text:
Getting the Dirt on The Public Intellectual: A response to Michael Bérubé
thread: critical ecologies
Cary Wolfe lays bare the assumptions that define Bérubé's stance.
Before I get going, let me say I'm glad people like Michael Bérubé are out there doing what they do. Those of us on the left who aren't out front doing the dirty work in the so-called public sphere should think twice and probably thrice before we go chastising those who, like Bérubé, spend much time and energy patiently responding (in Bérubé's case with great good humor) to the Lynn Cheyneys of the world. So I want my comments here to be taken in a spirit of solidarity with Bérubé's efforts and even, in some cases, with his specific reservations and suggestions. Foremost among my points of agreement is Bérubé's rejection, on the one hand, of "the new discourse of the so-called 'public intellectual'" as deployed by Russell Jacoby and others, and, on the other hand, of the position held by Mas'ud Zavarzadeh and others that the intellectual who attempts to engage the dominant rhetoric of the social and cultural moment and play "inside the system according to the rules of reform" is automatically a stooge for the powers that be.
Both of these extremes, it seems to me, have long since been shown wanting by critiques such as Frank Lentricchia's under-read Criticism and Social Change (U of Chicago P, 1988), which shows how Kenneth Burke's career makes a mockery of both extremes, and in so doing provides a model for what I think Bérubé has in mind when he uses the term "public intellectual." The example of Burke as read by Lentricchia confirms Bérubé's suspicion that when Jacoby and others attack the "narrowness" and "careerism" of other intellectuals, what they are really attacking (under the cover of arguing that specialization undermines public duty) is what is usually called "theory." The example of Burke shows how the view of a zero-sum game between "theory" and public intellectual "practice" perpetuated by the discourse of the "public intellectual" is wrongheaded. Burke, after all, was doing grand theory long before it had a name - and not just in the well-known pair of books on motives, but way back in the thirties, in difficult and ambitious books like Attitudes Toward History and Permanence and Change. And he was a "generalist" who wrote for "nonspecialist journals" (and penned a few literary texts of his own as well). What the example of Burke tells us is not, as Jacoby et al. would have it, that one pursuit is better than another; what it tells us is that each needs the other to keep it honest.
I think this is something close to Bérubé's bottom line, and it is a bottom line I heartily endorse. But I also think that Bérubé needs to be reminded (as I intend to remind him here) that the theory side, the "intellectual" side, of this productive mutual antagonism tends to receive short shrift in his emphasis on the intellectual's need to address public policy. It has always been difficult to wear both hats, and almost nobody these days can wear both supremely well, in part because of the "functional differentiation" of modern society (to use Niklas Luhmann's term) which calls into question the very idea of the "public intellectual" - a point I will return to in some detail below. On the left, Edward Said and maybe a few others come to mind as exceptions, people who get a hearing in the major media and are taken as serious, cutting edge forces by those with academic expertise. This doesn't prove either side right, as Jacoby et al. think. What it means is that the public intellectual wannabes need to listen when the theory aficionados tell them they're trafficking in unexamined or discredited assumptions and posting specious arguments; and the theory-hounds need to listen when the public intellectuals tell them that it would be nice if they could make themselves as understandable as possible to as many readers as possible, even at the expense of sometimes rounding off a few corners, lest they be condemned to preaching to a very small choir.
So much for the first position rejected by Bérubé. As for the second, I must confess that I haven't read the essay by Zavarzadeh he cites, so I'll just have to assume that Bérubé's recounting is reasonably accurate. If it is, Zavarzadeh's contention strikes me as an all-too-familiar sort of critical dogma which is politically idealistic and intellectually simplistic in the stark Manichaean contrast it paints between the purity of the revolutionary intellectual, who alone understands and represents the true interests of "the people," and the ideologically contaminated "public intellectual" who thinks that gains may be made by seizing what Burke calls the "ruling symbols" and putting them to progressive political work. It is not so easy - it has never been so easy - to draw the sorts of rigid lines that Zavarzadeh wants to draw between the "revolutionary" and the "reformist," the "local" and the "global," being "inside" the "system" and being "outside" of it, and so on. How does this sort of framework help us make sense of, say, Louis Farrakan? Dave Foreman? Pat Buchanan? The Simpson trial? Madonna? It might seem tempting to excuse this sort of procrusteanism on the grounds of political commitment. But this, I think, would be overly-generous, for as Lentricchia writes of the lesson we can draw from Burke for the would-be politically-engaged intellectual,
To attempt to proceed in purity - to reject the rhetorical strategies of capitalism and Christianity, as if such strategies were in themselves responsible for human oppression - to proceed with the illusion of purity is to situate oneself on the margin of history... It is to exclude oneself from having any chance of making a difference for better or worse (36).
My skepticism toward Zavarzadeh's position should not be taken, however, as indicating any reduced emphasis on the issues of class, capital, and commodification hovering around the edges of the passage quoted by Bérubé. In fact, I will eventually want to suggest that this is precisely one of the registers in which Bérubé himself might want to think in more detail about the politics of "selling out," the role - perhaps I should say the possibility - of the public intellectual, and, especially, the trade-offs involved in endorsing a certain brand of nationalism. The extent to which such a commitment might be compatible with the fundamentally liberal humanist framework (left liberal humanist, to be sure) within which Bérubé seems currently to be operating is, I think, one of the most pressing questions of all for Bérubé's project, at least in the long run.
At the core of Bérubé's argument is his contention that "cultural studies, if it is going to be anything more than just...another option in the salad bar at the theory-school cafeteria, must direct its attention to the local and national machinery of public policy. I want to argue," he continues,
that Henry Giroux is right to claim, in his most recent essays, that cultural studies intellectuals aspire to the status of public intellectuals precisely because they conceive of the university as "a major public sphere that influences large numbers of people." "Teaching and writing," Bérubé concludes, "are two important ways of being public; but what I want to call for is a practice of cultural studies that articulates the theoretical and critical work of the so-called public intellectual to the movements of public policy."
Aside from pointing out that Bérubé's dismissive comment about the "theory school salad bar" makes him sound a lot more like the Jacoby/Dickstein line than he ought to be comfortable with, I can best state my differences with his view of the situation by citing a simple facts: most of the philosophical underpinnings needed to rhetorically mobilize a constituency in the public sphere toward progressive policy initiatives have been subjected to disabling critique in the theoretical work of many of those who would frame such a rhetoric. As Bill Rasch and I have argued elsewhere, maybe the fundamental problem for the politically attuned left intellectual right now is that the past 20 years have witnessed a powerful theoretical critique of representationalism in its various forms - that is, of the idea that some statements and interpretations are to be judged better than others because they more accurately and transparently reflect the true nature of a pre-given reality "as it is" before the interpreter and her discourse arrives on the scene (and the optical metaphor here is very much to the point, as Richard Rorty pointed out some time ago in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature). For idealists, that pre-given reality is in the structure of the mind or, in a certain variation, in the structure of language or discourse itself; for realists, it is in the "objective" structure of the world. But the past few decades have seen, in almost every area of the human sciences, the building of a very persuasive case indeed for the contingency and socially-constructed nature of all knowledge - a case, that is, against representationalism in all its forms. At first, the critique of representationalism seemed liberating for the left intellectual, for if it could be shown that any hegemonic discourse was contingent and not "grounded" in the usual sense, then it was easy to imagine that a different (i.e. more just) hegemony might be established. The problem, of course, is that once you have appealed to a social constructionist argument, and thereby kicked the theoretical foundations out from under those who pretend their power is grounded in the very order of things, you have also put your own (putatively more progressive) claims in jeopardy as well, insofar as those claims need a foundationalist philosophical ground to be effective.
Think, for example, of how powerful the Enlightenment rhetoric of universal human rights is in various debates within the public sphere. And then remind yourself how each of these three terms - "universal," "human," and "rights" - has been carefully and systematically subjected to radical critique by many of the major intellectual developments in the human sciences of the past 30 years. Almost all progressive movements (and some not so progressive ones) find it effective to trade upon the rhetoric of "rights." But in what sort of position does the left intellectual find herself when she remembers that the notion of "rights" has a quite historically, philosophically, and politically specific (i.e. liberal) lineage, that there is nothing natural about it, and that to appeal to equal rights under the law as a progressive social strategy is (as our Marxist friends remind us) to perpetuate the illusion that equality in the legal sphere solves rather than masks the problem of inequality in the economic sphere - all of which was powerfully played out alongside the dramas of gender and race in the Simpson trial?
And imagine now that how the left intellectual negotiates this problem - the discrepancy between what she knows is rhetorically effective in the public sphere and what she knows, philosophically and theoretically, about that rhetoric - is different in each of the instances invoked above by Bérubé and Giroux: writing an article (Harper's or boundary 2?), teaching (graduate or undergraduate?), addressing one's professional peers (field conference or AAUP meeting?), and so on. The problem is this: even if we agree with Bérubé, as I do, that cultural studies intellectuals ought to address public policy more than they do, it remains the case that different audiences, to be moved or persuaded, require different and even incompatible rhetorical strategies, and those multiple forms of address must still be reconciled with what the intellectual knows - as an intellectual, theorist, and critic - about those rhetorical terms.
I hasten to add that this is not simply a matter of intellectual fashion, as the Jonathan Yardleys of the world like to say, nor is it a matter of simply having been at the "theory school salad bar" so long that one experiences permanently paralyzing existential aporia over the cole slaw (creamy or chopped?). The problem is that the left public intellectual finds herself in a schizophrenic situation. But it is a schizophrenic situation, as so many influential theorists of "the postmodern condition" have suggested, that the rest of society shares - and shares structurally, not simply because of a bad attitude. It is possible to imagine, I suppose (as Jurgen Habermas does), that all of these different discourses and sites add up to and are rationally reconciled in something called a "public sphere," but looking around me I see no reason, other than sheer utopian longing, to think that it is so.
A more persuasive account of our current situation is offered, I think, by Niklas Luhmann's theory of "functional differentiation," which argues that modern and postmodern societies (the distinction is of little moment for him) are made up of discrete and self-referential but nevertheless interlinked systems - legal, educational, economic, political, and so on - none of which (including that in which the intellectual operates) may provide a privileged perspective on society as a whole. Social systems, as a condition of their self-reproduction (or "autopoiesis"), must respond selectively and reductively (in terms of their own operational codes) to an environment that is always already more complex than any single system - which is why, for example, animal rights organizations who want companies to stop testing cosmetics on animals realize that all the moral appeals in the world will not be as effective as organizing product boycotts (corporations are by definition in business to make money, and the moral code is strictly speaking beside the operational point). As Dietrich Schwanitz explains, the Luhmannian account of functional differentiation means that
society is no longer regarded as the sum of its parts, but as a combination of system-environment differentiations... The individual human being belongs to each of these functionally differentiated subsystems for only short periods of time with only limited aspects of his person depending on his respective role as a voter, pupil, reader, patient, or litigant. It is his fundamental exclusion from society that allows the occasional re-entry of the individual under particular circumstances.
Several important points would seem to follow from this view, most of which complicate considerably the role and even possibility of Bérubé's public intellectual. The first and most obvious is a radical questioning of the very idea of the "public sphere" itself. As Eva Knodt points out, while Habermas - and, one would have to think, Bérubé - "insists on grounding modern society in the archimedian point of a rationally motivated consensus, the principle of functional differentiation entails the absence of such a center and, by implication, the impossibility of a totalizing consciousness or collective identity on the model of a transcendental subject or of a linguistically grounded intersubjectivity." This is so, Luhmann argues, because one cannot "reestablish the totality of the system within the system. The whole cannot be a part of the whole at the same time. Any attempt of this kind would merely create a difference in the system: the difference of that part which represents the totality of the system within the system vis-a-vis all the other parts."
