Thursday, April 25, 2013

E Plebnista!

KIRK: This was not written for chiefs. (general consternation) Hear me! Hear this! Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected, but wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way. Look at these three words written larger than the rest, with a special pride never written before or since. Tall words proudly saying We the People. That which you call E Plebnista was not written for the chiefs or the kings or the warriors or the rich and powerful, but for all the people! Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words, 'We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.' These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well! 

CLOUD WILLIAM: The Kohms?

KIRK: They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?

--The Omega Glory, 1967

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Giovanni Montini. Smart Man.



And MLK? No dummy either, he.

Monday, April 22, 2013

REPOST: Tattered Remnant #13:
Marek Edelman and
The Warsaw Ghetto Fighters, 1943





A TRUE VOICE OF A TRUE REMNANT: MAREK EDELMAN AND THE GHETTO FIGHTERS

The bombings in Boston last week remind us that mid April is a time of remembrance: of the Battle of Lexington, of the children of Waco, of the Oklahoma City horror... but it is also a time of remembrance of the Uprising of the Warsaw Ghetto, which erupted on April 19, 1943.

And in remembering that battle we remember the courage of those who would not go quietly.

This is a rerun from October 2009. It didn't get much attention when I first ran it. Perhaps its time has come.

====

Sometime in my elementary school years, I read a children's book entitled Escape from Warsaw, by Ian Serraillier, a rip-roaring children's book about the 1944 Uprising of the city of Warsaw against the Nazis.

Many people know about the Warsaw Uprising: that was a desperate act by the Polish Home Army to liberate their nation's capital and bring home the Government-in-Exile in London before the Soviets had a chance to impose a Communist regime in their state. They were betrayed by Stalin, however, who had his armies sit on their collective duffs long enough for the Nazis to send in the SS to flatten Warsaw. And Escape from Warsaw was a resounding good read about a family who managed to reunite themselves in Switzerland after being blown to the winds by the forces of history.

But when I was in seventh grade, I found a book in the Ottawa Junior High School library entitled The Uprising of the Warsaw Ghetto, by Irving Werstein, thinking it was a history book about the 1944 battle described in Escape from Warsaw. And I learned it was about a much different battle that happened a year earlier, one not so well known.

And in that book I had, I believe, my first real moral awakening. Up until then World War Two, which my parents had lived through, was nothing but a kind of a big adventure that had happened thirty years earlier. You know: Patton, Hogan's Heroes, Combat, etc etc.

It was in reading about the courage of the leaders of the Ghetto Uprising--of Marek Edelmann, of Mordechai Anielewicz, of Zivia Lubetkin, and those who decided, in the face of utter, overwhelming odds, to stand up to evil and to fight back against the extermination of their people--that I first learned the true meaning of human evil, and too: the true meaning of human courage.

Their story bears recounting. It is as great a story as any in the Old Testament; indeed, its heroes bear remembrance in the same ranks as Moses and Aaron, Joshua and Samson.


THE UPRISING
.


After a third of a million people were gassed at Treblinka, some fifty thousand remaining survivors in the Ghetto rose up against the German occupiers from January to May 1943. They fought under the banner of the resistance group Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa (ŻOB), the Jewish Fighters' Organization. Seventeen Germans were acknowledged killed (although it is possible that the number was higher); of the Jewish defenders, seventeen thousand killed in armed combat or through on-site execution and the rest were sent to the gas chambers.

It was an honorable fight--more one-sided than Thermopylae, and against an enemy more to be feared even than the dread Xerxes.
Edelman (and Zivia Lubetkin also, it should be noted) was among a small group of ghetto survivors who broke out on May 10, 1943, and escaped to the nearby woods to fight as partisans. They fought the Germans again in the Warsaw Uprising the following year.

Lubetkin, and all the other Ghetto survivors, relocated to Israel after the war and formed their own kibbutz, the Ghetto Fighter's Kibbutz, or Lohamei HaGeta'ot.

This is good. If Israel is to survive then Israel must be strong. And none were stronger than the Ghetto fighter survivors. Today, Lubetkin's granddaughter is the first female fighter pilot in Israel.

But.

But one man chose to remain in Poland, the last voice of the Polish Jewish community, now a tiny band of 4000 people where once they had been three million.

MAREK EDELMAN

Edelman's courage during the Uprising was exemplary. But it was his long, lonely stand for human freedom under the Communists where he truly showed his great worth.

