Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, September 4th, 2016 | Sports | 11 Comments
A quick heads-up. For the foreseeable future, you’re not going to be at the bottom of the SEC.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, September 4th, 2016 | Presidential Election | 4 Comments
One US presidential candidate recently met with the President of Mexico and just spoke at a black church in Detroit. The other one hung out with the über-wealthy in Martha’s Vineyard. See if you can guess which is which.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, September 3rd, 2016 | Presidential Election | 26 Comments
Frank Bruni of the New York Times is usually kind of a douchebag but he gets one right here (I can’t quite call it a walk-off home run but I’ll credit Frank for a bases-clearing triple). You can only call someone a racist Nazi bad person so many times before people stop listening:
Conservative commentators and die-hard Republicans often brush off denunciations of Donald Trump as an unprincipled hatemonger by saying: Yeah, yeah, that’s what Democrats wail about every Republican they’re trying to take down. Sing me a song I haven’t heard so many times before.
Howard Wolfson would be outraged by that response if he didn’t recognize its aptness.
“There’s enough truth to it to compel some self-reflection,” Wolfson, who was the communications director for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in 2008, told me this week.
In fact, he finds himself thinking about it a whole lot: how extreme the put-downs of political adversaries have become; how automatically combatants adopt postures of unalloyed outrage; what this means when they come upon a crossroads — and a candidate — of much greater, graver danger.
“I worked on the presidential campaign in 2004,” he said, referring to John Kerry’s contest against George W. Bush. He added that he was also “active in discussing” John McCain when he ran for the presidency in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.
“And I’m quite confident I employed language that, in retrospect, was hyperbolic and inaccurate, language that cheapened my ability — our ability — to talk about this moment with accuracy and credibility.”
Did Democrats cry wolf so many times before Trump that no one hears or heeds them now?
Yeah, pretty much. Except that a lot of us stopped listening YEARS ago.
Posted by Bill (not IB) | Friday, September 2nd, 2016 | Sports | 13 Comments
The title to this post is a direct quote – it’s not my words.
I said it before. Here’s confirmation that I was right:
Seems as though the owners of the NFL teams decided that they were headed for the poor house unless they took action. What could they do? The regular season consists of 8 home games per team; ticket prices, concessions, parking, etc. are already inflated to the extent that they could keep 100 Hindenburgs in the air.
But there IS another source of revenue – pre-season games.
You know, those games where perhaps 1/2 of the regular team lineup appears; where no one puts forth any real effort lest there be injuries or giving clues to other teams as to one’s strengths/weaknesses. To paraphrase Burt Reynolds in “the Longest Yard”, “pre-season is a joke”.
But thar’s gold in them thar games. Every pro team now sells tickets for the preseason games attached to the regular games – for the same price, terms and conditions. And you have to buy the entire package. You can’t turn down the tickets for the pre-season games; if you want your beloved seats for the regular 8 games, you have to take them for the two “pretend” games as well.
For the Dallas Cowboys, if you have two season tickets in the lower bowl on the sideline, that’s $350 per ticket. For two games, that’s $1400 – plus $150 in pre-paid parking.
So, how much are Cowboys pre-season tickets selling for right now on the Internet?
Jerry Jones and the other owners thank you very much for being so gullible.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, September 1st, 2016 | Terrorism | 45 Comments
You know what would be awesome, says US Secretary of State
Lurch John Kerry. If the news media would stop bumming everybody out all the damned time:
“Remember this: No country is immune from terrorism,” he said. “It’s easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on. The fact is we have to stand together, and the United States is standing with Bangladesh in this fight.”
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, August 30th, 2016 | Anglican Communion | 138 Comments
It’s all well and good to say that conservative Anglicans need to leave TEO, the AOoC or the Church of England for Anglican churches that believe that the Bible means what it says. But what if “conservative Anglicanism” is nothing more than TEO forty years ago? What if traditionalist options aren’t actually options at all?
