prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Who is the program chair of this conference?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: HOFFMAN: I'm delighted to introduce the chair of the last session, Mara Liasson from the National Public Radio  Mara is Congressional correspondent for NPR, and covers activities in Congress in D C  Right now, this week, she has been covering the tax bill, which people currently are going at hot and heavy  She took time off from her busy schedule to come here to help us sort out some of these key issues for today, and more importantly, for what happens in the next decade and beyond  I'll turn it over to Mara to get the panel going 
LIASSON: Thank you very much  I am probably the only person here who has absolutely no background in technology  Anyway, I am the only one who does not understand what the panelists are going to be talking about (laughter), and although they have already told me that they do not appreciate people who think that that's a great quality and look down on people who are technical, and I certainly do not, I will reserve the right to insist that they all talk in terms that people like me can understand, since there is more of me out there than you, although not in this room today  (laughter) What we are going to do is introduce each panelist, and each one will make a short three- to five-minute presentation  Then my instructions say that we are going to have a McLaughlin Group discussion, which I guess means lots of yelling and screaming and talking at once  (laughter) After that's over, about 4:10, we'll open up the panel for questions from the audience 
To my left is Peter Denning, who is Chairman of the Computer Science Department at George Mason University and also the associate dean for computing  He is the program chair of this conference, has also served as the president of ACM, and he is currently the editor of Communications 
Simon Davies, to my right, also wears blue suits, but you can tell him from Mitch, because he wears a white hat  (laughter) He is from Sydney, Australia, and is the Director General of Privacy International, which is an international network of privacy advocates  He is also an author, a journalist, and radio commentator 
To his right is Roland Homet  He is an information policy writer and thinker who recently opened his own public policy writing firm here in Washington -- it's called Executive Ink, not Inc , as it is written in your programs, so you can scratch that out 
Esther Dyson, at the end of the panel, is among the most respected commentators on developing technology trends in the personal computer business  She publishes two newsletters, Release 1 0 and Rel-EAST  She has also been one of the driving forces promoting East-West relations through computer networks  She is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation as well 
I'll ask Peter to start 
P  DENNING: Thank you  Starting around 1850, people of many countries looked to their governments to regulate commerce, erase inequities, and build societies of better human beings  For over a hundred years, many people, from peasants to intellectuals, had faith that strong governments would bring them a better life  This faith was part of the clearing in which Communist governments flourished; although the United States took an anti-Communist stand, the same faith fostered a strong government that promised salvation by great national programs including Social Security, welfare, food stamps, the War on Poverty, and the Great Society  This faith is now shattered  People no longer trust that powerful government can deliver a better life 
The dramatic collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union illustrates this, as does the growing disillusionment of the American people for federal, state, and local governments  The poor track record of government is not the only reason for the shift  Information technology has accelerated the process  Communications that took weeks in the last century now take fractions of a second  Business success depends on what happens around the globe, not only on local conditions  Radio, TV, fax, and now E-mail are common worldwide, so much so that not even a powerful government can control what information its citizens have  Because the space of opportunity for people to engage in transactions with each other has been so enormously enlarged during the past decade, faith in marketplace democracies is on the rise worldwide; correspondingly faith in central management mechanisms is on the decline  This shift has brought with it a shift of the power of institutions  Government institutions tend to try to hold onto their power by regulatory coercion to enforce the old ways  This can produce big tensions and even promote breakage 
Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in the cryptographic area which we have just been talking about in the previous hour  This technology, cryptography, produces mechanisms for digital signatures, authentication, electronic money, certificates, and private communication -- all offering a way for standard business practices now based on paper to be shifted into the electronic media  The success of worldwide enterprises depends on this shift being completed rapidly and effectively  As more people realize this, the momentum for incorporating cryptographic technology into the information infrastructure is accelerating 
In this country, the National Security Agency has long been given the authority to regulate cryptography  This authority was granted in another time when the success of the country depended upon the ability of its government to gather intelligence and communicate in secret  These premises made sense in a world where most of the power resided in governments, but the world is changing  Much economic power is now accumulating in large apolitical transnational corporations  These corporations place their own concerns and strategies ahead of those of governments of the countries in which they do business  Like governments, they are interested in gathering intelligence about competitors and in conducting business in private  Unlike governments, they want open access to the technologies of authentication, electronic money, digital signatures, and certificates that will allow them to conduct business transactions across the network  So it is no longer true that national power and national security are increased when government has the sole right to gather intelligence and encipher communications  Now the strength of a country depends not only on its government, but also on its corporations  The old premises have fallen away in the new reality, but the old policy remains  It's time to rethink the policy, before tensions between a threatened government and corporations produce significant social tension and perhaps breakage 
Well, digital media -- computer-based communications -- are the printing press of the 21st century, and as the printing press transformed society, created the modern individual, gave rise to the basis of the democratic state and to the notion of individual rights, I suspect that we will see a similar, radical transformation of the very constitution of global society in the next century, facilitated by this enabling technology  I would be the last person to try to sketch out the details, or tell you what the issues are going to be, but I want to share with you some feelings about what is really going to matter, as we go about this -- and I'll start with something about myself 
You see a guy wearing a suit; most of you know I have a lot of money -- I'm a successful businessman  God knows what images propagate around the media and settle in people's minds, but I've always seen myself, and felt myself to the core of my being, as an outsider, every bit as much as a self-proclaimed outsider, as Tom Jennings -- who spoke so eloquently about this at the Pioneer awards* yesterday -- was  *The Electronic Freedom Foundation presented its first awards at a related, adjacent reception which was not formally a part of the conference 
I think we are all outsiders; we are all different, all unique  We're not the same  We share an underlying common humanity, but we should not be asked to subjugate ourselves to some form of mass society that causes us each to become indistinguishable from one another  I believe that computer- based communications technology is an enabling technology to liberate individuals and to free us from the oppressive influence of large institutions, whether those are public or private  And I am talking about an economic restructuring that results in a much more decentralized society, and social restructuring in an affirmation of the simple right to be left alone  I think Cyberspace is good for individuals, and I think that's important  I also think that the flip side of the coin, the creation of community, which we so sorely lack in this country today, can be facilitated through these technologies 
I have experienced that for myself, as many of you have on your various computer networks on conferencing systems like the WELL  It is enormously liberating to overcome the artificial boundaries of space and time  We are prisoners of geography in the physical world, and our communities are largely a product of who we can see face to face each day, even though our real comrades and colleagues may be scattered all over the world and our interests -- whether they are hobbies or political interests or religious interests, whatever they might be -- can be facilitated if we are able to get in touch with, to form bonds with, to exchange views and ideas with other kindred spirits  And I believe this technology is an enabling technology for the formation of community  My hope is that we will have the wisdom to create policies which enable individuals to flourish free from the chains of mass society, and which enable voluntary communities of people, individuals, groups who come together to be with each other and to work together  I hope both of those become possible 
DAVIES: I feel very warmed by the various visions of the future that have come out of this conference, but I am a cynic, and cynicism is good, because it adds fiber  (laughter) How nice the world would be if everyone was like Mitch, but they're not, because the future is in the hands of ruthless, greedy little men 
I want to paint the vision of the future that I have, and I hope it's not too depressing because there is a future, a good future    possibly  I agree, as many of you do, that the future is going to be like some giant informational Yggdrasil* *Reference from Old Norse mythology -- the Yggdrasil was a giant ash tree whose roots held together the universe   We'll all be part of interconnectivity, the likes of which we can scarcely imagine right now  I imagine it will be like an organism where we're independent and interdependent, and so it's like a two-edged sword  That's all very nice, and we can see that we form part of that new community  But, I see a world with 15 billion beings scrambling for life, where four-fifths of the world lives on half a liter of water a day, where people grow up to see their children dying, where new political frontiers are destroying freedoms and the democracy that we have developed over the last two centuries  I see a world where there is very little hope for nearly everybody on the planet, except for the elite -- that's us -- except for those of us who are plugged into the informational Yggdrasil 
What I see is that 14 of those 15 billion people are a lot of pissed-off people who have their eyes set on what they see, not as a wonderful informational community, but as the beast  And they see that that is where the resources are, and that's where the opportunities are, and that's where the political power is  I can't see a future for us in a world where ultimately the great demon becomes information  It might be good for us, but for the disaffected four-fifths of the world, information is going to be something which, frankly, we can do without, because in a world with almost no resources left, surely information is selfishness 
HOMET: Thank you  I'm grateful to the organizers for including me in these proceedings -- they are reminiscent for me of some information policy conferences that I organized 15 to 20 years ago for the Aspen Institute  The particulars have certainly changed, but the dynamics remain much the same  For me, these are well-represented by Peter Denning's image of a changeable clearing in the woods  At any given time, as I see it, the clearing is an acceptable standoff between the forces of modernization and of traditional culture, between freedom and discipline, between structure and spontaneity  Now we voice these as opposites, but in fact, they need each other  It is the creative tension between technological innovation and established order that allows society to hold together and progress to take place  Take away freedom and order will be overthrown -- witness the Soviet Union  Take away tradition, and modernization will be crushed -- witness Iran  The clearing must be respected and it must move  Just as Benjamin Cardozo of the U S  Supreme Court said 65 years ago, the genius of the American system is its penchant for ordered liberty  When both halves of the equation work against each other and together in Hegelian terms, the clearing that they produce is, at any given time, a prevailing hypothesis, which is challenged by a new antithesis  Together they can produce a fresh synthesis  And all that is very familiar  What is new and trying is the sweep and pace of innovation today, plus -- and this is what we sometimes forget -- the political volatility of the value systems that this can induce  If you doubt that, consider the Buchanan campaign and what's been going on with the Endowment for the Arts and public broadcasting  These are signs of people running scared, and they can cause damage 
So the answer for the 21st century is to proceed under power, but with restraint, to practice what Mitch Kapor in another connection called toleration for opposing forces and perspectives  We need each other to keep the enterprise together and on course  For computer practitioners represented in this room, this means restraint from provoking unnecessary and damaging social backlash  A good example might be New York telcos offering free per-call and per-line blocking with this caller identification service  For regulators and law enforcers, restraint means asking, "Do you know enough to freeze emerging conduct in a particular form or pattern?" I was very taken by the role reversal exercise organized by Michael Gibbons on Wednesday night  It led me to wonder what might have happened to the government's wiretapping and encryption proposals had they been subjected to a comparable advanced exercise before introduction 
Sixteen years ago in Aspen, Colorado, I convened a gathering of federal policymakers and invited them to consider a suggested matrix of policy values and processes in the information society  The first two of those values -- it will not surprise you to know -- were freedom of discourse and individual privacy  But there were more: freedom of economic choice is one; the general welfare another; popular sovereignty, worth pausing on, I described as avoiding concentrations of economic and political power in any sector of industry or government that impinge unduly on the freedoms or welfare of the citizenry  And then there is progress, social progress, the fostering, I said, of market incentives and opportunities for technological and service innovations and for widened consumer choice among technologies and services  Now obviously if you give just a moment's thought to it, you will recognize, as I think we have in this conference, that these values can collide with each other at key points, and therefore accommodations must be made  For that we need processes of accommodation  I also suggested some of those  After you identify the relevant values and goals, you then should ask yourself about the necessity and the appropriateness of having government make any decision on the matter  And this has to do with such things like the adequacy of decision-making standards, the availability of adequate information, and the adequacy of personnel resources to deal with it  Then you get into dividing up the possible roles of the various elements of government -- the regulatory agencies, the Executive Branch, the Judiciary, and the Congress  It doesn't stop there, because you need to ask about international implications, which we have done some of here  And federal/state implications -- very often allowing the state to make a stab at social ordering in the first instance is, as Justice Brandeis often said, the best way, through the social laboratory technique, to try out what is the right answer, without endangering the whole society  And as we have heard today, we need also to think about the availability of non-coercive instruments of accommodation, like a federal data protection board 
DYSON: I want to just say one thing about this business of crypto technology -- it is a very simple sentence, and everyone seems to slip slightly by it; that is, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns  Crypto technology is fundamentally a defensive weapon  It may protect murderers and thieves, but it is not a weapon that murders, kills, does anything bad; and so it is a very different kettle of fish from any other kind of weapon  The whole point is that information is powerful, and that the free flow of information, privacy-protected, empowers the powerless and is dangerous to the powerful -- and that's why we need our privacy protected 
Now let me just talk a wee bit about the future  A couple of days ago, a reporter called me and asked what the EFF stood for  I kind of floundered around and said, "Well, we want privacy, we want good hackers to be protected and bad crackers to be punished  We want people to understand the difference, and we want all these good things, but we really don't want to grab power " The guy kept on not quite getting it  The real answers were pro choice  We don't want someone else to make all these decisions for anybody  We don't even want the majority to rule  In every way that is possible, we want the minorities to control their own conditions in their own lives  There are very few things that are the province of government, but way too many things nowadays are being given to the government carelessly, fearfully, whatever  In my terms -- and I happen to be a right-wing person in terms of the economy and private freedoms -- I want more markets and fewer governments  Markets give choices to individuals  They let people trade what they don't want for what they do want  Again, to the extent possible, they want people to make individual choices 
What worries me is large concentrations of power, making choices for people  Big business, big government, even big media  The media until now have mostly been our protectors, because they go out and produce information, they use anonymous sources where necessary, and they make that information free  What protected global networking is going to do is give more and more of that power to individuals, and help reduce the power of big institutions of any kind  We are going to have small businesses flourishing, because it is easier for them to collect resources  You don't need to have a giant monolithic corporation to be efficient any more, and so a lot of marketplace economies of scale will even disappear, as we have better networking, better coordination  We have markets like the American Information Exchange, and if you don't know what that is, come and see me, or Hugh Daniel, or a couple of other people 
On the social side, I think 20 years ago    when you mentioned 15 years ago, I thought, Yes, that must have been about 1940  Then I realized    Anyway, some time ago there was all this talk about the global village  We're going to have mass broadcasting, we're going to have mass E-mail, we're going to have this global village  We don't  What we have is a lot of global villages, but as Mitch said, they're no longer geographical, physical villages  They're small, geographical villages of people with like interests  The big question becomes, How do we avert tribalism? It might not be nation against nation any more, but it certainly will be rich against poor, and franchised versus disenfranchised 
LIASSON: Thank you all very much  Now we can all try to stir up the pot a little bit  Somewhere between Mitch's paradise and the Simon's apocalypse is probably what's really going to happen  I want to just jump off from what Esther said about you all being in a minority and what kind of responsibility you owe to the rest of the world  We're in the midst of a presidential election and not one single candidate has said anything about Cyberspace  I am wondering if you think they should, and what are the kinds of extremely important issues that you think should be discussed? Should they be discussed in a kind of mass, political forum? Or should they be left to an elite like you to discuss and decide, and not really spend a whole lot of energy trying to translate or disseminate them to the great masses of people? I guess what I am wondering is, if you were an advisor to one of the presidential candidates, or a candidate yourself, how would you go about interjecting these things? Or wouldn't you bother at all?