What this means, then, is that in functionally differentiated society there is no public sphere because there is no public, no space within which society is the "sum of its parts," no archimedian vantage from which the differences between different function systems, codes, discourses, and language games can be adjudicated. (There is, to be sure, that mass media concoction and addressee called "the public," but that, as Baudrillard and others have reminded us, is a very different matter indeed from Bérubé's "public.") So even if it is true, as Bérubé argues, that "conservative public intellectuals see it as integral to their enterprise to undermine the idea of the public in the realm of public policy," doing away with the idea of "the public" is not necessarily conservative. Indeed, it could be argued that it is crucial to leftist political strategy to understand above all, as the Right apparently does more effectively, the passing of the public sphere and the specific demands of the different function systems and their codes that those who would intervene must engage. This is all the more true in light of the fact, as Harro Müller reminds us, that "the participants in each respective system tend to overestimate their own possibilities and project them in inadmissible ways. Representatives of the political system always tie the power code to the moral code and stylize themselves as representatives of the common interest. In aesthetic discourse, it is a favorite rhetorical strategy to promote oneself as the mouthpiece of authentic experiences which are then generalized across systems." Indeed, Bérubé would seem to admit as much - and thereby recognize the fact of functional differentiation - when he quite rightly observes that "The 104th Congress is going about the business of dismantling social programs despite the fact that one radical conservative claims natural, biological sanction for doing so, and another radical conservative explicitly rejects that reasoning yet comes to the same conclusion."
It probably goes without saying that the view I've been outlining makes it difficult if not impossible to talk about the representative intellectual - the "public intellectual" - in the way that Bérubé imagines. But I'll say it anyway, because for Bérubé to ground the efficacy of the work of the intellectual in the extent to which it purportedly represents the "true" interests of the public brings him closer to the positions of both Jacoby and Zavarzadeh than he wants to be: to Jacoby because it forces Bérubé to say that his contention that the most important intellectuals are "people like him" is not just a pragmatic or rhetorical one (which in my view is acceptable and indeed unavoidable), but is grounded (and here he falls in with Zavarzadeh) in what is finally an organic link to the true interests of the public, the people, the workers, or whatever.
What I've just said amounts to rejecting the line that runs from Habermas through folks like Nancy Fraser and other good leftists which says that only if you have a normative account can you complain about anything or offer more progressive social solutions. You don't need to believe or feel compelled to prove that you are representing the "true" interests of the people or the public sphere to argue, in a variety of contexts, that homelessness is a bad thing, that universal single payer health coverage is a good idea, or that the redistribution of wealth in the US ever more upward is socially disastrous and makes a mockery of the values even conservatives say they hold dear. All you can do - all anybody can do - is offer the most persuasive and compelling arguments you can for the views you support. Appealing to a "ground" for those beliefs may be good rhetorical practice in certain situations, but such appeals should, I think, be lightly held and sparingly mobilized.
The problem with this view, as you will have already guessed, is that the terrain negotiated by the public intellectual makes it fairly impossible to do just that. It is hard if not impossible to square off with a William Bennett or a Lynn Cheyney and not make such foundationalist appeals. I agree with Bérubé that this does not mean that left intellectuals should therefore avoid that terrain. But I disagree with him that what this indicates is that we need to be better, more public, "intellectuals." In my view, it is futile for the intellectual to attempt to "reconcile" the differences systemically required in writing for Harper's - or even, to put a finer point on it, doing a panel on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer - with writing for boundary 2. If it is true in a sense that to be a public intellectual is to sell out, it is not (as Zavarzadeh thinks) because it is a political sellout, but rather because it is usually (and, in some public forums - Capital Gang and the like - always) an intellectual sellout. In this light it is thus not primarily, as Bérubé thinks, the failure of left intellectuals to address public policy that separates the wheat from the chaff; it is not as if right wing intellectuals, in addressing public policy, have a more accurate read on the relationship of the "intellectual" and the "public." What they do have is a more accurate - or rather more effective - read on how to use the mass media and adapt to its systemic requirements. Right wing intellectuals know how to get into what Washington media insiders call "the golden Rolodex" and stay there.
What this means, then, is not that we need to be more public- or policy-minded intellectuals, but that we need to be more savvy media manipulators, sound-bite rhetoricians, and, sometimes, snake oil salesmen and demagogues for causes we deem worthy - and this includes mobilizing incoherent or historically obsolete terms like "the public sphere." The problem, of course, is that most intellectuals went into their line of work in the first place because of a deep distaste for and distrust of this sort of thing. Hence, it's no surprise that public intellectuals aren't exactly falling off of trees.
The account I've just given, framed by the idea of "functionally differentiated" society, thus gives me a way to agree and disagree with Bérubé all at once. I agree with him that many of us should address public policy more than we do; but I disagree with him that the problem with left intellectuals is what amounts to a failure of will or a seduction by an "avant-garde tradition." Being cognizant of functional differentiation allows me to be skeptical "that intellectual work in cultural studies should seek to have an impact on the mundane and quotidian world of public policy" (emph. mine), while at the same time agreeing with Bérubé that it is idealistic in the extreme and politically a dead-end to hold that negotiating "with mainstream print media in civil society" is "a form of capitulation to capitalism." For these reasons, Bérubé's call for "a practice of cultural studies that articulates the theoretical and critical work of the so-called public intellectual to the movements of public policy" is and will forever remain strategically vague, because in functionally differentiated society theory cannot ground practice in this way. All theory and practice can do is beat each other up and keep each other honest. To use Luhmannian language, theory and practice can only serve as the more complex environment to the other's always already reductive and selective system, perturbing it, forcing it to adapt, to deal. The "public intellectual" who goes "public" on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and ceases to be "intellectual" needs people like me to beat him over the head with theory to make him examine more closely the implications of the dire rhetorical moves he is surely going to have to make to get any political work done; and he is going to have to beat me over the head with whether my interest in Deleuze's The Fold is really anything other than elitist navel-gazing.
Having said all that, one very important problem remains, for even those left intellectuals who would happily make such foundationalist appeals - who would happily sell the snake oil and do the demagoguery - show up nowhere on television and only occasionally in the major print media. What does it mean, after all, when Doris Kearns Goodwin and Clarence Page are trotted out as representatives of "the left" on the Lehrer News Hour, or when Irwin Knoll (god rest his soul) appears on that same show as, next to the de facto norm, quaintly lunatic fringe? And all of this on a program the right likes to point to as the quintessence of all that's wrong with the "liberal media." I agree with Bérubé that left intellectuals need to get better at these things, but the problem is that even if they do get better, the mass media codes which dictate what counts as "reasonable" or "responsible" commentary are such that, as Said warns, the intellectual who attempts to engage them on behalf of a more progressive truth may find herself the tool of the very system he means to oppose, the token testament to the system's open-mindedness and democratic accessibility.
We don't need to concoct lurid conspiracies between the corporate bosses who own the major media and their journalistic lackeys to explain the situation, but it isn't convincing to explain this state of affairs solely by reference to the codes of functional differentiation either. It's not as if Ted Turner reads Linden Soles' copy before each telecast, but neither is it simply the code of journalistic integrity and fair reporting that made CBS decide to stop going after the tobacco industry. In both instances, the undertheorized term is power. In the first scenario, it is too centralized and is forced to do too much work; in the second, it is too decentralized and is doing no work at all.
What this means is that there is, as Bérubé well realizes, a more systematic relationship between the economic, cultural, and media systems than Luhmann's theory of functional differentiation can account for. As I've argued elsewhere, it is a kind of liberal technocratic utopianism to imagine that we live in a society composed of horizontally adjacent function systems, each realizing its own complexity, with no single system exerting asymmetrical or hierarchically organizing pressure on all the others. Instead, it appears to be the case that we find ourselves in a kind of hybrid society, an uneven mixture (to use Raymond Williams' terms) of "residual" hierarchical, center-periphery organization (according to class, capital, and the priority of the economic system) typical of traditional societies, and "emergent" fully functionally-differentiated social organization typically associated with what we call "postmodernism." I am thus inclined to agree with Andrew Arato's contention that Luhmann's theory of functional differentiation turns out to be "wrong in a crucial sense":
Despite his correct appraisal of the growth of differentiated and specialized publics, and of a whole range of arguments advanced by the young Habermas concerning the transformation of the non-specialized public under the impact of democratization, corporatism, the culture industry, public relations and propaganda, the non-specialized public has hardly disappeared... [T]here is in all democratic countries an important sphere in which politicians, intellectuals and others continue to discuss and debate politics on a high level and not without political effect.
This amounts to splitting the difference between Luhmann's view and what I take to be Bérubé's, at which point, as I've already indicated, one would want to argue about just how "high" that level is and dwell for a moment upon the tellingly-hedged "not without political effect" pointed to by Arato.
In the end, then, some of my differences with Bérubé are, as they say, "merely theoretical," and some are not. But one theoretical difference that is not "merely" anything is the set of reservations I want to lodge about Bérubé's appeal to "nationalism." I am as frustrated as Bérubé is by the endless partitioning and factionalizing of the cultural left, and I too think that near the top of the agenda is to explore ways to unify the left that most of us can live with. In this light, it is not at all clear - given the associations of "nationalism" in the current moment and the cultural work it has done and is doing in the Balkans, Russia, and many another locale - that one can take on all of the political and historical freight of that term and turn it into an asset, even if it has obvious rhetorical benefits. (Indeed, one would think Bérubé would be deeply skeptical of such an endeavor, given his historically embedded reading of Grossberg). Second, espousing "nationalism" or even "patriotism" - even if one rejects Richard Rorty's recent and sillier invocations of these notions as a stick to beat the left with - is deeply problematic for one as attuned as Bérubé appears to be to the relations between multinational capitalism, the wellbeing of the public sphere, and mass media. To invoke nationalism as a way to defend access to housing and health care gives us no way to defend ourselves against the charge that we are rhetorically ballasting a process whereby America takes care of its own at the expense of those outside the borders. That, after all, is how multinational capitalism works.
Thus, I think Bérubé is right to admit that "in focusing on national identity I may be simply proposing nationalism as a refuge from capitalism." And in this connection, the left's largely chilly reception of Michael Lind's The Next American Nation, despite its emphasis on the primacy of class, should stand as fair warning. In all of these cases, as with the case of Rorty, it is a lot easier to talk about "democracy" than it is to talk about "capitalism," because to talk about capitalism is to talk about how the freedoms and values that liberal democracy says it wants in civil society are systematically undermined by the economic system that liberalism de facto perpetuates. So it is not that in courting the rhetoric of nationalism, all we have to lose is our "theoretical purity," as Bérubé puts it. Here and elsewhere, Bérubé needs to be reminded that the danger of "purity" is not only one of too much theory; it is also one of too little.
Works consulted
See Cary Wolfe and William Rasch, "Introduction: The Politics of Systems and Environments," Cultural Critique 30 (Spring 1995): 5-13.
Dietrich Schwanitz, "Systems Theory According to Niklas Luhmann - Its Environment and Conceptual Strategies," Cultural Critique 30 (Spring 1995): 145.
Eva Knodt, "Toward a Non-Foundationalist Epistemology: The Habermas/Luhmann Controversy Revisited," New German Critique 61 (Winter 1994): 98.
Harro Muller, "Luhmann's Systems Theory as a Theory of Modernity," New German Critique 61 (Winter 1994): 45.
Cary Wolfe: "Making Contingency Safe for Liberalism: The Pragmatics of Epistemology in Rorty and Luhmann," New German Critique 61 (Winter 1994): 101-127.
Andrew Arato, "Civil Society and Political Theory," New German Critique 61 (Winter 1994): 139.
. "Getting the Dirt on The Public Intellectual: A response to Michael Bérubé", Electronic Book Review, April 1, 1996, .
Filed Under: critical ecologies Tagged With: baudrillard, Bill Rasch, Deleu, dickstein, Dietrich Schwanitz, Edward Said, eva knodt, Frank Lentricchia, Harro Muller, Henry Giroux, Jonathan Yardley, Jurgen Habermas, Kenneth Burke, Nancy Fraser, Niklas Luhmann, Richard Rorty, Russell Jacoby, Zavarzadeh
Cary Wolfe
Signmakers 1999
When You Can't Believe Your Eyes: Voice, Vision, and the Prosthetic Subject in Dancer in the Dark
Watch the Critters: A Reply to Stefan Herbrechter
by John Bruni
Thirteen Ways of Looking at Electronic Literature, or, A Print Essai on Tone in Electronic Literature, 1.0
by Ivan Callus, Mario Aquilina
Restoring the 'Lived space of the body': Attunement in Critical Making
by Jessica FitzPatrick, Kelsey Cameron
Hybrids at hand: the problem of representing the heterotic superstring
by Sean Miller


