About the Trump candidacy, Jim Gerraghty observes in his newsletter this morning, "There will always be an appetite for someone who comes along and insists the solutions are easy." Fair enough, but it's also true that this argument works particularly well when the powers that be have accomplished astonishingly little in recent years, always with the explanation that it's all very difficult, and we wouldn't understand the complexities. Leaders like the unlamented soon-to-be-departed Boehner radiate the impression that they don't accomplish much, not because it's difficult or complicated, but because they can't see the point. Trump looks like a hero by seeming to get down to brass tacks: the brass businessman, focused on effectiveness and the bottom line.
I'd feel so much better about it if I thought he really agreed with me on the bottom line. In that way, he may be much like Boehner, but slightly more likely to achieve whatever his goals turn out to be.
Jeanne La Flamme
Medievalists.net has a piece up today about a figure from the early Hundred Years war, who did "the boldest and most remarkable feat ever performed by a woman" according to a chronicler of that age. Her husband, a candidate for the rulership of Brittany, was captured by French perfidy. While he was the prisoner of the French King, that king invaded Brittany to try to put his own favored candidate on the throne there. Jeanne organized a defense of a city, Hennebont, against the French army.
While the siege was ongoing, she dressed in armor and rode about the town on a big warhorse, encouraging the defenders. But when she saw an opportunity, she took it:
In any case, Jeanne and her party escaped the French. She returned after five days with reinforcements, and was able to re-enter her city. She continued the defense until the arrival of English aid, which routed the French. Eventually her son would become the ruler of Brittany.
Jeanne went on to fight in a sea battle on her way to England to obtain further aid for her people. Escaping from the French fleet to the harbor of a nearby town, her forces stormed and captured that city and used it as a base for further war against the French and their preferred candidate. She was an important leader of her husband's faction during his imprisonments, of which there were two, and after his death. Her son eventually won the throne, although it is not clear if Jeanne knew it. Later in her life, for reasons we do not know, we are told that she went mad. The English put her up in a castle under the guardianship of one Sir William Frank, a knight of Edward III's.
While the siege was ongoing, she dressed in armor and rode about the town on a big warhorse, encouraging the defenders. But when she saw an opportunity, she took it:
And now you shall hear of the boldest and the most remarkable feat ever performed by a woman. Know this: the valiant countess, who kept climbing the towers to see how the defence was progressing, saw that all the besiegers had left their quarters and gone forward to watch the assault. She conceived a fine plan. She remounted her charger, fully armed as she was, and called upon some three hundred men-at-arms who were guarding a gate that wasn’t under attack to mount with her; then she rode out with this company and charged boldly into the enemy camp, which was devoid of anyone but a few boys and servants. They killed them all and set fire to everything: soon the whole encampment was ablaze.It's hard for us today to celebrate the killing of boys and servants by professional soldiers, but it occurs regularly in the Hundred Years War if they are present as a part of the army's logistical train -- doubtless you remember such a scene from Shakespeare's Henry V. They were performing an important part of the war effort, and as such they end up taking a soldier's chances.
When the French lords saw their camp on fire and heard the shouting and commotion, the assault was abandoned as they rushed back in alarm, crying: “Treachery! Treachery!” The valiant countess, seeing them alerted and the besiegers streaming back from all sides, rallied her men and, realising there was no way back to the town without grave loss, rode off in another direction, straight to the castle of Brayt, some four leagues away.
In any case, Jeanne and her party escaped the French. She returned after five days with reinforcements, and was able to re-enter her city. She continued the defense until the arrival of English aid, which routed the French. Eventually her son would become the ruler of Brittany.
Jeanne went on to fight in a sea battle on her way to England to obtain further aid for her people. Escaping from the French fleet to the harbor of a nearby town, her forces stormed and captured that city and used it as a base for further war against the French and their preferred candidate. She was an important leader of her husband's faction during his imprisonments, of which there were two, and after his death. Her son eventually won the throne, although it is not clear if Jeanne knew it. Later in her life, for reasons we do not know, we are told that she went mad. The English put her up in a castle under the guardianship of one Sir William Frank, a knight of Edward III's.
Why do women join the USMC?
