Every year, before Easter, the Catholic Church celebrates Holy Week. Holy Week is good time for the smells and bells Catholics. It’s a different week in the liturgical year — palms, parts of the Gospel read outside of the Church, empty tabernacles. And incense. Lots of incense. All designed to let you know that this week is different.

One of the unofficial rituals is carping over the Holy Thursday’s washing of feet. During the Holy Thursday mass there is an optional ritual — the washing of feet. During this ritual the celebrant imitates Jesus’ washing his disciples feet at the last super. This is supposed to remind the celebrant that he is a servant of the community. On occasion the reminder has lasted until Easter.

Now, in a classical “Blessed are the makers of all dairy products” moment, there is a great deal of argument over what kind of people should have their feet washed, ie, should they be men or women? The instructions from the Vatican are quite clear; they people having their feet washed should be men. The 12 apostles, were, after all, men. Some claim we should follow His example. But, others are clearly upset that women are excluded.

What to do?

I have three proposals for modifying the rite.

Proposal one: Jesus didn’t just wash men’s feet. No, the interpretation is rather more particular about it then that. In my modified rite #1, the twelve foot washees must have names identical to the twelve apostles. Otherwise, confusion among the faithful might result and people might not realize that the people having their feet washed represent the twelve apostles.

Proposal two: Jesus didn’t just wash men’s feet. No, he washed first century Jews feet. I’m willing to give in on the first century part, but for proposal two the twelve people having their feet washed must be Jewish. And have names identical to the twelve apostles.

Proposal three: Holy Thursday is considered to be when the apostles were ordained (note: this means they all bailed on Him after ordination), therefor — all twelve foot washees must be bishops. Converted from Judaism. With names matching the twelve apostles.

Happy Valentine’s Day to all of our readers from the folks here at the 12 Angry Men Blog. We know that behind the celebration of the Hallmark holiday that drives up the stock prices of the likes of Hershey and Nestle we have a serious celebration, well, at least in Europe, anyway.

Today is the feast day of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, as celebrated in the Latin Church. These two brothers, co-patrons of Europe are known as “Apostles to the Slavs.” Born in 827 and 826, respectively, they are responsible for the evangelization of much of Eastern Europe. They not only invented the pre-cursor to the modern Cyrillic alphabet, but they also invented the (Old Church) Slavonic language, and developed the first Slavic civil code.

In many ways, I can’t think of a better pair of saints on whose feast day to celebrate love. They not only model for us the love of brothers and family, but a love of God that reached so wide they went into the hinterlands of Eastern Europe to bring it to everyone. And I imagine they presided at a whole lot of weddings too!

So, as you indulge in the depths of gushy, passionate, hedonistic, romantic love, remember that you do so on a day sacred to two celibate brothers who worked themselves to death to spread the Faith to the absolute ass-end of their world! All the best to you and your sweetie-pie!

(As an aside, St. Cyril is buried in Basilica di San Clemente in Rome. If you’re ever visiting the Eternal City, it’s definitely a place not to miss.)

On January 22nd, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their decision in the case of Roe vs. Wade. Thirty-five years later, we’re down to about 1.2 million abortions in the US per year (down from 1.5 million at the high point) and abortion is legal in all 50 states for almost any reason. This leaves me with but one conclusion: the pro-life movement has been a complete and utter failure.

After 35 years of voting for “pro-life” candidates (a code word often meaning “Republican”), the political arm of the pro-life movement has little to show for their efforts beside parental notification laws in 34 states and a partial birth abortion ban that Justice Kennedy practically begged someone to challenge. All, in all, the pro-life movement has had marginally more success than American Medical Marijuana Association despite the “support” over the years of many prominent politicians. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me for 35 years running, and I’m a pro-life activist.

