Good luck to you Chris, even if you do decide to go to the Great Satan 
At 18 I thought I knew it all, at 21 I knew I knew it all, but was alarmed at how little I really new at 18 thus it cautioned me. If you are a thinking man there will always be change.
Often I have gained a new perspective on things through sometimes trivial situations or remarks I've heard and it changes my whole thinking. At times it has made me feel foolish for previous thoughts.
Imagine that, there is a lot more foolishness to come 
Chris,
"I'd like to spend some time in the States and my ex works for the New York State Prosecutors office and loves it."
Is it ironic how this appears after an article that states
"I am not a dyed in the wool Liberal when it comes to immigration.
I don't believe in a complete open door policy."
So you are evincing a belief that it is ok for you to work in both London and NY, yet it is not acceptable for others from multifarious backgrounds and countries to do the same in Ireland? No doubt you drank in several Irish bars in England and will do so in NY. Aren't you feeding that multiculturalism that you vehemently oppose? Surely to God you won't be watching any GAA matches or at any Irish sessions in London or NY because yet again that would be viewed as bringing your culture to another nation and as you said you are opposed to that.
Btw quite perplexing to read that someone who describes themselves as a socialist would even consider working in the state prosecuetors office. What was that you said about political whores???
Wow, those certainly seem like the comments of someone who's planning to make major changes in their life Chris.
Do I detect a sense of disillusionment?
I also have to agree with BTD, I find it strange that someone with your sense of social justice would consider working in a prosecuters office.
Anyhow, good luck in whatever you decide to do.
Tony
I know the feeling.
"So you are evincing a belief that it is ok for you to work in both London and NY, yet it is not acceptable for others from multifarious backgrounds and countries to do the same in Ireland"
Not at all, if you had bothered to read the blog entry you would know that.
I can avail of travel to London as I am an EU citizen and I can avail of a stay in New York because of a bilateral agreement between the US and Ireland in relation to those involved in the legal profession.
My support for social intergration does not stop people keeping their own cultural practices. I oppose ghettoisation.
A country can be multi national without being multi-cultual.
"Btw quite perplexing to read that someone who describes themselves as a socialist would even consider working in the state prosecuetors office"
When did I say that I was considering working for the State Prosecuters office?
I suggest you read my posts before you post on them.
Paul
"Do I detect a sense of disillusionment?"
That is too strong a statement at the moment.
I will say that a great many questions still remain unanswered.
Good post, Chris, and best wishes with whatever you decide to do.
My own views have changed quite a bit down the years too. I've never seen it as a bad thing, the opposite actually...
People change once they pass twenty - one of the reasons I'm so opposed to giving votes to 16 year olds. Personally I think people shouldn't get the vote until 21.
Ivan,
I was thinking about that very issue today. Canvassing on Grafton Street I got chatting to several groups of 17/18 year olds. Most of them had their heads well screwed on, I was impressed by them. I think 18 is about right. If people change their views later on, fair enough.
I got my students Visa in August and am moving to Santa Monica,California in January for University.
Enjoy freezing your arse off in New York,Chris.
While I think people should be allowed to vote from 18 onwards I think that people change the most after 20.
Then again, do you ever stop changing?
Ivan
You have been around since Waterloo, what do you think?
I think you are only considering going to the states Chris because Katie Price has divorced Peter André
My guess would be that most people are settled in their outlook when they reach their 30s.
Katie Price?? As common as muck!
As common as muck!
Too good for an Armagh muck-savage
Come, my friends.
'T is not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,--
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Ulysses - Alfred Tennyson
"That is too strong a statement at the moment"
Life, politics and people constantly evolve.
I think that I know exactly how you feel
Chris,
"Not at all, if you had bothered to read the blog entry you would know that."
I did read it and was overwhelmed at the rabidly right wing sentiments you were espousing. You stated that you do not believe in multiculturalism and were against an open door policy. Seems pretty clear to me where you stand on this issue. Furthermore you stated your discomfort with those of other cultures in London. In fact I believe you referred to multicultural hotbeds as 'cesspits'. Perhaps your opposition to multiculturalism emanates from intimidation by other cultures arising out of your insularity or maybe it is an open hostility brought about by innate right wing views. Either way it is difficult to reconcile these views with any wing of socialism, except of course National socialism ie Nazism.
Also quite intrigued as to why a 'socialist' would trumpet I can avail of travel to London as I am an EU citizen and I can avail of a stay in New York because of a bilateral agreement between the US and Ireland in relation to those involved in the legal profession."