In this post's comments Grim links to this article, in which the author makes his point about why women join the Marine Corps. In short:
"Why do you think women join the Marines? Because they like the food? No, they’re in it for the same basic reason that men are – the lure of proving themselves, of being elite. That’s why those enlisted Marines have signed up for infantry training. It’s also why nearly 400 Army women have signed up for the Ranger training, a number far beyond what the Army was prepared for. And these are just the women already in the Army and the Marines, the ones who had the Combat Exclusion Law staring them in the face and joined anyway."
Well, if you're looking for me to disagree, you're wrong.
"Why do you think women join the Marines? Because they like the food? No, they’re in it for the same basic reason that men are – the lure of proving themselves, of being elite. That’s why those enlisted Marines have signed up for infantry training. It’s also why nearly 400 Army women have signed up for the Ranger training, a number far beyond what the Army was prepared for. And these are just the women already in the Army and the Marines, the ones who had the Combat Exclusion Law staring them in the face and joined anyway."
Well, if you're looking for me to disagree, you're wrong.
Secretary Mabus Ignores the Marine Corps
Despite considerable backlash from within the service, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said again Monday that the Marine Corps infantry and Navy SEALs will open up to women, no matter what.
Keep an Eye on This Story
Normally if a journalist were to call out a serving military officer as a liar, I would instinctively take the side of the officer. For one thing, it's an inappropriate use of the language of honor targeting a man who is forbidden by regulations from responding in kind. A military officer may not be speaking the truth -- goodness knows I've seen a few PAOs and general officers tell whoppers -- but they are saying what has been approved for them to say. They really aren't free to speak otherwise, not without resigning their commission. Unless the offense is so grave as to justify resigning your commission over it, such an untruth is not a matter of their personal honor but the honor of their organization.
The US military is an organization that has a vast treasury of honor from the sacrifices of its members in pursuit of human liberty and against totalitarianism. Unfortunately, of late, the leadership has been expending rather than adding to that treasury. The winking at child sex slavery by Afghan allies, going so far as to punish American servicemembers who stood up to it, is a moral disaster.
The distortion of intelligence to please their civilian bosses in the White House is less severe as a moral matter, but nevertheless represents a departure from the strict standards of honor that underlie victory at war. If you do not rigorously represent the truth to higher command in a military model, command decisions will depart more and more from the reality on the ground. Even in the best of cases, as explored by von Clausewitz, the fog of war distorts the ability of higher command to understand and act correctly to win victories on the ground. If you have not been faithful to your duty, but have allowed pleasing distortions into the intelligence, this will worsen. Honor is very much concerned in this story, and the honor of some ranking figures at US Central Command.
Still, the reserve is vast, even if lately the influence of the civilian commander has led many officers astray from the path of honor. Normally, as I said, if a military officer is challenged by a journalist, I'd assume the officer was in the right.
There are three factors at work in this story that make it hard to be sure one way or the other.
1) I don't know who all of her sources are, but I do know people who have at least plausible access to parts of the truth. What she's hearing isn't too different from what I've heard. There have been so many false rumors about this story that it's hard to know what to take seriously, of course, and even well-sourced reports have proven not to hold water. Still, there's a lot of smoke -- it's not implausible to think that there could be some fire. At the least a formal investigation would clear the air.
2) I know this is a matter that has been under the close and personal supervision of that civilian leadership, which has provided the distorting effect in the other cases where military honor has lately fallen down. The idea that there is pressure from above to make this happen distorting military decision making is sadly not at all implausible in this environment. On the other hand, the particular officer most concerned is MG Miller, who is a serious guy. When he says -- and he has said this directly -- that there was no pressure from above him, I tend to think that's probably true. He's probably not an easy guy to press in any case. So was the pressure from below him? Or was it only in the minds of the instructors, who were imagining pressures from above that did not actually exist?
3) Finally, some of the responses against her -- not so much the PAO's response, which was staffed, but the swarming responses on social media -- have the feel of "community organizing." If there is a coordinated effort to suppress the story, there's a reason why people feel that it is important to suppress the story. If she were dead wrong, the thing to do as her opponent would be to get all the facts out and show how wrong she was. Of course, these reactions could be being made in ignorance of whether she is right or wrong. In that case, they might just be a white-cell response to try to shut up someone who is being critical of "progress."
I don't claim to know for certain what is going on here. I do think an investigation is not a bad idea. Journalists are supposed to press for the truth and not simply accept the claims of authority. It's good even for the military if they succeed, as a rule: the journalists who broke the story about ignoring Afghan child slavery are doing a service to all the men and women who were being pressured to accept the practice.
