| « | Laughter is Invaluable |
»
|
|
Friday, December 21, 2007
Laughter And Tears
Fran here. This will be my last column for a while, as I have a novel to complete and the holidays to endure -- no, don't ask -- and it's likely to be a bit of a ramble, so please bear with me.
I'm tired. Very tired indeed. At my age, given my responsibilities and involvements, I expect to be tired some of the time, but lately it's taken everything I've got just to get out of bed. What's worn me thin is a combination of many things, most prominently the incomprehensible tolerance the majority of us grant to persons who deserve to be exiled to Severnaya Zemlaya or the South Shetland Islands, as they prefer.
Such persons come in several flavors, of course. We have the legionaries of the Omnipotent State, the coercive moralists, the anti-capitalist progressives, the Gaia-worshippers of "global warming," the militant Muslims, et cetera ad nauseam infinitam. They're all out there, and they're busier than Santa's elves.
These...persons are united around a common goal: power. They have a target upon which they plan to use it: you and me. The fulfillment of their fantasies would put an end to any semblance of human freedom. Some of them know it, and some are in denial, but their state of awareness isn't the critical point; the foreseeable end of their machinations is.
They're at work twenty-four hours a day. In shifts, of course. But there's never a time when some subset of them isn't actively scheming and maneuvering for power over us. Power over us is the one and only thing that will satisfy them.
They talk a lot about "crises" and "the common good," but the precise meaning of these terms is always strangely elusive. They refuse to debate; that would lower them to the estate of their adversaries, whom they deem morally and intellectually inferior. Rather, they simply demand that we uncritically accept their contentions: "the science is settled;" "a firm consensus has emerged;" "no honest man could differ." Yet they seldom provide objective evidence for their contentions, and when challenged with evidence to the contrary, they strain to have it excluded from consideration.
Whatever their pet Cause, even if they have none, they are consistent -- and insistent -- in their demands that we who prize freedom shut up and accept the fetters they've forged for us. They have no intention of accepting defeat. Their right to dictate to the rest of us is an article of faith. When they win, it's "the will of the people;" when they lose, they invariably claim that the victor must have cheated.
It takes one hundred percent of my concentration and good will not to tee off on them in a fashion that would send James Wolcott screaming for his mommy.
You see, I'm angry at the desire of such persons to shackle me. Anger is useful, but it's also wearying. Anger carried about in a pouch of inescapable constraint is doubly so. But my moral standards demand that I "fight fair," and not indulge in scurrilities as power-seekers so readily do.
I'm so very tired.
The above might seem at odds with the persona for which I'm known. Here at Eternity Road, I strive to present an appearance of resilience and resolve. Those who know me at "close range" think I'm indefatigable, and remorselessly good-humored. I crack a lot of jokes; indeed, I do so at every opportunity. But these are in great part defensive measures, consciously adopted. I "act as if" quite a lot of the time; that is, "as if" we who prize freedom are secure in its blessings, "as if" all were well with the world, and "as if" we have nothing of great significance threatening us and can look forward with confidence.
These suppositions are false-to-fact. There are many things to fear. They're battering at our gates as we speak. But one cannot dwell on such things without being wearied even further by them, so I put on the best "face" I can, as much of the time as I can.
It helps. It helps me -- "acting as if" is a proven tactic for elevating one's mood and buttressing one's determination to soldier on -- but it also helps those around me: Hey, if he can smile and joke his way through all this, why can't we? It's somewhere between a self-administered therapy and a public duty. Perhaps it helps someone even more sorely tried resist the urge to pull the sniper rifle out of the gun case, climb to the roof of a nearby office tower, and do some pro-social "thinning of the herd."
But no one, not even a case-hardened Curmudgeon Emeritus, can "act as if" every moment of every day. Reality is relentless; it doesn't go away simply because you've resolved to ignore it. They're out there, they're confident that they can wear us down, and unless they're defeated in some unimaginable, totally shattering fashion, they will not stop.