I can see how your new found and lately acquired love for red tape and bureaucracy fits into your radical left wing views!
You are being a tad unfair BTD. Though you are not the first to remark on the unfortunate combination of nationalism and socialism.
But you should remember that Ireland, especially Catholic Ireland, is VERY Right wing - so in relative terms by Irish standards Chris is indeed a socialist. That is why he doesn't fall foul on the Vatican ruling that one cannot be a Socialist and a good Catholic
Ivan,
so in relative terms by Irish standards Chris is indeed a socialist. That is why he doesn't fall foul on the Vatican ruling that one cannot be a Socialist and a good Catholic "
LOL
I think the unquestioning loyalty and admiration Chris has for the right wing cabal that occupy the higher echelons of the RC church precludes him from being anywhere close to socialism on the political scale.
Lets look at empirical evidence.
The RC possess vast resources and unimaginable wealth, yet they call on the ordinary man like you and I to feed the poor. I have no problem donating to charity, I am quite charitable and have a penchant for favouring the Hospice, but I find it hypocritical for one of the wealthiest institutions known to man to call on others to feed the poor. Its a bit like a tramp telling you to get a sense of fashion. Furthermore it is sickening to think how little of this money actually goes to direct aid as opposed to admin costs. Lets not forget the fact that these poor people must 'convert' to RC beliefs before they can benefit from any aid. More National socialism I guess.
Lets look at their treatment of others. The Magdalene laundries and church ran institutions were cesspits of neglect, sexual abuse and degradation. In fact can anyone seriously argue that there was a difference in the way these victims were treated and the way the Nazis treated the ordinary Jew? The RC has yet to admit guilt or apologise sincerely for this shameful and sinful behavior. In fact true to their right wing nature they have set out with the ill-conceived notion that buying peoples forgiveness will work.
The corruption of the RC church fucking sickens me to the pits of my stomach. The Catholic Centre Party gave Hitler the 31 non-Nazi votes he required to pass the Nazi enabling act. They signed an agreement of non-aggression with him, yet they attempt to teach moral guidance to the masses. In fact it is astonishing that they should do so under the auspices of the word of God. They use 4 gospels, while they suppress hundreds of other gospels! What are they afraid of?
Does the people not say do onto me what you do to the least of my brothers? Is it not stated that the first will be last and the last will be first? Did Jesus not evince the mantra do on to others as you would have done to you? If this is the case the RC hierarchy most be living in fear of judgement day as if you use their own teachings they are well and truly fucked!!!!!!!
Ivan,
the above post should read "does the bible not say" as opposed to "does the people not say".
BTD - I'm staying out of this one as I'm only a humble prod who enjoys wandering round Catholic websites like Studies ( The Jesuits) and the Vatican website. The only thing I'll say is that there is a world of difference between the faults of organisations and what their deeper messages and meanings. Bit like the Orange Order.
Started with reading one of Paul Blanshard's Books which is available online.
"was overwhelmed at the rabidly right wing sentiments you were espousing"
What sentiments were these?
"Furthermore you stated your discomfort with those of other cultures in London."
I didn't actually
"Perhaps your opposition to multiculturalism emanates from intimidation by other cultures arising out of your insularity or maybe it is an open hostility brought about by innate right wing views."
Not at all, I have no opposition to other cultures.
"Also quite intrigued as to why a 'socialist' would trumpet I can avail of travel to London as I am an EU citizen and I can avail of a stay in New York because of a bilateral agreement between the US and Ireland in relation to those involved in the legal profession."
I can see how your new found and lately acquired love for red tape and bureaucracy fits into your radical left wing"
Are you serious??
You asked how as I was able to travel to these countries and I provided you with an explanation.
Nothing to do with red tape or bureaucracy.
"so in relative terms by Irish standards Chris is indeed a socialist"
Nothing to do with relative terms, I am a Socialist because I adhere to Socialist principles.
"the Vatican ruling that one cannot be a Socialist and a good Catholic"
What ruling is that?
I checked through Canon Law, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church and any Ex Cathedra rulings and I can't find any mention of it.
Perhaps you would care to provide some evidence for your assertion.
BTD
You are a rabid anti-Catholic, in such cases sensible conversation is out of the question.
Chris - is there an up to date canon law online ?
Re Socialism -
Pius XI Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (May 15, 1931)
117..... We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.
120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_fathe...mo-
anno_en.html
Ivan
That Encyclical was not issued Ex Cathedra and so is not a Catholic Ruling.
