Bush in London

"Morton Summers" <MSummers RemoveThis @invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:Xns9438B48C5558Ohdemgoldenslippers@204.127.36.1...
 > davtomcat RemoveThis @hotmail.com (David Tomlin) wrote in
 > news:7f38da74.0311191215.30da8c2e@posting.google.com:
 >
  > > I'm in the middle of reading Bush's speech. Doesn't he look a
  > > perfect fool, showing off the erudition of his speechwriters?
  > >
 >
 > "Eloquent speech is not fitting for a fool; even less are lies
 > fitting for a ruler." (Proverbs 17:7, NLT) Came across that the other
 > day, and it just seemed to say, "Wubya".
 >
 > --
 > Mort Summers

The last paragraph of Steven Runciman's 'The History of the
Crusades':

"The triumphs of the Crusade were the triumphs of faith. But
faith without wisdom is a dangerous thing. By the inexorable
laws of history the whole world pays for the crimes and
follies of each of its citizens. In the long sequence of
interaction and fusion between Orient and Occident out of
which our civilisation has grown, the Crusades were a
tragic and destructive episode. The historian as he gazes back
across the centuries at their gallant story must find his
admiration overcast by sorrow at the witness that it bears
to the limitations of human nature. There was so much
courage and so little honour, so much devotion and so
little understanding. High ideals were besmirched by
cruelty and greed, enterprise and endurance by a blind and
narrow self-righteousness; and the Holy War itself was
nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of
God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

"j.rennie1" wrote (quoting Runciman):

 > ....There was so much
 > courage and so little honour, so much devotion and so
 > little understanding....

It seems two conservative bloggers have the same "friend in London" who
oddly enough lives in Trafalgar Square. Unknown if said friend thinks the
wages of sin is kippers.
<http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_11_16_atrios_archive.html#106929372619941685>

Since we have somewhat more reliable Friends In London among assembled
company here, has anyone got an eyewitness account to offer?

/M<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

j.rennie1 wrote:

 >"Morton Summers" <MSummers.TakeThisOut@invalid.domain> wrote in message
 >news:Xns9438B48C5558Ohdemgoldenslippers@204.127.36.1...
 >
 >
  >>davtomcat@hotmail.com (David Tomlin) wrote in
  >>news:7f38da74.0311191215.30da8c2e@posting.google.com:
  >>
  >>
  >>
   >>>I'm in the middle of reading Bush's speech. Doesn't he look a
   >>>perfect fool, showing off the erudition of his speechwriters?
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>
  >>"Eloquent speech is not fitting for a fool; even less are lies
  >>fitting for a ruler." (Proverbs 17:7, NLT) Came across that the other
  >>day, and it just seemed to say, "Wubya".
  >>
  >>--
  >>Mort Summers
  >>
  >>
 >
 >The last paragraph of Steven Runciman's 'The History of the
 >Crusades':
 >
 >"The triumphs of the Crusade were the triumphs of faith. But
 >faith without wisdom is a dangerous thing. By the inexorable
 >laws of history the whole world pays for the crimes and
 >follies of each of its citizens. In the long sequence of
 >interaction and fusion between Orient and Occident out of
 >which our civilisation has grown, the Crusades were a
 >tragic and destructive episode. The historian as he gazes back
 >across the centuries at their gallant story must find his
 >admiration overcast by sorrow at the witness that it bears
 >to the limitations of human nature. There was so much
 >courage and so little honour, so much devotion and so
 >little understanding. High ideals were besmirched by
 >cruelty and greed, enterprise and endurance by a blind and
 >narrow self-righteousness; and the Holy War itself was
 >nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of
 >God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost."
 >
 >

When Urban II preached the first crusade at the end of the 11th century,
one of his justifications, which he probably believed himself, was that
pilgrims were being mistreated by the muslims. They weren't, to any
significant degree.

Alan H.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

Martha Bridegam wrote in message

 > It seems two conservative bloggers have the same "friend in London" who
 > oddly enough lives in Trafalgar Square.