He chose a medical career, becoming a cardiologist. Later, he became a spokesman for freedom, and was active in the Solidarity labor movement that eventually pitched the Communists. The Soviets feared him so much that they interned him during their 1981 attempt to suppress the union movement. Later he served in the Polish Parliament, and he was awarded Poland's highest honor, the Order of the White Eagle, in 1998.

Many of the others in our group presented here are members of the Remnant--but the Remnant itself is a metaphor for an underlying truth.

But in Mr. Edelman's case, it is the most horrifying literal reality.

Once the children of Israel were three million strong in Poland alone.

Today they are but a scattered few hundreds in that sad nation.

No better representative could have been chosen for them, though, than Marek Edelman: soldier, doctor, healer, resister of Nazis, resister of Communists, and at the end of his life, numbered among the great of his peoples, both the Poles among whom he was born and the Jews to whom he was a shining exemplar.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Right Wingers Bombed the Marathon.....? Uh, no.


I believe that it is now safe to openly diss the leftist droids who immediately went on TV and tried to blame the Right, the GOP, the NRA, the Tea Party, yadda yadda yadda for the bombing in Boston.

Anathema sit to the whole bunch. Matthews, Moore, O'Donnell, et al.... this diss is for you. :-P FFFFFFFFTTTTTT! /spit.

I thin you may wish to read the following-- as it turns out, Middle Earth's news service was about as accurate as CNN. It's a rerun from last September, but still, I dare say, spot-on.

==================


"Now this."


Did you know that Lord of the Rings talked about television news?

Well, not directly. But J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about it quite prophetically. This is most astonishing in that TV news hadn't really been invented yet. (The first experimental TV broadcasts began in 1936 at the Berlin Olympics, but all TV broadcasts were terminated from the start of WW2 to 1945 – after LOTR was completed.)

But yes, Lord of the Rings talked about it a great deal.

In the LOTR universe, the Elves had once created seven great powerful items – the Seeing Stones, or Palantiri: "Far-Seers" (tele-vision). They were connected to one another, so that an individual who looked into one could see individuals looking into others.

By the time of the events of LOTR, only four of the seven Seeing Stones were still in existence: one was held by Sauron, the great villain; one was held by the wizard Saruman; one was held by Denethor, the Ruling Steward of Gondor. A fourth one, off stage, was kept hidden by the Elves, unused.





"This is the Palantir News Network."

What is fascinating about this was that every individual who used a Seeing Stone is deceived by it.

Saruman reveals early on that he sees a great, huge army in place by the hand of Sauron, so great and huge that it cannot possibly be overcome by force. He falls into despair and is tempted by Sauron to betray the West and to become his own, Sauron's, servant. He is deceived by what he sees as the overwhelming strength of the Enemy.

Denethor, the lord of Gondor, sees the same forces, a huge army that he knows cannot be defeated through military force. He, too, falls into despair; not into treason, but into suicidal depression and madness, ordering the death of his own son and heir by fire, and suddenly and eventually his own spectacular death in the flames.

He too is deceived by what he sees as the overwhelming strength of the Enemy.

The Hobbit Peregrin Took took hold of a captured Seeing Stone and stared into it, wanting to gain knowledge and power in his own small way. He mind was captured and examined by Sauron, and he was subjected to a great and horrible terror by staring into it. He was deceived by his wish to know too much.

And Sauron himself, the great and powerful wizard, all wise – he himself was deceived by it!

Sauron saw Peregrin's mind in the Stone and thought that Saruman was torturing Pippin by forcing him to stare into it. He knew that some Hobbit, somewhere, had his Great Ring; he thought that Peregrin had it: and revealed to Pippin, unwittingly, his plans to destroy Gondor through force majeure.  He was deceived by seeing in Pippin what he wanted to see, that is, Frodo, who truly had the Ring.

Finally, Aragorn declared himself King of Gondor by taking up the reforged sword Anduril and staring down Sauron through the Seeing Stone of Denethor. By this means he again deceived Sauron into making Sauron, think that he, Aragorn, was now bearing his Great Ring. Again, Sauron was deceived, and kept his eye on Aragorn, never watching his back door where the valiant Frodo and Sam crawled, ring in hand, to destroy it.

But Aragorn, too is deceived, or shown a lie by Sauron: he sees his great love, the elf Arwen, dead in her room (she lives).

Now why do the Palantiri deceive? Two reasons: for most viewers, the one who controls what is seen (i.e., Sauron) forces the viewer to see what he wants. Saruman and Denethor see overwhelming military force; Pippin sees torment and torture; Aragorn sees his love deceased. Their limited view, narrow focus and their preemption by the will of Sauron show the viewer what Sauron wants rather than the truth.

