Full Version: William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925-2008)
New York Times Obituary
I found this interesting:
I must admit that, no matter how much we might have disagreed on controversial issues, I found something very charming indeed about Buckley's intellectualism, sparkling wit, and the obvious joie de vivre he took in everything he did.
I enjoyed reading his novels and editorials. This one in particular, published not very long before he died, had an enormous impact on me with its heartfelt honesty.
My Smoking Confessional
To be debated:
What is the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.?
Feel free to add any personal impressions you may have of the man and his work.
QUOTE
William F. Buckley Jr. Is Dead at 82
. . .
William Buckley, with his winningly capricious personality, his use of ten-dollar words and a darting tongue writers loved to compare to an anteater’s, was the popular host of one of television’s longest-running programs, “Firing Line,” and founded and shepherded the influential conservative magazine “National Review.”
. . .
Mr. Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal post-World War II America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964 and saw his dreams fulfilled when Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office.
. . .
William Buckley, with his winningly capricious personality, his use of ten-dollar words and a darting tongue writers loved to compare to an anteater’s, was the popular host of one of television’s longest-running programs, “Firing Line,” and founded and shepherded the influential conservative magazine “National Review.”
. . .
Mr. Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal post-World War II America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964 and saw his dreams fulfilled when Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office.
I found this interesting:
QUOTE
He was often described as liberals’ favorite conservative . . .
I must admit that, no matter how much we might have disagreed on controversial issues, I found something very charming indeed about Buckley's intellectualism, sparkling wit, and the obvious joie de vivre he took in everything he did.
I enjoyed reading his novels and editorials. This one in particular, published not very long before he died, had an enormous impact on me with its heartfelt honesty.
My Smoking Confessional
QUOTE
Half a year ago my wife died, technically from an infection, but manifestly, at least in part, from a body weakened by 60 years of nonstop smoking. I stayed off the cigarettes but went to the idiocy of cigars inhaled, and suffer now from emphysema, which seems determined to outpace heart disease as a human killer.
Stick me in a confessional and ask the question: Sir, if you had the authority, would you forbid smoking in America? You'd get a solemn and contrite, Yes. Solemn because I would be violating my secular commitment to the free marketplace. Contrite, because my relative indifference to tobacco poison for so many years puts me in something of the position of the Zyklon B defendants after World War II.
These folk manufactured the special gas used in the death camps to genocidal ends. They pleaded, of course, that as far as they were concerned, they were simply technicians, putting together chemicals needed in wartime for fumigation. Some got away with that defense; others, not.
Those who fail to protest the free passage of tobacco smoke in the air come close to the Zyklon defendants in pleading ignorance.
Stick me in a confessional and ask the question: Sir, if you had the authority, would you forbid smoking in America? You'd get a solemn and contrite, Yes. Solemn because I would be violating my secular commitment to the free marketplace. Contrite, because my relative indifference to tobacco poison for so many years puts me in something of the position of the Zyklon B defendants after World War II.
These folk manufactured the special gas used in the death camps to genocidal ends. They pleaded, of course, that as far as they were concerned, they were simply technicians, putting together chemicals needed in wartime for fumigation. Some got away with that defense; others, not.
Those who fail to protest the free passage of tobacco smoke in the air come close to the Zyklon defendants in pleading ignorance.
To be debated:
What is the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.?
Feel free to add any personal impressions you may have of the man and his work.
What is the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.?
I learned to respect conservatives while watching William F. Buckley, Jr. on television. I remember him arguing with Gore Vidal during the 1968 Republican convention. I also remember him losing his temper with Vidal, telling him to "Shut your g--damn mouth." Not one of his best moments, obviously, and it caught the censors by surprise.
Dad used to always say that he needed a haircut.
Buckley's charm and intellectual honesty will be missed, even by some of us "L" people. Some of us will miss running to the dictionary while listening to him. I expanded my vocabulary that way.
I remember a televised debate in which the subject was whether the U.S. should give over the Panama Canal to the Panamanians to operate. Ronald Reagan said "no, we shouldn't;" Buckley said, "yes, we should." I was more conservative back then and I sided with Reagan, but I did admire Buckley for the reasoned way he defended his position.
Buckley was also honored by being parodied by MAD Magazine. I remember a snippet of a poem about his television program "Firing Line" in the magazine written to the tune of "My Favorite Things." From the portion to "These are a few of my favorite things":
"Cum grano salis, the Firing Line."
