Broken Benjamin
milhistorian
Has anyone ever thought about just how weird it was that, in the book of 1 Samuel, Saul becomes king of Israel?
Here's what I mean. Even those of us who've heard the story of how Saul became king--dude goes looking for his dad's donkeys, Samuel, who's been told by God to accede to the people's wishes for a king, finds him, tells him where the donkeys are, then anoints him king. (For further reading, see 1 Samuel 9-10)--just kind of accept it.

Thing is, the incident is bizarre. Here's why.

Flip back a bit in your Bibles to Judges 19-21. For those of you who either don't have one or don't feel like cheking the 'net or anything, here's what happens. Long story short, a Levite is threatened with en masse gang rape by the men of one of the cities of Benjamin. He throws his concubine out the door of the house, and the men of the city rape her to death. The land of Israel then arises in wrath and demands that Benjamin turn the men of the city over to them. Benjamin refuses and is effectively wiped out, and is only saved because everyone in Israel freaks out over the notion that one of the tribes is gone.

So, let's recap here. God himself tells Samuel the prophet to anoint as king a man of a tribe that is the least of Israel at the time because it was wiped out defending a city of gang rapists.

Does that seem weird to you? If you don't quite get it, let me put it this way: It's a little like John-Paul II anointing some schmuck from Bavaria Emperor of Europe some time in the '90s.

There's a few things to be learned from this:

1. There's a weird kind of disconnect between books of the Bible, especially once you get past the Torah. We take the whole "book" thing way too literally--the things are more accurately described as chapters in a book.

2. Just because a group messed up once doesn't mean it can't be brought back into the fold--indeed, it doesn't even mean that it can't lead.

3. The world changes.

'Til next time,

In Whose Image?
milhistorian
Having posted recently about bodies--twice--I have come to the conclusion that my positions on the matters previously discussed require some explanation--more specifically, the presupposition behind those positions.

Essentially, I believe that human beings are created in the image of God, unlike anything else in this world. At base, pretty much all of my positions, philosophies, opinions, and whatnot stem from this.

So, what does this mean, exactly?

First, human beings are more precious than any other form of life. Given the choice between killing a human or the last (insert animal here) , I'll kill the animal. However, that also means that the penalty for the murder of another human being must be death, for no other penalty will suffice. But care must be taken that an innocent man is not slain.

Second, because God is the maker of humanity, he gets to set the rules for humanity, and the parameters for how we interact with others and with Him. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. And when I say maker, I mean maker. That which we were created from, he made, and he was not made himself. This is true of no one who is not God, which means that no one who is not God can claim this right.

Thirdly, the previous two mean we should approach other people, and ourselves, with the idea that we are made in the image of God--the imago Dei. I fail miserably at this, because I treat people like they're mortal. We aren't. We are immortal--not eternal, mind. When the body dies, the soul lives on. What is done with and to that body, especially by its owner, marks the soul, but the soul is the immortal component.

This should not fill us with pride, that we are made in God's image. For man's origins are ultimately of dirt, given life by the breath of God.

This does mean that we are not to degrade ourselves or others, not even in jest or at play. This does mean that we are all--and I do mean all, not just the favored group of whatever time we are in--precious in the sight of God.

Fourthly, we must remember that this image is already marred and twisted by sin and the fall of man. That which was all good has been corrupted, and I mean this in the most ancient sense of the term. We are dead men walking. We don't know how to treat each other as we should anymore, but we can't be alone, for enough of what we were remains that we feel the need to be together--and those who don't have this are broken in their own way.

So we murder. We lie. We steal. We rape. We seduce. We tempt. We flaunt. We covet. We envy. We seek that which is other than the Creator. We seek ourselves and find our doom.

But fifthly, salvation is offered. The path has been given by which we can go from death to life, by the life and death and return of the Creator's Son, who is one with His Father and yet is not the Father.

Someday the image will be remade as the creation broken with it is, but for now, we walk in the darkness, seeking the light. Let us not mar the image of God more than we have, whether it be the one reflected in us or the one reflected within others.

Cultures forget this at their peril, for it is within the first failure to acknowledge the image of God that the seeds of their fall are planted.

'Til next time.