But it also deceives Sauron himself! -- by showing him what he wants to see: he wants to see the Ring Bearer, a hobbit; he sees a hobbit and sees the Ring Bearer. Even the Program Chief of this tiny TV network is deceived by his own vision device. (This is likely also one of the drawbacks of being an Evil Overlord; one tends not to trust one's trusted lieutenants and not hears contradictory advice. As Paul Simon put it, "The man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest... doo doo doo....")

So a Palantir is a dangerous tool indeed.

When the war is over, there are only two stones left; Sauron's is destroyed and the fourth one is removed from Middle Earth by ship. Both of those remaining stones are in the hands of the King of Gondor, and since they are colocated, they really do no good, and they are not noted as having any further effect on history.  It is likely they were never used again.

Why? Aragorn knew:

Every single instance of the use of the Seeing Stone deceived the viewer, in almost every instance, to their self-destruction.

Now, these are not exactly original insights; they are well known to fans of the LOTR world.... so well known that they are given in the Wikipedia blog entry for Palantir, which I did not consult prior to writing the above.... although I will confess that I may well have read it some time previously.  Nevertheless the points are valid. And the resemblance to the real world remain valid.

How does that relate to television news today?

Each of us now has a Seeing Stone in our living rooms: a TV set that can bring views of the world directly to our faces, our families, our children. Through it we can see scenes half a planet away, in close detail, repeated endlessly until it is drilled into our heads. Sometimes visions on that screen–the coffin of a martyred President, an aircraft demolishing a skyscraper–can haunt our dreams for a lifetime.

Can it be trusted as a source of the news, of what is most truly going on in the world?

My answer is a most decided no.

The problem with TV news is that it is supremely the product of the large organization that is necessary to bring it to your doorstep.

Every TV news company – NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, MSNBC, CNN – is an organization made up of thousands of individuals, from the bubble headed beach blonde who comes on at five down to the janitor lady pushing the broom when the lights are out. That organization is necessary because bringing the news from out there to here – a sight to a camera, a camera to a signal, a signal to a satellite, a satellite to the home office, where it is edited, transformed, shortened, edited again, put in context.... and turned into a two or three or four minute mini story with moving pictures, described to you by the aforementioned bleach blonde.... requires an organization.

And organizations are made up of people who need to eat.

TV news, therefore, is extremely dangerous. It must, must, be assumed by the wise viewer that almost every news story brought to you on TV is, to some extent or another, an organized lie.

Oh, not necessarily by intent. But the story requires hundreds of hands to make it happen. Those hundreds of hands have hundreds of mouths attached to them, not to mention those mouths' family member's mouths. It therefore requires vast amounts of money. To obtain that money, they must sell advertising. To sell advertising, they must get people to watch. To get them to watch, they must tell people what they want to hear! For if they don't people don't watch; if they don't watch, no money from advertisers. That simple.

Ergo and therefore, the news that is brought to your doorstep is brought to you in such a way that THEY (those who control the news) ... WHAT THEY THINK YOU WANT TO KNOW.

They don't bring stories that are 'too complicated for TV coverage' (like the budget deficit, the national debt, the massive sequestration of funds that will happen in January 2013, or any real details of the Obamacare package). They take complicated questions (should the USA fight in Iraq?) and turn them into simplistic 'grim milestones' like "Today the 8000th soldier died in Iraq."

They don't bring stories that will outrage their advertisers, or more importantly will outrage those who the advertisers are afraid of. For example, all stories about (say) "gay marriage" will support it (in order to avoid gay fascists from trying to force their advertisers to drop them).

They will not bring stories that go against what they themselves view as "obvious and true" such as (a) the Democrats being absolutely in favor of the little people or (b) the Republicans being the tools of nazis, white supremacists, or racists.

In order to find the truth of what you see on TV, you must supply an extremely careful and discerning eye. You must know the cant used by TV news broadcasters, must understand their ideological starting points, must look for the 'dog whistle' phraseology they use to transmit the real news, and look for the buried lede–the actual meaning of the story–which is forever given in the last 20% of the story.

In other words, you need to be in essence carefully trained to watch the TV news, otherwise you will be deceived.

If great and powerful wizards can be deceived by tiny screens, how much more vulnerable are the rest of us?

ADDENDUM I:
Robert A. Heinlein. Smart man.

I will admit to having a great hostility for the TV news.