I've never been to London, so I don't know if that's really
suspicious. Does no one use "Trafalgar Square" to mean the
neighborhood around the literal Square?

<http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_11_16_atrios_archive.html#106929372619941685>

"Astroturf" must have a new meaning that's left me behind. And what is
SCLM? Sorry for my ignorance.

The "liberal media" isn't featuring the protests all that prominently.
In the NY Times they are buried deep in a story about a Bush/Blair
press conference.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/international/europe/21PREX.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/international/europe/21PREX.html</a>

This story quotes Scotland yard estimating the turnout at over
100,000. This is contradicted by Associated Press, which says 70,000
and cites the same source.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://tinylink.com/?jmyIs41Akz" target="_blank">http://tinylink.com/?jmyIs41Akz</a>

Times and AP agree that the organizers claim 200,000.

Meanwhile, I heard a guy on "fair and balanced" FOX say the turnout
was lower than expected, without numbers or source. The FOX website is
running the AP version.

I like the statue stunt.

 > Since we have somewhat more reliable Friends In London among assembled
 > company here, has anyone got an eyewitness account to offer?

I second the query.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

David Tomlin wrote:

 > Martha Bridegam wrote in message
 >
  > > It seems two conservative bloggers have the same "friend in London" who
  > > oddly enough lives in Trafalgar Square.
 >
 > I've never been to London, so I don't know if that's really
 > suspicious. Does no one use "Trafalgar Square" to mean the
 > neighborhood around the literal Square?
 >
 > <http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_11_16_atrios_archive.html#106929372619941685>

It was my impression that the area immediately around Trafalgar Square isn't
residential, but others here will know better.

 > "Astroturf" must have a new meaning that's left me behind.

I think the idea is "fake grassroots" -- i.e. the writer is suggesting someone
may have coordinated a letter-writing campaign in a top-down manner that's
designed to resemble individual initiative or bottom-up organizing.

 > And what is
 > SCLM? Sorry for my ignorance.
 >

Apparently "So-Called liberal Media." I had to look that one up too.

In doing so, I've gone back to the post that says the bloggers with the same
friend say they really do happen to have the same friend. Maybe there's no story
here.

 >
 > The "liberal media" isn't featuring the protests all that prominently.
 > In the NY Times they are buried deep in a story about a Bush/Blair
 > press conference.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/international/europe/21PREX.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/international/europe/21PREX.html</font</a>>
 >
 > This story quotes Scotland yard estimating the turnout at over
 > 100,000. This is contradicted by Associated Press, which says 70,000
 > and cites the same source.
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://tinylink.com/?jmyIs41Akz</font" target="_blank">http://tinylink.com/?jmyIs41Akz</font</a>>
 >
 > Times and AP agree that the organizers claim 200,000.

So does Guardian

 >
 >
 > Meanwhile, I heard a guy on "fair and balanced" FOX say the turnout
 > was lower than expected, without numbers or source. The FOX website is
 > running the AP version.
 >
 > I like the statue stunt.
 >
  > > Since we have somewhat more reliable Friends In London among assembled
  > > company here, has anyone got an eyewitness account to offer?
 >
 > I second the query.

Yeah, folks, what's it like over there?

/M<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

"Alan Hogue" <ahogue.DeleteThis@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
news:bpj5gr$1k4h$1@agate.berkeley.edu...

snip
  > >
  > >"The triumphs of the Crusade were the triumphs of faith. But
  > >faith without wisdom is a dangerous thing. By the inexorable
  > >laws of history the whole world pays for the crimes and
  > >follies of each of its citizens. In the long sequence of
  > >interaction and fusion between Orient and Occident out of
  > >which our civilisation has grown, the Crusades were a
  > >tragic and destructive episode. The historian as he gazes back
  > >across the centuries at their gallant story must find his
  > >admiration overcast by sorrow at the witness that it bears
  > >to the limitations of human nature. There was so much
  > >courage and so little honour, so much devotion and so
  > >little understanding. High ideals were besmirched by
  > >cruelty and greed, enterprise and endurance by a blind and
  > >narrow self-righteousness; and the Holy War itself was
  > >nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of
  > >God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost."
  > >
  > >
 >
 > When Urban II preached the first crusade at the end of the 11th century,
 > one of his justifications, which he probably believed himself, was that
 > pilgrims were being mistreated by the muslims. They weren't, to any
 > significant degree.
 >
 > Alan H.
 >