To the credit of the pro-life movement, more and more people are realizing that doing the same thing over and over again will not yield different results. Germain Grisez admitted as much a few years back, but he never had the audience to make enough of a difference. On January 20th, in a move guaranteed to generate a firestorm of letters from irate EWTN fans, Fr. Benedict Groeschel invited a man to his show by the name of Msgr. Phillip Reilly, who was willing to speak the truth and unmask the pro-life movement’s work for what it is: a failure. Msgr. Reilly realized this a few years back and decided to try a radically different approach: no more shouting and yelling, no more making young mothers feel like they were evil incarnate because they were contemplating abortion. Msgr. Reilly founded the Helpers of God’s Precious Infants. The weapons he chose were not sound bites, placards or the ballot box, but rather prayer and love… for the baby, the doctor and most especially, the mother, regardless of what choice she made inside the clinic. The approach is not particularly new — prayer & sidewalk counseling has been around for a long time — but his willingness propose it as a model opposed to the traditional shout and vote approach was quite impressive.

Whether folks will listen to Msgr. Reilly or not is anyone’s guess. But perhaps come January 22nd, next year, there will be be a little less failure… and a little more hope thanks to Msgr. Reilly. There are a lot of moms out there who could use it.

The taste of succulent albacore with a hint of wasabi and soy sauce… Eel perfectly laid out over rice… A tasty roll of crab, expertly wrapped in fresh seaweed. For many, sushi is a tasty way to break free from the tyranny of bland, generic American cuisine. But wait just a minute Ms. Sashimi! Before you have another bite, realize this: When you dine on sushi, you dine with the Reverend Moon!

That’s right, that tasty bit of fish puts you in league with the Unification Church, and it’s leader the enigmatic Rev. Sun Myung Moon. But what do you mean, Angry New Mexican? I don’t believe in mass weddings, the insufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice courtesy of John the Baptist’s failings or a literal kingdom of God on earth. I mean, I don’t even read the Washington Times, a redoubt of the Moonies since its founding. How can I possibly be in league with the Moonies?

My dear sushi-eating readers, you are in league with Rev. Moon, and I’m about to explain why. To start off with, none of this is “new.” The Chicago Tribune and the East Bay Express pointed this out several years ago. But time and time again, I’ve found the American people woefully unaware of their role in the New World Order [Moonie Edition]. You see, Rev. Moon’s route to your California roll was revealed to the world in 1980 with his speech the Way of Tuna. In it Rev. Moon outlines his plan to build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth starting first with the oceans, hence the Way of Tuna. The means is simple — build a Korean chaebol, of the likes of Samsung or Hyundai (whose yes-men seem to alternate control of South Korea’s government), but build this chaebol in fish. The building of ships, fishing and distribution network in the US and Korea will all exist in one big happy (Moonie) family, under the guise True World Foods.

Rev. Moon started assembling his empire in the late 70’s, buying key companies and slowly taking over the town of Gloucester, MA. The Moonie fisherman have since also moved into Bayou La Batre, AL and Kodiak, AK. Gloucester does much of the processing and their 22 distribution centers are located in places like Elizabeth, NJ and Elk Grove Village, IL. According to The Trib, TWF brings in $250 million dollars a year in revenues. While not a monopoly, TWF does have a substantial market share, and taking direction from Rev. Moon, has played a key role in the sushi explosion in the US in the last 30 years. On the TWF site, I found a choice quote, I felt our readers would enjoy:

“What we believe makes True World Foods LLC unique in the marketplace is our corporate culture. Its underlying principles are that we look to live our lives for the sake of others, believe in the philosophy of oneness and instill the idea of teamwork to all our employees.”

Oneness indeed… how wonderfully Moonie. So before you have that next yummy California roll, just remember: The Reverend Moon thanks you for your investment.

WordPress divider

Aside: You may notice the “Hates America” tag. I have decided, following the Mildly Piqued Academician (in homage to Angry Midwesterner), to tag all my rants with “Hates America” from here on out. I give it a fig leaf of justification by noting that readers of the Washington Times are part of the Grand Neoconservative Conspiracy (TM), and therefore must hate America.

While paging through News of the Weird, this caught my eye because I’ve been to this church before.