Covering Up
milhistorian
Fair warning for non-Christian readers: these are in-house matters, and will likely make very little sense to you.
Recently, I’ve noticed an uptick of activity in the blogosphere regarding the subject of modesty. As with all things within the Christian (or any) community regarding matters relating to sex and sexuality, the debate has been…heated.
There are two possible extremes to this debate. The first one can be referred to as the “burka option,” while the second can be referred to as the “nudist option.” Most of the debate, at least regarding women’s clothing, is along this continuum. Take note—I’ll be discussing male modesty shortly. Yes, apparently this is necessary, guys. I know, I was just as confused as you currently are when I was introduced to the notion that it was necessary.
But anyway. I won’t spend a lot of time on the first extreme because I haven’t really noticed anyone giving it as an option, largely because it seems fairly clear that your sin is your sin, and is not, technically, someone else’s fault. Maybe there are some dark corners of the internet or the backcountry where this is taught. I haven’t seen this.
Tendencies towards the second extreme, however, are something that I’ve noticed bandied about, and seriously at that. First, let me explain what I mean by the “nudist option.” This is the notion that, should a completely unclothed female person walk into a room full of Christian men, if there is a single prurient thought in the entire room as a result, that the girl bears no responsibility whatsoever, and that the men are merely perverts who aren’t sufficiently sanctified.
I’m not really exaggerating that much here. Thing is, some of this is a reaction to the first extreme, as well as the perceived immodesty of men. Some of it is also people caught up in the zeitgeist of the culture that says that men are to blame for everything.
Now, let me explain to you why this isn’t a good way to look at the situation. Let’s suppose that I went hiking one day. Now, whilst hiking, I come upon a tree across the trail. I sigh, look at it, then get around the obstacle either by going under it, over it, or around it—all of which are a bit of a pain.
As I go along, this happens again. And again. And again. Soon enough, I’m dealing with trees across the trail every hundred feet or so. However, I hear an axe up ahead, so I figure that I’ll find the miscreant doing this soon enough, and maybe get some answers out of him.
Well, when I round a bend in the trail, I find a forest ranger chopping down a tree in a way that is going to cause the tree to fall across the trail. At which point, I holler at the ranger “What are you doing?”
“Chopping down this tree.”
“Why are you blocking the trail?”
“Well, you hikers have had all your own way for far too long, just traipsing through the forest,” he says, as he gives the tree a final whack and steps out of the way so he doesn’t crushed as it falls, “and besides, chopping down trees makes me feel all ranger-y.”
“What the—do you have any idea how much frustration and inconvenience you’re causing people?”
“Well, those negative emotions and thoughts are your problem, aren’t they? It’s not my fault if you don’t have patience.” At which point, he takes his axe, places it on his shoulder, and walks away into the forest, whistling.
Now, regarding the complaints I’ve seen from women about men dressing immodestly, here’s what I have to say for a lot of us: Our apologies. We had no idea that this was a problem.
No, seriously. And here’s why: We were never told that this was a problem. Let me explain how my church, at any rate, told us guys how to keep girls from sinning in this area: A. Don’t try and get them into bed; B. Do as much as you can to keep them from getting too involved on an emotional level. That was it.
Before I went to college, I’d maybe heard once from a Christian source that girls could think pruriently. I’d heard such from other sources, but I’d almost never seen it acknowledged within the Christian community that women even so much as looked at porn. The first place I ever heard that observed within the Christian community? Last year at college.
Should I have figured it out based on other sources? Yeah, I should have. Are there those among my brethren who understood that this was a problem and decided to take advantage of it? Yeah, there are. Are we actually going to do something about it? We better. I’m not sure what yet.
However, and this is true for both parties, I am unaware of the passage that says that having a stumbling block put in front of you entitled you to do the same.
Now, doubtless there are those reading this who are saying “Why is my brother’s/sister’s weakness my problem?” To which I reply, please read 1 Corinthians 8—you know, the passage about meat sacrificed to idols. Because here’s the thing—there is nothing inherently wrong with walking about in the buff, or in whatever state of dress one chooses to be in. However, there are times, rather more often than not, when it is wrong to do so. The reason for this is that nudity has become associated with intimacy, most often of a sexual nature. That appearing in public in said state of undress can easily lead to lust should be apparent.
“Well, it doesn’t have to, does it?” I hear a voice say.
No, no it doesn’t. But you can step around or hop over an obstruction. The person who put it there is still wrong.
Now that I’ve spent a lot of time explaining myself about why we should care about this, there are probably people asking “Well, what do we do?”
Now, here’s what I’m not going to do. I’m not going to talk about one-piece vs. two-piece, tight vs. loose, or whatever the issue du jour is.
This is my recommendation: Think, guys and girls. Consider, before you go out in public, if what you are wearing encourages others to think of you as a sex object rather than a human being.
Now, I know that there are going to be immediate complaints about perverts. See above for why that’s not a justification. Just put yourself in the head of an average person—and actually devote some effort to thinking like them.
In other words, how about we all help each other out, eh?