All this is personalized. Choosing to follow what is presented here as a “particular ecclesiology” that excludes women’s ordination will affect “particular persons”– “the ordinand herself,” is going to be hurt. Thus those who would choose to sever the present bond of unity in the name of orthodoxy by moving against ordained women are preemptively charged with unkindness or even cruelty toward sincere Christians. Doing so would also hypocritically involve singling out ordained women for penalties not meted out to others, since “Up until our own time, these differences have been held in tension, but they have not been the occasion for deep division. As long as someone was ordained through the proper form of the Ordinal, no one within our tradition questioned the validity of the ministry of the ordained person.” The price of holding out against spirit of the age becomes ever higher as this massively tendentious report goes on. To oppose women’s ordination is in fact to do the devil’s work: “Divide and conquer,” the Task Force notes, “is the devil’s strategy.”
In other words, schism is worse than heresy. So I think you all know where this is going.
This task force’s conclusions on Part 4 can easily be extrapolated from Part 3, where no convincing reason for the denomination-wide adoption of any one of what are presented in it as four family rules could be found. This is what one can expect in January from the Task Force, unless it is reconstituted or disbanded so the bishops can go it alone without the ring that is being installed in their collective nasal septum. Here is what the Task Force will conclude : Arguments pro and con (including the one found here) all carry some weight, but at the end of the day they are, taken as a whole, inconclusive because they are associated with conflicting and inconclusive ecclesiologies. On that account, for the sake of unity, no departure from the status quo, that is, the denominational acceptance of women’s ordination, can be urged. There you have it.
The question of whether women should be ordained to the office of presbyter or bishop is a binary matter: they either should or shouldn’t; there is no middle way. In this Report we find as the last gasping attempt a prophylaxis that those who come to a conclusion that harms the unity of the denomination (characterized throughout as the Church) are doing the work of the devil, whose strategy is to divide and conquer. In this one smells the old slogan heard so often in days when conservative Episcopalians were being moved out of the Episcopal Church and some of them would not leave: “schism is worse than heresy.” No, it’s not. Heresy forces schism and the heretics, not those who separate from them, are the ones who have created the division. Dividing light from darkness is the work of God, not the devil, and the authors of the Report have, it seems to me, taken a very great spiritual risk in making this application.
In the comments to this post, there is a fascinating discussion of this topic going on between an impressively formidable commenter named Tricia and legendary commenter Katherine. Click here and scroll down.
This site’s Catholic readership is probably reading all this and smirking. “Figures. As we keep trying to tell you Prots, this sort of garbage is inevitable when your church doesn’t have a teaching authority. Our Magisterium protects our church from this kind of crap.”
If you’re thinking that, Dale Price, the MCJ’s Detroit bureau chief and Your Esteemed Editor’s Catholic go-to guy, thinks that you might want to stop thinking that insofar as the current pontiff seems to have decided that the magisterium means whatever any given pope wants it to mean.
One of the staples of Catholic apologetics is that the Catholic magisterium safeguards the truth and ensures a unity and clarity that Protestantism lacks.
I would not be so sure of that. In fact, I would say (and have said before) that the current pontiff is demonstrating that the magisterium is little more than the mouthpiece of the reigning pope and only safeguards whatever iteration of whichever truth he wishes to utter. In short, the magisterium is sola papam currentis.
Rather than call Amoris Laetitia “authoritative,” isn’t the honest answer “wait at least a couple of popes and then see?”
And if the magisterium is just the press office of the current officeholder, then cue Flannery O’Connor.
Donald McClarey agrees.
Thus the Pope negates the clear teaching of Christ. I once asserted that the current Pontiff was the worst Pope since Alexander VI. I now must apologize to Alexander VI. With all his crimes he at least never proclaimed heresy.
As does Josh Kusch. His piece is too long and detailed to pull quotes from so read all of it.
Catholics were spoiled by Francis’ two predecessors. You guys had two intellectual and theological giants sitting on the Chair of St. Peter and now you have a pope who prefers to emote rather than think.
Which better worry you. A LOT.
Been there, done that.
I’ve always said that a magisterium is like a gun. It’s only effective if people know that you have one and are entirely willing to use it.