I learned to respect conservatives while watching William F. Buckley, Jr. on television. I remember him arguing with Gore Vidal during the 1968 Republican convention. I also remember him losing his temper with Vidal, telling him to "Shut your g--damn mouth." Not one of his best moments, obviously, and it caught the censors by surprise.
Dad used to always say that he needed a haircut.
Buckley's charm and intellectual honesty will be missed, even by some of us "L" people. Some of us will miss running to the dictionary while listening to him. I expanded my vocabulary that way.
I remember a televised debate in which the subject was whether the U.S. should give over the Panama Canal to the Panamanians to operate. Ronald Reagan said "no, we shouldn't;" Buckley said, "yes, we should." I was more conservative back then and I sided with Reagan, but I did admire Buckley for the reasoned way he defended his position.
Buckley was also honored by being parodied by MAD Magazine. I remember a snippet of a poem about his television program "Firing Line" in the magazine written to the tune of "My Favorite Things." From the portion to "These are a few of my favorite things":
"Cum grano salis, the Firing Line."
I remember that particular bit from Mad. I also remember another bit about Buckley, where he was said to throw darts at a target to choose what to do that day, one of the choices being "chuckle over a remark of Ptolemy."
That reminds me of a point I forgot to bring up. With his vocabulary, his patrician accent, his slouching posture, his clip board and pencil, and his toothy grin, he was very easy to parody. I think he got a kick out of being spoofed, and I can recall his appearance on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In.
Perhaps one of his most important legacies will be to remind those on the Right that conservatism can be fun. Certainly much of Reagan's popularity was based on his sense of humor and optimism, qualities which other politicians have since learned to share.
That reminds me of a point I forgot to bring up. With his vocabulary, his patrician accent, his slouching posture, his clip board and pencil, and his toothy grin, he was very easy to parody. I think he got a kick out of being spoofed, and I can recall his appearance on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In.
Perhaps one of his most important legacies will be to remind those on the Right that conservatism can be fun. Certainly much of Reagan's popularity was based on his sense of humor and optimism, qualities which other politicians have since learned to share.
A Great Man. WF Buckley did as much for the conservative ideology during his years on Firing Line, as Bush II has undone. He was a true conservative. I watched him on television throughout my childhood, and he was definitely an influence on me. In the war of wit and words, he had no equal.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Mar 5 2008, 12:52 AM) 
What is the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.?
Superlative grammar. Fierce wit. Passion. Vocabulary. Intelligence. Bad hair. Rumpled suits. A real intelligentsia Conservative.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Mar 5 2008, 12:52 AM)
New York Times Obituary
I found this interesting:
I must admit that, no matter how much we might have disagreed on controversial issues, I found something very charming indeed about Buckley's intellectualism, sparkling wit, and the obvious joie de vivre he took in everything he did.
I enjoyed reading his novels and editorials. This one in particular, published not very long before he died, had an enormous impact on me with its heartfelt honesty.
My Smoking Confessional
To be debated:
What is the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.?
Feel free to add any personal impressions you may have of the man and his work.
QUOTE
William F. Buckley Jr. Is Dead at 82
. . .
William Buckley, with his winningly capricious personality, his use of ten-dollar words and a darting tongue writers loved to compare to an anteater’s, was the popular host of one of television’s longest-running programs, “Firing Line,” and founded and shepherded the influential conservative magazine “National Review.”
. . .
Mr. Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal post-World War II America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964 and saw his dreams fulfilled when Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office.
. . .
William Buckley, with his winningly capricious personality, his use of ten-dollar words and a darting tongue writers loved to compare to an anteater’s, was the popular host of one of television’s longest-running programs, “Firing Line,” and founded and shepherded the influential conservative magazine “National Review.”
. . .
Mr. Buckley’s greatest achievement was making conservatism — not just electoral Republicanism but conservatism as a system of ideas — respectable in liberal post-World War II America. He mobilized the young enthusiasts who helped nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964 and saw his dreams fulfilled when Reagan and the Bushes captured the Oval Office.
I found this interesting:
QUOTE
He was often described as liberals’ favorite conservative . . .
I must admit that, no matter how much we might have disagreed on controversial issues, I found something very charming indeed about Buckley's intellectualism, sparkling wit, and the obvious joie de vivre he took in everything he did.
I enjoyed reading his novels and editorials. This one in particular, published not very long before he died, had an enormous impact on me with its heartfelt honesty.
My Smoking Confessional
QUOTE
Half a year ago my wife died, technically from an infection, but manifestly, at least in part, from a body weakened by 60 years of nonstop smoking. I stayed off the cigarettes but went to the idiocy of cigars inhaled, and suffer now from emphysema, which seems determined to outpace heart disease as a human killer.