‘Til next time.

Careful What You Do for the People
milhistorian
Caiaphas really gets a bit of a bad rap. He’s presented most often as some kind of Satanic monster solely interested in his own power, and willing to kill the Son of God to preserve it.

He’s not just that.

You see, Caiaphas was a Jewish patriot. Consider the following:



So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” (John 11:47-50, ESV)

It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people. (John 18:14, ESV)

Caiaphas, you see, completely misunderstood the situation. He saw his good and that of Israel as being one and the same–a deadly thing, for a man to declare that his good is the good of the nation–and believed that this backwoods preacher would cause enough turmoil that the Romans would need to come in and put down the unrest–and Rome was not known for being merciful to regions seen as rebellious.

Was Caiaphas acting purely with the people’s interest as a motive? Almost certainly not, especially depending on how you read the statement in the next verse that “he did not say this of his own accord”–that is, puppeteers, or divine push?

Did he believe that he was acting in Israel’s interests? Almost certainly yes.

And he helped organize the judicial lynching of the Messiah, with perjured testimony, irregular legal proceedings, and doubtless various and assorted other things.

Now, this is kind of an important reminder of a few things:

First, if you have to use false testimony to bring someone down who you think needs to be brought down, rethink the bringing down thing.

Second, don’t think that other people’s good is necessarily tied to your own. The opposite, however, is true.

Third, expediency is not the best measure of whether a policy is a good idea.

Fourth, fear makes you stupid.

Fifth, do not put the interests of the people above the law of God.

Remember this.

Thoughts on Choice
milhistorian
My apologies for not posting Wednesday--it's been hectic. And yes, this post is about abortion.

As everyone who reads this blog probably knows, the Texas state legislature recently passed legislation that severely restricted both the sale of abortion services and their acquirement.

As you might be able to guess, this does not fill me with tears and woe. I've heard most of the arguments against such restrictions, and they don't hold up very well. Many of the arguments focus on the motives of the restrictors, which I covered earlier here: http://milhistorian.livejournal.com/22287.html. Most of the others seem to forget things like adoption. I also refuse to consider statements like "You'll never be pregnant, so you have no right to speak" to be legitimate argument—largely because it is a curious fact that no one talking about abortion will ever be in a position where they can be aborted.

The only really compelling arguments for circumstances in which elective abortion should be legal can be found in the question of what to do with children resulting from cases of rape and incest. As to these, I am unaware of any current laws that allow executing children for the crimes of their fathers.

I do not include "life of the mother" in this because, as far as I know, all such cases also involve the death of the child if nothing is done. That's not elective abortion, that's choosing whether to let two people die or kill one person. Now, you'd better make right sure that two people will die if you don't kill one before you kill the one, but I'm not willing to make someone die to save someone who probably won't live anyway. Also, I think that if you at least try to save the kid, then it counts as inducing premature birth.

Which brings me to the question of this thing called "bodily autonomy," which I ran across during a Facebook debate. Yes, occasionally those are more than just wastes of time. The argument runs as follows: A. Your body is yours; B. No one has the right to use your body without your consent. When used by those who want to see elective abortion remain legal, this is then followed by: C. An unborn child uses a woman's body to live; Therefore, D. a woman has the right to evict the resident whenever she chooses.

Let me lay out my cards here. I don't believe in bodily autonomy, but rather the imago Dei as the basis for my opposition to things like slavery, etc. That deserves a blog post in and of itself, but my point here is to say that I may not understand this as well as someone who believes in the notion.

That being said, I think I understand what the concept's purpose is. It's a way to have a purely secular argument against things like slavery and such, and I get that. However, even the concept of bodily autonomy really doesn't explain why elective abortion in all circumstances should be legal.