Ex-parishioner Angel Llavano, who had left a phone message for Father Luis Alfredo Rios criticizing one of his homilies, filed a defamation of character lawsuit in September after Father Rios retaliated by denouncing him in front of the Crystal Lake, Ill., congregation. Asked Rios (perhaps rhetorically), “Should we send (Llavano) to hell or to another parish?” [Chicago Tribune, 10-3-07]

After reading through a longer write-up from the local paper, I was thoroughly angry at both parties involved, each for their own actions.

It’s not particularly uncommon for sermons to rub someone the wrong way. The only way to avoid this is to water down the teaching of the Faith so much that one presents a talk that is both useless to give and to receive. While merely offending your congregation is not the sign of a good homilist; good homilists tend to get on the wrong side of the oversensitive in their communities on a fairly regular basis. Commonly, oversensitive parishioners tend to be involved somehow in parish education — an interesting correlation.

I don’t know either of these men. I don’t have a clue what Fr. Rios’ sermon, Mr. Llavano’s voice message, or Fr. Rios’ response contained aside from what was reported in the articles. I do know that there are better alternatives. If not the parishioner, then the priest should have known better. I’ve seen this situation begin on a handful of occasions, and I’ve seen it handled very well, and now also very poorly. Feelings get hurt, pride gets injured, but public retaliation is out of the question when the harm is only against you.

The Catholic response is: You praise in public, you admonish in private. End of lesson. When involved in an argument, you should never be the one to escalate a private dispute to a more public setting. If you need to make a public comment about an incident, you say nothing that could identify the other party in question — just discuss the incident.

To take a page from our Evangelical friends, (and as a background primer for our non-Christian readers) both men in question should know, being adult Christians and doubly so for both being teachers of the faith, these very straightforward and applicable Biblical passages.

Matt XVIII:15

“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.”

Luke VI:29

“To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.”

Matt V:25

“Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison.”

Now, as a result of failing to remember things that any good kindergartener knows, they both look like petulant children in a name-calling contest. Real men don’t need to go to court to settle petty disputes. They can sit down over a beer and work it out.

I would complain about how the only news anyone prints about Christians is bad news, but a priest unable to resolve a complaint about his sermon in a manly fashion is rightly a topic for News of the Weird, because it’s that rare. The vast majority of priests handle this properly without making national headlines out of it. Perhaps he had a bad week; perhaps he had a bad pizza the night before; but now he’s certainly having bad weeks as he’s getting hauled into the offices of the pastor and bishop for some remedial instruction…


Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t’was his intent
To blow up King and Parliament.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England’s overthrow;
By God’s providence he was catch’d
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, let the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!

Most Americans know this rhyme only vaguely from the movie V for Vendetta because, of course, we went through rather a rough patch with the British monarchy before our recent love affair with certain Royals and the fairly recent Special Relationship. It has a deep resonance in Britain to this day as an act that saved the monarchy from the evils of Popery and assorted other things, as this rhyme makes plain:

A penny loaf to feed the Pope
A farthing o’ cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we’ll say ol’ Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah hoorah!

Now, however, it seems that one of the quintessentially British holidays—the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot and Guy Fawkes, patsy, decidedly back-to-the-future jihadist, not-so-skilled master bomb maker, and symbol of Protestant hegemony in Merry Olde England—is possibly being regulated out of existence.

  • Burn the Guy?
  • Time to stop celebrating centuries of religious intolerance?
  • Classic bureaucratic over-regulation?
  • Parallels to the regulation of fireworks in the USA? (Lots of people do get hurt, start fires, etc.)
  • Something else?

Have your say!