Americans probably thought the Left had been so defeated by the Reagan Revolution. It's a great part of why we loved Reagan so; he was our champion, and he prevailed on our behalf against his time's greatest threats to freedom and prosperity. But the Left and its topical allies don't accept any defeat as final; they merely fall back to Hell, regroup, and sally forth again. We barely held them off during the Clinton years -- it helped that our memories of the Reagan years were still fresh -- but we've lost ground since. The elections of 2008 are unclear at the moment, but if they should break badly, we'll lose more, and faster, in the years ahead.
The Communists came back in Nicaragua. They're coming back in Russia, though the ruling class no longer calls itself that. If such things are possible after the ruinous defeat the Soviets and Sandinistas suffered in the Eighties and Nineties, what isn't?
While you're pondering that, let's look at a few quite recent news items.
First, we have this, courtesy of the esteemed Misha:
Minn. man shoots cops after SWAT team kicks down wrong doorA Minneapolis police SWAT team kicked in the wrong door yesterday during an early morning raid, prompting the man of the house to grab his gun and open fire on the officers who entered the house.
"He took out his shotgun and he said if they are bad guys I'll shoot, I'll scare them away," Dao Khang, the brother of the homeowner, Vang Khang, tells the Star Tribune. "He fired first, he told me it was two shots."
Dao Khang says his brother was trying to protect his wife and six children. No one from the family was hit during the exchange of gunfire. Vang hit two officers, but the Pioneer Press says they were protected by ballistic vests and helmets.
"I must've heard over 20 or 30 shots, I swear, it was scary," Ruth Hayes, the family's next-door neighbor, tells WCCO-TV. "It was like 30 SWAT guys out here ... it was crazy it was just like havoc."
KARE-TV reports that Vang was detained at the scene and released a few hours later. Police say there may have been a "language barrier" between the residents and the officers.
"It was some bad information that was received on the front end that kind-of trickled all the way through," police Sgt. Jesse Garcia tells the station. "It's unfortunate because we have officers that were hit by gunfire and this truly, truly could have been a much worse situation."
Police haven't decided whether they'll try to charge Khang with a crime. KMSP-TV says the Khang family is consulting with a civil attorney.
Hm. Agents of the State, armed and armored, busted down a homeowner's door in the darkness. The homeowner quite reasonably assumed his homestead was under attack -- it was, wasn't it? -- and went for his shotgun. But who is it that the State is thinking of attacking through its "justice" system? The homeowner!
According to my copy of the Constitution of these United States, the Fourth Amendment reads thus:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
A "right of the people," in the language of the Framers, is absolute; it constrains all persons and all governments, regardless of their desires, interests, or intentions. This would seem to make what was done to the Khangs a felonious violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. It would seem to confirm Vang Khang's perfect right to defend his home and family with lethal violence against the myrmidons who broke down his door. Had he killed one of them, or had one of them killed him, it would seem, under felony murder statutes, to doom that entire SWAT team to life without parole at the least. It would seem to doom the perpetrators to long prison terms, and entitle the Khangs to damage compensation.
Any bets?
Next up, we have this, courtesy of the beauteous Pamela Geller Oshry:
New York's highest court has passed up an opportunity to protect American authors from the libel judgments of foreign courts. In a decision handed down yesterday, the Court of Appeals in Albany told a New York-based researcher that she could not use the courts here to challenge a British judgment ordering her to pay 30,000 British pounds — more than $60,000 — for defaming a Saudi billionaire.The case was a test of how New York's courts will respond to concerns that the First Amendment rights of American authors are undermined by libel judgments imposed abroad, especially in Britain.
Libel law in Britain is far more plaintiff-friendly than libel law in America. This discrepancy has given rise to a practice that critics call "libel tourism." In recent years, American authors and journalists have found themselves sued by non-British nationals in British courts over articles and books published in America.