Here's why.

First, it's a misapplication of the principle. The intent of the idea is to prevent other people from intentionally exploiting other people. Forgive me from generalizing from experience here, but when I was conceived, no one asked me if I wanted to be conceived at all, much less whose Fallopian tube I wanted to be conceived in. In other words, the unborn child has not chosen to use the womb it is residing in. Saying that the unborn child is an intruder that may be killed is kind of like saying that I have the right to kill someone if another person kidnaps them, ties them hand and foot and gags them, and then throws them into my house.

Not only that, but it's not like the unborn one in this situation is simply using the womb for their convenience. They're literally dependent on the thing. Given the choice, if they could choose, they would be out of there and living.

Side note: One complaint I heard during the aforementioned debate was that such restrictions mean that the unborn have greater rights than their mothers. Yeah, right. The only right they have that they can even sort of use is the right to live. Liberty? Tethered by a literal umbilical cord and stuck inside a space that is maybe a foot square. Pursuit of happiness? See above.

And if you want to get into the Bill of Rights, as near as I can tell, the only right the unborn can actually use that's in there is the one about no one being "deprived of their life...save by due process of law." And no one seems to be proposing that women don’t have a right to live.

Secondly, on this argument, let's talk about the one unborn for a moment, I mean, sure they don't speak--or, for that matter, really think. But, well, they're human, right? Doesn't that mean they might get some say as to what they want done with their bodies? Well, since they can't have a say in the matter, seeing as they don't talk or anything, maybe we should err on the side of not killing them.

All of this having been said, there are certain arguments that can be made for abortion, such as lower crime rates, not making unwanted children suffer (a curious argument, since their existence is being cut off, but I digress), and the amelioration of various other social ills. Two things: Almost all of these could be solved via other means, and it is also true that said social ills could be fixed by killing all the poor, sick, abused, and/or physically/mentally unhealthy people. No one is proposing this because everyone knows it's wrong.

In other words, this isn’t even a wolf by the ears, folks, much less "a good, a positive good!"

'Til next time.

Streams of Consciousness and History (Re-post)
milhistorian
First, my apologies for lack of posting recently. Things have been a tad bit hectic around here. I think you'll find that some upcoming posts will have been well worth the wait. For now, however, please accept this re-post.

Yes, the title will make sense by the time the post is over. Hopefully.
Anyway, I was talking with some friends of mine the other day, and the topic turned to possible senior theses, and I mentioned that I might do mine on how recruiting for the North and South in Tennessee was affected by the way an area voted on secession, due to the fact that Tennessee had a sizable white population that was pro-Union and also had sizable areas occupied by the Union early on into the Civil War, thereby hopefully side-stepping the question of freed slaves joining the Union army while still actually having a sizable study field. One of my friends, who is very bright but who did not grow up in the United States, mentioned that Tennessee's geography might have had something to do with that. I said yes and started talking about why, and the resultant discussion ranged from how Virginia spawned West Virginia to the economic origins of Southern cities to why the South and unions don't go together.
No one who was in that conversation had any idea where it would end up going when we all said hello to one another, and the original and final topics of conversation, if not entirely unrelated, were definitely not the same. However, looking back on that conversation, every single slight turn taken in the topic was completely reasonable and logical at the time, until we'd gone from Civil War recruitment to economic theory. And this was in the space of about thirty minutes, a relatively short time as conversations go. Longer ones tend to go even further afield.
The point of all that is to say this: history is a lot like that, from the perspective of its non-eternal participants.
For instance, take the American War of Independence. I would be willing to bet that none of the men who fought for the independence of the colonies in that war could have imagined a nation that stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific that did not include Canada, a nation that had fought a bloody civil war over slavery (Yes, in the end, that is what pretty much everything about the American Civil War comes back to--more on that in a later post (I should really start keeping track of these things that I keep saying I'll discuss later)) and abolished it, a nation that had sent troops over to Europe twice, both times allied with both France and Britain, a nation that had gotten involved in a sixty-year long entangling alliance, a nation that could send two hundred thousand men to the Middle East in two months, and a nation electing a black man as president, much less all of these rolled into one.
Conversely, it is doubtful whether Sun Yat-Sen, the founder of the Republic of China, could have imagined a nation riven by warlords well into the 1940s, a nation that could not decide whether to fight itself or foreign invaders, a nation that would starve millions of its people to death in a failed attempt to industrialize, a nation that would attempt to destroy its intellectual class, a nation that would decide that a form of "market communism" (if such a thing could be said to exist) was the road to economic prosperity, and a nation that the United States is now in debt to, all rolled into one.
Yet, if you look at all of the decisions that led up to these things happening, each one made at least some degree of logical sense at the time, and also seemed to be a natural outgrowth of all the decisions that had gone on before.
This is not to say, of course, that the progression from the USA of the late eighteenth century to the USA of the early twenty-first century, or early twentieth-century China to early twenty-first century China was, at least from a non-eternal perspective, bound to happen as it did. There were decisions that were not made that were just as logical or more logical than the ones that were made, paths that could have been taken that might have been smoother. But that was the road taken.
The point is this: Whenever beginning some enterprise, or doing something that you think could change the course of history, or even embarking on a conversation with a friend, particularly when dealing with a matter that will affect large number of people, remember that it could go places you could not imagine in your wildest dreams.
Or your worst nightmares.