Recently there was a bit of a pow-wow in Salt Lake City among conservative pro-life Christian big-wigs. Basically, they’ve finally come to accept the reality that Sam Brownback isn’t going to get the Republican nomination, and that all the likely winners are far too close to pro-choice for comfort (so was W., but these guys are a little slow). After some media speculation, Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family fame, wrote a column in yesterday’s NYT. In his letter, Mr. Dobson throws down the gauntlet: if neither party nominates a pro-life candidate, Mr. Dobson and almost anyone else at the meeting pledge to vote for a minor-party candidate. This is landslide news, if Mr. Dobson, his allies and their followers actually carry through on their threat. I’m not sure they can, but I would love to see them try. Many of the leaders in the pro-life movement are dedicated 1-issue voters (or k-issue, where k<5, if you add euthanasia, gay marriage and human cloning). However, many of their followers are died-in-the-wool Republicans who cafeteria-pick these issues as an excuse to always vote Republican (and ignore, say, the “inconvenient” social justice issues often brought up by religious Democrats). So if Dobson et al. carry out on their threat, we’ll see if pro-life voters are pro-life first and which ones are Republicans first. If most of them are pro-life first, then not only is the strength of the movement shown with substantial support for some third-party candidate, but the Republican candidate gets annihilated (President Clinton redux, anyone?). If they are Republicans first, then perhaps the pro-life movement will get its head out of the sand, break with the Republican party and go up for bid to the party that’s responding to their needs. I’d imagine that pro-life Democrats, like Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania will be very happy indeed.

The greatest ideological struggle in the post-communist era is, so the media tells us, the struggle against radical Islam. Unfortunately, the media oracle feeds us conflicting messages on what the real issue is and how it can be solved. Like any issue that involves political zombies, America has two irreconcilable visions of the problem, and two radically different solutions. But, as is true with many issues in American politics: both sides are wrong. This is part two of a two-part series dealing with the problems Americans have with understanding and responding to radical Islam. You can find part one here.

I meant to post this earlier, but I was hitting the mojitos pretty hard at lunch today, and well, that has consequences.

Now for the left, which is as one might imagine, not right. Their basic response to radical Islam is that we need to recreate Islam in our own image — creating a warm, fuzzy pro-abortion, pro-gay, non-violent form of Islam that looks more or less like American Episcopalianism with the addition of The Prophet. They argue that we need to encourage Muslims to follow touchy-feely liberal types, instead of the hard-line ascetic Salafists. Ultimately, Islam cannot be saved unless it is sufficiently “Westernized” and any sort of meaningful moral authority is eviscerated.

What’s the problem with that? Well, not much, if I’m a spineless moral relativist, who believes that the role of religion is to confirm the prejudices of the current age. But if I were a devout (but not radical) Muslim, I’d be furious at the elitist snobs, who can’t be bothered to worship their own God, but condescend to tell me how to worship mine. Imagine how the secular elite would react if King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia were to say, “We need to encourage moderate atheists to abandon their old-fashioned ideologies of abortion and homosexuality and embrace ideas more compatible with Islam?” I’d wager good money they’d be furious and fill the blogosphere and new media with their ranting… and I’d have no sympathy whatsoever (what goes around comes around).

To expect that Islam will be reinvented because Uncle Sam (aka The Great Satan) says so is either unbelievable arrogant or monumentally naive. Personally, I have a fundamental problem with any government (including my own) trying to get all Caeseropapist. I don’t care whether it’s my religion or someone else’s, but I don’t want any state telling someone what the “right” version of their religion should be. To expect that the Muslim world will welcome the American vision for Islam and not brand those who share it infidel dogs who are traitors to the true faith is sheer delusion… which appears to be where the left is living these days.

There can be no human society without conflict: such a society would be not a society of friends but of ants. —Sir Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

A few months back the results of two large representative surveys of the political views of university faculty were published with little fanfare. This was reported on a web page of the Allan Bloom-inspired group Minding the Campus, but the details for the one by Jewish Research is here. (MtC seems to mostly have just copied what Jewish Research said.) Here is a link to another study, done by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons at Harvard and George Mason, respectively. There was a little press coverage, e.g., this article in the Washington Post by Alan Cooperman. In the big scheme of things, this isn’t an enormous issue, so fair enough, but I still figured it would be worth some analysis.

In short, university faculty do not resemble the general population on their political and religious views. The data show that university faculty are similar to other “elite” groups of highly educated people in the society, i.e., more liberal than the norm, less religious, less likely to have voted for George W. Bush, etc.

Big surprise, there.