The researcher, Rachel Ehrenfeld, had asked a court in New York to declare the British judgment against her unenforceable under the First Amendment.
But the Court of Appeals said a New York court first needed jurisdiction over the Saudi financier who brought the case, Khalid bin Mahfouz, before it could take up Ms. Ehrenfeld's countersuit. The court found that Mr. Mahfouz had so few dealings involving New York that no local court had jurisdiction over a suit against him....
A lawyer in Boston who has written on the case, Harvey Silverglate, said: "The New York Court of Appeals could have done a better job of protecting our constitutional rights than it did here with this rather technical opinion."
At issue is Ms. Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed — and How to Stop It," in which she accuses Mr. Mahfouz of backing organizations with alleged ties to terrorism. Mr. Mahfouz denies the accusation, and he sued Ms. Ehrenfeld and other researchers who have made similar allegations against him in court in London. Ms. Ehrenfeld's work has appeared in many publications, including The New York Sun.
Mind you, the New York State Court of Appeals could have affirmed another technical aspect of jurisdiction: the lack of jurisdiction of a British court over an American author and her American publisher. That was what Mrs. Ehrenfeld sought, nor would it have required any claim of jurisdiction over Mr. Mahfouz to sustain it. But one can no longer expect an American court to uphold the rights of a defendant against a politically correct plaintiff. At least, it's against the odds.
American jurists flatter themselves, habitually and perpetually, about how important they are as guardians of individual rights. A Supreme Court decision in the early Seventies hailed the courts as "citadels of liberty" and "palladiums of justice." Yet when called upon to exercise their barest function -- shielding an American, operating on American soil and within the protections of American law, from the rapacity of a foreign court -- they opt out.
Is this a "citadel of liberty?" Isn't such "protection" about as useful as a bull's nipples? Doesn't it approach being an alliance with freedom's despoilers? Can we trust such a "citadel" to protect us from domestic despoilers such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and so on?
Of course, Mrs. Ehrenfeld could make this a federal case. Indeed, it would be appropriate, as her attacker is outside the borders of these United States. But are the odds any better that the "progressive"-ridden federal courts would issue a verdict that conforms to fundamental principles of American law and the duties of American governments? Is it not likely that Mrs. Ehrenfeld would spend far more seeking such a verdict than the amount of the fine the British court seeks to levy -- and would be entirely uncertain of obtaining one?
Third and last for the moment, we have this, courtesy of one of Australia's very best bloggers, the invaluable Jack Lacton of Kerplunk:
The complete, and ongoing, demolition of climate science by highly qualified, internationally renowned scientists really means that the science part of the Climate Faithful's argument has been crushed.During 2007 the US Senate Committee on Environment received input from more than 400 scientists from all over the world disputing the proposition that the warming we're experiencing is anthropogenic in origin.
Are all of these scientists working for Big Oil? Do they all dispute that cigarettes cause cancer? Do they believe that the earth is flat?
It's not very likely, is it?
So where do these opinions come from? Here's a list of countries: Israel, Spain, Russia, the Netherlands, Brazil, France, Norway, Finland, Germany, Canada, the Czech Republic, India, USA, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa, Poland, Australia, Britain, China, Denmark, Belgium and Sweden.
Here are some of the best of the comments from these scientists:
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
The most cynical of the comments comes from the Czech Republic:
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.As the article points out, only 52 scientists participated in the IPCC summary. These are highly politicised people who are completely in lock-step with the IPCC's political agenda.
On the other hand, Big Green's attempts to link Climate Blasphemers to Big Oil etc is specious at best and dishonest at worst.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” ( LINK ) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.
No wonder nobody was keen to actually make any progress in Bali...