'Til next time
Tags:

Why did we Care?
milhistorian
Crime and Punishment
Leave a reply
As most folks know, George Zimmermann has been found not guilty. The usual recriminations about institutional racism and the like have already begun to fly, and vigorously.

My question was why on earth this thing became such a massive deal. As near as I can tell, two men saw each other, made assumptions, committed acts of terminal stupidity and ended up in a brawl that neither one was equipped to handle, at which point one of them shot the other.

That’s it. Nothing else.

So why did this become such a massive deal? Because it was election year, and the occurrence could be made to fit anyone’s narrative by twsiting facts. Want to prove that America’s racist? Trayvon Martin was killed for being black in a white neighborhood. That gun laws are too lax? Zimmermann was a hothead vigilante wannabe. Want to prove that guns are necessary? Martin would have killed Zimmermann if the latter hadn’t had a gun. Want to prove that liberals don’t really care about minorities? Point to the outrage at this death as opposed to all the black-on-black violence.

Very few of the people pontificating on this case really cared whether justice was done. What they wanted was their own ideological preconceptions about America proven, and no matter who watched this thing, their preconceptions were proven.

So, in other words, what was the point of all this nonsense and pontificating and speculating and blathering? Answer: Nothing. The only thing that was really learned was that lawyers will lie and twist the truth however they can to win their case–and, since we already knew that, what was the point?

My point is this: while the news networks and papers were focusing on this case, we weren’t hearing about the civil war in Syria or the coup in Egypt, events that have the potential to destabilize the entire Middle East. During the initial media flap, we weren’t hearing about things like the effects of sequestration and the gridlock in Washington, things that actually affect the lives of Americans in direct fashion.

Here’s what I’m trying to say here. We were offered a distraction from actual issues, and we took it. This was not a good thing.

‘Til next time,
Tags:

Steel in our Spines? Or Between Our Ears?
milhistorian
It’s time for a movie review, as I watched Man of Steel last week with some friends of mine. So, first, the movie, and then the rambling. Warning: here there be spoilers.

Here’s what I liked about the movie: The plot was innovative in a way that didn’t tear apart what made the original good while avoiding making the movie a retread of previous Superman movies. The action scenes were pretty good, and I didn’t mind the massive fight at the end. This Superman’s flaws humanized him while still making him not a colossal jerk, and I thought that his adopted father’s caution regarding his abilities was warranted and realistic. General Zod, the villain of the piece, at least had a motivation beyond “Poweeer! Unlimited power!”—and his plan made sense, based on his previously established character. Lois Lane was also a bit better than just a damsel in distress.

That being said, the movie had some problems. First, plot holes. To start with, after the Kryptonian machine’s destruction, wouldn’t the Earth still be in a whole heap of trouble, given that it had a hole drilled through it? Also, why was that world engine thing still functional? There are three nuclear-armed states within missile or bomber range of its location in the Southern Indian Ocean, not counting the probable American nuclear submarine. As to its self-defense capabilities, they all seem to be very short range. Then, there’s the question of how no one outside the town ever heard of “That Clark Kent kid” who pushed a bus out of a river. While I suppose the Kents convinced everyone to keep quiet, having that explained would have been nice. Then, regarding characterization. Lois Lane does a bit more than just exist to be saved by Superman, but she doesn’t do a lot more—although, if we end up with sequels, at least she knows that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person.