DYSON: Does he want to get elected, or does he want to make a point?
LIASSON: I think he wants to make a point  If he wants to get elected, I think the discussion would stop right now 
DYSON: Let me just try a serious answer  I think what a candidate could say is, "I'm no longer going to protect the textile industry, the peanut butter interests, the sugar guys, the antediluvian steel mills  If I'm going to have an industrial policy and help anyone, it's going to be new technology  I'm going to focus on investment in R&D  I am going to create a national infrastructure for telecommunications, just the way we created a highway system years ago  I'm going to put people to work doing these things " I think that would go over reasonably well  I think it's something most of us would agree on  (laughter) We have an industrial policy -- we might as well acknowledge it, and we might as well have it be forward-looking 
KAPOR: Now there is something about the question as to whether this is presidential material that I think is ironic, given that most people really want to vote for "none of the above " We know in our hearts that we have come to a particular period in history in which the presidential spectacle seems to be particularly irrelevant to whatever set of problems we have on our minds  As a great believer in democracy, I think this is incredibly lamentable  We need to do something about this, because there are a lot of issues, but Cyberspace is not ready for prime time  It would be trivialized -- I have seen what Geraldo did to hackers, and I don't need to see any more 
It seems to me that the presidential candidates are really not the leaders that they ought to be, but are always putting their finger to the wind to see if they can detect some current of values or beliefs that can help get them elected  And I think that -- I'm not espousing utopian vision -- there needs to be an utopian vision out there, so people have something to give them some inspiration  But values are a lot more important than technology  There are some values in this community -- and I'm not sure if it's an elite or a minority or both -- but it's really in the propagation of a sense of values about openness and tolerance, acting on that basis and living one's life, and saving capitalism from itself and things like that where we can make a difference  If some of the expressions are technological, that's fine  We are living in an era where people like buttons, and so on  If we do that well, the presidential candidates are going to be coming to us 
LIASSON: You talk about Cyberspace not being ready for prime time -- I still want a definition of Cyberspace in 25 words or less -- but I think you want to transform prime time to a certain extent 
DYSON: Mostly I agree with this, but the press does have two roles: one is collecting information and uncovering things, and the other is setting the agenda  If 12,000 voices are crying out, who's going to listen to them? Who's going to notice when they do discover that the President did something wrong? Again, it's a check and balance sort of thing, but there is a certain community that is created by collective media 
KAPOR: Esther, what makes you believe that in Cyberspace Mara won't have two hours a day of her own that everyone listens to  (laughter) She might get more time than she gets today, because people trust her 
DYSON: But then she becomes prime time 
LIASSON: But you said before that instead of one global village, we have a lot of little global villages  I'm wondering if instead, we won't have millions of little huts  I mean individual huts  There are just so many different choices 
LIASSON: What I'm wondering is, if everybody becomes their own producer, publisher, what does that mean for the future?
KAPOR: I think we'll get a much more fluid, self-organizing state  I don't think in practice everybody is going to be what we think of today as a broadcast publisher  I just want things to be able to sort themselves out in a much more equitable fashion  We have this enormous, artificial scarcity today over the means of communication, because the government awards licenses which self-perpetuate  They are about to do the same thing, and give every broadcast television station another license for HDTV  So if you've got a license today, you get a second one; if you don't have one, you get nothing  That is going to be our policy about HDTV  I think it would be a lot better if we had more markets, more choices, and better values  I don't know how to do better values, but we know how to do more choices  So the point is, we'll wind up with some new regime which I don't think that we can particularly predict  I don't think that it is going to be chaotic or anarchic  I think there is something about people as social animals or creatures -- we will create some new forms of social organization  There will be information middlemen; there will be the equivalent of editors and packagers  There will be trusted intermediaries who help organize these new media  If you open it up and equalize things so that everybody can participate, you will get more diversity of points of view, you will get less homogenization  One of the reasons that tons of people have just dropped out, or are in terminal couch-potato-dom is that the sets of choices and the values that come across the tube are not ones that stir the human heart  And people know that  They can't figure out what to do about that, so they sort of fuzz out on drugs and alcohol  I say let's edit TV, which is the electronic drug  Let's do something about that 
DAVIES: I like your idea, Mitch  I think it's sweet  (laughter) The problem is that I really worry that the ultimate test of the future is going to be the outcome of the quest, the battle between those who are looking for the sort of vision you've got of the right of the individual, the individual being the producer  And that, probably, is the way we solve our problems on this planet  But there is the other side, and that's the planetary managers  Planetary management is the path of the least resistance  You know all the powermongers go for the planetary management model, because they all think they can clamber over the bodies to get to the top  Ultimately the test is going to be who comes out on the top, the individual rightist or the planetary managers  Unfortunately, I'm not a betting man, but at the moment I'd like to bet on the planetary managers 
DYSON: Part of this issue is reducing the value of incumbency, whether it's incumbency in prime time live, or incumbency in the government  There is much more fluidity of movement; you can't accumulate power because the unorganized forces have more power than you do 
P  DENNING: I feel a little strange being on the left end of the stage, because most people think of me as being on the far right sometimes, but right now I'd like to comment on something that is halfway between what Mitch is saying, and what Simon is saying  The way I hear what Simon is saying, is that there is a disease of today which I will call inward- centeredness  We are very worried about ourselves and our organizations  We find in that orientation a lot of instability of things and technologies that change rapidly  In order to achieve the world that Mitch is talking about, we need to cure the disease, and instead come from an orientation that we could call outward-centeredness, instead of inward-centeredness  The question is the shift from, How do we accumulate power? to, How do we help others accumulate power? How do we go from looking for stability in things to looking for stability in relationships? In watching my own children grow up, I am convinced that they know more about this than I do  In listening to some of the younger people here, I'm more convinced that they know more about this than I do  They know something about the outward-centeredness that I have yet to learn  Observing this among children and among students gives me a lot of optimism, as a matter of fact, against the apocalypse that Simon talks about, because Simon is talking about the world that would be created if we continued "us," and I think that the world that is being created by our children with their outward-centeredness is going to be the kind of world that Mitch is pointing towards  And I am much more optimistic about that than Simon is 
LIASSON: Roland, I wonder if we can interject you into this discussion a little bit  You have been a policymaker  What can be done to make sure that Simon's vision doesn't come true, and something a little closer to what Esther and Mitch describe does happen?
HOMET: I think we probably need both doom seers and paradise seekers  We'll always have them, and we should have them  It's between the swing of those two views that things happen  I think that this notion of replacing the gatekeepers and letting everybody perform his own dance, to the amusement of those who chose to tune in, is one that many of us were promoting 20 years ago  That's not 1940 -- that's 1970 (laughter), and we were quite convinced that was likely to happen by the end of that decade  Now it's 12 years beyond the end of that decade, and we're nowhere near having that happening  We just have newly-named controversies, and so, as you heard me say in my little short remark, I think that our objective ought to be more modest, and that is to keep the questions open, not let them be foreclosed -- certainly not prematurely, and not on the basis of inadequate evidence  I would say something about the apocalyptic view, which is, I think there is a difference between information policy questions and welfare questions  The poor we have always with us, as somebody once said, and whether information, Cyberspace -- whatever you want to call it -- is promoted or not, that is true  It may become more glaringly true in an advanced information society, in which case, more may be done about it  So I wouldn't despair about that, and I wouldn't hold back on the development of instruments of interconnection simply because we can see that there is and will remain an underclass  Perhaps if we do the one, we'll be better equipped to do the other 
LIASSON: In just a minute or two, we're going to open this up to your questions, but I want to try to end maybe with a discussion of something quite specific, which is, Who should own the new infrastructure and information systems? Should they be publicly owned? There are lots of conflicts even within the vision that you lay out 
KAPOR: The first point I'd make is let's not make the unnecessary mistake of betting on a single infrastructure  Technologically, we don't need to do that  In the 1930s, pre-digital, the old Bell system was the social contract  You get a monopoly, you have an obligation to provide universal service  We've learned a few things about how to do things with interoperable standards and how to interconnect multiple, independent providers and carriers  One of the fathers of the Internet, Vint Cerf, is sitting here in the front row, and he deserves an enormous amount of credit for insisting on this vision and promulgating it  A lot of the risks that come with private ownership of infrastructure go away when it's no longer a monopoly  The abusive problems that are sometimes experienced with local phone service and cable companies -- both of which are private sector monopolies -- I would say come more from not their private sector character, but from their monopoly character  If it is possible for there to be competition, that serves as the most effective check that we know of in this society against abuse  So I would opt for private infrastructure, but lots of it  Government has to make sure that everybody stays interconnected -- it's the referee that keeps the playing field level, doesn't let people cheat, and sort of bangs a few heads together when people get a little too greedy, or a little too selfish  If we do that, that will provide for the most choice and the most diversity 
LIASSON: Are we all in agreement on that?
HOMET: Not entirely  I think the question is less who should own infrastructure than how it should be classified  There may be a role for government in, for example, extending communication pipes to rural America for at least a period, as with the TVA  We have always had that question  There has always been a mixed economy with government doing some things and private sector others  It's a debate and should be a debate about who does what best  It should be revised from time to time, but the important question is, If we get a significant distribution system like cable television, how should we classify it? I speak here from the heart, because 20 years ago, I was trying to fasten onto, or gain the recognition for, cable as a broadband distribution system which was only trivially in the program production and publishing business, but was very much in the distribution business and ought to have been treated as a common carrier open to all information suppliers  Had that happened, we would have been very much further along in the vision that some of us had 20 years ago  (applause) It tends to support what I said about not going in for premature freezing or characterization of how things look  It was decided, because the broadcasters felt threatened, to treat cable as a species of broadcasting  That's the greatest frittering away of resources in my lifetime, and perhaps in the lifetime of the United States of America  Let's not make that mistake again  Let's be clear-eyed and ask the broad-scale questions about public use and benefit  Thank you 
LIASSON: Let's open it up to the audience  If you have any questions     oh my God, wrestle your way to the microphone!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Let us not forget the history of the commons in which a wealthy society creates in its overflowing abundance structures on which all people can participate  This was originally, back in medieval society, the structure that was created for the support of the poor  In the abundance of the land in which the overpopulation was not a question, and there was much agriculture to go around, and the poor were supported out of the commonly-owned things that were jointly owned by all society  That's all I have to say 
LIASSON: Who wants to start?
