This is the English translation:

Oh lovely Art, in how many grey hours,
When life's fierce orbit ensnared me,
Have you kindled my heart to warm love,
Carried me away into a better world!

How often has a sigh escaping from your harp,
A sweet, sacred chord of yours
Opened up for me the heaven of better times,
Oh lovely Art, for that I thank you!

And this is how I remember singing it in English, though I can only remember the first verse:

Thou lovely art in every troubled hour
When I have bowed before the storms of life
hast though revived my heart with glowing power
in higher realms unknown to earthly strife
in realms unknown to earthly strife

Here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm_AKMV0ME0

sigh

Like several others though, I did stay pretty much glued to the TV for most of the day, even wearing my best yellowish shirt (which happened, by happy chance, to be a Gunner's jersey). I was well dressed for my couch, my seat of choice, watching from the start of the mass until the burial.

But while they discussed the Outspoken Daughter, Who Did and Didn't Attend, the torrential rain, military protocol, Cory's life, family and All Things Important, I was lamenting something....

inconsequential...(cough)

the musical aesthetics of the requiem mass...

and, I must confess, rather uncharitably thought, perhaps it was planned by those who went to that Other School*. That's mean. I take it back. My prejudices though are deep and are difficult to unlearn. Have patience.

The orchestra detracted from the solemnity and it seemed really odd to me. I would have preferred an organ for Those Songs. And of all the beautiful requiem music in the world, why was the choir singing Those Songs? Those Songs, I felt, could not rise to the occasion and were not fitting of a high mass in a cathedral. I felt a disconnect between the rich and ancient symbolism of the mass and the modern, seemingly informal music, they tried hard to elevate through orchestral accompaniment. Mind you not that I didn't love Those Songs in the normal mass,it's just that it seemed wanting in a cathedral.

It does occur to me that maybe, these were the songs Cory loved. So maybe, I will let it go. And maybe this doesn't matter....and I know I'm being a terrible snob...BUT...

But, since the only times where I actually stood in the presence of Cory, was for a command performance in Malacanang, and the inauguration of PALs Boeing 747 (yes millions of years ago), and because I love Rutter, it seems fitting to pay tribute in a way I know how.

And so, I'm leaving This for her, and her historic speech before the US Congress, for you.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Notes:

*who composed Those Songs

On June 23, 2009, Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta learned of a highly compartmentalized program to assassinate al Qaeda operatives that was launched by the CIA in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. When Panetta found out that the covert program had not been disclosed to Congress, he canceled it and then called an emergency meeting June 24 to brief congressional oversight committees on the program. Over the past week, many details of the program have been leaked to the press and the issue has received extensive media coverage.

That a program existed to assassinate al Qaeda leaders should certainly come as no surprise to anyone. It has been well-publicized that the Clinton administration had launched military operations and attempted to use covert programs to strike the al Qaeda leadership in the wake of the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. In fact, the Clinton administration has come under strong criticism for not doing more to decapitate al Qaeda prior to 2001. Furthermore, since 2002, the CIA has conducted scores of strikes against al Qaeda targets in Pakistan using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the MQ-1 Predator and the larger MQ-9 Reaper.

These strikes have dramatically increased over the past two years and the pace did not slacken when the Obama administration came to power in January. So far in 2009 there have been more than two dozen UAV strikes in Pakistan alone. In November 2002, the CIA also employed a UAV to kill Abu Ali al-Harithi, a senior al Qaeda leader suspected of planning the October 2000 attack against the USS Cole. The U.S. government has also attacked al Qaeda leaders at other times and in other places, such as the May 1, 2008, attack against al Qaeda-linked figures in Somalia using an AC-130 gunship.

As early as Oct. 28, 2001, The Washington Post ran a story discussing the Clinton-era presidential finding authorizing operations to capture or kill al Qaeda targets. The Oct. 28 Washington Post story also provided details of a finding signed by President George W. Bush following the 9/11 attacks that reportedly provided authorization to strike a larger cross section of al Qaeda targets, including those who are not in the Afghan theater of operations. Such presidential findings are used to authorize covert actions, but in this case the finding would also provide permission to contravene Executive Order 12333, which prohibits assassinations.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush and the members of his administration were very clear that they sought to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and the members of the al Qaeda organization. During the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections in the United States, every major candidate, including Barack Obama, stated that they would seek to kill bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda. Indeed, on the campaign trail, Obama was quite vocal in his criticism of the Bush administration for not doing more to go after al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan. This means that, regardless of who is in the White House, it is U.S. policy to go after individual al Qaeda members as well as the al Qaeda organization.

In light of these facts, it would appear that there was nothing particularly controversial about the covert assassination program itself, and the controversy that has arisen over it has more to do with the failure to report covert activities to Congress. The political uproar and the manner in which the program was canceled, however, will likely have a negative impact on CIA morale and U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

Successful revolutions have three phases. First, a strategically located single or limited segment of society begins vocally to express resentment, asserting itself in the streets of a major city, usually the capital. This segment is joined by other segments in the city and by segments elsewhere as the demonstration spreads to other cities and becomes more assertive, disruptive and potentially violent. As resistance to the regime spreads, the regime deploys its military and security forces. These forces, drawn from resisting social segments and isolated from the rest of society, turn on the regime, and stop following the regime’s orders. This is what happened to the Shah of Iran in 1979; it is also what happened in Russia in 1917 or in Romania in 1989.

Revolutions fail when no one joins the initial segment, meaning the initial demonstrators are the ones who find themselves socially isolated. When the demonstrations do not spread to other cities, the demonstrations either peter out or the regime brings in the security and military forces — who remain loyal to the regime and frequently personally hostile to the demonstrators — and use force to suppress the rising to the extent necessary. This is what happened in Tiananmen Square in China: The students who rose up were not joined by others. Military forces who were not only loyal to the regime but hostile to the students were brought in, and the students were crushed.