This would seem at first blush to be very hopeful news for those of us who feared that the Climate Change Contingent would roll over what remains of our economic liberties. Of course, not everyone regards it as good news:
The Bali Climate Change Conference finished in a flurry of press releases and emotion with the US apparently "bowing" to international pressure and "forced to make a U-turn" and join an international consensus.A picture-perfect Hollywood ending - all we need is a wide angle final shot with all the stars looking appropriately weary but heroic then roll end credits to an uplifting John Williams' composed film score.
A closer look however reveals that this is more of a disaster movie than a feel-good flick.
The Bali conference was a chance for policymakers from more than 180 countries to produce the "son of Kyoto" - an international agreement on what cuts in greenhouse emissions were required, which countries needed to make them and what the deadline should be.
What the world wanted was a solid, detailed road-map for a future climate change deal - what we got appears more like a fluffy, Zen influenced "it's not the destination but the journey", back-of-an-envelope sketch of the world's response to climate change. There were no firm pollution reduction targets (vetoed by the US) and no solid figures for emission reduction goals (again vetoed by the US).
Despite tears, tantrums and tetchiness, the US negotiating team led by the unyielding harridan Paula Dobriansky systematically sliced off any meaningful targets from the final document. The "US back-down" crowed about in the press was not a U-turn but more a lap of honour by a victorious US negotiating team.
More worryingly the US government has indicated since the end of the conference that it has "serious concerns" about even this emasculated document.
Some may say that it is difficult for so many countries to reach any sort of consensus. I would suggest they look to the multinational consensus agreed within a matter of days by leading central banks to lend a total of £54 billion to prop up western economies. It seems that if the motivation is right, agreement can be reached very quickly.
With this intransigence over the environment, the US seems to be holding a full house of cards in terms of spreading discord and disaster throughout the world. Wherever one looks one discerns the creeping hand of the world's last superpower meddling and intruding with other countries for its own corrupt ends.
From the disaster that is Iraq, to the fuelling of coups against democratically elected governments in several South American countries as well as Palestine and Algeria, to the propping up of a crude motley crew of despots and dictators throughout the world, to the scandalous kidnappings of private citizens to languish in Guantanamo Bay, the list seems endless.
Now the US can proudly add that as the world's leading producer of carbon emissions (as well as the world's most recalcitrant defender of pollution) it has a starring role in producing a world wide environmental catastrophe.
US politicians and philosophers often wax lyrical about their country being a global force for good, however their actions show that their motto should perhaps change from "in God we trust" to "for self-interest we strive".
I find myself increasingly agreeing with the wit who said that "America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilisation in between".
I particularly like that "What the world wanted" business. Determined how? By plebiscite? By the votes of national legislatures? Did someone conduct a telephone survey, or mail out six billion questionnaires? What "the world wants," if we adopt the more reasonable interpretation "what ordinary people the world around want," is the same as what the typical American wants: security, prosperity, and the right to be left alone to enjoy those things. But with the supposedly firm "consensus" on anthropogenic global warming decisively shattered, the Climate Change Contingent must represent itself as the voice of the voiceless, or it has no standing at all.
As for the rest, such luridly, risibly discursive America-bashing cant is to be expected from someone who writes for "UmmahPulse," a solidly anti-American publication run by militant British Muslims. These are people who learned their hatred of the Great Satan before they were toilet-trained. What one doesn't expect is for the President of these United States to adopt their positions in whole or in part -- yet President Bush has explicitly endorsed the notion that "global warming" is a genuine threat that belongs in the public-policy sphere. He may be hanging back from the notion of coercive controls on CO2 emissions for now, but he's already conceded the most important part of the debate: the core principle. When your opponent has yielded on principle, what follows is merely a mopping-up; you can be confident of eventual victory.