So we'll see how this shakes out. For the moment, I'm withholding judgment even on the probabilities of the truth pending further information.
The US military is an organization that has a vast treasury of honor from the sacrifices of its members in pursuit of human liberty and against totalitarianism. Unfortunately, of late, the leadership has been expending rather than adding to that treasury. The winking at child sex slavery by Afghan allies, going so far as to punish American servicemembers who stood up to it, is a moral disaster.
The distortion of intelligence to please their civilian bosses in the White House is less severe as a moral matter, but nevertheless represents a departure from the strict standards of honor that underlie victory at war. If you do not rigorously represent the truth to higher command in a military model, command decisions will depart more and more from the reality on the ground. Even in the best of cases, as explored by von Clausewitz, the fog of war distorts the ability of higher command to understand and act correctly to win victories on the ground. If you have not been faithful to your duty, but have allowed pleasing distortions into the intelligence, this will worsen. Honor is very much concerned in this story, and the honor of some ranking figures at US Central Command.
Still, the reserve is vast, even if lately the influence of the civilian commander has led many officers astray from the path of honor. Normally, as I said, if a military officer is challenged by a journalist, I'd assume the officer was in the right.
There are three factors at work in this story that make it hard to be sure one way or the other.
1) I don't know who all of her sources are, but I do know people who have at least plausible access to parts of the truth. What she's hearing isn't too different from what I've heard. There have been so many false rumors about this story that it's hard to know what to take seriously, of course, and even well-sourced reports have proven not to hold water. Still, there's a lot of smoke -- it's not implausible to think that there could be some fire. At the least a formal investigation would clear the air.
2) I know this is a matter that has been under the close and personal supervision of that civilian leadership, which has provided the distorting effect in the other cases where military honor has lately fallen down. The idea that there is pressure from above to make this happen distorting military decision making is sadly not at all implausible in this environment. On the other hand, the particular officer most concerned is MG Miller, who is a serious guy. When he says -- and he has said this directly -- that there was no pressure from above him, I tend to think that's probably true. He's probably not an easy guy to press in any case. So was the pressure from below him? Or was it only in the minds of the instructors, who were imagining pressures from above that did not actually exist?
3) Finally, some of the responses against her -- not so much the PAO's response, which was staffed, but the swarming responses on social media -- have the feel of "community organizing." If there is a coordinated effort to suppress the story, there's a reason why people feel that it is important to suppress the story. If she were dead wrong, the thing to do as her opponent would be to get all the facts out and show how wrong she was. Of course, these reactions could be being made in ignorance of whether she is right or wrong. In that case, they might just be a white-cell response to try to shut up someone who is being critical of "progress."
I don't claim to know for certain what is going on here. I do think an investigation is not a bad idea. Journalists are supposed to press for the truth and not simply accept the claims of authority. It's good even for the military if they succeed, as a rule: the journalists who broke the story about ignoring Afghan child slavery are doing a service to all the men and women who were being pressured to accept the practice.
So we'll see how this shakes out. For the moment, I'm withholding judgment even on the probabilities of the truth pending further information.
Important, if true...
That phrase has resonated with me since I first read it (on Cass' blog, if I recall correctly), because it prepares the field for an important point about the internet. We are bombarded with facts and factoids daily, some of which are accurate others... well, let's just say that they may be true, from a certain point of view (ala Obi Wan Kenobi). I.e. it's a lie. But if something we read ends up being true, then it can be very important. If it is untrue, then at best it's an object lesson about believing everything you read.
Systemic Change
Slate Star Codex warns against it, without committing to opposing it. The "system" in question is global capitalism.
It's an interesting and thoughtful post, as usual from this source. Less usual is that it is constructed in the form of a dialogue for large parts of the argument.
It's an interesting and thoughtful post, as usual from this source. Less usual is that it is constructed in the form of a dialogue for large parts of the argument.
Bob: I really do sympathize with you here, of course. It’s hard not to. But I also look back at history and am deeply troubled by what I see. In the 1920s, nearly all the educated, intelligent, evidence-based, pro-science, future-oriented people agreed: the USSR was amazing. Shaw, Wells, Webb. They all thought Stalin was great and we needed a global communist revolution so we could be more like him. If you and I had been alive back then, we’d be having this same conversation, but it would end with both of us agreeing to donate everything we had to the Bolsheviks.
Alice: Okay, so the smart people were wrong once. That doesn’t mean…
Bob: And eugenics.