Because all Christian churches have “magisteria” in some form or other. What if Rowan Williams had invoked the Anglican “magisterium” in 2003 (citing a Lambeth Conference resolution on the subject) and declared that, because of their actions, the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada and the Episcopal Organization were suspended from any participation in the Anglican world until such time as they changed their minds?
Granted, my gracious lord of Canterbury would have been torn apart by the British left and the Episcopal Communion would have had a ten-year head start. But much of the Current Unpleasantness would have been avoided since it would have been Anglicanism’s hard left that would have had to seek Anglican “legitimacy”; the Episcopal Communion would be ACNA.
But he didn’t and both New Westminster and TEO knew that there was no chance that he ever would. Hence their eagerness to blow the Anglican Communion apart in order to get Robbie his pointy hat and hooked stick.
A negotiable magisterium is not a magisterium. And if a magisterium is negotiable, then anything is possible.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, August 29th, 2016 | Anglican Communion | 37 Comments
A group of parishes is preparing what could be the first step towards a formal split in the Church of England over issues such as homosexuality, with the creation of a new “shadow synod” vowing to uphold traditional teaching.
Representatives of almost a dozen congregations in the Home Counties are due to gather in a church hall in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, later this week for the first session of what they say could eventually develop into an alternative Anglican church in England.
Organisers, drawn from the conservative evangelical wing of Anglicanism, say they have no immediate plans to break away – but are setting up the “embryonic” structures that could be used to do so if the established church moves further in what they see as a liberal direction.
The new alliance will be viewed as a “church within a church” but founders have not ruled out full separation if, for example, the Church of England offers blessing-style services for same-sex unions – a move expected to be considered by bishops in the next few months.
Top of their agenda will be discussing founding new “Anglican” congregations in England – with or without the blessing of the Church’s hierarchy.
Crucially, they may decide to withhold money from the offering plates in their dioceses, instead channelling funds towards finding their own “missionary” plans.
You already know what Lambeth Palace recommends. More yammering.
A spokesman for the Church of England said a recent process of “shared conversations” involving bishops, clergy and laity would lay the foundations for “further formal discussions” about sexuality in the Church of England.
We here in North America have had a thirteen-year head start on all this. But if they have brains in their heads, traditionalist British Anglicans should already know what’s coming. The Church of England will eventually allow homosexual marriage. Maybe this year, maybe the next or maybe the year after that.
But it’s as inevitable as the sunrise.
Synod will include all manner of “conscience clauses” when it does. Bishops don’t have to allow them, vicars will never be forced to perform them, etc. And those “conscience clauses” will all turn out to be as meaningless in Blighty as they were in North America.
Is your bishop a traditionalist stalwart? Congratulations; your next one won’t be. Is your vicar dead-set against all the liberal efforts which are being, or will be, made to water down the authority of the Bible?
Enjoy him while you’ve got him. Because from now on, the chances of someone who believes what he believes even making it through theological training will decrease with each passing year.
Look. More than anyone else, I realize that the time between realizing that your “church” has become nothing more than a leftist debating society with a floor show and leaving that church can be quite long.
So I’m not going to judge you. I am going to say that a great many of us have walked this road. The road you walk will be different from ours but it will end up in exactly the same place that ours did.
When the Church of England allows homosexual marriage, your Earthly work is done and it’s time to drop that “If they go any further…” dodge. Because it will then become bonecrushingly obvious that the ONLY thing that can save the Church of England is the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit.
Once you realize that that’s never going to happen, it’s time to hit the bricks.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, August 28th, 2016 | LGBT+54 | 18 Comments
A reading from the Prophet Orwell:
The case of Judge Ruth Neely in Wyoming shows, in stark clarity, that it doesn’t actually matter whether religious people do their jobs well and keep their religion to themselves. It’s unacceptable to think and believe certain things, such as marriage being an institution between one man and one woman, and if you do that, forget about going into the legal profession.
Ruth Neely has been a municipal judge for more than two decades. She hears cases about the types of things you normally see in small towns: traffic citations, parking tickets, animal control cases, alcohol infractions, and petty crimes. Marriage is not listed in the duties and responsibilities of this position. Neely also serves part-time as an unpaid court magistrate, and this position allows for solemnizing marriages. The Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (CJCE) has recommended that Neely be removed from both of her positions, including the one that doesn’t even perform marriages, simply because she has chosen to not solemnize gay marriages, a voluntary part of her unpaid job.