DAVIES: Sticking to my apocalyptic vision just for the moment, because that's how I'm characterized, what I would like to see, just as my own social experiment, if you like, is for the various groups that this room represents and groups that you are all involved in, is to actually set up the apocalyptic vision, and then see how you as part of the information technology community can utilize it, stop it, or reverse it  It's only when you see the vision and see your own part in it that we are actually going to set up solutions  I mean, that is a straight, outright homework assignment, and I think would be a great benefit for everybody  Then go on and publish them through the E-mail, or the Internet, whatever 
DYSON: Something along the lines of go find the most influential person you know well enough to influence, who you do not agree with -- assuming that you all agree with me, of course -- and attempt to win that person over to your point of view  In other words, don't stick to your own community  Don't just talk to the people who only agree with you  Go out and evangelize or proselytize to people who don't understand what this stuff is about  Do it in such a way that you are not superior or offputting; don't try to be right; try to win and expand this community, not in terms of pressure or rightness, but in terms of understanding what we are about  The biggest problem is ganging up on some of these politicians and having them think that this stuff is not cute, or weird, or colorful, or irrelevant, but incredibly important  Make the rest of the world know about us 
HOMET: I would like to second that motion  The story is told that when a beautiful woman comes out on a street in Paris, every man within eyeshot becomes in that instant much more intensively himself  (laughter) What I would suggest to you, if you are energized by this subject, is to be yourself  To thine own self be true, and perhaps to add to that the biblical admonition to the apostles -- if I remember it correctly -- and this picks up what Esther was saying -- to be wise as snakes, and cunning as foxes  Go out there to persuade 
P  DENNING: I'd like to add to that  It is not only within yourself that you have to look, it's within others  Don't assume that you know the answers, but go talk to people  Don't just talk to us, because we already know what "us" has to say, but go to talk to people that we haven't talked to and find out what concerns them 
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, my name is Lou Woleneck  I'm from the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas  I'm a graduate student  I have a question, a general policy question, about how we should go about providing the information resources to the have-nots that the information elites have access to now  What sort of strategy that you all would have for that?
KAPOR: A 30-second or less answer, which is to set a national policy that updates a universal service for the 21st century that says everybody needs to have basic minimal access to a digital platform that reaches into every home, into every office and school in the country  We should focus our attention on how to put in place the least expensive amount of infrastructure that will produce that  What we find is, if we do that, then the overwhelming majority of American families will find it already within their budget to be able to do that, because it will be priced like basic phone service  To the extent that we need to continue or even slightly expand the kinds of lifeline programs that subsidize today's basic voice telephone service for a small percentage of the population, we should be prepared to renew that commitment  We don't need to bankrupt ourselves to give everybody access to a digital platform 
JIM WARREN: My name is Jim Warren  Two quick observations: there were several cynical comments during the last several days about a number of IRS people being here  It turns out, because they never had a platform to say this, that the whole crowd from the IRS who are here, as I understand it, are from the IRS privacy project, intent on developing policies to assure privacy protection for taxpayer information  So let us not be so cynical about their being here; otherwise, remember that they are simply doing what they are told to do by our representatives  (laughter and hisses) I was also bothered by both Simon's, and (my God!) Esther's comments on those evil little men, and the men in politics, etc  Gee, this is a modern age, let's say "men and women," for evil deeds, as well as good deeds 
DYSON: There aren't enough women in politics for there to be any evil ones 
WARREN: Well, I am sure that I can find some evil ones for you  (laughter) Anyway, to the main points: I would say that we are not so much elite, in that we are open to anyone who takes the initiative to join us, and many of us are active mentors in trying to get others to join us  I would say simply that we are a minority, and it occurs to me that revolution has always been a minority activity  It was not millions of Russians who opposed the attempted coup several months ago  It was ten, twenty, or thirty thousand in Moscow, with the aid of communications  It was not a massive movement, a populist movement, in America that resisted the Crown, two centuries ago  It was a small minority of activists and we are the activists here -- we are the revolutionaries  Freedom has always been a do-it-yourself activity, but the key syllable in that word activity is act  Let us reaffirm freedom of speech, press, assembly, security against undue search and seizure -- the basic constitutional freedoms and privileges  Let us demand that our politicians and our political candidates do the same in explicit formal commitments to act in behalf of protecting electronic civil liberties, just as they validate and speak favorably for traditional civil liberties  We can write our politicians, write our candidates and say, "Take a position in favor of civil liberties, regardless of the technology of the moment " Thank you 
GLENN TENNEY: Thank you for the introduction, Jim 
LIASSON: Are you from the IRS?
TENNEY: No  (laughter) My name is Glenn Tenney, and I have a question for you, Mara  I think that I have enough supporters on the panel  I'm not too curious about their views, but they are welcome to them  You questioned if the presidential election and race is ready for Cyberspace  What about Congress? I'm running for Congress -- is it ready for me?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Ms  Liasson, I believe that you have opened a can of worms called politics for this little hacker community  You certainly have with me in your comment about asking for comments for the Cyberspace era from presidential candidates  I have very strong reactions to that  I think that I am going to try to express them, as a pure statement, or maybe an actual story  Several years ago, I was discussing with a friend of mine the current presidential, the then-current presidential election  He was asking me why I wasn't rabidly supporting Jesse Jackson  I thought about it, and my first response was, "Well, let's talk about the other candidates for a second  What about -- and I'll take a random name -- Michael Dukakis?" And my friend looked at me and said, "Michael Dukakis, he's just an administrator, he's not a visionary " I thought about it, and I said, "Hold on, I'm an American, I'm not someone who's a slave of the Queen of England, or something like that  I'm my own visionary, I decide where I am going " I don't want the politicians walking around telling me that I am going to have an expressway system that's going to pave over all my favorite swamps to play in  I don't want the politicians walking around defining what I'm going to do in my life  I want to elect politicians to manage government for me, to provide the barest minimum necessities to keep us smoothly greased as individuals in living together, and I want those politicians to be of the people, and I don't want them to tell me what my opinions should be  Finally, I want to cap that off with when we have government deciding how our systems work for us, we can then end up with situations where we can say, "Oh yeah, that IRS guy or that government net guy, he was just doing his job when he banned cryptography," or something like that  That's not the sort of world that I want to live in  I want to live in a world, where each of us defines our little space in it  Thank you all 
LIASSON: I think we have time for just two more and then we'll have to wrap it up 
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, to the apocalypse types  I'd like to say just one thing that somebody said: The truth will make you free  In that this technology is a vehicle of communication, I believe that it is a vehicle of the truth, and as long as we keep it free, the truth will be heard that much more  Now I have kind of a question with a bit of a statement  I am a learning-disabled college student  I didn't ever finish high school  I had a freshmen education in high school, because of educational problems, and adjustment problems, I never really got too far beyond that  I write probably a fifth of the speed of anyone in this room and I have a real hard time doing math without a calculator  That's part of the reason why I wasn't able to do well in school  I read very well, fortunately, so I was able to go in when I was eighteen and take my GED just flat out without studying for it  I'm not dumb, or uneducated by any standards, but what has allowed me to get an associate's degree in college, and what has allowed me to approach graduation and get a bachelor's degree in college is the kind of technology that we are dealing with  I have never had easy access to that technology  The barriers that I have faced have been ones of order, regimentation, and where people try and say, "Oh well, you don't fit in, you're not a CS student, you don't need those resources " I'm good with computers, I do a lot with them, I spend a lot of time with them  I hack, I don't do anything illegal, but I took a hacksaw to the frame of my nasty little 8088 about two years ago to cram some RAM into it, because that was the only way I could get it to fit and I needed it  Now I'm in a little bit better shape  I'm approaching the point where I would like to see ISDN real soon, because I need that kind of connectivity  You know, I'm doing interesting things that I find absolutely wonderful, but the idea that the kind of technology that is available to us, that is just there for the using, could be limited and unavailable to people, or that people would have to go through some of the things that I have had to go through, not being able to do well on tests, because I had no word processor available to me  That type of thing, even though they are all over the place, elsewhere  It was just that that wasn't an acceptable solution  That type of policy planning, that type of government, that type of order scares me  And I have to ask, what is your answer to that?
DAVIES: The apocalyptic vision of a world in grief and individual rights in crisis has nothing to do with a Luddite mentality, and it would be very dangerous for the people in this room to link the two together  I, for one, believe in technology  I am very grateful for it, and I think the world is a better place for it  I have great faith in the future, but technology's not a silver lining for the future  It's not an El Dorado, it's more like plutonium  The very great thing that technology does for all of us can also be used by the people who would repress our freedoms and all I am saying is be aware of that  Let's not marginalize people like me, who are saying, Hey look, we are going to have 15 billion people on the planet  We are going to have a political inversion, you know, that is going to create massive tensions that are going to repress our rights, or at least create a tension that we have never known before  Don't marginalize me -- don't shoot the messenger  I believe in technology, so please don't equate the apocalypse with Ludditism -- the two do not match 
LIASSON: We're about out of time  I'm going to turn this over to Lance 
HOFFMAN: Thank you, Mara  I'm really unhappy that we are out of time, but I feel that we have a contract to those who want to leave in a moment or two  Those who want to stay, can stay up here, are welcome to continue, until the hotel throws us out  Since Lu Kleppinger is in the room at the moment, I don't know when that will be, but we can probably have it for a little while  I just want to make a couple of comments before I formally close this meeting 
We have seen an awful lot happen in these last three days and there has been building, and indeed we will be continuing to some extent the work that Jim Warren started at CFP-1 -- a sense of community  It has been increased by the participation of various diverse groups  My one hope is that you do not stop that here  When each and every one of you goes home, contact -- I don't care whether it's by letter, or electronic mail, or even telephone, if you must -- three people that you have met here that you didn't know, or didn't know very well before, or perhaps only knew electronically, and now you know them in person, and continue talking with them and to their friends and colleagues  If you do that, this will be a success 
The other comment that I want to make is that Bruce Koball is going to need a lot of help for CFP-3  Please talk to him -- he is listed in the roster  Or better yet, don't do that, talk to him here, and then give him a month to chill out in Berkeley before he has to start working real hard  Check the message board, there are some messages that have not been picked up  You have your evaluation forms  If you haven't filled them out and you would like to, please do and turn them in  I have nothing else, except to thank you all for being such a good group and, hopefully, we'll see you next year in California  Thank you very much 
Support efforts at engaging society and government on the appropriate legal and social uses of technology 
Context 2: A Homily from Easter Sunday, 2017 
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb  But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb  As she wept, she bent over to look[a] into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet  They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him ” When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus  Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away ” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to him in Hebrew,[b] “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher)  Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father  But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God ’” Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”; and she told them that he had said these things to her 
Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Mary wept in the throws of grief  Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Mary dragged herself out of bed after a sleepless night and walked to the tomb in a kind of trance  Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Mary cried—scared, confused, alone  Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Mary thought that the powers of death had the last Word  Early in the morning, while it was still dark, Mary heard a voice in the darkness calling her name—Mary 
Throughout this Lenten season, we’ve examined the ways that the powers and principalities hold us captive—how they push us towards securing our own survival, dominating others, using God for our own agenda  We’ve seen how in Jesus’ ministry, he’s constantly in resistance mode—exposing the powers for what they really are and envisioning an alternative way of living in the world  He describes this way as “the kingdom of God,” the living water we drink so we never thirst again, the light of the world  Jesus invites those who follow him into similar acts of resistance—to free us from the power money has on us by giving it away, to choose to see ourselves as Jesus sees us, resisting the shame that says I’m not enough, to practice Sabbath that contradicts productivity, to untie the grave clothes of someone who’s hands and feet are still tied in the trappings of death 
But all Jesus’ acts of resistance had a cost  All of the times he just wouldn’t shut up, all of the crowds he attracted because he actually noticed those who were normally ignored, the powers finally said enough is enough and put an end to his resistance the only way they could guarantee silence and division—by nailing him to a tree 
Just then, she turned and saw a man the shadow of a man behind her; a man she assumed was the gardener, his face unfamiliar in the darkness  He repeated the question—“Woman, why are you crying?” Thinking that perhaps he knew what happened or worse, that he was a culprit, she begged, “Sir if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him and I will get him ” But Jesus interrupted her pleading, interrupted her desperation, and called her by name from the darkness, Mary 
Mary  He calls her name  Her name  The name that captures the particularity of her life  To the gardener, she would just be the crying woman  At other points in her life, she was the possessed woman, the woman who wasn’t enough, the woman on the outside of the group  Never nameless—but still unnamed  Never not Mary, but still, not known 
Early in the morning, while it was still dark, God defeated the powers and principalities in the ultimate act of resistance—resurrection  The grave could not contain the Lord  Even death wasn’t enough 
In the resurrection, God defeats the powers of death and shows that it’s God who has the final Word  Nothing, not even death, can keep us from being fully known by God  The powers try to have the final say on our names, our identities, the markers by which we measure ourselves, the systems that hold people captive or keep people in oppression  But Jesus calls us out of the darkness by name 
On this Easter Sunday, we hear our Risen Lord calling our names from the darkness—Jesus, the resurrected one, the name above all names, the great I am, the Prince of Peace, the alpha and omega, the light of the world  The risen Lord has spoken 
This is the name unto which you were baptized  As you come forward and mark the sign of the cross on your forehead today, hear Jesus speaking your name from the darkness and drawing you into the light 
From our worship service on the fifth Sunday of Lent, April 2, 2017 
“Is the Lord really with us or not?” “Is the Lord really with us or not?” Why did you bring us all the way from Egypt to let us die of thirst in this desert? At least in Egypt, we had water  At least in Egypt, we weren’t so thirsty  At least in Egypt, we knew what tomorrow would hold  At least in Egypt, we weren’t so thirsty 
But no, that’s not the story they give us  They are hard on their ancestors  They tell how it is  The elders who sat and wrote down these stories understood something about our bodies, who we are and how we work  After all the generations these stories passed through, they tell the truth about how quickly we forget, about how quickly we complain, about how quickly we grow thirsty, about how much we need water 
It doesn’t take long, does it  By the end of this sermon, I will no doubt feel thirsty, not from walking on hard dusty ground in the heat of the day, but just from speaking with you  Most of us wake up in the morning needing a drink  Our bodies depend on water  We cannot live without it  Thirst, then, doesn’t happen only one time  When the Israelites panicked that they had no water, they weren’t only thinking of the present moment  They knew what was coming! We need water to live! Without water, we will die! Even if we have water for today, we will need water again tomorrow! We can drink until we are satisfied, only to know that we will eventually be thirsty for more 
The gospel of John tells a story about a woman who gave up on this question all together  She moved beyond wondering if the Lord was really with her, so confident God had forgotten her that she gave up wondering at all  Born a Samaritan into a world that valued other bodies as better than her body: male bodies, Jewish bodies, even married bodies  Even after encountering Jesus, she still leaves their conversation without a name, numbered as one of many, simply called, “Samaritan woman ” She too, was thirsty  Most believe that her shame led her to drink water in the heat of the day, when no one else would be at the rocky well, when she could get a drink alone, without experiencing the stigma and stares of others  When she came to get a drink, Jesus was also at the well, thirsty himself and in need of rest and water from the long journey through Samaria 
The Israelites complaint for water sends Moses to the only one who can satisfy, the only one who can meet this need  Moses turns to God, “What should I do with these people? How can I satisfy their thirst? I’ve looked around, I’ve checked far and wide, turned the house upsidedown, looked under the seats of the car, at the bottle of every bottle, I’ve even looked for dew on the ground and under the lids of jars and there is no water to be found  Where do we go for water? Is the Lord really with us or not?