text:
Share this Story: Theatre from the Ottawa fringe
Theatre from the Ottawa fringe
Patrick Langston
Tamlynn Bryson in Working Title: Undecided. Photo by Kyle Kimmerley
Ottawa Fringe Festival
Reviewed Thursday
Theatre from the Ottawa fringe Back to video
Japanese Samurai Don Quixote Challenging Against English Giant Windmills!!
Hiroshi Shimizu, Tokyo, Japan, Arts Court Theatre
A Japanese stand-up comic tackles the challenges of the English language and western culture in this meandering, frequently irritating piece of storytelling. If you stretch your imagination, you might equate grappling with those challenges to Don Quixote tilting against windmills, but it's not a stretch that yields much in the way of laughs, cross-cultural insights or even interest. The energetic and perennially optimistic Shimizu, whose tales include an account of a failed stand-up gig at a Scottish strip club, relies overly on shouting, facial contortions and repetition where occasional subtlety, even in a language with which he's still unfamiliar, is called for. True, many in Thursday's audience responded with laughter. On the other hand, one audience member was heard to comment, "It was a bit surreal" as he exited the show, "surreal" having become the word of choice when at a loss to understand what you've just witnessed.
Working Title: Undecided
Drawing Board Productions, Ottawa, Studio 311
And you thought Hamlet was indecisive. Tamlynn Bryson in her solo show invites us into the head of a world-class vacillator who's trying to make up her mind whether to marry an apparently very acceptable paleontologist named Steve. Likeable if jittery, the lonely lady second guesses herself like nobody's business, vainly attempting to apply logic to a situation where the heart must decide. Bryson briefly plays other characters in her lady's life – a stereotypically interfering mother, a series of losers she dated before meeting Steve — but she hasn't done enough to make them distinct personalities. Her indecisive woman, however, is fully feathered, and Bryson's clever, funny and sometimes poignant sojourn into that self-doubting head and the fraught territory of male-female relationships makes for a solid show.
The Grandfathers
TWA, Ottawa, Studio 311
Eight young military recruits and a mean sergeant join forces in this unfocused show set in an unnamed country. The script by Rory Mullarkey is meant to evoke the terror, confusion and small rebellions of men and women when their individuality is submerged in the collective thinking of military training and battle. Instead, most of the performers – members of TWA which is Third Wall and 100 Watt Productions' young company – fumble about the margins of real acting, saddled with inadequate direction by James Richardson and an uncertain sense of who they were supposed to be portraying. Case in point: repeated scenes of marching by loose-armed, out-of-sync soldiers who wouldn't have passed muster on the first day of cadet training. Granted, these are all young actors, but all the more reason to instill in them the awareness that acting is about discipline and authenticity.
Bursting into Flames
Martin Dockery, Brooklyn, NY, Studio 311
Martin Dockery has become a much-anticipated performer at this and other fringe festivals over the past few years, and that anticipation is once again generously rewarded as the rapid-fire, possibly crazed performer takes us on an absurd storytelling journey that's so real you believe every word of it. This time, Dockery is a guy who's died and, despite his self-centredness, gone to heaven. This paradise includes supermarkets and cocktail parties and hot tubs, all elements that anchor the unrealistic story in a kind of cockeyed reality. There's also a hell for those who lived unmeritorious lives, and Dockery has clearly dipped into his Dante for that bit of the show. Impeccably paced, both funny and discomfiting, the show is a morality tale about the preciousness and brevity of life here on earth. It also comes with the kind of unsettling terminus at which Dockery excels.
The festival continues until June 28 at various downtown venues. 613-232-6162, ottawafringe.com