Stick me in a confessional and ask the question: Sir, if you had the authority, would you forbid smoking in America? You'd get a solemn and contrite, Yes. Solemn because I would be violating my secular commitment to the free marketplace. Contrite, because my relative indifference to tobacco poison for so many years puts me in something of the position of the Zyklon B defendants after World War II.
These folk manufactured the special gas used in the death camps to genocidal ends. They pleaded, of course, that as far as they were concerned, they were simply technicians, putting together chemicals needed in wartime for fumigation. Some got away with that defense; others, not.
Those who fail to protest the free passage of tobacco smoke in the air come close to the Zyklon defendants in pleading ignorance.
Stick me in a confessional and ask the question: Sir, if you had the authority, would you forbid smoking in America? You'd get a solemn and contrite, Yes. Solemn because I would be violating my secular commitment to the free marketplace. Contrite, because my relative indifference to tobacco poison for so many years puts me in something of the position of the Zyklon B defendants after World War II.
These folk manufactured the special gas used in the death camps to genocidal ends. They pleaded, of course, that as far as they were concerned, they were simply technicians, putting together chemicals needed in wartime for fumigation. Some got away with that defense; others, not.
Those who fail to protest the free passage of tobacco smoke in the air come close to the Zyklon defendants in pleading ignorance.
To be debated:
What is the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.?
Feel free to add any personal impressions you may have of the man and his work.
Two comments: First, he had perhaps the best vocabulary of anyone I have ever seen; watching him on Firing Line was a joy, even if I did have to keep a dictionary handy.
Second, he was NOT a neo-concservative. The National Review which he founded, as he stepped further and further away from it, went that direction, but he was closer to a true conservative (a la Edmund Burke) than a neo-con, in my opinion. He believed, I think, in Consitutionally limited government, which should be the beginning point of all U.S. conservatism.
Here is one Buckley comment:
"Conservatism aims to maintain in working order the loyalties of the community to perceived truths and also to those truths which in their judgment have earned universal recognition.
Now this leaves room, of course, for deposition, and there is deposition — the Civil War being the most monstrous account. But it also urges a kind of loyalty that breeds a devotion to those ideals sufficient to surmount the current crisis. When the Soviet Union challenged America and our set of loyalties, it did so at gunpoint. It became necessary at a certain point to show them our clenched fist and advise them that we were not going to deal lightly with our primal commitment to preserve those loyalties. That’s the most general definition of conservatism."
And another, with which I heartily agree:
Q: The prefix “neo” being placed in front of the word “conservative” has given conservatism quite a different spin. Many old-time or traditional conservatives are not too happy with the idea that the United States is trying to spread democracy around the world a la Woodrow Wilson, as is going on in Iraq. Is that something conservatives can be blamed for or is that something that is not conservative in nature?
A: I think it’s the latter. Conservatives can be blamed to the extent that they are thought of having acquiesced in that definition of their goal in a free society. But it has been by no means unanimous in the belief that conservatism consists in that kind of evangelistic extreme.
There are people whom I enormously admire, as perhaps you do, who take a pretty Wilsonian view about the responsibility of states like ours vis-a-vis states that simply reject learning that we consider to be primary, that’s true.
But I don’t think that the existence of the neoconservative movement has the effect of vitiating legitimate conservatism — or even of putting such pressure on traditional conservatives as to feel that they are missing a great historical tide.
Some people that I very much respect, like (Weekly Standard editor) Bill Kristol, disagree with me on that, but there we are.
What is the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.?
I attribute his carreer with the twisting of the conservative movement by rewriting their foreign policy. He mainstreamed the idea the crazy. You disagree with the stance you're then crazy. He also was the master of the hit obituary. It is easy to snipe on dead people. This is why David Green's sneer on Buckley's life is so apt. I was pretty impressed with LewRockwell's analysis. Buckley had a quick wit, descriptive, but was destructive to the old right and political process.
I attribute his carreer with the twisting of the conservative movement by rewriting their foreign policy. He mainstreamed the idea the crazy. You disagree with the stance you're then crazy. He also was the master of the hit obituary. It is easy to snipe on dead people. This is why David Green's sneer on Buckley's life is so apt. I was pretty impressed with LewRockwell's analysis. Buckley had a quick wit, descriptive, but was destructive to the old right and political process.
What is the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.?