A light bulb lit up. I knew I wanted to pick on someone so I immediately called the person who apparently exemplified this sub specie, the person I had shamelessly stereotyped in the past, and was about to stereotype again (he had already watched Star Trek twice, called me to say he was disappointed that it didn't blow his mind away, but instead blew his entire being away, and called to say he was watching it yet again...obviously a Trekkie and the epitome of geek)and made an accusation, "You like Spock don't you?! Admit to me that you think Spock is The Geek Ambition".

(What was I thinking?? Truly, I had only wanted to victimize. It was some irresistible force that compelled me to pick up the phone...)

His response was negative. Star Trek is The Geek Fantasy. Chuck or maybe The Librarian was The Geek Ambition, I was informed (He happily conceded a point). For whatever reason, the conversion centered around a detailed analysis of different geek archetypes in these movies. I commented, "But geeks are incessant talkers. Spock isn't like that". He paused, then said tentatively, with some level of self awareness, "I wouldn't say incessant..." (Nerd scores again). Feeling magnanimous,I corrected myself "I mean, geeks like to talk". He readily agreed.

I was smug. I had clearly made a point: you geek, me not geek. It made me happy. But Tolkien somehow got dragged into it. I was appalled, and then it happened. Nerd rage took over:

"You CANNOT say that Star Trek is the Fellowship in space!And NO you cannot equate Frodo with Spock. Is nothing sacred???"

There, I lost. I was accused of being a Tolkien purist to boot.

But really, me? nerd? How can I when I wasn't the classmate who called up to tell me the entire history of Middle Earth...;p

Anyway, so that's what happens when you bait a geek. I'll be better off playing rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock. (as If I could ever remember the rules: scissors cuts paper, paper covers rock, rock crushes lizard, lizard poisons Spock, Spock smashes scissors, scissors decapitates lizard, lizard eats paper, paper disapproves Spock, Spock vaporizes rock, rock crushes scissors?)

Munich and the Continuity Between the Bush and Obama Foreign Policies
February 9, 2009
George Friedman
www.stratfor.com

While the Munich Security Conference brought together senior leaders from most major countries and many minor ones last weekend, none was more significant than U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. This is because Biden provided the first glimpse of U.S. foreign policy under President Barack Obama. Most conference attendees were looking forward to a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration. What was interesting about Biden’s speech was how little change there has been in the U.S. position and how much the attendees and the media were cheered by it.

After Biden’s speech, there was much talk about a change in the tone of U.S. policy. But it is not clear to us whether this was because the tone has changed, or because the attendees’ hearing has. They seemed delighted to be addressed by Biden rather than by former Vice President Dick Cheney — delighted to the extent that this itself represented a change in policy. Thus, in everything Biden said, the conference attendees saw rays of a new policy.

As Umar Israilov, a 27-year-old Chechen political refugee living in Vienna, Austria, returned home on foot after grocery shopping Jan. 13, he spotted two men standing outside his apartment building — one of whom had a gun. Upon spotting the men, Israilov dropped his groceries and fled down Leopoldauer Street in the Floridsdorf neighborhood of Vienna, dodging cars and pedestrians. But the gunman managed to wound Israilov, halting his flight. The two men then approached him in a side alley, where the armed man shot Israilov twice in the head, killing him.

One man has been detained in connection with the killing, which a Stratfor source alleges was carried out by organized criminal assets in Vienna at the behest of Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov and with Kremlin approval. Israilov was an outspoken critic of Kadyrov and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Because of this, Israilov had frequently expressed concerns for his safety and that of his family.

Before seeking asylum in Austria, Israilov fought during the Second Chechen War against Russian forces, which captured him in 2003. Afterward, he served as one of Kadyrov’s bodyguards, a position that gave him a front-row seat to the activities of Kadyrov, who at that time led the militia of his father, then-Chechen President Akhmed Kadyrov. (Ramzan Kadyrov became Chechen president in 2007, three years after his father’s assassination.) Israilov and the younger Kadyrov had a falling-out in 2004, after which Israilov said his former boss tortured him using electric charges.

Israel is now in the 12th day of carrying out Operation Cast Lead against the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip, where Hamas has been the de facto ruler ever since it seized control of the territory in a June 2007 coup. The Israeli campaign, whose primary military aim is to neutralize Hamas’ ability to carry out rocket attacks against Israel, has led to the reported deaths of more than 560 Palestinians; the number of wounded is approaching the 3,000 mark.

The reaction from the Arab world has been mixed. On the one hand, a look at the so-called Arab street will reveal an angry scene of chanting protesters, burning flags and embassy attacks in protest of Israel’s actions. The principal Arab regimes, however, have either kept quiet or publicly condemned Hamas for the crisis — while privately often expressing their support for Israel’s bid to weaken the radical Palestinian group.

Despite the much-hyped Arab nationalist solidarity often cited in the name of Palestine, most Arab regimes actually have little love for the Palestinians. While these countries like keeping the Palestinian issue alive for domestic consumption and as a tool to pressure Israel and the West when the need arises, in actuality, they tend to view Palestinian refugees — and more Palestinian radical groups like Hamas — as a threat to the stability of their regimes.

One such Arab country is Saudi Arabia. Given its financial power and its shared religious underpinnings with Hamas, Riyadh traditionally has backed the radical Palestinian group. The kingdom backed a variety of Islamist political forces during the 1960s and 1970s in a bid to undercut secular Nasserite Arab nationalist forces, which threatened Saudi Arabia’s regional status. But 9/11, which stemmed in part from Saudi support for the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, opened Riyadh’s eyes to the danger of supporting militant Islamism.