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


What is your job? I present seminars to corporate managers on how to identify and eliminate sexual harassment in the work place.
Do you live in an apartment or house? I live in a condominium in San Francisco's Telegraph Hill neighborhood. I could never afford to buy it now. Homes are just too expensive in San Francisco. My parents purchased it in 1979 when I went away to college. I inherited it.
Are you married? I married right out of college. When my husband became an alcoholic, I divorced him. I stayed single for many years. I recently remarried a wonderful man I met in Australia. We spend six months of the year in San Francisco and six months in Alice Springs, Australia on his sheep station.
How do you stay so fit? Thank you. I believe in exercise. I think it enables you to do everything else in your life. I ride a stationary bike and walk two miles five days a week. I work out at a fitness center three days a week. I eat lots of salad and vegetables. I have a glass of wine every evening to relax. I call it my "wine down" time.
Tell us about your best friend. My best friend is Grace Wright. She is also my business colleague. A college graduate, she was born and raised in Harlem. Her mother is Hispanic and her father is African American. Grace is almost my exact opposite. I'm understated, Grace is flamboyant. I'm a planner, Grace is an improviser. I'm conservative, Grace is audacious. We complement each other.
Are you a dog or a cat person? In general I'd say I'm an animal person. I have a German shepherd I adore. She's a house dog but she loves to take long walks up Telegraph Hill.
Do you have any bad habits? My worst bad habit is amateur sleuthing. I just can't resist sticking my nose into a murder investigation. Even worse, I involve Grace and my husband who is a retired homicide detective. I'm working on myself.
Do you have any adventures planned? I do. Grace and I will do a corporate seminar in Dublin Ireland in a few months. I will also have the opportunity to meet some of my Irish cousins.
That concludes the interview with Lysi Weston. She will be going to Ireland in my next mystery novel. Watch for it in about 8 months.
Hi Nancy! Lysi used a phrase that always throws me: recently remarried a wonderful man. I've seen other writers use this word, remarried, in the same fashion, indicating a second time at marriage. My problem is that the word makes me think that she remarried her first husband. Is this a period use of the word?
Hi Linda, You make a great point.Certainly gives pause for thought. It sounds like Lysi married the second husband twice. One could say, "When she remarried it was to a wonderful man." What do you think?