The Israelites who wrote down this story and allowed the ancestors to look like desperate complainers who doubted God and tested God, they were onto something  They knew that we are thirsty people  Jesus knew also  All who are thirsty, come! All who believe in me, drink this living water! We are desperate to feel God’s presence, to be bathed in the water of the Spirit, to know that this is not all there is, to feel a sense of belonging to the One who is greater than I  We can only make it so long in the desert, so long wandering from one trial to the next, without a drink 
And yet, Jesus also says, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled  Notice with me: not blessed are those who are righteous, but those who thirst for righteousness  Not blessed are those who are righteous, but those who thirst for righteousness  Blessed are those who thirst for relationship with God, to know God, to see God 
I wonder, “Does Jesus want us to keep wanting?” Does Jesus want us to keep thirsting? Many faithful followers of Jesus throughout history have never claimed their thirst was quenched, never fully satisfied  You know that moment when you quench your thirst, when you sigh with relief when your throat is at ease once again, that’s the opposite of how many of God’s children have described the life of faith  They describe wanting more, being satisfied at times, while knowing they will be thirsty again 
What will be waiting for you at the rock? Will the water gush out, bursting forth, covering you from head to toe with God’s presence, drenching you in hope, cleansing you from the dust that’s caked to your feet and renewing you for a new day, a new hour, a new moment basking in the presence of God?
What will be waiting for you at the rock? Will the water drip slowly, quenching your thirst for but a moment, giving you just a glimpse of God’s spirit? Will it be so hard to get the water from the rock, that you’ll have to bend down, get underneath that dripping water to try and catch a drop? Will it be just enough for you to know, if only for a moment, that God is really with you? Will it be just enough to satisfy you for this hour, but keep you coming back for more?
What will be waiting for you at the rock? What if it seems like the water has run out, like there isn’t a drop left, the way that Mother Teresa described? What then? We follow her example  She still goes to the rock, over and over again, not to get water quench her own thirst, but to relieve the thirst of God’s other children 
This post was adapted from our sermon series on Interpreting Exodus  Pastor Megan preached this sermon at Butner Federal Prison complex on August 30, 2015 
On Father’s Day 2015, we gathered for worship at the labyrinth in front of UNC hospital, having devoted the month of June to exploring the question, “What happens after we die?” Many have watched their father’s die in this place or other similar spaces  We shared in a time of both remembrance and prayer/meditation, participating in the ancient spiritual practice of walking the labyrinth  A labyrinth is a kind of maze, laid out in a circle 
Tony graciously shared the following reflections from his experience at the labyrinth on the hot June day 
It’s smaller than I expected, stark and hard‐surfaced, with no landscaping for ornamentation or shade  I don’t know what to expect from it… or from myself  But that’s part of the appeal  I stand at the entrance, hesitating, trying to clear my mind  This doesn’t work very well, so I just start walking 
Almost immediately, the path presents itself as a linear and chronological symbol of my life’s journey  Like my physical lifetime, it has a beginning and an end, with an as‐yet undetermined amount between  This could be interesting  I like it so far… although I’m insecure about my style… and unsure about proper protocol  Is someone staring at me? Do I have to meditate? How slowly should I walk? Is it better to focus my thoughts… or to simply let them come? Will I control this thing, or allow it to control me?
I begin to see each step as an increment of elapsed time, an irretrievable expenditure of life energy  I equate my initial discomfort to the natural immaturity of my childhood years  I gradually move beyond it, into metaphorical adulthood  This is much better 
Most of the path is a series of gentle arcs  These are fairly easy to maneuver, like my comfortable life  But these segments are connected by intermittent sharp turns, mostly 180‐degree switchbacks  I see these as representing significant life changes or challenges, requiring more concentration and skill to negotiate  I notice that I am executing some of these turns mechanically, and some more gracefully  I begin to anticipate upcoming turns, and try to maintain good form around each one 
I can’t see much of the path ahead, nor the end  I spend a significant amount of mental energy dealing with this uncertainty, constantly wanting to know my real‐time ratio of “distance walked” to “distance remaining”  This is a recurring distraction 
Today is Father’s Day, and my Dad is on my mind  He recently completed his well‐walked journey, and is now watching me… even if as mere metaphor… or only as an element of my own (self‐) consciousness  I feel his presence embedded in his absence  I’m aware that it’s not only my turn to walk… it’s my only turn to walk 
I think about my children, grandson, soon‐to‐arrive granddaughter, and their descendants  The familiar succession of life, death and new life seems magical, divinely‐derived, and strangely better than living forever  My role is limited, but critical  I love the part, and embrace it 
I am acutely aware that others are journeying all around me  These are friends of mine  We meet, almost brushing, as we walk  The path seems purposefully narrow, perhaps perfectly so  I suddenly understand that it is impossible to walk this close to others without being affected by them  I affect them too… seen as small adjustments in their position or posture  As we meet, I try not to encroach too much, but making sure not to pull away  I put creative energy into maintaining the perfect degree of separation between our bodies  This feels like more art than science… each friend deserving a customized approach  This closeness seems good to me 
There is a much younger walker behind me, getting ever closer  I’m clearly holding her back  Maybe this means that the younger generation wants me to hurry up and get out of their way  I remind myself not to stretch the symbolism too far… as I pick up my pace 
I now see the end of the path ahead  I have been expecting this part to be emotionally complicated, but it is not  The final section is round… large and unrestrictive… a qualitative change from the narrow linear pathway  The circle opens up to welcome me  It is easy to step into, a perfectly natural thing to do at the end of my walk  Inside the circle, I am centered… comfortable… peaceful… thankful 
16 As Jesus passed alongside the Galilee Sea, he saw two brothers, Simon and Andrew, throwing fishing nets into the sea, for they were fishermen  17 “Come, follow me,” he said, “and I’ll show you how to fish for people ” 18 Right away, they left their nets and followed him  19 After going a little farther, he saw James and John, Zebedee’s sons, in their boat repairing the fishing nets  20 At that very moment he called them  They followed him, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired workers 
This is a story about 4 fishermen, Simon, Andrew, James and John  It’s a normal morning at the docks  Each one of them is going about business as usual  They arrived at dawn, bundled up in the cool morning air and started work without much conversation  Simon and Andrew are working on one fishing boat and see the Teacher approaching  “Hey  There he is,” says Andrew  Jesus from Nazareth  You can’t go anywhere without hearing about him lately  What’s he doing down here?” They paddle back to shore, not wanting to miss any trouble this Jesus fellow might stir up  Simon and Andrew get the beach and Jesus comes over to talk to them  It’s like he had come there that morning just to find these two guys  Jesus didn’t say much, “Come and follow me ” Jesus invited these 2 fishermen to be his disciples, to follow after him, to walk behind him, tracing his every step 
Further down the beach, the same scene repeats  This time, Jesus walks directly up to James and John who are focused on repairing their fishing net  Jesus says the same thing to them and now all four fishermen walk behind their rabbi with no idea of what’s ahead of them 
It’s a big deal! The four normal guys, working a normal job, on a normal morning, decide to follow Jesus  Maybe you’ve wondered like I have, how is it that Simon, Andrew, James and John do it? How do they drop everything to follow Jesus? What were they thinking? How did they feel?