It was issued in 1931 and the Socialism advanced then was an ungodly and wholly materalistic one.
Not similar at all to my beliefs
I often think the word 'socialism' has been so abused that it is rendered almost meaningless at this stage.
It's 'whatever you're having yourself' at this point.
Witness the use of it re the healthcare debate in America Julias.
Stupidity reigns!
Chris - is there a listing of which Encyclicals are to be considered infallible?
Otherwise, Pope Pius XII clarified the infallibility of Encyclicals: “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth Me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time open to dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.” (Humani Generis, Aug. 12,1950)
Seems pretty conclusive to me.
It was issued in 1931 and the Socialism advanced then was an ungodly and wholly materalistic one.
Not similar at all to my beliefs
James Connolly ?
"James Connolly was a Socialist and a Republican, the one man who best symbolises my Republicanism."
http://gaskinbalrog.blogspot.com...s-
connolly.html
Ivan
Papal Infallibality is only invoked in certain circumstances.
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).
This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot commit sin in his own personal life nor that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies.
In order for Papal Infallibality to apply certain conditions must be met
According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for Ex Cathedra teaching are as follows:
1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks Ex Cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church"
For a teaching by a Pope or Ecumenical council to be recognised as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that the Church is to consider it definitive and binding.
There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following:
A verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or
an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.
For example, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words:
"Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
In the modern Church only two doctrines have been issued Ex Cathedra and thus can be considered infallible by Papal decree
1. The Assumption of Mary
2. The Immaculate Conception
Ivan
Was James Connolly alive in 1931?
By that stage Stalin had bastarised a once noble doctrine.
Chris - It was the Socialism of the likes of Connolly and James Gralton that was in question back then - let's not muddy the waters with Stalin, though I know it makes like a lot easier for you if I allow it
No it wasn't Ivan
That Encyclical was in response to the Socialism of Stalin and Co
Nice try though!
Chris - Am I right in thinking that even if an encyclical has not been deemed infallible there is a duty of "religious assent" ? So that even if a pronouncement is not infallible it is nevertheless still true - and as such it's authority has to be respected ?
Ivan
It is not infallible and as the first Vatican council made clear, even when the Holy Father is acting in an offical capacity he can still be in error unless he is speaking Ex Cathedra.
So you are saying that an encyclical can be wrong ?
and No, that encyclical QUADRAGESIMO ANNO was not JUST " in response to the Socialism of Stalin and Co" - which is why it differentiates between Communism and Socialism. See 111 to 113 A magnificent document.
The nice try was yours mo chara
Ivan
If it is not Ex Cathedra then of course it can be wrong.
Conscience still forms a part of the Catholic faith, it is not the sole reserve of Protestants.
QUADRAGESIMO ANNO makes sweet FA differece between Socialism and Communism.
Ivan
Just managed to reread and digest the full Encyclical.
This next part interested me greatly
"Those who want to be apostles among socialists ought to profess Christian truth whole and entire, openly and sincerely, and not connive at error in any way. If they truly wish to be heralds of the Gospel, let them above all strive to show to socialists that socialist claims, so far as they are just, are far more strongly supported by the principles of Christian faith and much more effectively promoted through the power of Christian charity"
Major admission that Catholic teaching can be wrong Chris. Was a time you would have been tied to a stake for that
Hate to be pedantic, but this clearly proves my point that QA was NOT just aimed at Stalinism and Communism
"One section of Socialism has undergone almost the same change that the capitalistic economic system, as We have explained above, has undergone. It has sunk into Communism."
I haven't read "On the Condition of Workers" as yet.
I said Encylicals can be wrong, Articles of Faith are a different matter.
Encyclicals are Catholic teachings. Pius describes his encyclical and that of Pius as Catholic teaching Chris.
He can call them what he likes, they are not Articles of Faith and I have never heard a single Catholic (including my Parish Priest) refer to them as such.
Witness the use of it re the healthcare debate in America Julias. Stupidity reigns!
Exactly, Tony. President Obama is a communist according to some!
Obama is a Communist and Hitler was a pacifist
'Exactly, Tony. President Obama is a communist according to some!'
To be honest JG, ATW isn't a barometer of mainstream opinion.
I revisted that site after a long abscence recently and it seems the bloggers are as mentally deranged, if not more so, than previous.
Vance spends his time trying to advocate total war against the entire muslim world - in roundabout ways of course, personally I don't think he has the guts to come straight out and say what he really thinks - ie wipe them all out.