Well I very much enjoyed Firing Line but I never was able to credit him with more than marginal insights. He had one quality which seems to be unique among conservative interviewers I have been exposed to. He appeared to relish having on people he disagreed with and then he showed the respect to allow them to make their points fully. This is very different from the kind of avoidance of direct conflict I commonly see with conservative interviewers or as an alternative their rude employment of conversation interruptus - think of Bill O'Reilly on Fox.
When I think of Buckley I think of style more than substance. However he did free conservatism from the Birchers and the anti-Semites and finally God bless him came to admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. In that he appears to have been a minority of one on National Review.
Well I very much enjoyed Firing Line but I never was able to credit him with more than marginal insights. He had one quality which seems to be unique among conservative interviewers I have been exposed to. He appeared to relish having on people he disagreed with and then he showed the respect to allow them to make their points fully. This is very different from the kind of avoidance of direct conflict I commonly see with conservative interviewers or as an alternative their rude employment of conversation interruptus - think of Bill O'Reilly on Fox.
When I think of Buckley I think of style more than substance. However he did free conservatism from the Birchers and the anti-Semites and finally God bless him came to admit that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. In that he appears to have been a minority of one on National Review.
What is the legacy of William F. Buckley, Jr.?
He was largely responsible for putting together the conservative coalition of the last half-century: libertarians, social conservatives, and foreign-policy hawks. Kicked out of (his) coalition were the anti-semites and Birchers, and isolationists. That was an important realignment.
Not sure what you mean by "mainstreamed the idea the crazy," Trouble. There was the famous denouncing of the John Birch society, but they really were crazy. Their leader thought Eisenhower was a Soviet spy, that the government was fluoridating our water supplies in order to mentally enslave us, and that Alaska was being converted into a giant insane asylum to house anyone who wouldn't go along with the communist program.
David Green's piece brings up some important things that Buckley was wrong about -- Civil Rights being the most important. Even decades later, Buckley never quite got what was wrong with treating "colored people" as a different kind. After all, he said, he'd contributed to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, whose very name assumed that there were other people -- white people -- who were more "advanced." That's quite disappointing.
But the majority of Green's article just smears everyone on the right with a brush as wide as the planet. Green imagines that all conservatives want an end of liberty and return of aristocracy. But that's nonsense. Libertarians were always an important part of Buckley's coalition. Green quotes Buckley's introduction to the National Review, where he famously said it would "stand athwart history, yelling Stop." But the actual principles he articulated were anything but reactionary, and are still worth reading:
(There are a few more at the link.)
He was largely responsible for putting together the conservative coalition of the last half-century: libertarians, social conservatives, and foreign-policy hawks. Kicked out of (his) coalition were the anti-semites and Birchers, and isolationists. That was an important realignment.
QUOTE(Trouble @ Mar 5 2008, 06:55 PM)
I attribute his carreer with the twisting of the conservative movement by rewriting their foreign policy. He mainstreamed the idea the crazy. You disagree with the stance you're then crazy. He also was the master of the hit obituary. It is easy to snipe on dead people. This is why David Green's sneer on Buckley's life is so apt. I was pretty impressed with LewRockwell's analysis. Buckley had a quick wit, descriptive, but was destructive to the old right and political process.
Not sure what you mean by "mainstreamed the idea the crazy," Trouble. There was the famous denouncing of the John Birch society, but they really were crazy. Their leader thought Eisenhower was a Soviet spy, that the government was fluoridating our water supplies in order to mentally enslave us, and that Alaska was being converted into a giant insane asylum to house anyone who wouldn't go along with the communist program.
David Green's piece brings up some important things that Buckley was wrong about -- Civil Rights being the most important. Even decades later, Buckley never quite got what was wrong with treating "colored people" as a different kind. After all, he said, he'd contributed to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, whose very name assumed that there were other people -- white people -- who were more "advanced." That's quite disappointing.
But the majority of Green's article just smears everyone on the right with a brush as wide as the planet. Green imagines that all conservatives want an end of liberty and return of aristocracy. But that's nonsense. Libertarians were always an important part of Buckley's coalition. Green quotes Buckley's introduction to the National Review, where he famously said it would "stand athwart history, yelling Stop." But the actual principles he articulated were anything but reactionary, and are still worth reading:
QUOTE(William F. Buckley @ National Review, November 19, 1955)
A. It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.
B. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.
C. The century's most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider "coexistence" with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory.
D. The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than "newness") and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).
B. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.
C. The century's most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider "coexistence" with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory.
D. The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than "newness") and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).
(There are a few more at the link.)
As talking heads go, WF Buckley was one that I'd have loved to have met in person. You know they say that GWB is someone I'm supposed to like to drink with, but no, that's not so. WFB was the guy.
