Althouse: "What is it with the giggling about Trump saying 'Two Corinthians' instead of 'Second Corinthians'? Either one sounds fine to me."

January 19, 2016

"What is it with the giggling about Trump saying 'Two Corinthians' instead of 'Second Corinthians'? Either one sounds fine to me."

Says John Henry in the comments 2 posts down and referring to the nontroversy of the day.

I know. It's like laughing at somebody for saying a date as 19 January instead of the 19th of January. Who the hell cares?

Feels like the beginning of a joke....

Two Corinthians walk into a bar. The first Corinthian says "Boy, do I need some spirit." And the second Corinthian says "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." And the first Corinthian "Okay, make mine the Lord."

206 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 206 of 206

Bobby said...: Big Mike,

That's a huge part of it, right? It's not just that militaries tend to "fight the last war," it's deeper than that: it's that humans instinctively believe that the way things have been is how they have ALWAYS been and, therefore, how they will always be -- if airpower alone can induce behavior change with the Serbs, then surely it would work on the next bad guys, right? If we could occupy, nation-build and transform Japan and Korea into first-world Western industrial democracies, then certainly we can do it in Afghanistan or Iraq. And I'm not even saying that airpower alone is always destined to fail or that Afghanistan or Iraq can't become liberal democracies -- just that believing in its certainty is a matter of pure blind faith.

We saw that dynamic in exploring the CIA archives- why did the CIA think the Bay of Pigs would work? Well, because we did it in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954) -- how could it not work in Cuba? That was literally what had been written at the time.

I don't think I can watch "13 Hours." In the last 15 years, the only "war movie" I have been able to watch was Clint Eastwood's "Flags of Our Fathers" and that was way too much of an emotional event for me. I stick to comedy and b-horror movies.; 1/20/16, 9:25 AM
J. Farmer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/20/16, 10:53 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Grackle:

Are you illiterate?

First you quote me saying: "By the Taliban government refusing to hand over bin laden, I believe we would have been well within our rights to ignore Afghanistan's sovereignty and go after him ourselves."

And then you write: "Here the commentor laughably implies that the Taliban agreed to hand over bin Laden!"; 1/20/16, 10:56 AM
Chuck said...: A nice, short, readable takedown of 'The Religion of Donald J. Trump, Presbyterian.'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-religion-of-trump/article/2000601; 1/20/16, 12:08 PM
traditionalguy said...: Thanks, Unknown...That Patrick H. O'Connor sermon was a true blessing. The Word preached becomes alive in strong Christians as it is accepted and believed.; 1/20/16, 7:52 PM
grackle said...: @Grackle: Are you illiterate?

I’ll let the readers judge that for themselves.

First you quote me saying: "By the Taliban government refusing to hand over bin laden, I believe we would have been well within our rights to ignore Afghanistan's sovereignty and go after him ourselves." And then you write: "Here the commentor laughably implies that the Taliban agreed to hand over bin Laden!"

Your statement’s meaning as you wrote it implies that the Taliban handed over bin Laden – the phrase “… we would have been well within our rights …” implies that we were NOT “within our rights.” I’ll paraphrase your somewhat garbled prose: America would have been justified in going into Afghanistan IF the Taliban had refused to hand over bin Laden. If that’s not what you meant then restate your position more coherently. I’ll be waiting to read it.; 1/21/16, 8:11 AM