It’s interesting  The story doesn’t tell us  There’s nothing about how they felt  It doesn’t say they were excited, or moved, or scared, or joyful or resistant  This story about four fisherman gives us only verbs  Jesus passed alongside the Galilee Sea  He saw two brothers  He said, Come, follow  Then, Simon and Andrew left and followed  Jesus saw James and John  Jesus called them  They followed him 
This is a story about four fisherman who decided to follow Jesus 
This is also a story about fishing  I’ve been fishing been fishing three or four times  Once I realized that fishing was primarily a crack of dawn activity, I knew it wasn’t really for me  Jesus uses a kind of puzzling image about fishing  He says, “Come, follow me, and I’ll show you how to fish for people ” I don’t know about you, but this I find this to be very strange  I realized this week why his image is so confusing to me  What do you imagine when someone talks about fishing? What I imagine when I hear the word “fish” or “fishing” is a fishing pole, the rod, reel, bait, tackle box, worms, that kind of fishing  So I’ve always interpreted what Jesus said this way 
I will make you fishers of men, fishers of men, fishers of men  I will make you fishers of men, if you follow me 
The road Jesus invites these four fishermen to follow him on will mean casting a net of love and welcome to people that they do not anticipate  Jesus will cast his net into the sea of a broken world, filled with sinners, people who have messed up, people who are outsiders, who don’t belong  Jesus will stay in the homes of poor, be guilty of associating prostitutes and touching the hands of people with communicable diseases  Jesus will throw his net into the sea and invite everyone in  Jesus will eventually be arrested and executed because those in power decided his fishing net included a few too many of the wrong people  This is a story about fishing 
This isn’t only a story about four fisherman, or only a story about fishing  It’s also, and perhaps, most importantly, a story about God 
If this is only a story about four fisherman who decide to follow Jesus, the pressures on you and me! After all, aren’t we too called to follow Jesus? Called to be his disciples? Wasn’t that the invitation you first heard when you first heard about Jesus? God has called us and we must decide  Jesus wants us all to follow him, to be like him, to walk in his footsteps, to do what he does  Of course this story is about that! And they do it, don’t they? Simon, Andrew, James, John, they do it! They decide and they do follow Jesus, imperfectly at that  Still, it’s a lot of pressure, a lot of responsibility  If life becomes all about what we do for Jesus, something is missing 
If this is only a story about fishing, have some of us failed? Is it too late for us? Some of us might not be the best at fishing, not all the great about casting Jesus’ loving net to our brothers and sisters  His net is sometimes, or maybe more than sometimes, a bit more expansive than we might be comfortable with  He calls us to be like him and fish for people, and yet, sometimes we can barely get the net into the water  Perhaps for others, we aren’t even convinced that Jesus would include us in the net at all, no matter how deep into the water he goes  He can really mean me? Would his net really reach me? There’s still more to the story 
This is a story about God, who God is, how God acts, what God does  Before Andrew, Simon, James and John follow Jesus, Jesus finds them  Before they follow Jesus, Jesus comes to them! They don’t have to go searching, they have been found  Jesus saw  Jesus spoke  Jesus called  Jesus said, “Come “ We don’t follow Jesus in order to find him, to prove our worthiness with what we do, or even by showing Jesus how big our nets are  We follow Jesus because he first came to us  He came down to the beach to meet these four fishermen  He came specifically for Simon and for Andrew, for James and for John, for you and me 
This blog post was adapted from Pastor Megan’s sermon at Butner Federal Prison on January 25, 2015 
The life of faith consists of seasons  One scholar suggests that we can categorize these seasons of life as seasons of being securely oriented, painfully disoriented, and surprisingly reoriented  These generalizations could apply to our self-acceptance, our relations to significant others, and our participation in public or private life  We might think about these seasons as passages of life, stages of growth, or even identity crises  Acknowledging where we find ourselves in a particular season can allow us to be honest about where we are at in our lives and where we are in relation to God 
The Psalms, a collection of prayers, songs, and poems addressed to God, correspond to these seasons of orientation, disorientation, and reorientation  As we read through the book, we find Psalms where the writer is full of thanksgiving to God, securely oriented in life  We also find Psalms that demonstrate disorientation, perhaps categorized by loss, transition, grief, suffering, or even anger  Finally, some Psalms are written from a perspective of reorientation, wherein the Psalmist transitions from a period of being disoriented to being reoriented in relation to God and others 
The Psalms can become our partner in prayer  Giving us words when we have none, we pray the Psalms joining with all those who have prayed them before us and all who will pray them after we are gone  As we pray the Psalms, we find permission to be utterly honest with God about our feelings and situation, free to speak openly and deeply to God about what we are experiencing  Praying the Psalms also helps us to envision God’s future when we can’t see it ourselves  Lastly, the Psalms guard us against religion or merely thinking about God  Using their words in prayer brings us into direct conversation with the living God, in language we may never have imagined would come from our lips 
-Pray the assigned Psalm from the daily lectionary, with set Scriptures to read each day  Click here to see today’s readings, subscribe to the daily readings by email, or download the app 
-Pray the Psalms using the practice of praying in color  Click here for an excerpt from Sybil MacBeth’s book that gives instructions for praying in color  I have the book available if anyone would like to borrow it  You can read more about praying in color on her website 
-Pray a Psalm, followed by journal writing  Consider these prompts: Where do I find myself in this Psalm? Where do I find my community? How am I being oriented to God in this prayer? What images or metaphors do I find striking? Explore the image more deeply 
-Pray through a list of Psalms, one per day or the same one each day for a week 
-Pray them as a family or with housemates at mealtime or bedtime 
-Pray abbreviated Psalms as breath prayers  A breath Ppayer rhythm is simple: Breathe in slow and deep as you whisper or think on a phrase… Hold your breath… Then exhale 
I will sing to my God as long as I am 
Psalm 8: Lord, our master, how great is your name in all the earth 
Psalm 104: Seek the Lord and his power; seek his face forever  Remember the wonders he has done 
-Pray the Psalms using lectio divina  For instructions on praying lectio divina individually or in groups, click here  There are also instructions for doing lectio divina in color from Sybil MacBeth’s book 
-Pray a Psalm from the category of life within which you find yourself—orientation, disorientation, or reorientation 
Psalms of Orientation: These Psalms reflect a confident belief that the world is well ordered, reliable, and life-giving to the person of faith 
Psalms of Disorientation: These Psalms reflect the brokenness of life, when it is no longer orderly but savage  Spoken out of the depths, they are still bold acts of faith 
Psalms of New Orientation: The pit is not the end of life; there is more  New orientation Psalms reflect the surprise of new possibilities that are experienced as pure gift from God  They are full of thanks 
Citations: The Message of the Psalms and Praying the Psalms by Walter Brueggemann and Getting Involved with God, by Ellen Davis 
Joseph’s story opens in Genesis 37 and it’s a long one  Joseph was one of 11 kids, the youngest son  In Genesis 37, the story says, “Now Jacob (Joseph’s dad) loved Joseph more than any of his other sons because he was born when Jacob was old  Jacob had made for him a long robe  When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of his brothers, they hated him and couldn’t even talk nicely to him ” Sibling rivalry, jealousy, family drama—maybe a little too familiar for some of us 
Just when you want to feel bad for Joseph, show him sympathy, “Poor kid—he can’t help that he’s the favorite,” Joseph makes himself quickly unlikeable  When Joseph’s head hits the pillow at night, he has vivid dreams about the future, dreams where he rules over his brothers  In one of these dreams, he’s in the field working with his brothers  They each tie a bundle of grain together…I imagine it like a hay bail  His bail rises up, towering and floating in the air above the others, while each of his ten older brother’s bails of hay, bows down to his bail, as if he’s ruling over them like a king  What’s worse—he didn’t keep his mouth shut about his dreams  Nope  He went ahead and announced them at the dinner table  When I imagine this scene, I’m reminded of the importance of friends  He seriously needed a friend to say, “Dude, listen, you have some dreams where you’re awesome and your brothers treat you like a king  They hate you, man  Keep your dreams to yourself ” Joseph lacked such a friend, so he bragged about his dreams—that combined with his fancy North Face jacket that Daddy bought for him only and the favoritism their dad showed him, brought his brothers to plot about how they might rid themselves of this pesky brat forever 
Joseph’s brothers considered killing Joseph, but they settled on kidnapping him and selling him into slavery instead  That way, they wouldn’t have his death on their foreheads, without having to put up with him anymore  They took Joseph’s fancy coat and destroyed it, making it look like a wild animal killed Joseph  This they showed to their father, so that he would assume that Joseph was dead; their dad would never suspect they had any part in his disappearance 
Meanwhile, Joseph was taken off to Egypt where he worked as a slave  Though he did well there and followed all the rules, he became a victim for a second time, when his master’s wife accused him of a crime he didn’t commit  Over a period of 13 years, Joseph worked as a slave and spent years locked up in prison  After a series of unlikely events, some terrible and some remarkable, Joseph rose to power and became the king’s right hand man, his adviser 
With the king’s blessing and support, Joseph led his country in preparing for a famine, putting food away on reserve during seven years of plenty  When a famine struck the land, Egypt was in a good position, able to lean on the reserved food that Joseph had put away  The surrounding lands, including Joseph’s homeland, had to lean on Egypt for food or else they would starve 
Joseph shows his brother’s enormous generosity  He has them go home, pack up and move their entire family, including their elderly father Jacob to Egypt to be near Joseph  Not long after making the trip to Egypt and being reunited with his father, their father, an elderly man at this point, Jacob dies 
And the final chapter of the story opens  Jacob is dead  Their father is gone  Now what?
Realizing that their father was dead, Joseph’s brothers said, “What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us and pays us back in full for all the wrong that we did to him?” 16 So they approached[b] Joseph, saying, “Your father gave this instruction before he died, 17 ‘Say to Joseph: I beg you, forgive the crime of your brothers and the wrong they did in harming you ’ Now therefore please forgive the crime of the servants of the God of your father ” Joseph wept when they spoke to him  18 Then his brothers also wept,[c] fell down before him, and said, “We are here as your slaves ” 19 But Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? 20 Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today  21 So have no fear; I myself will provide for you and your little ones ” In this way he reassured them, speaking kindly to them 
Fear is a powerful force  Fear motivates and fear paralyzes 
It’s a little funny how they phrase the words of their father  The brothers put a great deal of distance between themselves and Joseph  Instead of saying, “Our father told us to tell you…” they say, “Your father to us to tell you…” They distance themselves from Joseph and from the message that their dad supposedly gave them to pass along 
And then, they do it again  “Please forgive the crime of the servants of the God of your father,” his brothers say  They refer to themselves in third person—“the servants of the God of your father ” It’s not “our crime” that “we committed,” but the crime of these others 
Fear not only keeps them from confession, fear also keeps them from receiving forgiveness  They are scared for their lives the moment their father breathes his last, but haven’t they already been through this conversation with Joseph? At the dinner table, when Joseph revealed his identity to them, he tells them not to worry  “It’s ok  Yeah, it was awful, but look where I am! Look at how God has used me to help save those who would be starving now  I’m even saving you!” Joseph has already offered them forgiveness, but they haven’t fully received it  They haven’t believed what he’s said  Perhaps their views of themselves were so low that they didn’t see themselves worthy of forgiveness  Maybe they’ve carried the guilt for so long about what they’ve done, they fear what life will be like without it  It’s become so much an engrained part of their identity, they don’t know who they are apart from the guilt of what they’ve done  They fear receiving Joseph’s forgiveness  They fear forgiving themselves 
To the plea of the 10 brothers, to this made-up, manipulative, last cry for safety, Joseph has two responses  First, he weeps  His weeping—his display of vulnerability and emotion—causes his brothers to begin to weep also  There they are, 11 grown brothers, weeping on the floor of the house  Why did Joseph begin to weep? The story doesn’t say  Let’s notice, brothers and sisters—the road to releasing fear and offering and receiving forgiveness may not come without weeping 
Fear is a powerful force  Fear is an excellent motivator—moving us to do particular things and act in particular ways  But fear not only motivates, it can also paralyze, cause us to freeze right where we’re at, accept things for how they are  This final chapter begins with the brothers saying to one another, “What if…?” What if Joseph still bears a grudge against us…? Fear finishes the sentence, beginning in the words, “What if…?” Fear finishes the sentence  What if…he still bears a grudge against us? What if…we confess our evil to Joseph and he says that’s the end of us? What if…we ask for forgiveness and he denies it—if I say, will you forgive me, and he says, “no”?
“What if’s” sneak into our minds and hearts 
What if…I never get out of here?
What if I fail as a parent?
What if I don’t belong?
What if no one notices I’m gone?
What if I stand up for what I believe is right and it costs me my reputation?
What if I make a mistake at work and lose my job?
What if I risk opening myself up to someone and get hurt or betrayed again?
What if my body fails me?
What if I can never accept that the past can’t change?
What if I’m not worthy of God’s forgiveness or the forgiveness of those I’ve wronged?
What if I can never forgive myself?