Alice: Actually…
Bob: ಠ_ಠ
Alice: Fine then. For the sake of argument, the smart people were wrong twice. That still doesn’t…
Then They Shall Know That My Name Is...
An article wonders why we engage in punishment.
I think that the opposite is true. It is the beast who is most likely to forgo retribution. They will act not to revenge past harms, but to avoid fresh ones. They might kill you if they think you are still dangerous and sense a momentary advantage. They might just as readily avoid you to keep from presenting you with a chance to hurt them again. They will not feel any duty of honor to avenge themselves, or their families, nor to repay you for the wrongs you have done.
Retribution is a higher, not a lower quality. This is orthodox, is it not? Vengeance is the divine quality, not a bestial one. Human beings are urged to mercy and kindness toward their enemies not because it is irrational or animal to punish past wrongs, but because they are not high enough to do it well and justly. Be patient, return kindness for cruelty, and you will heap hot coals on their heads.
How fitting, then, that it was a Vicar who provided the author cited at the top of this post with his reasons. But this is not a purely Judeo-Christian view. The Ancient Greeks thought this too, those of them who were poets instead of philosophers. They also thought that vengeance and retribution were divine. Hesiod even tells you her name.
Traditionally, what reasons justify punishing wrongdoing, such as criminal behaviour?I quote this section in order to point out that this has not been the opinion of the enlightened only recently. Socrates is brought up against it by Protagoras:
(1) Retribution;
(2) Specific deterrence or incapacitation (i.e., deterring the wrongdoer);
(3) General deterrence (i.e., deterring third-parties);
(4) Rehabilitation; and,
(5) Restitution.
Modern intellectual discourse favours the latter 4 justifications. Retribution is seen by many criminologists as primitive, if not irrational. But may a society -- i.e., a society aiming to be a just or good society -- impose punishment absent some strong conception of retribution? I am not so sure. Here is why....
If you will think, Socrates, of the nature of punishment, you will see at once that in the opinion of mankind virtue may be acquired; no one punishes the evil-doer under the notion, or for the reason, that he has done wrong, only the unreasonable fury of a beast acts in that manner. But he who desires to inflict rational punishment does not retaliate for a past wrong which cannot be undone; he has regard to the future, and is desirous that the man who is punished, and he who sees him punished, may be deterred from doing wrong again. He punishes for the sake of prevention, thereby clearly implying that virtue is capable of being taught. This is the notion of all who retaliate upon others either privately or publicly.Rational punishment does not look to the past but to the future, Protagoras says. Indeed, since we cannot change the past, the only reason -- that is, the only kind of purpose to which rationality even might apply itself -- for punishment must be an eye toward the future. Deterrence is rational. Rehabilitation is rational. Mere retribution is bestial, so he argues.
I think that the opposite is true. It is the beast who is most likely to forgo retribution. They will act not to revenge past harms, but to avoid fresh ones. They might kill you if they think you are still dangerous and sense a momentary advantage. They might just as readily avoid you to keep from presenting you with a chance to hurt them again. They will not feel any duty of honor to avenge themselves, or their families, nor to repay you for the wrongs you have done.
Retribution is a higher, not a lower quality. This is orthodox, is it not? Vengeance is the divine quality, not a bestial one. Human beings are urged to mercy and kindness toward their enemies not because it is irrational or animal to punish past wrongs, but because they are not high enough to do it well and justly. Be patient, return kindness for cruelty, and you will heap hot coals on their heads.
How fitting, then, that it was a Vicar who provided the author cited at the top of this post with his reasons. But this is not a purely Judeo-Christian view. The Ancient Greeks thought this too, those of them who were poets instead of philosophers. They also thought that vengeance and retribution were divine. Hesiod even tells you her name.
Always With The Euphemisms
If a group calls itself the "Military Religious Freedom Foundation," what do you suppose their cause is?
Right. Their cause is making sure no one in the military is free to express religion, outside of a designated chapel.
John Derbyshire noticed this trend in deceptive names for radical policy organizations way back in 2003.
Right. Their cause is making sure no one in the military is free to express religion, outside of a designated chapel.
John Derbyshire noticed this trend in deceptive names for radical policy organizations way back in 2003.