The Catholic Encyclopaedia still justifies the Crusades today:

"From the outset the Crusades were defensive wars and checked the advance of
the Mohammedans who, for two centuries, concentrated their forces in a
struggle against the Christian settlements in Syria; hence Europe is largely
indebted to the Crusades for the maintenance of its independence. Besides,
the Crusades brought about results of which the popes hoped."

I have no doubt that whatever entity that represents the US of A in a
thousand years time will defend the invasion of Iraq just as vigorously.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

Martha Bridegam wrote

> > > Since we have somewhat more reliable Friends In London among
assembled
> > > company here, has anyone got an eyewitness account to offer?
> >
> > I second the query.
>
> Yeah, folks, what's it like over there?

Serious domestic urgencies have kept me to within 300 yards of home
for several days, so no eye-witnessing.

The way things happened yesterday (and/or the way they have been
reported) doesn't seem to have strayed far from the predictable. The
usual arguments about the size of the demonstration, with the Met
conceding, perhaps, larger numbers than usual, and commenting on the
good nature of the event; the photo-ops used on both sides of the
argument; the not very articulate marcher ("I just happen to dislike
war") interviewed on the BBC and the not very articulate President
reading someone else's words; the pro-and-con letters to the media
talking about Pearl Harbour, poodles, presidential protection,
protestors' power, propaganda, profit motives and peace. I'll be more
intrigued by what happens (or is reported to have happened) today when
they go to the (former) pit villages in Tony Blair's constituency.
Will the near-Geordie vowel sounds baffle the White House
interpreters?

Understandably, news reporting has been dominated in the serious
papers by the killing in Istanbul and in the trash ones by Michael
Jackson.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

"j.rennie1" <j.rennie1.RemoveThis@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<yEkvb.62$Bu3.93157@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
 >
 > The Catholic Encyclopaedia still justifies the Crusades today:
 >
To be fair, "today" in this case refers to 1908, when the encyclopedia
entry was written.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm</a>

-Ben<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

ROBBIE wrote

> The traffic was okay too at least soho, shaftesbury ave, to hyde
park corner
> etc'; the black bus conductor on the 38 played fabulous blues harp
all the
> way down to Victoria and never bothered to check anyone's tickets:
some
> laxness is very agreeable...

Very agreeable.

That's never happened to me on countless journeys on the 35, the 36 or
the 37. What is it about the 38?

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

"Tom Deveson" <all DeleteThis @devesons.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bpkvc9$8sg$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> ROBBIE wrote
>
> > The traffic was okay too at least soho, shaftesbury ave, to hyde
> park corner
> > etc'; the black bus conductor on the 38 played fabulous blues harp
> all the
> > way down to Victoria and never bothered to check anyone's tickets:
> some
> > laxness is very agreeable...
>
> Very agreeable.
>
> That's never happened to me on countless journeys on the 35, the 36 or
> the 37. What is it about the 38?

Dunno- it's a cool route (here's a Mornington Crescentesque game to annoy
the rest of humanity: favourite london bus numbers and routes) and I've
always wanted to to use Clapton Pond as a character's name.



>
> Tom
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

ROBBIE wrote:

> "Tom Deveson" <all.DeleteThis@devesons.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bpkvc9$8sg$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > ROBBIE wrote
> >
> > > The traffic was okay too at least soho, shaftesbury ave, to hyde
> > park corner
> > > etc'; the black bus conductor on the 38 played fabulous blues harp
> > all the
> > > way down to Victoria and never bothered to check anyone's tickets:
> > some
> > > laxness is very agreeable...
> >
> > Very agreeable.
> >
> > That's never happened to me on countless journeys on the 35, the 36 or
> > the 37. What is it about the 38?
>
> Dunno- it's a cool route (here's a Mornington Crescentesque game to annoy
> the rest of humanity: favourite london bus numbers and routes) and I've
> always wanted to to use Clapton Pond as a character's name.

