What about Black women who put their lives on the line? Modern examples include Fanni Willis and Stacey Abrams in Georgia and Leticia James in New York. How about Alvin Bragg, a Black DA prosecuting Trump for falsifying election records? How about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, Black election workers who won a defamation suit against Rudy …
What about Black women who put their lives on the line? Modern examples include Fanni Willis and Stacey Abrams in Georgia and Leticia James in New York. How about Alvin Bragg, a Black DA prosecuting Trump for falsifying election records? How about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, Black election workers who won a defamation suit against Rudy Giuliani? These are all Blacks who have put their lives on hold and on the line to speak truth to power and justice upon destructive narcissists. Are they saints? Or are they simply Americans who keep the American spirit burning inside? Either way, they deserve mention and respect. It's an irony that the historically oppressed are now prosecuting the privileged oppressors while many of the rest of us enjoy our comfort and safety.
There are really no saints. There are, however, people of conscience and courage. When we use the word "saint" we pull the individual out of the realm of humanness, when it's far more powerful to see them as human beings among us.
Like the little black girl in the movie on PBS last night, “Akeelah and the Bee”. Her courage was palpable. It’s a “10”. Shows again tonight on PBS at 9pm.
J. Nol, I should not have used the term “saint” because it is so deeply misunderstood by most people nowadays, not excluding some who offer prayers before plaster statues—but are at least sincere in their devotion...
There was, in fact, a reason for my doing so: hearing that some religious people think Alexei Navalny will end up by being canonized…
When Pope John Paul II canonized Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, the Founder of Opus Dei, following a highly speeded-up process, I remarked that I never knew canonization was the Church’s Order of Lenin. The intellectual and organizational qualities of the Opus Dei founder, his foresight, his political and social acumen, are not in doubt; but it feels more than strange to find such a one in the same stable as Francis of Assisi or Juan de Yepes y Alvarez, Saint John of the Cross, even Ignacio de Loyola...
And even when we come across a case as extraordinary as that of young Thérèse Martin—Saint Thérèse of Lisieux—even more extraordinary is the Catholic Church's pomp-and-propaganda exploitation of a brief life of such intense love and austere simplicity.
Can’t help recalling the great Spanish film director Luis Buñuel calling the vast basilica dedicated to Thérèse “the Lisieux gasworks”.
Likewise the Russian Orthodox Church's problematic political saints like Vladimir, a prince of Kievan Rus, or Alexander Nevsky—a protector figure, inspiration to the country's defenders—or, given the disastrous errors of their reign and the immeasurable cost of those errors for Russia, for Europe, for the world, Saint Nicholas and Saint Alexandra... the last Tsar and Tsaritsa... At the same time, I am aware of two things: the wide overlap between the sacred and the profane in Tsarist Russia and consequently in the Russian psyche... and the disheartening awfulness of the commandeering by the Putin regime of the Russian Orthodox Church, via its KGB Patriarch, turning it into a subordinate branch of that regime, purged of many good, honest priests and genuine ordinary Christians. Perhaps unsurprising in an organization that excommunicated Leo Tolstoy in 1901… but even that made more sense than what we are seeing today…
Not content with destroying the present and future of both Russia and Ukraine with the human sacrifice of both countries’ young men, the dictator and his cabal of crazed mythomaniac ideologues have set out to co-opt for their dirty work the Russian soul itself—or at least the aspect of it that empowers and gives meaning to spiritual core of the Orthodox Church.
To conclude, what I see behind the word "SAINT" is not someone radically different from the rest of us but simply one who has expressed all the finer human qualities to the limit of their potential and, in so doing, found her or himself.
That said, I’d rather seek terms for such heroic figures other than those long abused by priests for purposes of religious propaganda. Fundamentally, we’re talking here of a phenomenon quite beyond the confines of organized religion.
"I see behind this word is not someone radically different from the rest of us but simply one who has expressed all the finer human qualities to the limit of their potential and, in so doing, found her or himself." With this statement I agree. People like these demonstrate what is possible in being human, and those others you referred to of course, showed us the depths humans can fall to as well.
Jerry, I had the people you mention very much in mind when I was writing. I, for example, am immensely impressed by the shining, exemplary qualities of Stacy Abrams. And there are plenty of others.