We do not have to live in fear  We do not have to be motivated or paralyzed by it  Look at the God that we serve! Joseph explains how God has been with him  He says to his brothers, “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today ” Does this mean that God wanted or desired Joseph’s brothers to kidnap him, throw him into slavery and ruin his life to avenge their jealousy? No  God doesn’t desire that jealousy and revenge rule our lives  God doesn’t will for us to do evil or to harm other people  Rather, God is able to overcome evil and transform it  God can overcome evil! When Jesus was captured, tried as a criminal and sentenced to death, God overcame death, raising Jesus from the death 
This post was adapted from my sermon preached at Butner Federal Prison on September 14, 2014 
We were gathered at the plaza, right between the giant bull statue and the unattractive fences of a construction site  Luminary bags weighted with rice and lit candles marked the sacred space surrounding 30 of us, one to represent each person who died as a result of domestic violence the previous year in our state  The vigil began as planned, simple, but meaningful, to remember victims of this tragedy and raise awareness about the suffering that takes place behind closed doors  About halfway through the simple service, a woman stumbled into the vigil, interrupting the solemn mood without realizing that a group was gathered and someone was speaking  She stood silent for a few moments, listening to the speaker  When she realized that the speaker was talking about domestic violence, she began to interrupt, asking questions to the speaker, sharing details from her own experience with abuse  “What would you do…what would you do if…?” she cried  Then, as unexpectedly as she joined us and as abruptly as her interruption, she began to weep, uncontrollably crying for the rest of the vigil  A couple of women gathered around her and held her as she wept  Before long, it was my turn to pray  I barely got the words out…I could hardly project my shaking voice over her loud sobs 
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted,” Jesus proclaims in the second line of the beatitudes  Blessed are those who mourn  How is this weeping woman, this victim of abuse, blessed? She mourns the injustices she’s experienced, her suffering, the ways her life has been shaped by pain and her inability to free herself from her oppression  Jesus says that this woman and all her sisters and brothers that mourn with her are blessed 
The Jewish culture that Jesus was born into has a rich history of mourning or practicing lament, stretching back hundreds of years before he was born  The prophets and the Psalms include poems, songs, and speeches, recounting the words of people gathered together for public mourning  This mourning wasn’t a kind of crying about having a bad day or because of a frustration at home or work  The mourning Jesus is referencing is the kind of mourning that is a response to injustice and oppression, those who mourn the impact of the powers, both material and spiritual, on the lives of the most vulnerable 
Blessed are those who mourn  Another beatitude and another paradox  Once again, Jesus’ words are outlandish and nonsensical  How is it that those who mourn are blessed? Aren’t those who are happy and fulfilled, aren’t they the ones that are blessed? Yet, in this beatitude, in this paradox, Jesus once again exposes the powers and envisions an alternative  Jesus exposes the powers that cause people to mourn in the first place, those who experience unjust suffering and loss, the same injustices that cause people to be poor in spirit  It’s these people, the mourners, that are blessed, Jesus says  These are the people that Jesus came for  In God’s empire, mourners are not written off or ignored as uncivilized, uneducated, or badly behaved  Instead, in God’s empire, they are the ones who receive God’s comfort and consolation; God’s hears their cries 
Our culture tends to restrict mourning or public displays of emotion to something appropriate for home life or private time  Further, spending time in mourning may be quickly relegated to a waste of time or an inactive posture  The expression, “Don’t just cry about it, do something,” illustrates this clearly  But mourning is not a useless waste of time or an inactive practice  Mourn is a verb  In fact, mourning elicits action and engagement  Mourning exposes the powers, shows their true colors  Seeing people in mourning is disorienting  It interrupts the lives we lead that are detached from suffering and injustice, forcing us to take another look, to pause, to listen, and to join 
The woman who interrupted our solemn vigil for victims of domestic violence exposed the powers with her loud wailing  She made me feel uncomfortable, like I wanted to look away and get away from her as quickly as possible  And yet, her cries made it impossible for me to forget her  The sound of her weeping echoed in my ears for weeks following and if I try, I can still hear them now, over nine months later  Her mourning moves me to engage in seeking justice for others who have suffered like she has 
1  James Howell, The Beatitudes for Today  Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005 , 45 
2  James Howell, The Beatitudes for Today, 46 
Context 3: A Brief History of Benjamin Franklin's Residences on Craven Street, London: 1757 - 1775 - Journal of the American Revolution
Benjamin Franklin House, 36 Craven St, London  (Photo by Elliott Brown | Wikimedia Commons)
If one looked into Benjamin Franklin’s time on Craven Street, they might initially believe he lived at 36 Craven Street the entirety of his two stays in London based on the plethora of articles on the internet that say so  If they dug a little deeper they might read that he lived at No  27 Craven Street, previously numbered 7, but now numbered 36; or that he lived exclusively at No  7 Craven Street; or that he lived in multiple residences on Craven Street; or that he moved out of No  36 to another house on Craven Street and then moved back into No  36 the last year of his residence  What is one to believe with all of the conflicting accounts? What does the historical record have to say about Franklin’s time on Craven Street?
Figure 1  Spur Alley 1685  “A map of the parish of St Martins in the Fields, taken from ye last survey, with additions (1685)”  (© The British Library Board, Shelfmark: Maps Crace Port  13 2, Item number: 2)
Before Craven Street existed there was Spur Alley, a narrow passageway sandwiched between the Hungerford Market to the north (now Charing Cross Station) and Scotland Yard and the Northumberland House and Garden to the south  It was flanked on both ends by major thoroughfares, the Strand on the west, connecting Westminster to London by road, and the River Thames on the east, not only connecting the two cities to each other and to Southwark on the south side of the Thames, but connecting the entire metropolis to the rest of the world  Being located in the City of Westminster, Spur Alley had escaped the devastation of the Great Fire of London in 1666 leaving its wooden structures, built in the early part of seventeenth century, intact, but also in dire need of restoration or demolition  “The ratebooks show that during the last thirty years or so of their existence the houses in Spur Alley were in a very bad condition  Few of them were rated at more than a few shillings and many of them were unoccupied ”[1] The landowner, William, 5th Baron Craven, desiring to increase the profitability of his assets, tore down the derelict structures on Spur Alley around 1730 and leased the newly established lots to builders  By 1735, twenty brick houses in the Georgian style had been built on the west side and sixteen on the east side of the way now called Craven Street [2]
Figure 2  Craven Street 1746  (John Rocque London, Westminster and Southwark, First Edition 1746, Motco Enterprises Limited, motco com)
Letters to Franklin during his residence with Mrs  Margaret Stevenson, his landlady on Craven Street, were addressed rather vaguely; “Craven Street/Strand”, “Mrs  Stevensons in Craven Street”, or “Benjamin Franklin Esqr ” are but a few examples  Letters from Franklin referenced “London,” or sometimes “Cravenstreet,” but never included a number  Despite the absence of numbered addresses in Franklin’s correspondence, there was a sense of one’s place in the neighborhood based on entries in the Westminster Rate Books (tax assessments)  The Rate Books did not list house numbers during Franklin’s time there, but they did list the residents of Craven Street in a particular order that became the default numbering system for the street  Number one was associated with the first resident listed under “Craven Street” in the Rate Books and was the northernmost house on the west side of the street  The numbers increased counter-clockwise down the west side and up the east side in accordance with the list of residents  In 1748, the first year of Margaret Stevenson’s (Stevens in the Rate Books for that year) residence on Craven Street, she is listed as the twenty-seventh resident, the second house north of Court Street (later Craven Court, now Craven Passage) on the east side of the street [3]
In 1766, Parliament passed the London Paving and Lighting Act (6 Geo  3 c  26), “An act for the better paving, cleansing, and enlightening, the city of London, and the liberties thereof; and for preventing obstructions and annoyances within the same; and for other purposes therein mentioned ”[4] One of the other purposes therein mentioned was the numbering of houses  With an aim to bring order to the chaotic numbering systems or lack thereof on London streets the Act provided that “… the said commissioners … may also cause every house, shop, or warehouse, in each of the said streets, lanes, squares, yards, courts, alleys, passages, and places, to be marked or numbered, in such manner as they shall judge most proper for distinguishing the same ”[5] This was quite an undertaking that took years to accomplish  It was a decade later before numbered addresses on Craven Street in the City of Westminster appeared in The London Directory (1776)  The London Directory and its competitors were published primarily by booksellers or printers to supplement their income and were highly profitable  To say they were competitive is an understatement  “Some of the most hotly disputed struggles over copyright in the century concerned guidebooks  Many were optimistically emblazoned with a royal license and a notice that the work had been entered at Stationers’ Hall  Various struggles between rival guides intensified as the potential for profits became clear ”[6] The London Directory boldly proclaimed to contain “An ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE NAMES and PLACES of ABODE of the MERCHANTS and PRINCIPAL TRADERS of the Cities of LONDON and WESTMINSTER, the Borough of SOUTHWARK, and their Environs, with the Number affixed to each House ”[7] Kent’s Directory made a similar proclamation: “An Alphabetical LIST OF THE Names and Places of Abode OF THE DIRECTORS of COMPANIES, Persons in Public Business, MERCHANTS, and other eminent TRADERS in the Cities of London and Westminster, and Borough of Southwark WITH THE NUMBERS as they are affixed to their Houses agreeable to the late Acts of Parliament ”[8] Mrs  Stevenson wasn’t included in the directories because she didn’t meet the criteria of being a merchant or trader, not because she was a woman  Although it is rare to see women listed in the directories, some examples do exist [9] If Mrs  Stevenson had appeared in the directories in 1776 it would not have been on Craven Street as she had moved to Northumberland Court, a stone’s throw away, the previous year [10] A comparison of Craven Street residents whose names and addresses do appear in the directories with the same residents as they appear in the Westminster Rate Books determines if the numbering systems were congruent  For the most part they were  For example, Joseph Bond at No  30, William Rowles at No  31, Samuel Sneyd at No  32, and Jonathan Michie at No  35 in The London Directory coincide with their places of residence in the Westminster Rate Books; however, errors did occur  The 1776 edition of The London Directory lists Brown & Whiteford, wine merchants, at No  9 Craven Street while the Westminster Rate Books list them as the twenty-ninth residents  Obviously, it makes no sense to have Brown & Whiteford at No  9 in The London Directory and their next-door neighbor, Joseph Bond, at No  30  The same error appears in Baldwin’s The New Complete Guide for 1783  The New Complete Guide may have “borrowed” the error from The London Directory  It was not uncommon for the owner of one directory to copy entries from another to save both time and money  Beginning in 1778 and contrary to The London Directory, Kent’s Directory faithfully followed the numbering system of the Westminster Rate Books in all of its editions and listed Brown & Whiteford at No  29 as did Bailey’s Northern Directory in 1781  Perhaps realizing their error, The London Directory changed their listing of Brown & Whiteford from No  9 to No  29 in their 1783 edition and maintained that listing thereafter 
Sometime prior to 1792, the embankment on the Thames at the south end of Craven Street had been sufficiently extended allowing for the construction of ten new houses below the original houses: “ … four houses, Nos  21–24, were built on the west side, and six houses, Nos  25–30, on the east side of the way ”[11] In a note in the same report, the new numbering system is explained  “The houses in the street, which had previously been numbered consecutively down the west side and up the east side, were then renumbered on the same system to include the additional houses ”[12] Because the new houses (21-24) on the west side were built below the existing houses (1-20), houses 1-20 retained their original numbering 
Figure 4  Craven Street 1799  (Richard Horwood’s Map of London, Westminster and the Borough of Southwark 1799, Motco Enterprises Limited, motco com)
One would think that the numbers of the sixteen original houses on the east side, Nos  21 – 36, would simply increase by ten with the addition of the ten new houses, but such was not the case; they increased by nine  How could that be? The only possible explanation is that No  21 of the original houses was demolished to make way for the construction of the northernmost of the six new houses on the east side (No  30)  Evidence of No  21’s demolition appears in the lease granted to Charles Owen by William, 7th Baron Craven, in 1792, which describes No  22 as: “All that messuage in Craven Street late in the occupation of Francis Deschamps undertaker … being the Southernmost house in the Old Buildings on the East Side of the said Street numbered with the No  22 ”[13] The lease describes No  22 as being the southernmost house in the old buildings on the east side of Craven Street  Clearly the house previously at No  21 did not exist when the lease granted to Charles Owen was written in 1792 as it used to be the southernmost house  It is also worth noting that in 1790, The London Directory listed Jacob Life at No  21 (original numbering)  In 1791-2, it listed him at No  6  With No  21 vacated, it would allow for its demolition and the construction of the tenth new house  By utilizing lot No  21 for the new construction, only nine additional lots were needed to build the ten houses, hence, Margaret Stevenson’s former residence at 27 became 36 (27 + 9) in the renumbering and not 37 