Bill,
To be honest JG, ATW isn't a barometer of mainstream opinion
Now, that's the understatement of the millenium! That said I don't see being mainstream as anything to admire. My own views are far from mainstream.
I comment on many blogs whose writers I totally disagree with. ATW though is a bit like going into a shop that sells animal porn: not only do you not care for the material, it actually makes you slightly sick!
Popped my head in the other day and there was a disparaging post about people with disabilities and the Special Olympics.
It's not a question of disagreeing, it's a question of being repulsed.
Ivan
For Christ´s sake, give Chris a break.
Anyone can pick and choose their own theology, whether it be died in the wool Catholic or watered down Quaker.
It´s the easiest thing in the world to attack someone else´s beliefs when you don´t adhere to them (thats why you have so much fun attacking them).
A good athiest could ask you why you believe in spirits to tell you what to do and would be waiting for some time for you to provide evidence for the existence of your God.
I have no idea whether your belief system is riddled with inconsistencies, although, as a general rule, all belief systems are.
From my perspective, a true Christian is one who wishes to do good by his/her fellow man/woman and believes in striving for social justice for all. A good Muslim may be the same. The itty bitty theological stuff can provide the entertainment for pedants as they argue over which gospel/prophet/encyclical means or doesn´t mean. As long as the religion doesn´t call for the suppression of others (and they all used to, to a greater or lesser degre) then it´s OK by me.
Wasn´t the first US Marine officer a Quaker? I could be wrong, but I think not. Samuel Nicholas. Used to shoot people for a living. Not very pacifistic.
There are good socialists who happen to be Catholics and murdering bastards who happen to be Quakers.
Such is the rich tapestry of life.
Observer - I think you misunderstand my relationship with Chris - I'd be surprised and upset if he took our discussion as anything other than friendly debate!
Chris,
"I don't believe in a complete open door policy. I lived in London for a while and saw at first hand what a cesspit certain parts of it have become as a result of that policy.
I'm talking about places where it would not be safe to walk down the road alone.
I don't believe in multi-culturalism, "
All taken from your previous post.
1/ You oppose open door policy
2/ You oppose multiculturalism
3/ You call multiclural areas cesspits
4/ You say you feel unsafe in multiclutural areas.
Btw James Connolly as Ivan rightly highlighted did subscribe to the left wing ideology you are condemning. Jim Larkin would also fall into this bracket. The late Brian Keenan also an unapologetic Marxist.
You cannot claim to be left wing whilst at the same time condemn Communism, offer unconditonal support to the church and oppose multiculturalism. Can you not see how untenable your situation actually is? Are you really that devoid of ideological guidance?
What would the RC have made of Marx? Surely his brand of left wing politics were bearing the brunt of the above criticism from the RC hierarchy? What about the RC marginalisation and eventual suppression of liberation theology? Have the RC not vehemently opposed left wing governments in Latin America for years. Quite rich a body headed by a former Nazi lecturing others on morality and social justice!
Ivan
I did indeed take your questions as part of an ongoing series of friendly debate.
Observer
I have known and debated with Ivan through email and blogs for over 5 years.
While he is a self confessed, if not reformed, pedant. I find him a useful one for any blog to have.
I enjoy someone like Ivan challenging my beliefs because it is a cathartic experience.
It lets you see if you really believe in a certain ideal.
Having ones beliefs challenged is a very healthy experience and one of the reasons why I started Balrog.
BTD
Where to begin
"You call multiclural areas cesspits"
I did not. The areas in question are far from multicultural.
I am talking about areas that threatened to behead my local parish priest in London because the Pope said something bad about Mahmud.
"You say you feel unsafe in multiclutural areas"
I didn't
"Btw James Connolly as Ivan rightly highlighted did subscribe to the left wing ideology you are condemning"
James Connolly turned towards Religion at the end of his life. Check the writings of Scott Herber and Father Aloysius.
In his writing Religion and Socialism he wrote
"We do not mean that its supporters are necessarily materialists in the vulgar, and merely anti-theological, sense of the term, but that they do not base their socialism upon any interpretation of the language or meaning of scripture, nor upon the real or supposed intentions of a beneficent Deity. They as a party neither affirm or deny those things, but leave it to the individual conscience of each member to determine what beliefs on such questions they shall hold. As a political party they wisely prefer to take their stand upon the actual phenomena of social life as they can be observed in operation amongst us to-day, or as they can be traced in the recorded facts of history"
His absolution and last rites were administered by a Capuchin, Father Aloysius. Asked to pray for the soldiers about to shoot him, he said:
'I will say a prayer for all men who do their duty according to their lights'.