Well, I am going to have to disagree with you on Fani WIllis. It is becoming clearer and clearer that she failed to observe proper decorum for someone with such an important office and as a result, a carefully structured criminal trial against the Trump minions is now likely to go off the rails because of her own self-interest. This is in GREAT contrast to Leticia James who has done a superb job of carefully and methodically bringing the appropriate charges against Trump and so far, winning all of her cases. On the face of it, WIllis has probably so jeopardized her attempted prosecution that it will fail at least for the next year or so. In the end, I expect her to be recused at least from the case she brought against the Trump rabble (along with her paramour Wade) and that will leave the Georgia case, which started out looking like the best laid plan, up in smoke, at least for the foreseeable future. Once Georgia figures out where to send the case, and if they choose another DA who will put in the effort, the case might get back on track (assuming Trump is not reelected in November) but it won't happen in 2024 in time for the upcoming election, sigh. Nothing she has done will, it appears, effect Trump's guilt or not, but it will create a huge and unnecessary delay.
Jim, I agree that we disagree on Willis. Her personal affair really has no bearing under her suitability to prosecute the case under Georgia law. I was concerned about this the same as you but then realized that the folks who are pursuing this case are doing so in spite of the harassment and threats they received and continue to. If they are thrown together in an intense case and their feeling bloom, that is human. Blaming them for human impulses that logically have no conflict with the mission is blaming the victim. While on the one hand the judge should have already thrown this sideshow out, on the other, he's allowed all this to preserve the record for the inevitable appeal. Yes, all this is a complication, but it doesn't take away from Willis' bravery and competence.
To repeat, Willis nor Wade got rich from their prosecution of Trump and whatever relationship they actually had does not present a conflict of interest. I'd actually be quite shocked if McAfee rules against Willis. He showed a lot of IMpatience toward the defense's arguments during the evidentiary hearing and the Trump team's key witness, Bradley, testified he was only speculating. There's no "there: there.
Yep you are right, we have to disagree. Prosecuting attorneys MUST be held to a MUCH higher standard than anyone else involved in a lawsuit except the judge. Prosecutors do NOT represent a person or company, they represent all of us. They are NOT there to find anyone guilty, they are there to ensure justice is done. They can NOT under any circumstances even APPEAR to be biased or seeking some other benefit. My biggest concern about this is twofold: (1) throughout this entire charade, Willis and Wade have repeatedly concealed the full extent of their relationship and then grudgingly given ground as the whole story came out in the press That greatly diminishes their credibility IMHO. And district attorneys MUST have INCREDIBLE credibility or they are damaged goods. (2) it seems clear now that their actual relationship began before Wade was appointed to his position on the case, and (a) he is apparently not highly qualified for the role and (b) he and Willis have been able to share the "benefits" conferred on him by being appointed, i.e., $650,000 paid in approx 18 months, which is, at least in Georgia, a LOT of money for a government attorney (Willis doesn't make anywhere near that much as DA). This leads me to the at least POSSIBLE conclusion that they are both benefitinng at the expense of the state.
As I said, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the actual case in terms of Trump/et al's guilt, but unfortunately that ship has sailed and now whatever they do that might be potentially a conflict of interest is involved in the case, like it or not. She should never have appointed him to the positionn and now they got caught.
Game over, in my book. They both need to move on, as their credibility, regardless of whether or not there IS a "there" there, is completely shot and they can no longer prosecute this case.
And remember I was a HUGE supporter of the case WIllis was bringing against Trump. So this feeling I have is TOTALLY grounded in my belief about the proper execution of the laws, and their ability to do that now, not whether they did anything "legally wrong". That bar is NOT the bar they needed to clear. It was much higher and they missed by a mile, IMHO.
Jon, than you for your opinion. So, let me ask you: if Willis stays in and gets the the RICO conviction against Trump and his co-conspirators, will you accept that win?
Oh absolutely! I think the two issues have nothing to do with each other. The entanglement between Willis and Wade has nothing whatsoever to do with the case at all, but I just believe (based on various readings of the relevant law) that they created an appeearance of impropriety that can only be appropriately addressed by them recusing themselves or by the judge removing them from the case. I do NOT think that their continuing in the case (or one of them) creates any actual conflict, but that is NOT what is required for recusal in most US jurisdictions. Their entanglement clearly presents (to me anyway) an appearance of impropriety that makes it difficult to continue in the case.
I do think that it will be such a "focus" that it will make it HARDER for the prosecution to get a conviction and that is another reason I think they should be recused. That is why we have laws against conflict of interest or even the APPEARANCE of conflict. But if, as you posit, the judge decides its "okay" for them (or one of them) to continue, I am fine with that although I think it will be erroneous and MIGHT cause a conviction to be overturned on appeal which would be another problem I could foresee in the future.
I also want to say that it bothers me how many people here seem to have NO problem with this yet I am sure if a GOP district attorney was enmired in something like this while a Democrat was being prosecuted that they would be up in arms about recusal. Most people do seem to have different opinions about "process" depending on, as they say, "whose ox is being gored". I tend to be pretty consistent (which may be my own downfall LOL) about things like this and try not to let personal feelings of politics get too much in the way of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. The acts here were CLEARLY wrong, regardless of whether they were in any way related to the case, and should be addressed that way.