For nearly a century and a half after Franklin departed London for America in March of 1775 the scales were tipped heavily in favor of his residence having been No  7 Craven Street  As early as 1807 in London; Being An Accurate History And Description Of The British Metropolis And Its Neighborhood, Volume 4, one would have read: “In Craven Street is a house, No  7, remarkable for having been the residence of Dr  Benjamin Franklin [14] In 1815, the identical phrase appeared in The Beauties of England and Wales [15] After 23 editions of not mentioning Franklin, his name finally appeared in the 24th edition of The Picture of London in 1826: “The house, No  7, Craven Street, in the Strand, was once the residence of Dr  Benjamin Franklin ”[16] In 1840, Jared Sparks referred to Franklin’s Craven Street residence appearing in London guide books in his voluminous The Works of Benjamin Franklin: “In the London Guide Books, ‘No  7, Craven Street,’ is still indicated as the house in which Dr  Franklin resided ”[17] In 1846, George Gulliver F R S , in his book, The Works of William Hewson, wrote: “She [Polly] had been upon terms of the warmest friendship with Dr  Franklin
Figure 5  No  7 Craven Street with Memorial Tablet  (Photo courtesy of British History Online, and the Survey of London)
since she was eighteen years of age  That eminent philosopher resided with her mother, Mrs  Margaret Stevenson, at No  7, Craven Street, Strand, during the fifteen years of his abode in London ”[18] Guide books mentioning Franklin at No  7 continued to proliferate throughout the century: Handbook for London; Past and Present, Volume I (1849);”[19] Handbook for Modern London (1851);”[20] The Town; Its Memorable Characters and Events (1859);”[21] London and Its Environs (1879) [22] There was an anomaly when London In 1880 Illustrated With Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, Sixth Edition (1880) placed Franklin at 27 Craven street [23] The anomaly lasted for six years until his place of residence was changed to No  7 in the revised edition, London  Illustrated by Eighteen Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets (1886) [24] London Past and Present; Its History, Associations, and Traditions, Volume 1 (1891), copied the 1849 Handbook for London almost word-for-word and included, “The house is on the right from the Strand ”[25] In October of 1867, The Society of Arts in London declared that: “In order to show how rich the metropolis is in the memory of important personages and events, which it would be desirable to mark by means of tablets on houses, the Council have caused an alphabetical list to be prepared, … ”[26] Franklin had been elected a corresponding member to the Society in 1756 and was a popular choice among Council members deciding who they were to memorialize [27] By January of 1870, a tablet honoring him was affixed to the house they believed to have been his residence while in London, No  7 Craven Street in the Strand on the west side of the street [28] A majority of historians writing about Franklin in the nineteenth and early twentieth century placed him at No  7: O  L  Holley, The Life of Benjamin Franklin (1848); E  M  Tomkinson, Benjamin Franklin (1885); John Torrey Morse, Benjamin Franklin (1891); Paul Elmer More, Benjamin Franklin (1900); John S  C  Abbot, Benjamin Franklin (1903); Sydney George Fisher, The True Benjamin Franklin (1903)  A notable exception is D  H  Montgomery’s His Life Written by Himself published in 1896  He has Franklin at No  27 Craven Street  It seems then that depending upon the source, Franklin was thought to have lived at either No  7 or No  27, but not both, the overwhelming majority favoring No  7  As late as 2011, Franklin is still mentioned as living at No  7 [29]
In 1913, No  7 was scheduled to be torn down  An article in the March 1914 edition of The Book News Monthly, describes the situation:
As is well known to informed American pilgrims, it has been possible for all admirers of the famous philosopher and statesman to pay their respects to his memory before that house, No  7 Craven Street, just off the Strand, which was his chief home during his two sojourns in the British capital, but even as these lines are being written the London newspapers are recording that that interesting shrine is soon to be pulled down to make room for a restaurant  It is some mitigation of this misfortune to remember that at the most the Craven Street house was nothing more than a reproduction of the one in which Franklin had his suite of four rooms, for the structure has been rebuilt since Franklin’s time  When, then, some one makes a piteous plea that at least the philosopher’s bedroom shall be preserved, the soothing answer is that the apartment in question is only a replica of that in which the illustrious American enjoyed his well-earned slumbers in 1757-62 and 1764-75  The restaurant-builder, however, with an eye doubtless to possible American patronage, has assured the world that every effort will be made to preserve as much as possible of the entire structure [30]
Concerned with the possible demolition of Franklin’s residence, the Royal Society of Arts (formerly the Society of Arts[31]) initiated an inquiry into the matter [32] The London County Council, having taken over the responsibility of placing memorial tablets on notable houses from the Royal Society, was charged with the investigation  It ultimately fell to Sir George Laurence Gomme, a clerk to the Council, to come up with a response  A few years earlier Sir George had discovered Margaret Stevenson residing at No  27 Craven Street in the Westminster Rate Books  He must have wondered why No  7 on the west side of Craven Street was being celebrated as Franklin’s residence when the evidence clearly showed otherwise 
Sir George and his staff examined the various London directories discussed earlier and came up with a novel explanation for the discrepancy  They concluded that there had been two numbering systems on Craven Street  An anonymous author echoes Sir George’s conclusion about the two numbering systems in an article in The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts:
…an inspection of the directories of that time proves that there were at least two systems of numbering in Craven Street before the erection of the additional houses  According to one of these the numbers started from the top (Strand end) on the west side of the street, and ran down to the bottom to No  20, then crossed over and went back to the Strand along the east side – 21 to 36  According to the other system, the east side of the street was numbered from the bottom upwards, starting at No 1  This was not apparently in general use, but there is evidence that this numbering was at all events occasionally used 
The evidence of these two systems of numbering, and for believing that Mrs  Stevenson’s house was first No  7 under the oldest system, next No  27 under the second system, and finally No  36 under the latest and existing system, is to be found in the various directories and the Westminster rate-books [33]
The “evidence” mentioned above consisted of The London Directory’s listing of Brown & Whiteford at No



ground_truth: Peter Denning.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did Mary tell the disciples?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:  9: “The rate-books for 1781 and 1786 show the house next but one to the north of Mrs  Stevenson’s house as in the occupation of Brown and ‘Whiteford,’ while the old directories mention the business of the firm as wine merchants, and give their address as 9, Craven Street – then a little later, down to 1791, as 29, Craven Street  Curiously enough, in the years 1778 to 1780, or 1781, Lowndes gives it as No  9, and Kent as 29 ”[34] Ignoring Kent’s Directory having Brown and Whiteford as 29 and The London Directory (Lowndes) having Brown and Whiteford “a little later” as 29, and knowing that Mrs  Stevenson lived two doors south of them, Sir George concluded that her house must have been numbered 7, even though there is no listing in any of the directories of her residence ever being No  7  He surmised that the No  7 on the west side of Craven Street with the memorial tablet thought to have been Franklin’s residence had simply been confused with number 7 (27) on the east side  Again from The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts:
Taking all the evidence together, there cannot be any doubt whatever that Mrs  Stevenson’s house, in which Franklin lodged, was the house two doors north from Craven Court, first numbered 7, afterwards 27, and finally 36, and consequently that the house in which Franklin lived was that now numbered 36, not the one now numbered 7, on which the tablet is placed [35]
A response to The Royal Society of Arts was issued: “… the London County Council … informed the Society that it had made a mistake and that No  36 Craven street was the building that deserved commemoration ”[36] The Society accepted the Council’s conclusion, and despite assurances of preservation by the restaurant builder, No  7 was torn down the following year 
Sir George’s assertion “that Mrs  Stevenson’s house, in which Franklin lodged, was the house two doors north from Craven Court” was correct, however, his assertion that it was “first numbered 7, afterwards 27”, was not  It was only by association with the errant entry of Brown & Whiteford at No  9 from 1776-1782 in The London Directory that Mrs  Stevenson’s address was conjured to be No  7  The problem with associating her address exclusively with that of Brown & Whiteford at No  9 during those years is that, as previously demonstrated, The London Directory also listed four other Craven Street residents, Bond, Rowles, Sneyd, and Michie, who’s addresses did conform to the numbering system in The Westminster Rate Books  If Brown & Whiteford at No  9 was indicative of a numbering system different from The Westminster Rate Books, Bond, Rowles, Sneyd, and Michie would have been listed as Nos  10, 11, 12, and 15, respectively  So on one hand Sir George was relying on the Westminster Rate Books to establish Mrs  Stevenson at No  27 and on the other hand he was dismissing the Westminster Rate Books to establish her at No  7  Instead of using the anomalous listing of Brown & Whiteford at No  9, he could have just as easily, and more logically, used the Bond et al  listings, or the post-1782 Brown & Whiteford listing in the London Directory at No  29 to establish Mrs  Stevenson at No  27  Even if there had been two numbering systems, his assertion that No  27 was first numbered 7 would still be false  The earliest numbering system was the Westminster Rate Books dating from the early 1730s when the houses were constructed  Brown & Whiteford at No  9 didn’t appear until 46 years later and then only for a brief period 
There is ample evidence in Franklin’s correspondence and in a memoir by Polly Hewson (Mrs  Stevenson’s daughter) that Benjamin and Mrs  Stevenson lived in not one, but two houses on Craven Street  On July 6, 1772, Polly wrote to Benjamin from her house at Broad Street North in London: “My Mother I must tell you went off last friday week, took our little Boy with her and left Mr  Hewson [Polly’s husband, William] the care of her House [27 Craven Street]  The first thing he did was pulling down a part of it in order to turn it to his own purpose, and advantage we hope  This Demolition cannot affect you, who at present are not even a Lodger [Benjamin was traveling at the time], your litterary apartment remains untouch’d, the Door is lock’d …”[37] In a memoir about her husband written after his death Polly writes: “He [William Hewson] began his Lectures Sept  30, 1772, in Craven-street, where he had built a Theatre adjoining a house which he intended for the future residence of his family ”[38] On October 7, 1772, Benjamin wrote to his son William: “I am very well  But we [Mrs  Stevenson and I] are moving to another House in the same street; and I go down tomorrow to Lord LeDespencer’s to [stay a] Week till things are settled ”[39] To his son-in-law, Richard Bache, on the same day he wrote: “We are moving to another House in the [street] leaving this to Mr  Hewson ”[40] Writing to a friend on October 30, 1772 he explained: “I should sooner have answered your Questions but that in the Confusion of my Papers, occasioned by removing to another House, I could not readily find the Memorandums …”[41] On November 4, 1772 Benjamin informed his wife Deborah of the move  “We are removed to a more convenient House in the same street, Mrs  Stevenson having accommodated her Son-in-Law with that we lived in  The Removing has been a troublesome Affair, but is now over ”[42]
An agreement had been struck between the parties  Margaret and Benjamin would move to another house on Craven Street and allow Polly and William to move into No  27, the large yard behind the house being spacious enough to accommodate the anatomy school William wished to build [43] Perhaps the idea was inspired by Margaret’s next-door neighbor at No  26, Dr  John Leake, a man-midwife and founder of the Westminster Lying-in Hospital, who had built a theater adjoining his residence in which he practiced anatomy and taught midwifery [44]
After Margaret and Benjamin vacated No  27, Polly, William, their son William Jr , and William’s younger sister, Dorothy Hewson, took up residence there [45] In the 1773 Westminster Rate Books for Craven Street, Mrs  Stevenson’s (Stephenson in the Rate Books) name has been crossed out and replaced with “William Hewson ”[46] Further proof that the Hewsons had indeed moved into 27 Craven Street has been confirmed by the discovery of human and animal remains buried in the basement of No  36 (formerly No  27 and now the Benjamin Franklin House), a by-product of the dissections that took place at William’s anatomy school [47]
So what house on Craven Street did Mrs  Stevenson and Benjamin move into after vacating No  27? An examination of the Westminster Rate Books for the years 1774 and 1775 reveal them living not at No  7 on the west side of Craven Street as one might expect from the overwhelming consensus of nineteenth century guidebooks and biographies, but surprisingly at No  1 [48] The controversy of No  7 being torn down was all for naught as it had never been Franklin’s residence  Sir George was correct on that point  Unfortunately, No  1 was torn down as well in the early part of the twentieth century  The first time No  1 is mentioned as Franklin’s second residence is in the Survey of London: Volume 18, St Martin-in-The-Fields II: the Strand published by the London County Council in 1937, ironically the same County Council that had declared No  36 as Franklin’s only residence twenty-four years earlier 