What’s interesting is what the studies don’t show. While university faculty are more liberal, less religious, etc., things are not monolithic. The vast majority still describe themselves as religious, have some involvement in a church, and so on. For instance, atheists—rare in the general population—are more common among university faculty, but by no means even close to a majority, making up about 8% of the respondents, with agnostics being about 12%. This is about three times the rate of the general population. The survey done by Gross and Simmons had an important caveat: Community colleges and state comprehensive universities have faculty that resemble the ordinary population more than elite institutions, which shouldn’t be shocking, either, since they tend to be drawn more from the ordinary population. This is important because a substantial majority of students attend these universities, not elite institutions. So in a sense, often the discourse is about what goes on at elite universities… which we shouldn’t really expect to resemble the general population much at all. The authors slice and dice the data in other ways; take a look at the original studies for more. The Gross/Simmons study is probably the one to read as it is much shorter and better written. (If you do, keep in mind that the margin of error for both surveys is about +/-4% on any estimates and if you want to be safe, don’t interpret differences less than about +/-6% as meaning much.)

Two groups, however, get singled out for special opprobrium among university faculty: Mormons and Evangelicals. I don’t pretend to understand the issue with Mormons aside from their appearance as a “mystery cult”—special underwear, closed temples, tales of revelation in upstate New York, and a history of polygamy will do that. But Mormons are far from popular among other groups, including Evangelicals, who like them even less than I suspect most university faculty do, so it’s unclear what to say about that. (Edit, 12/20/08: It seems that the Southern Baptist Convention may be responsible for much of the negative attention against Mormons.) On the issue of Evangelicals, the press releases have a certain doom and gloom aspect to them. From the press release on MtC:

Authors of the survey call this finding “alarming” and say those surveyed “have identified a deep and wide breach in the promotion and protection of diversity and open debate.” The report wonders about the long-term impact of prejudice against Evangelicals on campus and says it “stands out prominently in institutions dedicated to liberalism, tolerance and academic freedom…Colleges and universities have some serious soul-searching to do about these findings.”

Soul-searching? Hmmm…. Partisan agendas aside, lying behind the press release is, I believe, a theory of sociological representation, i.e., one that says that the distribution within an institution should resemble the society at large. (“Theory” here is being used in its philosophical, not scientific, sense.) In a sense, sociological representation is not a crazy notion, although different groups in our society can and do take it way, way too far, leading to things like the widespread gerrymandering of the 1990s to increase the number of representatives in the House from minority groups, made possible by an unholy alliance of left-leaning minority groups and conservative Republicans, both of whom could only agree on one thing: a desire to pick the voters rather than the other way around. The truth is, people self-select into all sorts of groups all the time. Furthermore, if you allow free association, identifiable sub-groups within society will not, in general, end up looking the population at large. For instance, people going into business tend to be much more financially motivated and generally economically conservative than Joe Average. I don’t hear conservatives hand-wringing about that.

2005 Economics Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling actually wrote a fascinating book considering (among others) the topic of segregation by individual choice, Micromotives and Macrobehavior, showing that very mild preference for “people like me” leads to near-total segregation quite quickly. (For the geeks: Schelling’s model was actually the first example of a cellular automaton model used to answer a real research question.) The result is counter-intuitive, but if you want to see what I mean, observe any large cafeteria where people get to choose their seats. Or you can play with Schelling’s model yourself (some assembly required). Anyway, the point is that underlying the hand-wringing about the fact that university faculty—and a lot of other social groups—fail to resemble the average population lies this notion of representation. Of course, many conservatives reject such a theory when it is applied in areas such as court membership (does the composition of the SCOTUS resemble the population at all? should it?), juries, boardrooms, and so on, but do seem to believe it about university faculty. Liberals like it when it comes to institutions they don’t control and feel the opposite in institutions they do. It’s not a good idea to trust the partisans on this issue (or, IMO, any issue, but that’s another story). Better, instead, to dig a little deeper….

(Continued here)

This is a special section of the 12 Angry Men Blog where we celebrate the best Troll to be found anywhere during the past week. While there are many varieties of troll, ranging from the fuzzy-haired dashboard decorations to the waylayer of the Billy Goats Gruff, we enjoy a well-executed jabbing that leaves an adversary stammering for a response. Any moron can produce a flame—mere sewage dumped upon the city square—but to produce a good Troll is a work worthy of the celebration of men.