Neely’s legal support is fighting to not only keep her in her positions, but also to protect her ability to fill jobs that avoid the marriage issue completely. The Wyoming commission “claims that because Judge Neely’s religious beliefs prevent her from solemnizing same-sex marriage, she cannot be a judge in Wyoming, even in a position that does not have authority to perform marriages.” Since legal decisions at this level are not about one person or situation, this touches the lives (and careers) of all people who have religious beliefs about certain actions.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, August 27th, 2016 | LGBT+54 | 20 Comments
Stop me if you’ve heard this one. Looks like the trannies will be the next big cause for the pseudo-religious left. Have they got any serious arguments? Here are some takes from someone named Eliel Cruz who thinks he’s bisexual:
There is not a single verse in scripture that discusses transgender identities. Yet these Christians have decided that trans identities are sinful, mostly through their lack of understanding of what being trans means.
There also isn’t a single verse in scripture which explicitly condemns genocide. So no on the arguments question.
In the absence of any verses in scripture that actually address transgender identities,
many Christians who claim to have religious objections against trans identities point to creation: God created Adam and Eve, male and female. But again, this requires a certain laziness in interpretation and is not consistent with the way that Christians interpret the rest of the Genesis account.
Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” It’s this interpretation of “and” between male and female that creates a foundation for understanding gender to be binary. But the “and” isn’t meant to be binary.
And you know this how?
Genesis 1:1 says: “God created the heavens and the earth.” In reading this verse, Christians interpret that God created not just the sky and the ground but everything in between. The “and” encompasses a spectrum by pointing to the two ends of the spectrum. Similarly, scripture says God is the “alpha and omega,” the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. That’s not meant to say God is just those two letters. God is the entire alphabet, from alpha to omega and everything in between. As Alan Hooker and others have noted, Christians acknowledge throughout scripture that “and” represents a spectrum, not a binary.
Ladies and gentlemen, give it up for “a certain laziness in interpretation.”
An anti-trans understanding of the Genesis story also lacks context. Gender and sex are different things.
Where does Scripture say that?
They don’t always align, and neither is binary. The biological reality of intersex individuals is a testament to that. The biological and psychological reality of transgender and intersex individuals needs to be the context in which Christians read scripture.
Trannies, etc. exist so God must have “made them that way.” Copy that. Cruz winds things up with humor.
In consequence, religious freedom has become synonymous with anti-LGBT beliefs, instead of advocacy of religious minorities to practice their beliefs without government interference.
Except when those beliefs contradict the prevailing leftist Zeitgeist, in which case we ought to round those people up and put them into concentration camps or something.
Religious freedom must defend true belief – not bias or hatred that’s found nowhere in our holy texts.
True belief=our views and our views alone since we’re right. The fact that we’re right means that we really don’t have to put any effort into making serious theological “arguments” defending our views since anyone who disagrees with them is obviously displaying “bias or hatred that’s found nowhere in our holy texts.”
I don’t know why but engaging lame, stupid, weak-ass “arguments” like Cruz’s has suddenly got me jonesing for paella. Maybe I’ll wander across the street later and see how their shrimp and mussels are. I’ve got rice so all I’d need would be a few vegetables. On second thought, I’ll probably have something else for dinner since I don’t currently own a paellera and I’ve never made the stuff before in my life.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, August 26th, 2016 | Presidential Election | 63 Comments
Lady Macbeth’s internals must be horrible. Because confident candidates don’t run ridiculous crap like this. And this garbage certainly won’t change the minds of reasonable people who may be queasy about the Ego.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, August 25th, 2016 | America Land of the Free | 16 Comments
But two international superpowers are growing closer.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 | Anglican Communion | 79 Comments
An actual Anglican post? Here? Damn.