I'm' an inveterate reader--and a trained intelligence analyst from my days in the Army.  Reading (and writing about what I read) is what I *do.*

There is something deeply dangerous out of watching the news on TV as opposed to reading it.

An analyst can read a news story and fairly easily identify the deception and slant found in that story. You can look at the source (NY Times, WashPost, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, etc.) and know immediately what kind of a slant you're going to get. If you read this stuff for a living, you can recognize who is trustworthy and who is not. You can read through a story and find the 'buried lede' fairly quickly, and you can extract poisonous deception (if you're trained to spot it) much as you can remove a bad mushroom or berry from a salad.

You can't do that with TV news. It goes directly through your forebrain into your emotional center with the pictoral impact; you watch the picture of the burning tank, the crashed plane, the yammering politico, or the bleach blonde, while the voice-over gives you the message approved by the corporate leadership of the news network. It is impossible to analyze, impossible (without great resources) to separate the wheat from the chaff--because it's neither wheat nor chaff, it's homogenized liquid with a significant, indeed deadly, poison thoroughly mixed within. You can't filter poison out of a poisoned drink!

I've been very fortunate: I live in a TV broadcast bowl; we can not receive broadcast TV in the precise spot where I live, and we do not have access to cable TV by choice. (I have three adolescent males in the house and if you think I'm going to have MTV vomit into my living room, think again!)  Thus, I'm pretty much restricted to print news via the internet.

I much prefer it that way. It's easier to extract poisonberries from a salad than poison from a poisonberry drink. And I am able to live my life in blissful ignorance of the meaning of certain cultural phenomena (oh, like "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo," which I hadn't heard before Thursday).


There is a key scene in Orwell's 1984, where Winston Smith and his love Julia meet with O'Brien, the Inner Party member who they think will help them subvert the Party.

At the start of their meeting, Winston looks up and stares into the face of Big Brother on an oversized telescreen. O'Brien turns a switch, and the face disappears as the screen is disabled.

"You can turn it off!" says Winston in astonishment.

"Yes," O'Brien says. "We have that privilege."


Turn it off. You have that privilege.

ADDENDUM II:

A friend of mine sends the following:  

Excellent essay. I only have broadcast TV and Internet entertainment services, not cable. I don't watch TV news, and don't miss it. This post recalls Madeleine Albright's statement to Newsweek a few years ago about how she missed the 1960's-1970's situation of all the nation having the same three evening news broadcasts (ABC, CBS, NBC). She said that gave us a common narrative, that we all started discussion with the same facts, etc. I thought: anathema sit! Good riddance to that! Let me consult multiple sources and think carefully and form my own judgment. I don't need networks, all of whom are controlled by secular postmodernist-autonomists, setting the terms of discussion. In fact, that situation is actively harmful.






The same was true of metropolitan newspapers, which IMO abused their power as the major print gatherer of local news and have eminently deserved their decline. For decades in my hometown, the liberal daily paper set the terms of political discussion in the county. The paper is still influential, but it IMO doesn't have the absolute control it used to. I say: good riddance! Bring me the news, but don't try to make us all Democrats.
Palantir, indeed. I do just fine without TV news.

ADDENDUM III:

As I was saying: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/19/Rasmussen-internet-over-TV



Friday, April 19, 2013

Terrorist Facebooker... or something.



Apparent-terrorist-on-the-run Djohar Tsarnaev, who at last report is somehow still breathing, posted a hate video on his Russian-equivalent-of-Facebook page, here sometime in the last few days. (The above is a .jpg not an embedded vid.)

Here is a translation of the first 90 seconds (which I provide for the benefit of the Russian-impaired). I’d do more but I have a real job. (I haven’t used Russian in 15 years so bear with me.) See below for explanation.

To anybody who has a heart
I have something to tell you
Sham, Sham, Sham
They are killing your brothers and sisters (in Syria) without any reason
All they have done is that they have said ‘Our Lord [God] is Allah
….and Mohammad (peace be unto him) is Our Prophet’
And they are harshly persecuting the Books of Allah and the Sunnis of Mohammad (p.b.u.h.)
Allah loves Sham and these people
And He has selected Sham and his people [=nation]
Zaid ibn Sabit al Ansari (peace to him) has told us that
the Prophet of Allah (p.b.u.h.) has said:
‘Tooba for Sham! O Tooba for Sham! O Tooba for Sham!’
(Tooba is a forest in Raio, where no knight has ridden for 100 years)
We have asked, ‘Oh why, oh Prophet of Allah?’
We have asked, ‘Oh why, oh Prophet of Allah?’
And he answered, ‘Because agents of Milostiviy have spread their wings over themselves!’
We congratulate you o Nation of Sham!
We congratulate you!
Your disciples and your witnesses oh Prophet of Allah (p.b.u.h.)!
Without doubt! Without doubt!….