The Santorum business brought to the fore an outfit called "The Human Rights Campaign." You would never know from its name that this is a homosexualist lobbying organization. I have no problem with HRC's existence — homosexuals have as much right to organize and lobby as the rest of us — but I do have a problem with that name — viz., it's dishonest. The name of an organization ought to give some clue as to what the organization is for. Why don't they call themselves "The Homosexual Rights Campaign," or "The Campaign for Tolerance of Alternative Sexuality," or something like that? If they want to be a little more in-your-face, they could go for something with a defiant or humorous twist: "The Sodomite Sodality," perhaps. Don't they understand that this straining at bland respectability just makes them look shifty?Of course, in the ensuing twelve years, the Human Rights Campaign went on to win everything their hearts desired -- while John Derbyshire was exiled to the outer darkness, precisely for being direct and honest about his more radical views.
Readers, I have decided to launch a movement for the legalization of dog meat as a marketable foodstuff. My movement will be named: "The Campaign for Truth, Justice, Harmony and Peace." Everyone OK with that?
Cheeky nandos
I stumbled today on a word-junky blog some of you might enjoy. The author's primary interest is difference in usage between Great Britain and the U.S., explored in two ways made possible by the Internet: comments from geographically distributed English speakers, and the Google tool that allows us to make charts of the usage of a word or phrase over time, contrasting the ".us" with the ".gb" style.
The Ghost Army
Sun Tzu tells us that all warfare is based on deception. During WWII, the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops were a unit of artists, set designers, and regular guys who used inflatable tanks, vehicles, and artillery; recordings played over loudspeakers; and other means to simulate US units and deceive the German army during operations from Normandy to the Rhine. While it was serious business, they seem to have had some fun doing it, too.
The Ghost Army is an hour-long documentary that tells their story. It uses film footage, interviews with some of the veterans of the unit, and a number of sketches and paintings done by the artists during their service. It's pretty good, if you're into WWII documentaries.
The Ghost Army is an hour-long documentary that tells their story. It uses film footage, interviews with some of the veterans of the unit, and a number of sketches and paintings done by the artists during their service. It's pretty good, if you're into WWII documentaries.
I'll Take You To the Wars, Love
AVI has produced a remarkable resource. The site collects traditional folk songs and ballads from Gloucestershire. It's just the sort of thing to warm the heart. Here is one -- you can listen by clicking on the player on the right side of the screen -- based around a man who wants to bring his pregnant wife along to the wars he's going to fight in "High Germany." It's 18th century, and the notes indicate that nobody's really sure just which of the several wars near the period were meant to be indicated by the song.
Well, we may see such a time ourselves, and not in the too distant future. Fortify yourselves with song.
Well, we may see such a time ourselves, and not in the too distant future. Fortify yourselves with song.
Tomorrow's Headlines Today
Top Army leaders have ordered its elite Special Forces unit to change its motto from the Latin “De Opresso Liber” (To liberate the oppressed) to something that would be more culturally sensitive, after a large number Afghans holding child sex slaves have complained.By now, you know the source.
“We want to make sure we are not offending our coalition partners and not judging them based on our own biases,” said Col. Dwight S. Barry, a Pentagon spokesperson.
Cosmopolitan Was Once a Literary Magazine
Apparently! And suddenly, I have a new appreciation for the popularity of Hemingway.
The real story is about the dangers to a man of loving two women at the same time. It is, and perhaps it really must be, a tragic story. F. Scott Fitzgerald proves to be the wise man of the tale. He understood what was going on right at once, and tried to guide his friend in the right way. He was up against an at-least equal and opposite power, though, in one of the women who loved Hemingway.
It was on the morning of January 25, 1954, that word flashed around the world that Ernest and Mary had been killed in a plane crash in dense jungle near Murchison Falls in Uganda, setting off universal mourning and obituaries. But news of the tragedy was soon superseded by a report that Ernest had suddenly, miraculously, emerged from the jungle at Butiaba carrying a bunch of bananas and a bottle of Gordon’s gin.All right, that makes sense to me. I've read a lot of his work over the years, most recently The Old Man and the Sea, and I've always liked it as far as it goes. What I hadn't understood before was his rock star image. But that -- and what follows -- makes sense of it.
The real story is about the dangers to a man of loving two women at the same time. It is, and perhaps it really must be, a tragic story. F. Scott Fitzgerald proves to be the wise man of the tale. He understood what was going on right at once, and tried to guide his friend in the right way. He was up against an at-least equal and opposite power, though, in one of the women who loved Hemingway.