The Troll of the Week segment will be written frequently enough to be termed “periodic”, but the actual label “of the week” is merely idealistic ambition, and it is not to be taken seriously.

This week’s winner of Troll of the Week is going international. A first for us here at the angry man blog. We wish to recognize an individual who has truly gone were no troll has gone before… bringing the wonderful world of internet insults mud-slinging, and occasional respondent legal ramifications (not to mention threats of physical harm) to the heart of a community of monks.

Context of the Troll:
China and Japan have long been natural enemies at the best of times and hostile beyond human capacity at the worst. Tensions between the two nations have been strained over the past 60 years, as China feels that Japan has not been suitably apologetic for atrocities committed during the Second World War. This also makes China a bit temperamental about anything seen as overtly aggressive or militaristic in Japanese behavior. One issue that typical meets these criteria is the realm of Martial Arts. Both nations hold powerful national pride attached to their homegrown fighting styles.

Execution of the Troll:
Last week an internet user identified only as “Five Minutes Every Day” posted a comment on the “Iron Blood Bulletin Board Community”. In his post he claimed that a Japanese Ninja visited The Shaolin Temple to challenge the monks there to combat and that the monks with their Kung Fu were unable to defeat the Ninja.

“The facts that the monks could not defeat a Japanese ninja showed that they were named as kung fu masters in vain.”

The entire Chinese nation was outraged, and the monks, eager to defend their honor quickly took action. That is correct, they got a lawyer and are suing the post’s author. Wait you say? A lawyer?!? This can not be Grasshopper!!! No cryptic Kosh-esque statement about the truth pointing to itself, or understanding being a three edged sword?!? No Caine/Master Po wisdom about patience and harmony?!? While the story could be completed right then and there, as most such stories would, it in fact continues on in its hilarity.

The author had written the post in an attempt to satirize the monastery and its head monk for not living up to the ideals and image that they foster and perpetuate (most notably that the order’s leader has his own chauffeur driven car). In a supreme irony, the monks response essentially proved his point, while at the same time demonstrating that same decadent legalism that China vilifies the West for. A two for one deal; not bad “Five Minutes Every Day”. Though trolling a bunch of monks, nay the Shaolin Temple itself, is worthy of song and herald into the halls of the legendary trolls, this was still not yet enough for “Five Minutes Every Day”. These statements led to the following responses which only serve to hurt the position of those making them:

“The so-called defeat is purely fabricated, and we demand the Internet user to apologize to the whole nation for the wrongs he or she did,” -Lawyer for the Shaolin Temple, cited in the Beijing News

Yes, yes, we all know how they feel about free speech in China. For crimethink they would love to make “Five Minutes Every Day” an unperson.

“It is not only extremely irresponsible behavior with respect to the Shaolin temple and its monks, but also to the whole martial art and Chinese nation” -Shaolin Monks cited in Beijing News

Is this a bad time for a “my kung fu is better than your’s” comment?

In a fantastic one-two combo troll, the author used a favorite troll tactic and posted a fake apology/second troll:

“What I wrote was fiction. I apologize to Shaolin Temple and all my readers….I hope that the Shaolin masters will exercise their Buddhist compassion and virtue, and forgive me. Thank you very much.”

“..Buddhist compassion and virtue, forgive me.” Classic, simply classic, way to subtly insult while on the surface back pedal and all the while maneuver them into a corner that they must accept the half-assed fake apology to save face. I owe you a beer!

Here is hoping that the Ask a Ninja is looking forward to killing the Shaolin lawyer soon. Mc Shaolin, it seems that you have met your match in the keyboard warriors. Long live the parody and comedy. I personally vote for Chuck!

Internetz Honor

For this inspired troll, “Five Minutes Every Day” is awarded the coveted Troll of the Week, and will receive an honorary beer at the Man Lunch. In addition to beer I personally owe you for the entertainment you offered. Any Shaolin Monks wishing to sue “Five Minutes Every Day” for the honor of said beer might find that once done, this beer much like their actions would then be without honor.