Explanation:

SHAM is a poetic name for the region we call The Levant (South of Turkey, east of Egypt, north of the Saudi sands… i.e., Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel). It is also used as a poetic name for Damascus. I believe that given the context Damascus is what is meant.

PBUH is a common Islamic tag used (in English) when a pious Muslim speaks the name of Mohammad. It means ‘peace be unto him.’ It is a translation of an equivalent term in Arabic.

This is basically a hymn to the “Islamic martyrs” fighting Assad’s regime in Syria. Whoever posted it is pretty bloodthirsty–QED.

Some of my friends, I should note, express shock and horror that REFUGEES turned on America in the way these brothers did. It doesn't surprise me.  Refugees sometimes go bad, as here.

A hundred years ago, there was an incident, the 'Siege of Sidney Street,' where London bobbies confronted a gang of Latvian refugees from the Tsar who had decided to take up bank robbery for a living.  This incident, otherwise an obscure gunfight, was famous because a young Winston Churchill decided to meddle... and while watching the festivities, thought to himself, 'you know, we could use a bulletproof automobile or something right about now....' This probably led to his (yes) invention of the tank.

(It's funny how things turn out.)

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Boston at New York. Still Tied.


Monday, April 15, 2013

Woman Pretends to be White -- And Job Offers Skyrocket



I don't have time to analyze this today.... but it's fascinating enough to put out there......

I can TOTALLY imagine this happening. :(

Thursday, April 11, 2013

It Is Not To Be Borne!


GOP marriage advocate, former Senator and Presidential candidate Rick Santorum was going to give a speech this week at Grosse Pointe South High School on April 24.

Then he wasn't. Turns out that supporting binary heterosexual marriage was too toxic for certain people at the GPS school district.

Then he was. Turns out that there are a lot more supporters of binary heterosexual marriage than they figured.

But still, if your kid wants to see a Republican Presidential candidate and Senator in the flesh, you have to put yourself on a list ("sign an opt-in permission slip") to see it.

Here is my response to them. Faxed in this morning. (click to embiggen)


This is proof positive that although the gay marriage advocacy movement pretends to be about equality, it is in fact about naked power, and their intent is to crush and silence their opposition. I know many who support gay marriage don't necessarily want that to occur, but that is PRECISELY the intent of those driving the movement. It is at heart a fascist attempt to steamroller the religiously faithful and supporters of traditional marriage.

It is meant to crush us.

Do you want a taste of what the gay marriage organizers--the ones behind the movement--really think of us? Go to urbandictionary.com and read this entry for the word "Santorum". But only if you have a strong stomach. You have been warned. [ADDENDUM: A friend of mine has emphasized that my warning here was not quite explicit enough. Open only if you have a REALLY strong stomach. Really.]

Well, I may get dragged to the chopping block for this--but I intend to be dragged, NOT walk. I will not cooperate with my own future oppression.

This must be stopped. Now.

Gay "marriage" is not and never has been about marriage. It is about driving religious faith, particularly Christianity, from the public square. It must be and shall be stopped.

It is not to be borne.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Now she is gone: Margaret Lady Thatcher, RIP

Now we mourn.

This was first run in March of last year.

I can do her no higher honor than to run it again.



MARGARET, THE BARONNESS THATCHER

Ronald Reagan--Ronaldus Magnus--is gone.

Pope John Paul II --the Great--too, is gone.

The Eastern European Communists are gone.

The Argentine Navy is gone.

Dust, dust in the wind.

Only Lady Thatcher remained...... and she remains no more.



Like Reagan in his final years--indeed, like Churchill in his, and, likely, JP2 as well--she sat alone in her quiet room, having earned her rest, barely remembering in her dotage the greatness she once represented.

But now she has gone to meet her God, she remembers once again.

Will we? Can we?

Was it Lady Thatcher who had forgotten the past....

....or is it us?

Monday, April 1, 2013

"My Sign To You... Treasure Her!"



One does not expect a divine rebuke on an Easter Sunday morning....