Yeah he used big expensive words that threw people off track. Ten bucks, adjusted for inflation, would be $300 words today, evidence that someone was reading 19th century literature.
The guy liked money. Who doesn't? He also thought that making pot illegal was very stupid. Actually, he was for legalizing all drugs, which isn't exactly a conservative view on things.
Not sure about this, but seems that I remember him finally admitting that Vietnam was pretty stupid but less stupid than other things this country has done. The thing was that WFB did not define himself into narrow categories like "conservative" or "intellectual." He also did not run for public office, again as far as I can remember.
The tongue action was pretty strange. He creeped me out at times. But beyond that, if anything, the guy had a brilliant mind and could build an argument. He could also see right away when someone was full of it and had no problem pointing out the truth with said $300 vocabulary.
Heh, a dictionary has vocabulary up the whazoo but can't build an argument.
Bill had a smugness about him that has carried through in the current crop of conservatives. The difference being that WFB's smugness was earned, not just a superficial characteristic. When he spoke, the thought process behind it was deep and had considered complexities beyond most people's abilities.
What he lacked was a sharp sense of humor. It was too subtle for popularity, unlike other great thinkers such as Wilde.
He wasn't gay either, which might have worked against his schticks.
There were faults in him that we don't know about. That's probably it. Too guarded.
He also did not get the working class. Cabbie prophets and poets did not exist for Buckley.
I see that as a huge weakness in conservative philosophy: Money makes the person. Actually poverty does, but this is a spiritual principle often preached and seldom practiced on purpose. Or so it seems. You don't get on TV by going into poverty. I bet it happens all the time, we're just not interested.
He also had never gone to war. He did military service toward the end of WW II and then played war games I guess.
Overall, I'd have loved to have done a beer and a bump with William F. Buckley. I would not have liked to have done a cross-country motorcycle jam with him.
There's the difference. Fun intellectual, but I would not have trusted the guy in a pinch.
I wonder how he would have reacted to riding in the snow, Yellowstone Park circa 1971. Happened to have been with a liberal and a conservative biker at the time, and we did well enough to survive without injury other than dancing with hypothermia. Mike was the NYC liberal, Dave the Iron Ranger conservative.
Uncommon words do not get you out of that. Friendship and faith does. There's something about shared danger.
Yeah he used big expensive words that threw people off track. Ten bucks, adjusted for inflation, would be $300 words today, evidence that someone was reading 19th century literature.
The guy liked money. Who doesn't? He also thought that making pot illegal was very stupid. Actually, he was for legalizing all drugs, which isn't exactly a conservative view on things.
Not sure about this, but seems that I remember him finally admitting that Vietnam was pretty stupid but less stupid than other things this country has done. The thing was that WFB did not define himself into narrow categories like "conservative" or "intellectual." He also did not run for public office, again as far as I can remember.
The tongue action was pretty strange. He creeped me out at times. But beyond that, if anything, the guy had a brilliant mind and could build an argument. He could also see right away when someone was full of it and had no problem pointing out the truth with said $300 vocabulary.
Heh, a dictionary has vocabulary up the whazoo but can't build an argument.
Bill had a smugness about him that has carried through in the current crop of conservatives. The difference being that WFB's smugness was earned, not just a superficial characteristic. When he spoke, the thought process behind it was deep and had considered complexities beyond most people's abilities.
What he lacked was a sharp sense of humor. It was too subtle for popularity, unlike other great thinkers such as Wilde.
He wasn't gay either, which might have worked against his schticks.
There were faults in him that we don't know about. That's probably it. Too guarded.
He also did not get the working class. Cabbie prophets and poets did not exist for Buckley.
I see that as a huge weakness in conservative philosophy: Money makes the person. Actually poverty does, but this is a spiritual principle often preached and seldom practiced on purpose. Or so it seems. You don't get on TV by going into poverty. I bet it happens all the time, we're just not interested.
He also had never gone to war. He did military service toward the end of WW II and then played war games I guess.
Overall, I'd have loved to have done a beer and a bump with William F. Buckley. I would not have liked to have done a cross-country motorcycle jam with him.
There's the difference. Fun intellectual, but I would not have trusted the guy in a pinch.
I wonder how he would have reacted to riding in the snow, Yellowstone Park circa 1971. Happened to have been with a liberal and a conservative biker at the time, and we did well enough to survive without injury other than dancing with hypothermia. Mike was the NYC liberal, Dave the Iron Ranger conservative.
Uncommon words do not get you out of that. Friendship and faith does. There's something about shared danger.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.