From 1748 until 1772 Margaret ‘Stephenson’ occupied this house [No  27 (36)], and it was there that Benjamin Franklin settled after his arrival in London in 1757 as Agent to the General Assembly of Pennsylvania … In October, 1772, Mrs  Stevenson and Franklin removed to No  1, Craven Street (now demolished), and No  36 was for the next two years occupied by William Hewson, surgeon, who had married Mary Stevenson [49]
In the spring of 1774, William Hewson died unexpectedly of septicemia two weeks after cutting himself while dissecting a cadaver  Polly was left to care for their two young sons and was pregnant with a daughter she would give birth to in August of the same year  Is it possible that Margaret and Benjamin moved back into No  27 to assist Polly after the death of her husband as suggested in The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin?[50]
If the Westminster Rate Books are to be believed, the answer is no  For the year 1774, the Rate Books list Margaret Stevenson at No  1 and William Hewson at No  27  For the year 1775, they list Margaret Stevenson at No  1 and Magnus Falkner (Falconer/Falconar) at No  27  Magnus was William’s assistant at the anatomy school and fiancé to William’s sister, Dorothy  On his death bed, William instructed Polly, “let Mr  Falconar be my successor ”[51] Magnus would immediately take over the running of the anatomy school and continue William’s unfinished research  Four months later, he and Dorothy would marry [52] Essentially only two things changed at 27 Craven Street after William’s death: Polly gave birth to her daughter, and Magnus replaced William as the lease holder, so even if Margaret and Benjamin had wished to move back into No  27, there would have been no room for them  It is also interesting to note that considering the multiple times Benjamin wrote of his move out of No  27 (and complained of it), he never once mentioned moving back into No  27 in any of his correspondence after Mr  Hewson’s death 
Figure 6  No  36 Craven Street  (Photo courtesy of David Ross, britainexpress com)
In sum, based on the Westminster Rate Books[53] and Franklin’s correspondence, Mrs  Stevenson is known to have resided at No  27 (36) Craven Street from 1748 to 1772  It follows that, aside from the two years Franklin spent in Philadelphia from 1762 to 1764, he resided there from 1757 to 1772  Franklin’s correspondence also reveals that in the autumn of 1772, he and Mrs  Stevenson moved to another house on Craven Street  The 1773 Westminster Rate Books show her name crossed off at No  27 and William Hewson’s inserted  The following year the Rate Books list her at No  1 Craven Street  Evidence for Mrs  Stevenson and Benjamin remaining at No  1 after William’s death appears in the Westminster Rate Books for 1775 which have Mrs  Stevenson still residing at No  1 and Magnus Falkner residing at No  27  Further evidence can be construed from the lack of any mention of a move back into No  27 in Franklin’s correspondence  Despite the many theories one could devise as to why Franklin was thought to have lived at No  7 Craven Street by so many guide books and Franklin biographers of the nineteenth century, one thing is certain; at some point after Franklin’s departure to America in March of 1775, and no later than 1807, someone mistakenly associated him with No  7 on the west side of Craven Street, and it soon became his de facto residence  Credit must go to D  H  Montgomery in 1896 and Sir George in 1913 for setting the record partially straight by placing Franklin at No  27(36)  In 1937, the London County Council gave us the first accurate account of Franklin’s residences on Craven Street in the Survey of London at No  27(36) and No  1  It has been shown conclusively that No  27 was never previously numbered 7  It was, however, renumbered 36 in 1792 after ten additional houses were built at the southern end of the street and remains No  36 to this day 
[1] “Craven Street and Hungerford Lane”, in Survey of London: Volume 18, St Martin-in-the-Fields II: the Strand, ed  G H Gater and E P Wheeler (London, 1937), 27-39, Early History of the Site 
http://www british-history ac uk/survey-london/vol18/pt2/pp27-39
[2] “England, Westminster Rate Books, 1634-1900,” from database with images, Craven Street – 1735, FamilySearch from database by FindMyPast and images digitized by FamilySearch; citing Westminster City Archives, London 
[3] Ibid , Craven Street – 1748 
[4] The Statutes at Large, From Magna Charta to the End of the Eleventh Parliament of Great Britain  Anno 1761 Continued, Vol  XXVII, ed  Danby Pickering, (Cambridge, John Archdeacon, 1767), 96 
[6] James Raven, Publishing Business in Eighteenth-Century England, (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2014), 201 
[7] The London Directory For the Year 1776, Ninth Edition, (London: T  Lowndes, 1776), title page 
[8] Kent’s Directory For the Year 1778, Forty-Sixth Edition, (London: Richard and Henry Causton, 1778), title page 
[9] A listing in Kent’s Directory for the Year 1882 on p  28 reveals, “Brown Sarah, Leather-seller, 1, Westmoreland-buildings, Aldersgate-street”, and in Kent’s Directory for the Year 1883 on p  175, “Whiteland Mary, Wine & Brandy Mercht  Jermyn-str  St  James ”
[10] “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin,” Sponsored by The American Philosophical Society and Yale University, Digital Edition by The Packard Humanities Institute, 22:263a 
http://franklinpapers org/franklin
Mrs  Stevenson wrote to Benjamin Franklin a letter from her new home at 75 Northumberland Court on November 16, 1775: “In this Court I have a kind friend, Mr  Lechmoen he comes and seats with me and talks of you with a hiy regard and friendship ”
[11] Survey of London, Early History of the Site 
[12] Survey of London, Footnotes/n 10 
[13] Survey of London, Historical Notes/No  31 
[14] David Hughson, LL D



ground_truth: "I have seen the Lord.".

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did the London Directory proclaim to contain?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: , London; Being An Accurate History And Description Of The British Metropolis And Its Neighbourhood, To Thirty Miles Extent, From An Actual Perambulation, Vol  IV, (London: W  Stratford, 1807), 227 
[15] The Reverend Joseph Nightingale, The Beauties of England and Wales: Or, Original Delineations, Topographical, Historical, and Descriptive, of Each County, Vol  X, Part III, Vol  II (London: J  Harris; Longman and Co ; J  Walker; R  Baldwin; Sherwood and Co ; J  and J  Cundee; B  and R  Crosby and Co ; J Cuthell; J  and J  Richardson; Cadell and Davies; C  and J  Rivington; and G  Cowie and Co , 1815), 245 
[16] John Britton, F S A  & Co , ed , The Original Picture of London, Enlarged and Improved: Being A Correct Guide For The Stranger, As Well As For the Inhabitant, To The Metropolis Of The British Empire Together With A Description Of The Environs, The Twenty-Fourth Edition (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1826), 479 
[17] Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol  VII, (Philadelphia: Childs & Peterson, 1840), 151 
[18] George Gulliver, F R S , The Works of William Hewson, F  R  S , (London: Printed for the Sydenham Society, MDCCCXLVI), xx 
[19] Peter Cunningham, Handbook for London; Past and Present, Vol  I, (London: John Murray, 1849), 245 
[20] F  Saunders, Memories of the Great Metropolis: or, London, from the Tower to the Crystal Palace, (New York: G P  Putnam, MDCCCLII), 138 
[21] Leigh Hunt, The Town; Its Memorable Characters and Events, (London: Smith, Elder and Co , 1859), 185 
[22] K  Baedeker, London and Its Environs, Including Excursions To Brighton, The Isle of Wight, Etc : Handbook For Travelers, Second Edition, (London: Dulau and Co , 1879), 133 
[23] Herbert Fry, London In 1880 Illustrated With Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, Sixth Edition, (New York: Scribner, Welford, & Co , 1880), 50 
[24] Herbert Fry, London  Illustrated By Eighteen Bird’s-Eye Views of the Principal Streets, (London: W  H  Allen and Co , 1886), 40 
[25] Henry B  Wheatley, F S A , London Past and Present; Its History, Associations, and Traditions, Vol  1, (London: John Murray, New York: Scribner & Welford, 1891), 473 
[26] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  XV, No  778, (October 18, 1867): 717 
[27] D  G  C  Allen, “Dear and Serviceable to Each Other: Benjamin Franklin and the Royal Society of Arts,” American Philosophical Society, Vol  144, No  3, (September 2000): 248-249 
Franklin was a corresponding member in 1756 because he was still residing in Philadelphia  He became an active member the following year when he moved to London 
[28] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  XVIII, No  894, (Jan  7, 1870): 137 
“Since the last announcement, the following tablets have been affixed on houses formerly occupied by – Benjamin Franklin, 7 Craven-street, Strand, W C ”
[29] Franklin in His Own Time, eds  Kevin J  Haytes and Isabelle Bour, (Iowa City, University of Iowa Press, 2011), xxxvii 
“Takes lodgings with Margaret Stevenson at No  7 Craven Street ” It is unknown if the editors are referring to No  7 on the west side of Craven Street or No  36 on the east side using Sir George’s explanation of No  36 being previously numbered 7 
[30] Henry C  Shelly, “American Shrines on English Soil, III  In the Footprints of Benjamin Franklin,” in The Book News Monthly, September, 1913 to August, 1914, (Philadelphia: John Wanamaker, 1914), 325 
[31] The Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, Vol  LVI, No  2,880, (Jan  31, 1908): 245 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=mdp 39015058423073;view=1up;seq=251
“His Majesty the King, who is Patron of the Society, has granted permission to the Society to prefix to its title the term ‘Royal,’ and the Society will consequently be known in future as the ‘Royal Society of Arts ’”
[32] Nineteenth Annual Report, 1914, of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, (Albany: J  B  Lyon Company, 1914), 293 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=wu 89072985302;view=1up;seq=4;size=150
[33] The Journal of the Society of Arts, Vol  LXII, No  3,183, (Nov  21, 1913): 18 
http://babel hathitrust org/cgi/pt?id=mdp 39015058422968;view=1up;seq=26
[36] Allen, “Dear and Serviceable,” 263-264 
[37] Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 19:20 
[38] Thomas Joseph Pettigrew, F  L  S , Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Late John Coakley Lettsom With a Selection From His Correspondence, Vol  I, (London: Nichols, Son, and Bentley, 1817), 144 of Correspondence 
[39] Papers of Benjamin Franklin, 19:321b 
[40] Ibid , 19:314 
[41] Ibid , 19:353a 
[43] Simon David John Chaplin, John Hunter and the ‘museum oeconomy’, 1750-1800, Department of History, King’s College London  Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London , 202 
“Following Falconar’s death [1778] the lease [27 Craven Street] was advertised, and the buildings were described as:
A genteel and commodious house, in good Repair, with Coach-house and Stabling for two Horses…consisting of two rooms and light closets on each floor, with outbuildings in the Yard, a Museum, a Compleat Theatre, and other conveniences  (Daily Advertiser, 27 August 1778)”
[44] Simon Chaplin, “Dissection and Display in Eighteenth-Century London,” in Anatomical Dissection in Enlightenment England and Beyond: Autopsy, Pathology and Display, ed  Dr  Piers Mitchell, (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2012), 108 
“Given that a nearby building at 35 [ No  26 in Franklin’s time] was occupied by the man-midwife John Leake, who advertised lectures – including lessons in the art of making preparations – at his ‘theatre’ between 1764 and 1788, it is possible that some facilities were shared  In both cases, however, the buildings [Leake’s residence at No  26 and Hewson’s residence next door at 27] served a dual function as domestic accommodation and as sites for lecturing and dissection ”
[45] George Gulliver, F R S , The Works of William Hewson, F  R  S , (London: Printed for the Sydenham Society, MDCCCXLVI), xviii 
[46] Westminster Rate Books, Craven Street – 1773, courtesy of the City of Westminster Archives 
[47] S W  Hillson et al , “Benjamin Franklin, William Hewson, and the Craven Street Bones,” Archaeology International, Vol  2, (Nov  22, 1998): 14-16 
http://dx doi org/10 5334/ai 0206
[48] Westminster Rate Books, Craven Street – 1774, 1775, courtesy of the City of Westminster Archives 
[49] Survey of London, Historical Notes/No  36, Craven Street (not sourced) 
[50] Gordon S  Wood, The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin, (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), 261 
[51] Pettigrew, Memoirs, 146 of Correspondence 
[52] http://founders archives gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0178, note 7  “Falconar married Hewson’s sister five months after the Doctor’s death; most of the Craven Street circle attended the wedding, and BF gave away the bride: Polly to Barbara Hewson, Oct  4, 1774, APS” (American Philosophical Society); “England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch org/ark:/61903/1:1:V52W-TGS : accessed September 15, 2015), Magnus Falconar and Dorothy Hewson, September 12, 1774; citing Saint Martin In The Fields, Westminster, London, England, reference ; FHL microfilm 561156, 561157, 561158, 942 B4HA V  25, 942 B4HA V  66 
[53] I chose to rely on the Westminster Rate Books for the numbering system on Craven Street  The books were consistent throughout the eighteenth century in the ordering of residents on the street and were used as the basis for the 1792 re-numbering  For the most part, commercial directories aligned with them as well  If by chance a directory didn’t initially align, it would inevitably produce future editions that did 
Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin House, London
More from David Turnquist
If one looked into Benjamin Franklin’s time on Craven Street, they might   
I think it’s very ironic that on the street maps included in your excellent article, Craven Street is so close to Scotland Yard  Because following the back and forth juxtapositions of numbers 7, 27 and 36 Craven Street (throw in 75 Northumberland Court and 1 Craven Street, too) was a case that could confound Sherlock Holmes 
Excellent job of deciphering street renumbering material spanning sixty years, including that of a wrong house number (# 7) being erroneously identified and then perpetuated in subsequent street map printings  It’s gratifying at least to know that the present day #36 Craven Street is the correct house for Ben Franklin tourists to visit  Except for #1 Craven Street for the last three years Franklin was in London, but we won’t get into that 
Again, excellent article, David!



ground_truth: An alphabetical list of names and places of abode of the merchants and principal traders of the cities of London and Westminster, the Borough of Southwark, and their environs, with the number affixed to each house.