Bush the Second once impressed me with his grasp of fundamental principles. Today he's traveling the path marked out by his father, who made "no net loss of wetlands" a campaign promise: one he honored, in contrast with his "no new taxes" pledge that was largely responsible for solidifying previously tepid Republican support and getting him elected. He also argues that Wahhabist Saudi Arabia is a staunch ally, that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, who has declared his intention to point nuclear IRBMs at American anti-missile bases in Europe, is a man Americans can trust -- shades of FDR! -- and that Israel should concede the Palestinian irredentists, who persist in attacking the Israelis by any expedient means and openly proclaim the destruction of Israel as their unalterable aim, the status and prestige of a recognized, sovereign state.
There are times when "go figure" isn't much of an anodyne.
They're out there, and they're pressing as hard as they can, and if my assessment of freedom lovers' fortitude and perseverance is at all accurate, they're driving us backward. We're not cornered yet, but we mustn't delude ourselves; the point of no return is drawing near.
What have we been doing, other than carping to one another? I'll allow that, short of a second American Revolution, there isn't a lot we can do except to talk, write, lobby, and otherwise represent our own interests and point of view. But I'm beginning to think that the power structures of our nation have turned against us -- that they've tacitly leagued with the forces of darkness outside our borders. If that's the case, no amount of talk will hold back the night for long, much less cleanse our polity of the wounds it already bears. We'll either have to fight -- really, with real weapons, real, lasting terror, and real, copious bloodshed -- or accept bondage.
I won't speak for the rest of you, but I'm getting to be a mite too old for that sort of crap. Even if I weren't, revolutions tend to have perverse results:
Those who have seized power, even for the noblest of motives, soon persuade themselves that there are good reasons for not relinquishing it. This is particularly likely to happen if they believe themselves to represent some immensely important cause. They will feel that their opponents are ignorant and perverse; before long they will come to hate them.... The important thing is to keep their power, not to use it as a means to an eventual paradise. And so what were means become ends, and the original ends are forgotten except on Sundays. [Bertrand Russell]
So we go on. We keep talking. We can't get far talking with our adversaries; the power-lusters cannot be reformed, and you simply can't argue with the "true believers" about the articles of their faith. We have to be satisfied with marginal gains, by reaching folks in the uncommitted middle, a few at a time. We have to persuade them to see the threats we see. That's a tricky proposition, for in the preponderance of cases, when Smith attempts to get Jones to feel fear, the proper focus of Jones's fears is Smith himself. Most people know this intuitively.
Do you begin to see why I'm so tired?
Despite all of that. I laugh as often as I can. It's medicine for the soul. Anyway, I could be wrong, and what would be more laughter-appropriate than discovering that my darkest fears, for myself, my progeny, and my country were wholly illusory the whole time? So some of those laughs are "in escrow" should the need arise.
But I don't think I'm wrong. I've been watching for too long. The trails are too distinct, and they all lead in the same direction, toward the same end.
Apologies, Gentle Reader. (If you don't yet know who that is, see The Lexicon in the right sidebar.) I truly don't mean to depress or discourage you. If anything, I'd like to energize you. Especially at this time of year, with the commemoration of the Incarnation at hand, despair is inappropriate to one who believes in freedom, justice, and the sanctity of human life and the human soul. But this had to come out; it's been festering for too long.
Merry Christmas to you all. May all the joys of this most joyous of seasons be yours. I'll be back in a few days...hopefully in a brighter mood.
Comments
I fully understand your situation, and I agree. The thing is, this is not the time to throw the towel.
Posted by Fausta on 12/21/2007 at 12:48 PMWow. Long post for someone who has a tough time getting out of bed. But then again, I’m tired too, so I didn’t bother to read past the first few paragraphs.
Get some rest these holidays--if you can.
Posted by Liquid Egg Product on 12/21/2007 at 04:57 PMHappy Christmas to you too Mr.Porretto. And heartfelt thanks for being an inspiration to do better.
I believe the fight is all but lost, but the important thing is to fight the forces of darkness regardless of the outcome.
Otherwise, what are we here for?