What about Black women who put their lives on the line? Modern examples include Fanni Willis and Stacey Abrams in Georgia and Leticia James in New York. How about Alvin Bragg, a Black DA prosecuting Trump for falsifying election records? How about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, Black election workers who won a defamation suit against Rudy Giuliani? These are all Blacks who have put their lives on hold and on the line to speak truth to power and justice upon destructive narcissists. Are they saints? Or are they simply Americans who keep the American spirit burning inside? Either way, they deserve mention and respect. It's an irony that the historically oppressed are now prosecuting the privileged oppressors while many of the rest of us enjoy our comfort and safety.
There are really no saints. There are, however, people of conscience and courage. When we use the word "saint" we pull the individual out of the realm of humanness, when it's far more powerful to see them as human beings among us.
Like the little black girl in the movie on PBS last night, “Akeelah and the Bee”. Her courage was palpable. It’s a “10”. Shows again tonight on PBS at 9pm.
J. Nol, I should not have used the term “saint” because it is so deeply misunderstood by most people nowadays, not excluding some who offer prayers before plaster statues—but are at least sincere in their devotion...
There was, in fact, a reason for my doing so: hearing that some religious people think Alexei Navalny will end up by being canonized…
When Pope John Paul II canonized Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, the Founder of Opus Dei, following a highly speeded-up process, I remarked that I never knew canonization was the Church’s Order of Lenin. The intellectual and organizational qualities of the Opus Dei founder, his foresight, his political and social acumen, are not in doubt; but it feels more than strange to find such a one in the same stable as Francis of Assisi or Juan de Yepes y Alvarez, Saint John of the Cross, even Ignacio de Loyola...
And even when we come across a case as extraordinary as that of young Thérèse Martin—Saint Thérèse of Lisieux—even more extraordinary is the Catholic Church's pomp-and-propaganda exploitation of a brief life of such intense love and austere simplicity.
Can’t help recalling the great Spanish film director Luis Buñuel calling the vast basilica dedicated to Thérèse “the Lisieux gasworks”.
Likewise the Russian Orthodox Church's problematic political saints like Vladimir, a prince of Kievan Rus, or Alexander Nevsky—a protector figure, inspiration to the country's defenders—or, given the disastrous errors of their reign and the immeasurable cost of those errors for Russia, for Europe, for the world, Saint Nicholas and Saint Alexandra... the last Tsar and Tsaritsa... At the same time, I am aware of two things: the wide overlap between the sacred and the profane in Tsarist Russia and consequently in the Russian psyche... and the disheartening awfulness of the commandeering by the Putin regime of the Russian Orthodox Church, via its KGB Patriarch, turning it into a subordinate branch of that regime, purged of many good, honest priests and genuine ordinary Christians. Perhaps unsurprising in an organization that excommunicated Leo Tolstoy in 1901… but even that made more sense than what we are seeing today…
Not content with destroying the present and future of both Russia and Ukraine with the human sacrifice of both countries’ young men, the dictator and his cabal of crazed mythomaniac ideologues have set out to co-opt for their dirty work the Russian soul itself—or at least the aspect of it that empowers and gives meaning to spiritual core of the Orthodox Church.
To conclude, what I see behind the word "SAINT" is not someone radically different from the rest of us but simply one who has expressed all the finer human qualities to the limit of their potential and, in so doing, found her or himself.
That said, I’d rather seek terms for such heroic figures other than those long abused by priests for purposes of religious propaganda. Fundamentally, we’re talking here of a phenomenon quite beyond the confines of organized religion.
"I see behind this word is not someone radically different from the rest of us but simply one who has expressed all the finer human qualities to the limit of their potential and, in so doing, found her or himself." With this statement I agree. People like these demonstrate what is possible in being human, and those others you referred to of course, showed us the depths humans can fall to as well.
They have been standing up to bullies for generations. It matters! 💪🏼💪🏼💪🏼
Preparation, strength, and wisdom makes for heros and sheros❤️
Jerry, I had the people you mention very much in mind when I was writing. I, for example, am immensely impressed by the shining, exemplary qualities of Stacy Abrams. And there are plenty of others.
Well, I am going to have to disagree with you on Fani WIllis. It is becoming clearer and clearer that she failed to observe proper decorum for someone with such an important office and as a result, a carefully structured criminal trial against the Trump minions is now likely to go off the rails because of her own self-interest. This is in GREAT contrast to Leticia James who has done a superb job of carefully and methodically bringing the appropriate charges against Trump and so far, winning all of her cases. On the face of it, WIllis has probably so jeopardized her attempted prosecution that it will fail at least for the next year or so. In the end, I expect her to be recused at least from the case she brought against the Trump rabble (along with her paramour Wade) and that will leave the Georgia case, which started out looking like the best laid plan, up in smoke, at least for the foreseeable future. Once Georgia figures out where to send the case, and if they choose another DA who will put in the effort, the case might get back on track (assuming Trump is not reelected in November) but it won't happen in 2024 in time for the upcoming election, sigh. Nothing she has done will, it appears, effect Trump's guilt or not, but it will create a huge and unnecessary delay.