If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then my gracious lord of Canterbury is officially bat-crap loopy:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has quietly asked the primates of the Anglican Communion to reserve the week beginning Monday, October 2, 2017 for the next primates meeting. In an email sent by staffers at the Anglican Consultative Council to the primates and moderators of the church on 27 July 2016, the ACC stated that date had “been selected as the date for the next Primates’ Meeting. The meeting will take place in Canterbury. We will write with a formal letter of invitation in due course but I would be most grateful if you would now confirm this date in your diary.” The meeting is expected to hear an interim report from the task force created by the Archbishop of Canterbury in response to the request by the primates in relation to the actions of the Episcopal Church of the USA. It is unclear, however, who will be invited and who will decline the invitation. Relations amongst the churches are at a point not seen since the boycott of the 2008 Lambeth Conference, with a number of GAFCON affiliated primates and others nonplussed by what they see as a disconnect between Archbishop Justin Welby’s words and his deeds.
Given how often they’ve been rolled, GAFCON sounds appropriately dubious.
In the last week, there has been news of a potential Primates’ Meeting scheduled to begin October 2, 2017. Consequently, we have received a number of inquiries, both from the media and our membership, asking the question of whether or not the Gafcon Primates will attend.
For all who had hoped that attendance at the January 2016 Primates’ Gathering might restore godly order to the Communion, the results were clearly discouraging. Gafcon is fully committed to guarding the unchanging truth of the Gospel, and restoring the Bible to the heart of the Anglican Communion. In due course, the Gafcon Primates will take counsel and together make a decision about the wisdom of attending future meetings.
The next meeting of the Gafcon Primates’ Council is in April of 2017. We give thanks for the courage that is being shown by our members across the globe, as they share God’s Word both “in season and out of season.” Please continue to pray for the continued growth of this reformation movement.
Then there’s this recent speech to the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa by the Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion, the Rev. Dr. Josiah Idowu-Fearon. The good doctor told CAPA some things that, needless to say, won’t sit at all well with many western Anglicans.
[Idowu-Fearon] criticised the views expressed by some commentators in the West which sees the Church in Africa as being “fifty years behind the rest of the world.”
Their view of progressivism places them at the forefront of historical and social development – with us Africans bringing up the rear. Even worse, deep down, they think that all of us, whatever our faith and commitments, have our price.
They really believe that it will only be a matter of time before we fall in line with their view of the world, of culture, of marriage, of community; either through conviction or, if not, then through convenience.
Our African Churches can never be social progressives in the sense beloved of the West. We will never allow our churches to be taken over by views and programmes which suggest that the Bible is wrong. We will not crumble or bow the knee to a godless secular culture that despises the Bible and what it teaches.
We will never allow ourselves, or our identity, or our churches, to be defined by the pride of those who see us as lagging behind them in our economies, our politics, our communities, our families, and our theology.
Dr Idowu-Fearon said that he was “deeply disturbed” by seeing how Christians determined to maintain Anglican orthodoxy are being “swept aside by a campaign to change the churches’ teaching on marriage and so-called rights of equality.”
Stirring words. They might have actually made a difference had Idowu-Fearon or someone else uttered them seven or eight years ago. But they’re worse than useless now. Because it’s long past time for everyone in the Anglican “tradition,” left and right, to face reality.
(1) The North Americans are not going to change direction.
(2) Lambeth Palace is not going to show New York or Toronto the door. Ever. Because Lambeth knows that if it did, the Episcopal Communion gets started the very next day and will contain quite a few British churches in a very short time. Maybe even most of them.
(3) Given (1) and (2), the LEAST that traditionalist Anglicans ought to demand in terms of any kind of settlement is Lambeth’s immediate recognition of the Anglican Church in North America regardless of how loudly New York and Toronto bitch about it.
What would that mean? It would mean that Foley Beach would be considered an Anglican primate with exactly the same status as Mike or Fred. It would mean that Beach would be invited to Anglican primates meetings, the same as Mike or Fred. It would also mean that ACNA bishops would receive the same invitation to any future Lambeth Conference as those sent to TEO or AOoC bishops.