I have a vivid memory of sitting in a wrecked building in Africa after a firefight lasting hours, and asking my two surviving brothers in arms if they knew what the hell we were fighting for. Long silence, then one of them replied.."it’s what we do”.
It’s what we do.Posted by Keith on 12/21/2007 at 05:27 PMFran,
I don’t know if it helps but your blog is one of the reasons I turn on the computer in the morning. That and my e-mail.
I know that worrying is hard but take heart in the people that enjoy reading your words. The ones that feel solace knowing that there’s this really smart guy in the Blogosphere that wields a laser-like logical mind and a vorpal wit.
My prayers are with you and I hope you have a Merry Christmas.
Posted by Jim Sullivan on 12/21/2007 at 05:32 PM
MARRY CHRISTMAS!
Posted by on 12/21/2007 at 10:18 PMHey, Fran… I can empathize very much with how you’re feeling, because it gets to me, too. But, remember, since you “do” religion (as you said on my friend Raven’s blog) remember this:
Have you not known?
Have you not heard?
The everlasting God, the LORD,
The Creator of the ends of the earth,
Neither faints nor is weary.
His understanding is unsearchable.
He gives power to the weak,
And to those who have no might He increases strength.
Even the youths shall faint and be weary,
And the young men shall utterly fall,
But those who wait on the LORD
Shall renew their strength;
They shall mount up with wings like eagles,
They shall run and not be weary,
They shall walk and not faint.Take some time out with God, and come back refreshed and renewed. After all, we’ve read the Book - we know how it ends!
So, do not become weary doing good, and have a blessed Christmas!--- Kat
Posted by Kat on 12/22/2007 at 09:07 AMI can understand where you are coming from Fran, although I doubt I could ever put it as eloquently as you do. It seems to me that this is the normal state of human affairs: a constant fight between those who want to control their fellow man, and those who want to be left the heck alone. It will likely continue as long as there are human beings alive. History shows that the only real solution for the libertarians is to occasionally pick up stakes and move to less encumbering climes, at which point the cycle begins again. But these days there is nowhere on this planet for anyone to go, which is why I hope with every neuron that the High Frontier will be opened sooner rather than later. But in the meantime, it falls on us to fight a rear-guard action in order to buy enough time for folks like XCOR and Scaled Composites and Armadillo Aerospace and all the others to get us off the ground.
Posted by on 12/22/2007 at 03:58 PMAlex,
If and when the concept you envision becomes practicable it will only offer surcease to a small remnant who will in all likelihood be carrying the seeds which will begin the cycle anew.
“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
Robert Heinlein
Meanwhile; ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on 12/22/2007 at 05:08 PMMerry Christmas and warm wishes from downunder to all at Eternity Road
Mr George Pell described this time of year
(Jesus’s birth) as - helplessness & hope.We can only hope and have faith..
Posted by 10men on 12/23/2007 at 02:06 AMΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ, I agree with your summary. It is likely impossible to free all human beings, because for it to be effective they must first want to be free and then actually free themselves. The best we can hope for (in my opinion) is to stave off the collectivists long enough for a fraction to escape, and for a while build something grand. But, inevitably, as time goes by and generations pass, the imperative impulse reasserts itself and slowly starts to increment into power by the sort of ratcheting mechanisms we have lamented on this very site. And then another fraction can hopefully escape before the end and start again.
Perhaps in some far distant future the impulse to assert dominance over one’s fellow man can be weeded out of our species—hopefully without a cost that exceeds the gain.
Posted by on 12/23/2007 at 04:33 PMMr. Porretto,
I can only offer the words of G. K. Chesterton, “Ballad of the White Horse”:
“ “But you and all the kind of Christ
Are ignorant and brave,
And you have wars you hardly win
And souls you hardly save.
“I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.
“Night shall be thrice night over you,
And heaven an iron cope.
Do you have joy without a cause,
Yea, faith without a hope?” “Merry Christmas to you and yours
Posted by on 12/25/2007 at 09:46 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
