?

The best Washington can come up with are the same vague threats of terrorism against the homeland that have fueled its disastrous wars since 9/11. The White House can stipulate that Assad is a bad guy and that the ISIS crew are really, really bad guys, but bad guys are hardly in short supply, including in countries the US supports. In reality, the US has few clear goals in the region, but is escalating anyway.

Whatever world order the US may be fighting for in the Middle East, it seems at least an empire or two out of date. Washington refuses to admit to itself that the ideas of Islamic fundamentalism resonate with vast numbers of people. At this point, even as US TOW missiles are becoming as ubiquitous as iPads in the region, American military power can only delay changes, not stop them. Unless a rebalancing of power that would likely favor some version of Islamic fundamentalism takes hold and creates some measure of stability in the Middle East, count on one thing: the US will be fighting the sons of ISIS years from now.

Back to World War I. The last time Russia and the US both had a powerful presence in the Middle East, the fate of their proxies in the 1973 Yom Kippur War almost brought on a nuclear exchange. No one is predicting a world war or a nuclear war from the mess in Syria. However, like those final days before the Great War, one finds a lot of pieces in play inside a tinderbox.

Now, all together: What could possibly go wrong?

The views expressed in this post are the author’s alone, and presented here to offer a variety of perspectives to our readers.

Source: What If They Gave a War and Everyone Came? | BillMoyers.com

Great compositions/performances: Schubert String Quartet No 12 D 703 C minor Quartettsatz (Unfinished) Amadeus Quartet


Schubert String Quartet No 12 D 703 C minor Quartettsatz (Unfinished) Amadeus Quartet

 

Today’s Holiday: Disarmament Week


Disarmament Week

The United NationsDisarmament Week, observed between October 24 and October 30, was established in 1978. It begins on October 24, the anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, now observed as United Nations Day. Observance revolves around raising public awareness of the dangers of the arms race and the need for international disarmament. More… Discuss

quotation: Washington Irving ( quotation: Washington Irving ( “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow”-Audio-book – YouTube)


A woman is more considerate in affairs of love than a man; because love is more the study and business of her life.

Washington Irving (1783-1859) Discuss

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow – FULL Audio Book – by Washington Irving (1783-1859)

today’s birthday: Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632) (Lens On Leeuwenhoek – YouTube)


Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632)

Leeuwenhoek was a Dutch scientist and maker of microscopes whose observations helped lay the foundations for the sciences of bacteriology and protozoology. He assembled hundreds of microscopes, nine of which survive today and can magnify objects as much as 275 times. In the course of his examination of innumerable microorganisms and tissue samples, he gave the first complete descriptions of bacteria and protozoa—which he called animalcules. What likely kindled his interest in microscopes? More… Discuss

Lens On Leeuwenhoek

this day in the yesteryear: Cathedral of Chartres Is Dedicated (1260) |BUILDING THE GREATEST CATHEDRALS (Documentary) History/Architect/Religion -YouTube)


Cathedral of Chartres Is Dedicated (1260)

Dedicated in 1260 in the presence of King Louis IX, the Cathedral of Notre-Dame at Chartres is one of the most influential examples of High Gothic architecture. The main structure was built between 1194 and 1220 and replaced a 12th-century church—of which only the crypt, the base, and the western facade remain. Recognized by its imposing spires, the cathedral is known for its stained-glass windows and Renaissance choir screen. It is also home to the Sancta Camisa, which is what? More… Discuss

BUILDING THE GREATEST CATHEDRALS (Documentary) History/Architect/Religion

Published on Nov 1, 2013

BUILDING THE GREATEST CATHEDRALS (Documentary) History/Architect/Religion

Cathedrals is a Christian church which contains the seat of a bishop, thus serving as the central church of a diocese, conference, or episcopate.Although the word “cathedral” is sometimes loosely applied, churches with the function of “cathedral” occur specifically and only in those denominations with an episcopal hierarchy, such as the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and some Lutheran and Methodist churches.[2] In the Greek Orthodox Church, the terms kathedrikos naos (literally: “cathedral shrine”) is sometimes used for the church at which an archbishop or “metropolitan” presides. The term “metropolis” (literally “mother city”) is used more commonly than “diocese” to signify an area of governance within the church.
The word cathedral is derived from the Latin word cathedra (“seat” or “chair”), and refers to the presence of the bishop’s or archbishop’s chair or throne. In the ancient world, the chair was the symbol of a teacher and thus of the bishop’s role as teacher, and also of an official presiding as a magistrate and thus of the bishop’s role in governing a diocese.

About Catholicism: Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair – Steve Ray


Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair – Steve Ray


Published on Jul 29, 2014

Biblical scholar and Holy Land pilgrimage leader Steve Ray delves into the Jewish roots of the papacy, namely “the keys”, “the rock”, and “the chair”. Ray, a former Baptist, draws from his trips to the Holy Land to bring to life the commissioning of Peter as the first pope using vivid historical and contextual highlights.

Find more Deep in History talks on the topic of the History of Authority here: http://chnetwork.org/history/the-pill…

About the Deep in History Talks from the CHNetwork:

Why should we go deep in history? As generations before us have learned, history is the laboratory for thinking about the issues that matter most to us as human beings. By placing ourselves back into another time, we are able to look at our own time with more objectivity; we see its strengths and weaknesses. For Christians, there is the additional truth that ours is a historical faith. Christianity is rooted in the historical facts of Jesus’s life. The Church which is his body has lived, grown, and matured in space and time. The surest way to know Jesus and his Church is through the study of history, both biblical and post-biblical.

We hope these resources take you deep into the history of Christ’s Church and thereby deeper into Christ. Please visit:
http://DeepinHistory.com

The Coming Home Network International was established to help inquiring clergy as well as laity of other traditions to return home and then to be at home in the Catholic Church.
CHNetwork: http://chnetwork.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CHNetwork
Twitter: https://twitter.com/chnetwork

Humphrey DeForest Bogart (Humphrey Bogart Wins Best Actor: 1952 Oscars – Oscars-YouTube)


Humphrey DeForest Bogart

Bogart, posthumously named the Greatest Male Star of All Time by the American Film Institute, was an Academy Award-winning actor whose accomplishments in the film industry are recognized worldwide. Though Bogart began acting in theater, he is best known for his work in films like The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. He became an international cult figure through his roles as a tough, romantic loner, appearing in 75 feature motion pictures. How many times was Bogart married? More… Discuss

Humphrey Bogart Wins Best Actor: 1952 Oscars:  The African Queen

word: hodgepodge


hodgepodge

Definition: (noun) A mixture of dissimilar ingredients; a jumble.
Synonyms: patchwork, jumble
Usage: Paul’s screenplay was a hodgepodge of comedy, drama, slapstick, and tragedy. Discuss.