We Love Soaps: WATCH: New Episode Of THE BAY - Will There Be A Broey Wedding?
WATCH: New Episode Of THE BAY - Will There Be A Broey Wedding?
On this week's new episode of THE BAY, Sara (Mary Beth Evans) is overjoyed to have Pete home, and Will (Derrell Whitt) shares his hurt feelings with his father (Real Andrews). In the "Broey" story, Zoey (Taylor Stanley) makes a decision about her wedding to Brian (Dylan Bruce). Is it on or off?
Find out when you watch the latest episode of THE BAY below.
Wow! I love this week's installment. Derrell and Taylor were both fantastic, and I loved all the touching family moments. This show just gets better and better each week!


text:
Q: Redirect an URL to another URL with Apache and WAMP? I was wondering how to make a simple redirection, I've got WAMP installed on my computer and I wish I could do that: When I go to abc.com it redirects to xyz.com. I did this in the httpd.conf file, but it isn't working.
It seems to work now, but only when I go to localhost. However, what I want is that when I go to abc.com it goes to xyz.com, and I can't do that.
Here is my conf :
   <VirtualHost *:80 >

    ServerName abc.com
    Redirect permanent / http://www.xyz.com/

    </VirtualHost>

A: I do not know your intention, but you can make your configuration work by claiming that your computer actually is abc.com.
For this to do you need to edit your hosts file and add the following line:
abc.com 127.0.0.1

Right now in your configuration, your webbrowser asks a DNS server for the IP of abc.com and the DNS server replies with an external IP address. Due to this, your local server never sees the request so it never acts on it.
If you want this to work across your network you should consider using a HTTP proxy rather than a webserver.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Consumers, manufacturers and businesses of every size now face the precarious waters of the internet of things. Devices that allow us to remain constantly connected to our personal data and shopping preferences, or ease the way we conduct everyday life are becoming more and more common. Everything from doorbells to dishwashers is perpetually connected to the internet and shares information with cloud-based servers. As enterprises adopt IoT devices and manufacturers develop tools for the enterprise market, there is a shared responsibility from engineers to end users to ensure that data is fortified against malicious attacks.
According to Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures, the number of reported IoT vulnerabilities nearly doubled in 2017 over 2016 — totaling in 11,371 new types. A large portion of those are directed at vulnerabilities in web-enabled products designed to simplify and support everyday human functions. Similarly in 2017, researchers and doctors at the University of Arizona College of Medicine demonstrated how vital systems connected to the internet could be compromised and cause human casualties. Notably, any device connected to the internet is vulnerable to hacking without proper measures in place. Insulin pumps, pacemakers, drug infusion pumps and even complex MRI machines are all connected to the internet and were targeted in this demonstration.
Connecting devices within the enterprise might be as inevitable as the rising tide, but it should be done strategically and deliberately. By asking the question, "Does this need to be perpetually connected to the cloud?" organizations can ensure that connected devices are less likely to leak access credentials in plaintext to other devices or servers on the same network. Through user education and network guidance, users should only connect to the internet on an as-needed basis. As an added measure, organizations can deploy tools that monitor, prioritize and limit the network resources used by each device to prevent network performance issues.
Consequently, security systems and smart lighting are rapidly being adopted by enterprises. Many of these systems are implemented without current manufacturer updates and firmware patches, which could potentially cause plaintext wireless password leaks by bypassing protocols for adding new devices to the system. Even innocuous things like a fish tank could bring down an entire enterprise. Sound far-fetched? In July, researchers at Darktrace revealed that an unnamed North American casino fell prey to hackers who targeted a "smart" fish tank. The tank was connected to the internet to monitor and report temperature, lighting and water conditions. Hackers used this access point to gain entry into other systems within the network and transfer data to an offsite device before being discovered and locked out by the casino's cybersecurity team.
Manufacturers and businesses have a responsibility to ensure that in-transit data, from the end user devices to their servers, is secured using strong encryption methods including peer-to-peer encryption when applicable. In fact, a solid mitigation strategy includes regular penetration testing each time new code or hardware is introduced into the product. Patches and updates for third-party code should also be closely monitored and applied on a regular basis. And finally, having a solid vulnerability reporting and response strategy will ensure that if there is a bug reported, there is also a clear path to mitigation or remediation.
Ultimately, the shores of IoT security do not end with the product manufacturer. IT security teams and end users have a responsibility to follow security guidelines and adhere to regular patch management strategies. A constant vigilance for monitoring end-user activity, regular system scans for unrecognized devices and patch management of firmware is of the highest priority. Many organizations that set sail on the oceans of IoT need to accept an increase in investments dedicated to strengthening security initiatives. If your company's reputation is hinged on your ability to ensure the security of your customer's personal data and livelihood, consider hiring a qualified security team or consultants who are well-versed in IoT infrastructure guidance.


The information posted to the Investor Relations section of this Site is maintained by Brookfield Residential. All information posted to the Investor Relations section of this Site was accurate at the time of posting, but may be superseded by subsequent disclosures made by Brookfield Residential. Brookfield Residential does not assume any duty of disclosure beyond that which is required by law. For Brookfield Residential official investor disclosure documents, please see the Brookfield Residential filings made with Canadian and United States securities regulators at www.sedar.com and www.edgar.com.


text:
Q: Regex pattern help for phrase OR a character set I have a PHP regex that I want to fail if the matched word after /blog is just feed.
This MUST be done within the regex itself, not using any other PHP syntax.
The regex currently looks like this:
blog/([a-zA-Z0-9\-]+)

What would I add to this to properly negate the regex if feed is found after blog/?

A: Try
'/^blog\/(?!feed$)([a-zA-Z0-9-]+)$/'


Babcock Assessments Limited is part of the Babcock International Group, with a history of quality training and assessment delivery to the work based sector.
We are an approved End Point Assessment Organisation and are listed on the government's Register of End Point Assessment Organisations.
We are able to offer a range of assessment services across a number of Apprenticeship standards, with a growing portfolio, priding ourselves of offering impartial and independent delivery of the End Point Assessment phase of Apprenticeships.
What makes Babcock Assessments different?
Babcock Assessments' end point assessment services are underpinned by rigorous internal and external quality assurance and support, giving employers the confidence that we can deliver high standards of assessment practice in every location.
We are working with a number of External Quality Assurance organisations, across our portfolio of EPA services, allowing us to streamline our processes.
You can download an overview of Babcock Assessments Limited EPA offer to employers and training organisations here.