Jim, I agree that we disagree on Willis. Her personal affair really has no bearing under her suitability to prosecute the case under Georgia law. I was concerned about this the same as you but then realized that the folks who are pursuing this case are doing so in spite of the harassment and threats they received and continue to. If they are thrown together in an intense case and their feeling bloom, that is human. Blaming them for human impulses that logically have no conflict with the mission is blaming the victim. While on the one hand the judge should have already thrown this sideshow out, on the other, he's allowed all this to preserve the record for the inevitable appeal. Yes, all this is a complication, but it doesn't take away from Willis' bravery and competence.
To repeat, Willis nor Wade got rich from their prosecution of Trump and whatever relationship they actually had does not present a conflict of interest. I'd actually be quite shocked if McAfee rules against Willis. He showed a lot of IMpatience toward the defense's arguments during the evidentiary hearing and the Trump team's key witness, Bradley, testified he was only speculating. There's no "there: there.
Yep you are right, we have to disagree. Prosecuting attorneys MUST be held to a MUCH higher standard than anyone else involved in a lawsuit except the judge. Prosecutors do NOT represent a person or company, they represent all of us. They are NOT there to find anyone guilty, they are there to ensure justice is done. They can NOT under any circumstances even APPEAR to be biased or seeking some other benefit. My biggest concern about this is twofold: (1) throughout this entire charade, Willis and Wade have repeatedly concealed the full extent of their relationship and then grudgingly given ground as the whole story came out in the press That greatly diminishes their credibility IMHO. And district attorneys MUST have INCREDIBLE credibility or they are damaged goods. (2) it seems clear now that their actual relationship began before Wade was appointed to his position on the case, and (a) he is apparently not highly qualified for the role and (b) he and Willis have been able to share the "benefits" conferred on him by being appointed, i.e., $650,000 paid in approx 18 months, which is, at least in Georgia, a LOT of money for a government attorney (Willis doesn't make anywhere near that much as DA). This leads me to the at least POSSIBLE conclusion that they are both benefitinng at the expense of the state.
As I said, NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the actual case in terms of Trump/et al's guilt, but unfortunately that ship has sailed and now whatever they do that might be potentially a conflict of interest is involved in the case, like it or not. She should never have appointed him to the positionn and now they got caught.
Game over, in my book. They both need to move on, as their credibility, regardless of whether or not there IS a "there" there, is completely shot and they can no longer prosecute this case.
And remember I was a HUGE supporter of the case WIllis was bringing against Trump. So this feeling I have is TOTALLY grounded in my belief about the proper execution of the laws, and their ability to do that now, not whether they did anything "legally wrong". That bar is NOT the bar they needed to clear. It was much higher and they missed by a mile, IMHO.
Jon, than you for your opinion. So, let me ask you: if Willis stays in and gets the the RICO conviction against Trump and his co-conspirators, will you accept that win?
Oh absolutely! I think the two issues have nothing to do with each other. The entanglement between Willis and Wade has nothing whatsoever to do with the case at all, but I just believe (based on various readings of the relevant law) that they created an appeearance of impropriety that can only be appropriately addressed by them recusing themselves or by the judge removing them from the case. I do NOT think that their continuing in the case (or one of them) creates any actual conflict, but that is NOT what is required for recusal in most US jurisdictions. Their entanglement clearly presents (to me anyway) an appearance of impropriety that makes it difficult to continue in the case.
I do think that it will be such a "focus" that it will make it HARDER for the prosecution to get a conviction and that is another reason I think they should be recused. That is why we have laws against conflict of interest or even the APPEARANCE of conflict. But if, as you posit, the judge decides its "okay" for them (or one of them) to continue, I am fine with that although I think it will be erroneous and MIGHT cause a conviction to be overturned on appeal which would be another problem I could foresee in the future.
I also want to say that it bothers me how many people here seem to have NO problem with this yet I am sure if a GOP district attorney was enmired in something like this while a Democrat was being prosecuted that they would be up in arms about recusal. Most people do seem to have different opinions about "process" depending on, as they say, "whose ox is being gored". I tend to be pretty consistent (which may be my own downfall LOL) about things like this and try not to let personal feelings of politics get too much in the way of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG. The acts here were CLEARLY wrong, regardless of whether they were in any way related to the case, and should be addressed that way.