It is our practice in our family that, given our boys' autism, church attendance is done by, um, delegation. Which means that I tend to go by myself and 'represent' the family at Mass. This is necessary as autism is a condition which generally precludes putting the boys into large crowds of people; they become very uneasy in crowds and want to leave as soon as possible. Since we wish to avoid scenes (and disturbing the other attendees) we've reluctantly decided that this is what is needful at this point in the boy's lives.

I snuck into a local suburban parish–call it St. Alfonzo's–for the 12:00 Noon Easter Mass, figuring that the early birds would have filled the earlier Masses and that parking (and a seat) would be somewhat easier. Bad move, of course. By the time I got there the only parking was on the football field temporary parking area and by the time I got to the church proper the only seat was found in the second to last row. I squoze by and took a seat.

The church was full and rejoicing; the choir, of fair to good quality, was belting out hymns of praise as the crowds took their seats. Then the Lector stood, and, prior to the entrance, announced in a cheery voice: "Welcome! Welcome to St. Alphonzo's! Please stand and greet those around you!"

So we did.

Standing before me was an elderly woman, ancient of years with a grey-white crown of hair and deepset wrinkles, clearly well into her eighties; to her left, a couple in their mid fifties. To her right was what appeared to be a large woman in an ugly salmon colored frock; she did not bother to turn to me to shake my hand.

"Our entrance hymn today is Jesus Christ is Risen Today. Joint us as we greet our celebrant, Father Vivian ....."

And the congregation began to sing:

Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!
Our triumphant holy day, Alleluia!
Who did once, upon the cross, Alleluia!
Suffer to redeem our loss, Alleluia!

I joined in, in full voice; this has always been my favorite Easter hymn.

But as I sang, something jarred.

As the rest of the crowd sang, I heard a noise from the pew in front of me.

It can best be described as the groan of a wounded cow, an ugly sound, that only vaguely seemed related to the song we sang.

Aaaah ann annn aaaaa ann annn, allllllllllannnnnn......


I looked around, and suddenly realized the source of the sound: the woman in the row in front of me... the one wearing the ugly salmon smock.... was making this sound.

Part honk, part wail, like a calf, like a lamb, it was ... indescribable. A musical horror.

And as her face turned toward me, I suddenly realized: this woman, clearly in her forties or later, had Down syndrome.

And the woman with the crown of grey hair before me was her mother.... still caring for her, holding her hand.

For just a moment I felt annoyance: why was she interrupting the hymn? Why didn't she stay home, like my kids?

But.

Of course.

The woman was here to celebrate the risen Christ.

I paused.

I flushed with shame.

Why was I angry at the presence of this woman? No, she couldn't carry a tune in a sack. But who cared? Who was I to think she had no place on this day of Resurrection?

This woman is one of a disappearing breed.

You realize of course that, between DNA testing of the yet to be born, and liberal abortion laws, the Down Syndrome child has almost disappeared from the face of the Earth. Less than one in ten are allowed to be born now. This woman, distorted at conception with an extra chromosome, was one of a now almost-extinct breed of humans.  And those who give them birth–like Sarah Palin–are reviled.

So many times  (as I do in the link above) I have quoted one of my favorite novels, Morris West's The Clowns of God, in the context of my three children (who do not have Down but another illness, autism)....

And yet, when confronted with a true example of the species, I allowed her to annoy me.

It is in this extraordinary novel–which posits a Pope who resigns from the Papacy–that Christ, returned, confronts a group of His followers (including the former Pope) and reveals Himself to be the Son of the Living God.

They demand proof of this extraordinary claim.

So he gives it. He takes a small child with Down Syndrome–who is referred to using the much older term 'mongoloid'–and begins to feed the child with bread and wine. He looks at His followers and speaks to them.
I know what you are thinking. You need a sign. What better one could I give you than to make this little one whole and new? I could do it; but I will not. I am the Lord and not a conjuror. I gave this mite a gift I denied all of you – eternal innocence. To you, the child looks imperfect: but to Me the child is flawless; like the bud that dies unopened or the fledgling that falls from the nest to be devoured by the ants. This child will never offend Me, as all of you have done. This child will never pervert or destroy the work of My Father's hands. This child is necessary to you. This child will evoke the kindness that will keep you human. Her infirmity will prompt you to gratitude for your own good fortune. More! She will remind you everyday that I am who I am, that My ways are not yours, and that the smallest dust mote whirled in the darkest space does not fall out of My hand. I have chosen you. You have not chosen Me. This little one is My sign to you. Treasure her!
His sign to us.

He put me in that seat to see His sign to me.

As I drove home I asked Him to forgive my arrogance.

I hope He has.