To understand a loss, you first need to comprehend the blessing. I was blessed with two wonderfully devoted parents, both of whom I loved dearly. They were my two best friends in life, my two closest confidents, my best example of unconditional love and support. My parents were more present to me than any other people in my life, and they offered this same availability to my older three siblings. In a world where many are fortunate to have just one solid parent, we were incredibly fortunate to have two who were equally dedicated to the family, prioritizing our time together above all else.
It is within this context that perhaps you can imagine how devastated I was to loose my dad on Father's Day in 2006 and then, just 13 months later, my mom in 2007. I was hit hard with grief, as anyone who looses a loved one is. Regardless of my faith, my hope, my trust, this compounded loss felt like an awakened nightmare. I never felt more alone. All the elders in my family tree were disappearing – no grandparents on either side, and now no parents. Remaining were three uncles and one aunt by marriage, but they all lived out of state. My two sisters were married and busy with their own families, my brother lived out of state as well, and I was single.
My parents were naturally a huge part of my life, but also on a very pragmatic level they had been such a significant part of my day to day living. For the most part, over the past 7 years I had lived with them or at least seen them both multiple times per day as I tried to take care of them. Their absence left a very large void. I found myself driving over to their house by habit, only to stop part-way there when I realized they were dead. I remember feeling like I just had to kill time living until I would die and could be with them again. There were days I wanted to crawl in the grave beside them and just get on with heaven, not because I didn't value life but because I missed them so deeply and trusted heaven did not have such agony. Thankfully I began doing intentional grief work - in both a grief group and with my Spiritual Director.
I started with merely surviving. Through the wonderful advice and "permission" given by my grief counselor Kathy, I took time for deliberate self-care, giving myself an extended pass to be "off the map" for a while. I read books. I talked openly and honestly with trusted friends. I wrote in my journal a lot. I crafted songs about pain and hope. I turned to ritual to acknowledge special days, finding ways to honor them and share their spirit with others. I attended the grief group for 2 years in total, and I continue to allow myself to grieve as I need to, when it wells up within.
I have come to a few peaceful places of pause and contemplation. For example, my friend Pastor Rachel and I once discussed how heaven is a lot closer than we think. In other words, we often feel that it is some far away place, but instead perhaps it is like a second skin, so very close, and our loved ones are right here in spirit in ways we cannot even fathom.
I have also wondered why we, as humans, are so surprised about death when it is such a natural way of the world. I try to make peace with the impermanence of all things, trusting that the one constant is the source of all being, God. We, as part this one God must then too be constant in some way, and perhaps that is the soul life, which never does die. I wonder about the ideas surrounding the energy that animates our physical form, what many call the soul. Perhaps it is transmuted through the death process into a new way of being that we are never to comprehend in this round of existence.
In the near three years since my dad died, and the near two years since my mom died, I am reminded of the very true words a family friend, Father Vic, spoke at my dad's funeral. He said, "Death may end a life, but it doesn't end a relationship." In some ways I feel closer to my parents than ever before because the barriers of the physical have been removed on their end and we can now communicate in a soul to soul way like never before. Perhaps its romantic imagination, but I have felt them more intricately alive and present to my life in many ways – including the ushering in of my life partner who I married in 2009 and the baby on the way in my womb.
I think too of the wise comment another pastor friend of mine, Jeff, said years after losing his dad. He said how the pain shifts in time from that raw ache to a more wondrous kind of pain. I agree, though I still experience the raw sometimes. This kind of pain is one of awe and wonder. If we embrace it, it can lead to such a deepening of faith and reverence for life. If we stay present to all we have learned through our losses, we can in fact live more fully because we know better what truly matters.
The words of yet another minister I once knew, Father Don, come to mind. He said at one point in his life he realized the ebb and flow of life. He said he has found perspective on how the ups and downs are to be expected in life. The hard times do not last forever, and the good times are preciously limited too. The message I get from that is when in a season of bad times, press onward because "this too shall pass," and when the good times roll we would do well to fully embrace them while we can. With grief being one of my most profound teachers, it has been reinforced in me evermore to cherish each blessing this life offers.


The city of Trévoux in eastern France has used Hydreka's PermaNet F to detect leaks in their drinking water network, leading to a 20% decrease in minimum night flow after repairing fewer than half of the detected leaks.
20 PermaNet F with roaming SIM cards, and leak noise sensors with Magpot antenna were installed at key points throughout the network to monitor for leaks. Installation permanent or temporary, what (if anything) were they using to detect leaks before. Each PermaNet F was equipped with a SIM card, so the data could be easily monitored through Webfluid, Hydreka's web data hosting service. After the just the first day, 7 of the 20 sites were found to have leaks. In the field, a MicroCorr Touch leak noise correlator was used to show the exact location of the leaks and avoid time-consuming and costly digging of holes in incorrect locations for repair.
Over the months following installation, the city of Trévoux was able to make and execute a strategic plan to repair their leaking system. After fixing just the first 3 of the 7 detected their minimum night flow has been reduced from 40 m 3 / h to 32 m 3 / h, an improvement which leads to 192,000 litres of water saved per day.


text:
Q: PATH for PHP "Command Not Found" Forgive me for my ignorance here: I am coding in Symfony2 and I am trying to use the app/console commands to speed up development.
In any case I am using XAMPP for my local server and I am needing to specify where php is installed in my PATH to use app/console.
Here is what my PATH looks like inside of my .bash_profile:
/opt/subversion/bin/:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/git/bin:/usr/X11/bin:/Applications/XAMPP/xamppfiles/bin/php:/usr/local/git/binalias

But when I run php -v I get:
-bash: php: command not found

When I try and run: php ./app/console from inside of my symfony root, I get:
-bash: php: command not found

If I run:
 /Applications/XAMPP/xamppfiles/bin/php -v

I get:
PHP 5.5.3 (cli) (built: Aug 26 2013 08:28:37)
Copyright (c) 1997-2013 The PHP Group
Zend Engine v2.5.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2013 Zend Technologies

Why is my PATH not working when I run, php ./app/console from inside of my Symfony directory.
Any assistance would be GREATLY welcomed. Thanks.

A: Your path is wrong:
/opt/subversion/bin/:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/git/bin:/usr/X11/bin:/Applications/XAMPP/xamppfiles/bin/php:/usr/local/git/binalias

