Tommy

by Rudyard Kipling – a man who understood soldiers

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o'beer, The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here." The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die, I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:

O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away"; But it's ``Thank you, Mister Atkins,'' when the band begins to play, The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play, O it's ``Thank you, Mr. Atkins,'' when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be, They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me; They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls, But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside"; But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide, The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide, O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap; An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.

Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy how's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll, The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll, O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too, But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you; An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints: Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind," But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind, There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind, O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires an' all: We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational. Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!" But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot; An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please; But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

Red, Red Wine

I was high-browing over at Professor Bainbridge’s blog; he is a smart fella, who also happens to be a wine lover and expert on the subject.

I like wine too. I like red wine. The kind of red wine I like is – well, you know that stuff that’s left over after the dirty footed women stomp the grapes? Then they take the pressure hose and wash all that out. That efflux gets fed to horses as part of a healthy breakfast. After that, that’s the kind of wine I like. If it costs more than $5 to fill up a water cooler bottle it’s over my head, brother.

But you know what? When I serve this post-plonk mess to my wine loving friends they love it! Of course, I’m always careful to put out a couple of $8.99 bottles first, but by the third glass they could care less.

Got some class, but it’s llllloooohhhooooowwwwwwwww class.

And if ID and Evolution are the same process?

There are new lines being drawn in sand regarding Intelligent Design and Evolution. The emotion of the debaters runs high, and sometimes appears to block their ability to think. So let us try to just think.

First, what are the questions? There are many but I’ll keep it to six:

There are thousands and thousands of simultaneous physical interactions required for a human body to get through a day. Did these evolve over a long, long period of time?
If the answer to Question 1 is ‘Yes’, are there fossilized remains that show the steady progress from the earliest stages of physical development to the current state? (if the answer is ‘no’, well, argument over)
Where are the artifacts kept of the poor ancestors whose body only performed a few hundred interactions? Where are the ones with only one eye? May I see the skeletal remains of the pre-humans who only had two toes on each foot? Do we have a fossil trail of the females who had a significantly less sophisticated and efficient reproductive capability?

Any set of answers can be used to support either side because they are both based on faith.

There certainly is evidence of evolutionary changes among humans over the relatively few years we have documented. There are also gaps in the evolutionary trail that get steadily larger as we go back further in time. The enormous missing piece is the beginning. The first mother as currently posited would look very different than your own, but we would probably recognize her as human. Where are her ancestors?

The Creationists generally believe that the Creator put our ancestors here essentially as they are today, and most accept the evidence that we have continued to develop and improve our physical and mental efficiencies.

So we have two general camps who ask (and in some cases demand) that their theories be taught in schools. Both are based on faith.

The Evolutionary camp points to the available evidence supporting their argument and demands that the students have faith in the scientists who will eventually discover more of the evidence missing today.

The ID camp points to that fact that their theory answers all the questions, but demands that the students accept as an article of faith that there is a Creator who begat all of this.

Just thinking about it, it appears that the students must either have faith in scientists who have only provided a small percentage of the evidence, or have faith in a Creator whose proclaimed works reveal an enormous body of evidence, but provides no physical evidence of her/his corporeal existence.

Just thinking about it, might the Creator still be in the process of creating, and could evolution be a tool that enhances the miracle of Creation?

Just thinking about it, might it be slightly arrogant to proclaim that you and those who believe as you do are right, and everyone else is wrong?

Just thinking about it, would it be okay to teach the students that these are questions essential to human existence and they should learn as much about both theories as possible, so they might take their wonder and apply it to answering the great questions?

Just thinking about it, could it be possible that all paths might lead to the Creator when they are followed by a good man or woman, and while the general precepts of “good” are carved in many stones, the precise definition is only known at the end of the path?

Pay attention while on the path, and hold great hope for eternity.