« Impeachment as Footnote | Main | Changing Perceptions of the Federal Government »

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

I'm trying, Ringo; I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd


The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the
Inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men
Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will
shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness
for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children
And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious
Anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers
And you will know
My name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee

Posted by Howard Wasserman on April 22, 2020 at 11:27 AM in Culture, Howard Wasserman | Permalink


Aren't these the same whackjob conservatives that were crying about Obamacare "death panels" back in 2010?

Posted by: Art | Apr 24, 2020 7:25:08 PM

It's Jules' soliliquy in Pulp Fiction (as you are aware):


at about the 2 minute mark

and this scene:


Posted by: Jim Basquat | Apr 23, 2020 2:15:33 PM

Paul: I was trying to be funny, so it made sense to cut-and-paste the entire passage. I never thought to make a point by stopping after lost children, nor was I making a point about human v. divine vengeance. As always, you give these things deeper and more serious thought than I do.

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Apr 23, 2020 11:53:59 AM

It HAS to be a provocateur, because no one could possibly be so idiotic as to show a sign like that in public.


Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick

Posted by: Anon | Apr 23, 2020 11:28:22 AM

Howard, one question if I may: Why did you use the entirety of the Ezekiel passage and not cut it off after "lost children?" Was it for completeness, cinematic or biblical? Or were you trying to emphasize that vengeance is the Lord's, and thus, while it is our job to shepherd the weak, it is not our role to seek vengeance and arguably not our role either to indulge in "furious anger?"

Posted by: Paul | Apr 23, 2020 10:36:11 AM

"Could the sign-holder be an agent provocateur?"

that's the obvious conclusion. unlike the others, the protester wore sunglasses and a scarf to hide the face. and the language is *perfect* for a counter-protest troll and is atypical for a true protester. well played, counter-protester!

Posted by: anon | Apr 23, 2020 10:16:17 AM

I have a simple response to those who wish to expedite "re-opening" of the economy; sign a Do Not Resuscitate order or Advance Directive instructing health professionals to merely make you comfortable and manage your pain in the unfortunate event you contract COVID-19. No heroic efforts are to be taken by highly-skilled health professionals on your behalf.
I believe in the vernacular, this is known as "having some skin in the game".

Posted by: Paul Sonnenfeld | Apr 23, 2020 12:05:04 AM

Could the sign-holder be an agent provocateur?

Should we judge one side of an argument generally by the rudest voice on that side?

Isn't it ultimately going to be up to individuals to decide when they venture outside?

Aren't some European countries also opening up in the next few weeks?

Is asking rhetorical questions on a blog comment section a valuable use of one's time?

Posted by: rhetor | Apr 22, 2020 6:57:37 PM

I should also point out that we decided to sacrifice people's jobs and livelihoods, knowing that this also will lead to worse health outcomes for themselves and their children. In addition, this compounds the economic woes Millennials were already facing and pretty much guaranteed they will be the first generation to lose wealth. We sacrificed education, not entirely sure how massive an impact that's going to have on entire lives.

Lives have been sacrificed--in a literal sense--to protect the country's medical infrastructure.

Again, we just say it more politely. Or more accurately, we just don't talk about it at all.

Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Apr 22, 2020 4:58:42 PM

Isn't this pretty much what we all do, but we just don't say it out loud?

For instance, we know that these lockdowns are going to increase domestic violence and suicides, but we've decided to sacrifice 'the weak'--people that we already know are at risk and that we know are going to struggle from this and we know are going to die from this--in order to protect our medical infrastructure?

Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Apr 22, 2020 12:17:34 PM

Post a comment