This part:
/Applications/XAMPP/xamppfiles/bin/php

Should be:
/Applications/XAMPP/xamppfiles/bin


More than four out of five (83%) parents believe it's their responsibility to educate their children about managing their personal finances, but many don't feel up to the job.
These are the findings of new research by M&G Investments. And I'm not surprised.
After all, it's been well documented how unlikely children are to get a good financial education in schools (despite it being on the National Curriculum since September 2014).
Some 71% of those surveyed agreed that saving money was the most important financial lesson their offspring should learn.
From memory, my mum's advice on this topic rarely strayed from 'stop spending all your money on stuff you don't need'.
She'd most likely agree with the argument that millennials' struggles to buy a house are down to too much avocado on toast.
I'll give my dad a bit more credit (it is Father's Day, after all).
Among the insightful titbits of advice he gave me, such as 'always order steak medium-rare' and 'you'll never find the girl of your dreams in a pub', he told me to 'save 10% of everything you earn'.
As I'm now attempting to buy a home in London, I've upped this to 30%. Sadly, his advice didn't include the best ways to keep up with soaring inflation.
The survey's respondents also listed 'the value of money' and how to budget as important topics for youngsters to learn.
Still, one in six of those polled admitted they weren't confident coaching youngsters how to manage their money.
Indeed, many of us reach adulthood with no clue about more complex topics, such as income tax and mortgages. I had to teach myself about these, and much more.
Did your parents give you any financial tips when you were growing up? Did you listen? Or, if you're a parent, what financial advice have you given your children? What's the best way to ensure we're better educated about personal finance as a nation?
Who taught you how to manage your finances?
It is daft to think we need to learn about anything UNTIL it is relevant to us. Therefore many surveys will ask questions that people quite rightly will not know the correct answer to.
As a finance professional for much of my life I did know more than the general public; I also knew that what I knew could be out-of-date by the end of day as a new product was launched or terms revised.
You only need to concentrate on the detail rarely. The rest of the time realise cash is king and spending is always easier to do as we are simple animals and a lot of effort goes into pandering to our simple instincts for immediate gratification.
Joe, is it not possible as a journalist to live away from London and provide content to Which? via the internet.
Seems daft to require people to live in over-populated, over-inflated London when they could live far more cheaply and healthily in other parts of the UK.
Not quite relevant, but my father turned down promotion and the opportunity of a senior position in the Civil Service because it would be likely to have a serious impact on my health. I suspect that the thought of losing his beloved garden may have been another factor.
My father gave me a good grounding in management of personal finances.
So many people live in debt. I do realise we all need a mortgage to buy a home. But why enrich banks buying a car on a plan? Get a cheaper second hand one. If you can't pay off your card at the end of a month, save up first. Do you really need two or three cafe bought lattes a day? Think what they add up to in a year. Ask yourself if a purchase is a want or a need. It is like giving up cigarettes. You feel happier and healthier, and have a lot more money to spare. This is what we should teach our children. And with our children, they got used to the expression 'we can't afford it'.
Non– I never got any money so learned to survive on taking old lemonade bottles to the local newsagent so I could buy a bag of broken biscuits from the Co-op , digging up Blitzed bomb sites to see if there were any pennies from blown apart gas meter boxes , roaming around looking for brambles to eat . The value of money was being able to stay alive .
What makes you think that is was just one parent who taught me to be financially savvy?
Both mine had a hand in my financial upbringing. Mother on using pocket money. Father, later, on investing.
My parents gave me basic financial training by advice and example. I was always encouraged to save about half of my pocket money (even though in Saving Stamps I don't think I earned any interest). Also when my school chums all had new bicycles bought for them on HP my parents said "never a borrower nor a lender be" and instead my first bike was bought second hand from a contact of theirs and my second bike was part financed by my savings and part with cash given for my birthday. Since then I have NEVER been in debt except for mortgages although I saved up the deposit for the first one and one bank loan for (I think) £1500 to pay for fitting out my first home – I paid it back over 18 months and resented every penny repaid. I am fortunate to have always been in employment and have always saved for luxuries like holidays, cars etc. I use credit cards as a substitute for cash but the balance is always paid off each month. I am now retired but still save about £500 most months for nice things when I need them. I self taught myself financial and investment planning having once been stitched up by some bad advice from a IFA. As I once heard said "The need for a loan is God's way of telling you that you cannot afford it!" Both my offspring have on occasion got themselves into severe debt in spite of my urgings to live within their budgets. I guess some people will only learn from bitter experience.
My parents instilled in me, that there is one golden rule above all others " Out of debt, Out of danger" .
What does it matter if you do not have the latest TV, phone laptop etc. If it works why replace it.
I don't have to worry about debt, because I don't have any, The only credit I have is my Credit card bill which is under £100 and will be paid when due.
If you are struggling with money, try some self control.
Money Saving Expert also offers wise advice.


Define a Course class that will contain a Name of course and a grade for the course. Save it as a seperate file. Define an Student Class that contains a name, grade, and an array of Course. Each student will have at most 20 classes.
You should have a member function to getname(), getavg() (of all courses)and add a course.
Once you get class written and tested with a driver program write a class called school that has an array of Student. Member function should include printStudents ,add a student, delete a student, print students and averages and printstudents taking a particular course (whose name is sent up).


text:
Milan Hotels|Milan, Italy
Hotel Principe di Savoia
A Milan icon with unabashed style
For nearly a century, the neoclassical Hotel Principe di Savoia, Dorchester Collection has been the benchmark hotel for all of Milan. In spite of its large size (10 floors, 301 rooms and suites), the Principe has the atmosphere of a boutique hotel — intimate, personal and private.
Elegantly decorated in late-19th-century finery of lavish damasks, rich colors and collectors' antiques in marbles and woods, the Principe is also wholly 21st century with an eye for technology and a "your wish is our command" concierge team.
If the Principe's unabashed style makes it the landmark destination for fashion royalty, its rooftop spa, hush-hush vibe and enviable address (out of the center traffic and just a 10-minute drive, vintage tram ride or metro trip to the fashion capital's epicenter, via Monte Napoleone) create the perfect getaway for a very private affair.
Prep for afternoon tea, cookies and people-watching at the pastel-hued ground-floor lounge Il Salotto and later hold court at the Principe Bar, the hotel's newly renovated cocktail bar, a hot spot for Fashion Week's royal entourage as well as the local Milanese weekender.
The acclaimed Acanto restaurant has an incredible breakfast buffet (sweet and savory) and in the evening, it is open well into the wee hours. The icing on the cake is the in-room dining, in particular, the lobster club from the Taste of the Dorchester menu, which features signature dishes from all of the brand's hotels (this specific sandwich comes from Le Meurice in Paris).
For freshening up, the luxury hotel's rooftop Club 10 spa has beauty treatments, saunas, a heated swimming pool, treatment rooms, a gym and panoramic views of the city.
Royal treatment is top priority for all hotel staff, from the present and precise doormen to the all-knowing, well-connected concierge team ready to share behind-the-scenes itineraries, sneak you into the Last Supper and satisfy all hearts' desires.
It will be hard to leave the sumptuous room — from the thick, plush carpeting to the pillow-like beds, the ornately designed spaces are a haven.
The bathrooms are stunning with white granite and mosaics behind the inviting tubs. We also love the large-sized Acqua di Parma bath products.
Children are spoiled with specially catered menus, private swimming lessons, babysitting and games and activities upon request.
Small pets are welcome as one of the family at the Forbes Travel Guide Four-Star hotel.
All guests may enjoy complimentary car service for transport to the city center.
Jewel-tone hues run rampant in all 257 rooms and 44 suites, tastefully decorated in the fin de siècle style of soft velvet and damask fabrics, antique wood and marble furniture pieces and original 19th-century oil paintings.
The Milan hotel's princely suites have hand-painted frescoes.
You'll have a hard time getting out of the Principe's beds, cozy creations of soporific pillows, exceptionally soft linens and delicious cashmere throws.
Investigate the luminous white marble bathrooms — the pale granite counter has a cornucopia of coveted Acqua di Parma toiletries. Look out for the great hair dryer hidden in the inset armoire, a fete accompli in Italy.
Milan Travel Guide
Piazza della Repubblica 17, 20124, Milan, Italy
TEL39-02-62301
LIN MXP BGY
6 European Hotels To Visit This Winter
5 Places For An Unforgettable Aperitivo
7 Trips To Add To Your Christmas List
Dorchester Collection