Also, a lot of people like the messianic overtones in this movie. I don’t, and here’s why. I’ve honestly never liked Superman as a character, largely because he tells a story that is nowhere close to being true: a man with godlike powers won’t use them to become a god. Superman in particular, more so than most superheroes, influences people to believe that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. This is not a good thing.

However, this does point to something that’s kind of important: people want there to be a savior, a messiah, someone to get humanity out of the muck and mire it’s in. They’ll look for one wherever they can find one. Even in fiction. Even in other human beings and the organizations they set up, which are all part of the same muck and mire.

On a slightly lighter and heavier note, at one point a young female officer says to the main general regarding Superman, after a somewhat heated discussion between the latter two: “I just think he’s kind of hot.” While an amusing nod to one of the reasons women will go to watch the movie, after a bit of thought I realized that, in a world where Dzhokar Tsarnaev has fangirls who want to have his babies, that remark is far too relevant to how many people approach the world.

That scares me a bit.

Also, the movie was, if not worth ten bucks, within spitting distance of being so.

‘Til next time.

A Few Thoughts on Egypt
milhistorian
For those of you who read this blog and don't know already, Mohammed Morsi, former president of Egypt, was rendered the former President of that country on Wednesday by the army, backed by the Supreme Court. That Egypt's bit of Arab Spring has gone in a rather undemocratic direction should have surprised no one.

Here's why.

First, Morsi was elected as the candidate of the political branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization which, in case you couldn't tell from the name, backs making politics more Islamic--which, by the by, translates into less democratic.

Second, if that wasn't enough of a tip-off, the Egyptian cultural situation indicated that the land was not going to become democratic anytime soon. Why? Consider the following: thousands of years of native god-kings and foreign conquerors alternating until the Persians took over in the 6th century BC, after which the Greeks took it over during the reign of Alexander the Great. After this, a Greek general named Ptolemy took it over due to Alexander's death, and his dynasty--which became Egyptian, eventually--reigned until Augustus Caesar formally incorporated it into the Roman empire. This state of affairs lasted . albeit under the Byzantine Empire for a few centuries, until the Arabs came out of their peninsula, riding to spread the name of Allah.

The Arabs were replaced by Berbers, who were replaced by Kurds, who were replaced by the Mamelukes, who were taken over by the Ottoman Empire, who, after Napoleon took over Egypt, took it back and lost again to an Albanian, who ended up being booted by the British, who occupied the country for seventy-one years before leaving in 1953. While Egypt had some degree of autonomy under the British, said autonomy was not a representative government, but an autocratic one.

Afterwards, every Egyptian president--all three of them--until Morsi had some kind of relationship to the military and suppressed dissent of any kind. All of them were presidents for life, until Mubarak was ousted and Morsi took over--and proceeded to start granting all sorts of powers to himself and gloriously botching things.

To put it another way, it's as if, for the first sixty years of our nation, our presidents were George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and William Henry Harrison--the last of whom was replaced by William Lloyd Garrison.

As we all know, however, that didn't happen. Why?

Because, when we had our War of Independence, we had over a hundred and fifty years of managing our own affairs in self-governing fashion--Britain ruled with a light hand in North America until the 1760s--and an aversion to fully centralized authority. Egypt has neither, and is not likely to acquire either one in the very near future, as well as he added complication of political Islam. Also, as seen by how I named it, the American Revolution--wasn't. It was an attempt to return to a previous order that could only be obtained, it was believed, by independence, rather than truly overturning the established order, as was the one in Egypt.

The latter very rarely ends well, as overturning governments tends to result in smashed bureaucracies, and those do bad jobs with water and sewage, trash pickup, and other necessary facets of modern society. This leads to desperation, and when people become desperate, democracy goes out the window, in the end.

In other words, fear the revolution, and remember that history matters, because history is what makes a culture into what it is--and culture matters when a society decides what to do for the future. Don't assume that everyone has your culture, because not everyone has your history.

'Til next time.

Flags and Crosses (re-post)
milhistorian
This says what I want to say today.

http://milhistorian.livejournal.com/1228.html

'Til next time

?

Log in