Ever met a conductress on the number nineteen who was a honey?

/M, Dire Straits fan
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

ROBBIE wrote

> Dunno- it's a cool route (here's a Mornington Crescentesque game to
annoy
> the rest of humanity: favourite london bus numbers and routes) and
I've
> always wanted to to use Clapton Pond as a character's name.

Or Rayners Lane, Maida Vale, Dollis Hill, Theydon Bois, Arnos Grove,
Brent Cross and Kensal Green?

I think you've got a play there.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London 

j.rennie1 wrote:

 >"Alan Hogue" <ahogue.RemoveThis@lawdot.berkeleydot.edu> wrote in message
 >news:bpj5gr$1k4h$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
 >
 >snip
 >
 >
   >>>"The triumphs of the Crusade were the triumphs of faith. But
   >>>faith without wisdom is a dangerous thing. By the inexorable
   >>>laws of history the whole world pays for the crimes and
   >>>follies of each of its citizens. In the long sequence of
   >>>interaction and fusion between Orient and Occident out of
   >>>which our civilisation has grown, the Crusades were a
   >>>tragic and destructive episode. The historian as he gazes back
   >>>across the centuries at their gallant story must find his
   >>>admiration overcast by sorrow at the witness that it bears
   >>>to the limitations of human nature. There was so much
   >>>courage and so little honour, so much devotion and so
   >>>little understanding. High ideals were besmirched by
   >>>cruelty and greed, enterprise and endurance by a blind and
   >>>narrow self-righteousness; and the Holy War itself was
   >>>nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of
   >>>God, which is a sin against the Holy Ghost."
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>
  >>When Urban II preached the first crusade at the end of the 11th century,
  >>one of his justifications, which he probably believed himself, was that
  >>pilgrims were being mistreated by the muslims. They weren't, to any
  >>significant degree.
  >>
  >>Alan H.
  >>
  >>
  >>
 >
 >The Catholic Encyclopaedia still justifies the Crusades today:
 >
 >"From the outset the Crusades were defensive wars and checked the advance of
 >the Mohammedans who, for two centuries, concentrated their forces in a
 >struggle against the Christian settlements in Syria; hence Europe is largely
 >indebted to the Crusades for the maintenance of its independence. Besides,
 >the Crusades brought about results of which the popes hoped."
 >
 >I have no doubt that whatever entity that represents the US of A in a
 >thousand years time will defend the invasion of Iraq just as vigorously.
 >
 >

I have to say first of all that any comments I make are specifically
about the first crusade, because I haven't studied any of the later ones
much.

There is some truth to what the Catholic Encyclopaedia says. At the very
least, the Catholics were giving the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I a big
hand, as the Byzantine Empire had been eaten away by the Seljuk Turks
for a long time. There's a lot of controversy over the real and even the
avowed reasons for calling the first crusade, but I think a lot of
historians will agree (whether they consider this damning or
mitigating), that Urban wanted to raise a highly qualified military
force to assist the Emperor and maintain Byzantium as a buffer between
Europe and the Turks. (He had no idea he would get something like the
People's Crusade. In his sermon at Clermont, most contemporary
commentators include remarks that specifically forbid the non-military
types from participating.) This along with possibly somewhat lesser
priorities such as defending the holy lands from Muslims (who were in
fact surprisingly tolerant of christian pilgrims), and, very
importantly, getting the warrior class the fuck out of Europe so they'd
have someone else to kill, maim and plunder for a while (also reported
more often than not as one justification offered at Clermont).

Likewise, I do think that the war in Iraq, whatever you think of it, had
its own set of strategic goals and I do think in spite of everything
that it's conceivable that it will have long range benefits for the west
that are impossible to predict with any certainty right now. I'm not so
optimistic by nature as to believe it, but I hold out the possibility.

Alan H.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Bush in London