If you give out of guilt, don’t call it generosity. It’s emotional leakage. No wonder you feel used, resentful, and drained. Torah already warns: give without a grudging heart. (Deuteronomy 15:10) Because giving from guilt isn't giving, it's pain management!
Trauma is isolation, so you don't really need anything to happen to be traumatized. The first time God said something wasn't good was about being alone.
Small people deal with small problems. A person is sized by the size of his problems. Enhance your problems and you will grow....
Never aspire to be the only one winning. The path to wealth runs through partnerships and relationships. When others benefit from your success you'll benefit from theirs. It's a unstoppable chain reaction!
You won’t find Von Goom’s Gambit in any of the books on chess openings. Ludvik Pachman’s Moderne Schachtheorie simply ignores it. Paul Keres’ authoritative work Teoria Debiutow Szachowych mentions it only in passing in a footnote on page 239, advising the reader never to try it under any circumstances and makes sure the advice is followed by giving no further information. Dr. Max Euwe’s Archives lists the gambit in the index under the initials V. G. (Gambit), but fortunately gives no page number. The twenty-volume Chess Encyclopedia (fourth edition) states that Von Goom is a myth and classifies him with werewolves and vampires. His Gambit is not mentioned. Vassily Nikolayevitch Kryllov heartily recommends Von Goom’s Gambit in the English edition of his book, Russian Theory of the Opening; the Russian edition makes no mention of it. Fortunately Kryllov himself did not--and does not yet--know, the moves, so he did not recommend them to his American readers. If he had, the cold war would be finished. In fact, America would be finished, and possibly the world....I remember the story as being of an ordinary length for a short story and am amazed to find that it's only a few pages long.
How did we get to this strange passage? Even the Babylon Bee is making fun of the Pope now.
My guess is that it started with the Pope meeting with Obama adviser David Axlerod. Officially the narrative reverses that and claims that the Pope met with Axelrod after nameless Pentagon officials threatened his ambassador to the United States by invoking the Avignon Papacy, but that seems so much like an Obama-era Ben Rhodes sort of scam story that I assume it is an information operation. Probably, anyway; at least one Trump appointee at the Pentagon is enough of a history buff to have a Jerusalem Cross tattoo, a symbol of the Crusades because it was* the flag of the Kingdom of Jerusalem; and the same French king who kidnapped the Pope destroyed the Knights Templar, that most famous of Crusader orders. So maybe it happened like it's being reported in the press; but it's noteworthy that there are no names at all attributed to the threat, and nobody has stepped up to claim it. The Trump administration is not shy about making threats, after all.
The Pope had earlier condemned the war with Iran, but Popes do that sort of thing. Calling for peace is part of the job. Then this alleged meeting supposedly happened, an arcane historical reference was allegedly made by a Trump appointee, and the Vatican allegedly interpreted it as a threat. Then three Cardinals of Archdioceses that happen to also be Democratic Party strongholds -- including Chicago, where the Pope is from himself -- appeared on 60 Minutes, a show that has regularly featured media attempts to known down Republican or prop up Democratic Party figures.
The President having no lack of stomach for publicity fights decided to lash out at the Pope; the Pope, for reasons best known to himself, decided to go on a "Catholics are in Communion with Islam" tour and (people also note that he apparently opened a Muslim prayer room inside the Vatican last November); and then Trump decided to post an image of himself dressed in a costume traditionally associated with Jesus, or with Tarot Cards, while performing a 'laying on hands' healing like Aragorn or a Dungeons & Dragons Paladin. The President of Iran praised the Pope and condemned the President. All this led to a spirited debate about whether Trump or the Pope was actually the Antichrist and apparent Iranian agent Tucker Carlson decided to join in, as did Democratic funnyman John Stewart.
The last, at least, also fits in with a Team Obama information Operation. The general chaos fits in with a Team Trump Standard Operating Procedure.
Like a good Stoic, I recognize that I can't actually fix any of this or even much affect it; so I'm just trying to enjoy the wild ride. What else can you do?
* The flag is still flown in Jerusalem; I have one I brought back with me. The flag flown today is red-on-white, (argent, a Jerusalem Cross gules) rather than the gold-on-white (argent, a Jerusalem Cross or) that the Crusader Kingdom is said to have used. Those familiar with the laws of heraldry will recognize that the gold-on-white violates the Rule of Tincture. Gold/yellow and Silver/white are both 'metals,' and it's normally forbidden to place a metal on another metal. The red-and-white flag is flown by the Church in the Christian Quarter of the Old City; the Order of St. Francis, I believe, has the charge of that quarter.
Asylum seekers entering legally fell 99.9 percent.... Refugees entering legally from abroad fell by about 90 percent.... Immigrant visas for legal permanent residents fell by about half.... H‑1B visas have likely fallen by about 25 percent.... Legal entry cuts are now likely 2.5 times higher than illegal entries....It is not about stopping “illegal” immigration. It is a broader assault on all types of immigration. As Americans debate the path forward on immigration, that’s a reality everyone should understand.
A theology which denies the historicity of nearly everything in the Gospels to which Christian life and affections and thought have been fastened for nearly two millennia—-which either denies the miraculous altogether or, more strangely, after swallowing the camel of the Resurrection strains at such gnats as the feeding of the multitudes—-if offered to the uneducated man can produce only one or other of two effects. It will make him a Roman Catholic or an atheist. What you offer him he will not recognize as Christianity. If he holds to what he calls Christianity he will leave a Church in which it is no longer taught and look for one where it is. If he agrees with your version he will no longer call himself a Christian and no longer come to church.
Police arrested a [Yale alumnus] on Monday morning after he was allegedly seen entering a Tesla repair shop in Berkeley while naked and armed with a shotgun, officials said.Impressive for a Yalie, maybe, but it doesn't hold a candle to immortal Florida Woman:
A Florida woman was arrested for riding a unicycle through a Walmart while juggling live crabs and drinking a margarita from a pitcher.Honeslty, I'm not at all sure that one really happened, but the comments are great.It's good to know that some people still know how to be the life of the party.
"Wit" means "we two" in Old English, a Germanic language spoken in England until about the 12th Century, which evolved into the English we speak today. Now completely lost, "wit" was part of an extinct group of pronouns used for exactly two people: the dual form, which also includes "uncer" or "unker" ("our" for two people) and "git" ("you two"). That dual form vanished from the English language around the 13th Century....To illustrate the poetic power of the dual, Birkett gives the example of a love poem, known as Wulf and Eadwacer, that is over 1,000 years old. In the poem, a woman yearns for her lover, Wulf, who is separated from her because he was rejected by her clan. The last line reads, in a modern English translation:"One can easily split what was never united,the song of the two of us."In the Old English original, the words for "the song of the two of us" are "uncer giedd" – meaning "our song", but just for two people.
Part of a longer article from the BBC.
In 1931, a German publisher released a book titled “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein,” in which the great physicist’s fellow experts argued against his theory of relativity.“Why 100?” Albert Einstein reputedly responded. “If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