The North Americans can’t allow it to happen because it would imply that theological views on The Single Most Important Moral Issue Of All Time that are completely contradictory to their own are somehow valid. Anglican “traditionalists” shouldn’t make it the basis of a settlement because if they did, they would still be in communion with Anglican “churches” who passionately hate both them and their message and who will vigorously undercut that message every chance they get.
I made whatever Internet rep I have writing about the Anglicans but this post is why I don’t write about them much any more. Because writing the blindingly obvious over and over bores the crap out of me.
Posted by Bill (not IB) | Wednesday, August 24th, 2016 | Sports | 36 Comments
Important note: I have to step forward and say that the recent outage was blamed squarely by those in an administrative position (not CJ) on things I have done. CJ’s observations on “nobody’s entirely sure what” is a very gallant and generous side-stepping of information he was provided that identified me as the [ir]responsible party. (I can provide emails to back this up). I don’t have enough information to agree or disagree as to what the source of blame should be, but I will come right out and apologize for anything and everything I did wrong. I have left undone those things which I ought to have done; And I have done those things which I ought not to have done; And there is no health in me.
I’m not a sports fanatic, but I do enjoy watching various things – hockey (#1; Gordie rules!), baseball (minor league in particular; the players clearly love the game) and even some college football (pro football is, IMHO, a joke).
But one thing that has always bothered me is the amount of money directed towards one – and only one – “sport”. Football.
Many universities seem to take the position that “we exist to sponsor a football team”, and the majority of their recruiting efforts, fundraising, and public relations/advertising focus on their football team. Alumni are encouraged to buy expensive seats for football games; prospective students are given a “rah-rah” speech about how great it is to attend a school with a prominent football team.
But it doesn’t stop at the college/university level. Ever heard of the movie “Friday Night Lights?” High school football has perhaps an even more intense following than college football. After all, high school ball is all “local”; it’s readily accessible; it’s the cheerleader next door, and the defensive end across the street.
So – what am I trying to say here? It’s actually very simple. How in the world is it possible to justify spending $70,000,000 on a stadium for freakin’ high school football?
Do you think I’m joking?
$69.9 Million High School Stadium (McKinney, Texas; a near neighbor of mine)
At $35,000 per year, that would pay for 20 teachers per year for 10 years. It would pay for 3 elementary schools at $20,000,000 each with change left over for operating funds. It would provide school supplies for 10,000 elementary school students at $150 per year each for 25 years with enough left over to pay for 1/2 of an elementary school.
This stadium will not bring added business to McKinney. It will not increase hotel or rental car tax revenues. It will not provide a boost to restaurants.
It’s just a really, really expensive place for teenagers to play football.
At a time when most of the school districts in the United States are struggling to find enough funds just to provide the bare minimums to educate our youth, seeing an expenditure like this screams out as being obscene. No one would accept the notion of spending $70 million on a high school concert hall, or an Olympic pool, or a technology center. But football? And this isn’t something that’s in doubt; it’s a done deal.
I am truly, truly shocked and nauseated. Seeing this much money spent on something which has absolutely no benefit to the community (other than bragging rights) makes me wonder – why? How can the residents not rise up in protest? Has football become that much of a “deity” that to challenge it risks accusations of blasphemy?
It will be interesting to see how long it takes before McKinney’s school district runs short of funds for just plain old classroom education, and has to issue a plea to increase taxes so they can provide “the basics” – and whether or not residents respond as readily as they do to building a memorial to sports that demonstrates how far afield some people’s priorities have gone.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 | Terrorism | 15 Comments
I don’t get cable, satellite, etc, so I don’t remember exactly when, where or why I saw the CNN report on this incident. But I do remember that by the end of her story, the reporter was almost sobbing and that this picture will haunt me until the end of my life.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016 | Website Issues | 16 Comments
…for the recent extended down time, I don’t have one. All that I can say with any certainty is that something happened, nobody’s entirely sure what, that required MAJOR surgery by Greg Griffith in order to fix. While we were away, I bookmarked a considerable number of stories on which I’d like to comment so some newer posts here might be old news.
In order to at least partially alleviate any future outages which may occur, the MCJ Management Team is discussing the establishment of some kind of back-up situation. More details as they become available.