To compare Connolly with an animal like Stalin is an insult to Connolly
.
Cheers Chris - I've learned a lot from our discussions and I hope it has not all been one way traffic
Where do I find Canon Laws mate ? I'd like to check up on some of Paul Blanshard's claims.
Here is the Code of Canon Law
http://www.vatican.va/archive/EN...1104/
_INDEX.HTM
Much Obliged - I owe you one. Call it in next time you are losing another debate with me
I'll let you know when that happens Ivan, it will be a first
Ivan, Chris
I feel like someone caught in the middle of a domestic.
"Stop hitting her"
"How dare you shout at my husband"
You´re right though, Ivan,
Chris doesn´t get upset about debates.
That requires insight
Chris,
You really should make your sentiments clear instead of shrouding them in ambiguity.
"I did not. The areas in question are far from multicultural. "
Ok so the areas are steeped in a different cultural background than one you are from or are comfortable with. It does not make them a cesspit. This has overtures of Cromwells 'To hell or Connaught' belief and portrays you as an irascible racist.
"I am talking about areas that threatened to behead my local parish priest in London because the Pope said something bad about Mahmud."
To be devils advocate Chris, could British people not argue that the we got 18 and Mountbatten graffiti alluded to in other posts is exactly the same as this?
At no point did I compare Connolly to Stalin. I never evn mentioned Stalin. I merely pointed out that Connollys socialism was hated by the RC establishment. Interesting how Connollys daughter Nora sided with the Irps and gave a tremendous oration about Seamus Costello. I think that your socialism is akin to that of the Irps and Sticks, self serving with more change of colours than a fecking chameleon.
BTD
Nobody else was unclear about my sentiments, just your good self.
"Ok so the areas are steeped in a different cultural background"
Nothing cultural about the areas in question
In relation to Cromwell, he was a foreigner who tried to engage in genocide whilst in Ireland
You are trying to compare my adherence to policy integration within my own country with his puranitical and imperalist murder machine?
You are stretching reality a bit there son!
We got 18 and Mountbatten was not a threat to Civilians in the way that Muslim extremists threathned to behead Fr Parker.
Added to the fact that the IRA were engaged in a campaign to achieve national freedom and the other was a threat to an old priest.
You are stretching yet again
"At no point did I compare Connolly to Stalin"
You posted the below
"Btw James Connolly as Ivan rightly highlighted did subscribe to the left wing ideology you are condemning"
The ideology I was condemning was that of Stalin, an ungodly and wholly vulgar materalistic version of a once noble doctrine.
Make your mind up ffs!
"I merely pointed out that Connollys socialism was hated by the RC establishment."
You did no such thing!
"Interesting how Connollys daughter Nora sided with the Irps "
Interesting how? I said I admired James Connolly, not his daughter!
Chris,
"In relation to Cromwell, he was a foreigner who tried to engage in genocide whilst in Ireland"
And you were a foreigner roaming around parts of London deriding and looking down on other races and cultures. That is unless you consider yourself to be British? Even you must agree Chris that your self righteous holier than thou attitude is completely anathema to the cardinal principles of socialism.
"The ideology I was condemning was that of Stalin"
No, you were ridiculing socialism the early 1900's. Connollys and Larkins socialism were about during this era were they not?
It is interesting how a socialist', as you so often try to portray yourself in a way that is typical of someone over compensating, can find so much problem with Stalin and China but not with the RC church. I'm not defending either Stalin or China before your start but interesting how you concentrate on the murder, subjugation etc of Stalin and China but totally ignore, time after time, that of the RC church.
Great man Cromwell. All republicans should venerate him.
Obs - no problem, Chris and I have been talking politics and religion since pussy was a kitten. We may have had cross words about politics but not religion.
I know that, Ivan.
Still feel like I was mugged
I know that, Ivan.
Does that refer to venerating Oliver ?
My one and only (and probably last) rant about religion and look what happens!
Prods and Taigs gang up on me.
Is there no justice?
I stay out of all that mucky stuff it's catching. Ivan tries to tease/test Chris, who in turn just shows off. Don't know why but I am always supremely wary of God-botherers. Just isn't healthy to bother the man over much.
Tony - I'm genuinely interested in religions - the only problem is that the vast majority of "cradle" Catholics, in my experience, know very little about their religion. So it's refreshing to discuss things with Chris.
Faith is great, but I hope you're getting face-to-face with Jesus (spiritually, that is!). God bless you.
Commenting by HaloScan