The Pope's Visit
I've always liked Pope Francis. What I like about him, above all, is that he gets out of his security and walks among the people. He's ready to die every day. That's what I look for in a man of God: if he really is what he is supposed to be, he ought to be ready to die at any moment. I don't doubt that God loves Pope Francis for this reason alone, without regard to anything he believes. That is living faith.
For that reason, I don't care especially about the particulars of his statements. Gosh, a lot of people obviously do. I think they're missing the point. Human knowledge is always limited. There are a few points of theology Francis can state that are obviously firmly binding on Catholics. The teaching on abortion is one of these. But they aren't binding because he believes it, or because he says it. They're binding because standing behind him is a massive weight of authority. No one man, Pope or otherwise, can alter it in more than the slightest degree.
Why is that? The Church is the largest religious organization on Earth, with just about 1.2 billion members. That is not binding. To appeal to that would be an ad populum fallacy, an appeal to the popular. What is going on with the Church's authority is something more. The Church does not think it represents 1.2 billion people. The Church thinks it represents all of the members gone before those 1.2 billion into the grave. It takes seriously the proposition that it must remain in fellowship with the dead, because it expects to meet them again -- perhaps tomorrow afternoon.
There is a huge power in that, even apart from the authority it draws from community with the divine. To hold the human family together not just across space or culture but across time, that requires speaking and thinking with the greatest care. When the Church speaks as a whole, it speaks with some thought to the Pope (2015), to St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), St. Augustine (354-430), with Jesus who defines the calendar, with the prophets of old who came before. It considers the writings of fairly ordinary men, even, such as Tobias of one of the books taken as apocryphal and in any case written by a fairly ordinary person of his age.
Nothing like it exists. Certainly no greater human organization than it exists. We can imagine a similar organization that somehow embraced the whole of the human traditions of wisdom, from Hinduism and Judaism to Buddhism and Christianity. But there is no such organization, nor could one be constructed now. The Church is as powerful an organization of humanity as has ever been built, whatever you think of its claims of connection to the divine.
Of course it doesn't agree in all its specifics with anyone. It pursues a greater agreement with everyone.
It is good to see the Congress pause and consider. It will do whatever it wants, of course. So does everyone else. But the wise pause. The wise consider.
For that reason, I don't care especially about the particulars of his statements. Gosh, a lot of people obviously do. I think they're missing the point. Human knowledge is always limited. There are a few points of theology Francis can state that are obviously firmly binding on Catholics. The teaching on abortion is one of these. But they aren't binding because he believes it, or because he says it. They're binding because standing behind him is a massive weight of authority. No one man, Pope or otherwise, can alter it in more than the slightest degree.
Why is that? The Church is the largest religious organization on Earth, with just about 1.2 billion members. That is not binding. To appeal to that would be an ad populum fallacy, an appeal to the popular. What is going on with the Church's authority is something more. The Church does not think it represents 1.2 billion people. The Church thinks it represents all of the members gone before those 1.2 billion into the grave. It takes seriously the proposition that it must remain in fellowship with the dead, because it expects to meet them again -- perhaps tomorrow afternoon.
There is a huge power in that, even apart from the authority it draws from community with the divine. To hold the human family together not just across space or culture but across time, that requires speaking and thinking with the greatest care. When the Church speaks as a whole, it speaks with some thought to the Pope (2015), to St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), St. Augustine (354-430), with Jesus who defines the calendar, with the prophets of old who came before. It considers the writings of fairly ordinary men, even, such as Tobias of one of the books taken as apocryphal and in any case written by a fairly ordinary person of his age.
Nothing like it exists. Certainly no greater human organization than it exists. We can imagine a similar organization that somehow embraced the whole of the human traditions of wisdom, from Hinduism and Judaism to Buddhism and Christianity. But there is no such organization, nor could one be constructed now. The Church is as powerful an organization of humanity as has ever been built, whatever you think of its claims of connection to the divine.
Of course it doesn't agree in all its specifics with anyone. It pursues a greater agreement with everyone.
It is good to see the Congress pause and consider. It will do whatever it wants, of course. So does everyone else. But the wise pause. The wise consider.
Kenny Rogers
I see that one of the last remaining greats of country music has announced his retirement today. He was never one of my very favorite singers, even at the top of his career, but my mother adored his singing.
Here is a song of his that remains relevant.
Here is a song of his that remains relevant.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)