text:
May we share together in a word of prayer? Our gracious Father, as we come to a time of Communion with You, fellowship with You, as well as with each other, we ask that Your Spirit would cleanse our hearts, that we might partake worthily of this, Thy table. We would pray for any in our midst who do not really know the Lord Jesus Christ that they might come to true faith in Him and share this table with us. For those of us who do know the Lord, that we might examine ourselves and know that all is right between us and Thee. Be with us as we look to the Word. May it speak to our hearts as the very voice that comes from Thee. For the glory of the Savior, we ask. Amen.
One of the very important aspects of coming to the Lord's table, as you well know, is the matter of self-examination. That is an issue for the apostle Paul in two separate passages of Scripture. The familiar one to us is in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, where he calls upon believers to examine themselves to be sure that, as they come to the Lord's table to celebrate His death, they do not harbor sin in their life, which is to mock that table.
The other passage of Scripture which calls for self-examination is in his second letter to the Corinthians chapter 13 in verse 5. In that, he says, "Examine yourselves whether you be in the faith." So on the one hand, we who are Christians who know we are in the faith, are to examine ourselves to see that our lives are right before God, that all sin is confessed. And, also, there may be some among us who need, as well, to examine themselves to see, in fact, if they are even in the faith.
I want you to open your Bible with me, because I want to call us to that second kind of self-examination in preparation for the Lord's table tonight by looking at James chapter 2 as just a beginning Scripture reading. James chapter 2, verses 14 through 20. The writer of Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says, "What doth – doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith, and has not works? Can faith save him?
"If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, 'Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled'; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"
If that passage teaches anything, if it teaches anything at all, it surely teaches that there is such a thing as non-saving faith, faith that does not save. And I believe that it is not the only passage that points this to us. It is obvious from many portions of Scripture that there is a faith that saves and a faith that does not save. Scripture is filled with that fact. We learn about it in our Lord's parable of the wheat and the tares that in some cases are so much alike that only God in judgment can distinguish them. One has a faith that saves, and one a faith that does not save.
That same dichotomy is indicated by our Lord in the parable of the soils. There are three bad soils, which do not produce fruit. Two of the three look as if they should and will but do not. And then there are three types of good soil that bring forth fruit thirty-fold, sixty-fold, and one-hundred-fold. There is a faith that has appearance, but does not save. We learn from the disciples who followed Jesus for a little while, who remained with Him for a little while, who listened for a little while and then defected, leaving Him, that there is a discipleship that is not genuine.
We remember the teaching of our Lord in the fifteenth chapter of John's Gospel about branches that abide and bear fruit, and branches that do not bear fruit and are cut off and cast into the fire and burned. James talks about the sayers and the doers, those who make claims and those who know reality. In Hebrews chapter 10, two verses come to mind. Verses 38 and 39, "Now the just shall live by faith: but if anyone draw back," – that is from true faith – "my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. There is a believing that draws back and is damned; there is a believing that moves ahead and is saved.
Now this matter of saving and non-saving faith is very aptly illustrated in a very special chapter in the book of Acts, and I'd like you to turn to that, and I'd like our attention to be drawn to that chapter. It is the 8th chapter of Acts. And here, I believe we have in bold relief the distinction between non-saving faith and saving faith. We're going to meet in this chapter two people who believed. One named Simon, another who is nameless to us, though he is identified. Each of them, it is said, believe. One of them has a faith that does not save. One of them a faith that does.
Now the main character in the 8th chapter of Acts is really the evangelist by the name of Philip. We first met him in chapter 6, where because of the godliness of his life, the strength of his character, the integrity of his devotion to God, he was chosen to be a deacon in the church to carry out a very specific task. He has since been given an even wider responsibility than that of distributing food to the widows, which was his portion in Acts 6. He is now called upon to preach the Gospel; and we meet this man in verse 5.
And the text says, "Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spoke, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did." His message was confirmed by miraculous signs and wonders. Namely, that "unclean spirits," – verse 7 – "crying with a loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city."
Samaria had a revival under the evangelism of Philip. The persecuted church we meet in verses 1 to 3 is scattered out of Jerusalem. That's not bad. That's good. It sends them with the Gospel into Samaria – just as the pattern of the book was established in Acts 1:8 – Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and then the uttermost part of the earth. And so the persecuted church moves out. Philip is the key in the 8th chapter, as he preaches the Gospel.
Now into the life of Philip, in this adventure of evangelism, come two people. One is a man by the name of Simon. The other is an Ethiopian eunuch who is attached to the court of Candace, who is the queen of the Ethiopians. He is nameless to us, but identified in that way. First, we want to meet Simon and then we want to meet the eunuch. And we want to see the distinction between saving faith and non-saving faith. Now let me say at the very outset that, simply stated, up to this point in the Gospel narrative and even in the flow of the book of Acts, it seems that we could identify three necessary ingredients to saving faith, three necessary ingredients to genuine belief; believing, obeying, and continuing.
In John 8, for example, the Lord said, if you hear My Word, and if "you continue in My Word, then are you My true disciple." Believing, obeying, and continuing mark out true faith. We saw that also in the 2nd chapter, where those people who heard believed, were baptized, and continued in the apostle's doctrine, prayers, fellowship and, of course, the ministry of that early church. So those are the elements. But as we look at Simon, and we look at the eunuch, it seems as though we see those elements, and so we must look even more closely to discern the nature of true saving faith.
Now to begin with, let me say that Simon is an illustration of the faith that does not save and I'll show you as we look at the text. I want to give you characteristics of non-saving faith. Let's begin at verse 9. "There was a certain man, called Simon, who previously in the same city" – that is in the city of Samaria – "used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, 'This man is the great power of God.' And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries." Now, here I find the first ingredient of non-saving faith.
The first element, a wrong view of self, a wrong view of self. Simon was very egotistical. There are some people who think they are good, who have a very high opinion of themselves. Simon was such a person. He thought himself to be "some great one' it says at the end of verse 9. He was involved, it says, in sorcery. The word is mageuō. We get the word magic from it. He was a magician, a magician in the black sense, not somebody who goes down to the local trick store and comes off with a few slight-of-hand tricks.
This man was a man who was neck deep in the occult, involved in things like astrology and soothsaying and sorcery, who dealt with incantations and charms, who dealt with divinations, astrologies, horoscopes, who plied his trade with demon beings, mediums and spirits from the supernatural world of Satan. He was a demonic sorcerer, attached to the kingdom of darkness. And the kingdom of darkness is, after all, a supernatural kingdom and, therefore, there were some rather astounding sorceries that he was able to perpetrate to the degree that the people were bewitched. If you want another word for that, they were duped. They were deceived.
And he announced himself to be a great miracle worker from God. He was an egotist, the very opposite of the right heart preparation for true reception of the Gospel. And he made his point very well. People all believed him. He had, it tells us, power. In fact, in verse 10, "This man is the great power of God." Now what did they mean by that word, the great power? It's very likely that what they had in mind, if we'd set a cultural context for that word, was that he is some kind of an aeon, some kind of an angelic creature. Some kind of an emanation descending from God. He is a sort of deity and his basic personality trait was that of pride.
Someone once said pride is a weed that grows in every man's garden, but in the garden of Simon it was a tree. He was a man who was devoted to his own self-aggrandizement. And we are reminded, aren't we, of James 4:6, which says, "God resists the proud and gives His Grace to" – What? – "to the humble." He is very unlike the publican of Luke 18, who beats upon his breast and cries out, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner," – who will not so much as lift his eyes toward Heaven because he is so filled with shame over his sin. And I think it's fair to say that the man who comes to true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ has a prepared heart, which is the heart that sees itself as sinful and worthy only of judgment.
Again, I'm reminded of James 4:10, "Humble yourselves in the sight of God, and He will lift you up." And I'm reminded of the Lord's Words in John 5:44, "How can you believe, who receive honor one from another, and seek not the honor that comes from God alone?" How can you believe when you live for the honor that you can receive? So the first thing that marks this man as one whose faith is not legitimate is he had a wrong view of self.
Secondly, he had a wrong view of supernatural power. He had a wrong view of supernatural power. Verse 12, "And to him they had regard, because that for a long time he has bewitched them with sorceries." He was convincing to the people. "And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Now, Simon just lost all his converts. Everybody had fallen into the message of Philip and God had moved with great power, and the people believed and were baptized when they heard the full word of the kingdom.
By the way, it tells us in verse 12, he preached the "things concerning the kingdom of God." That is all the truths related to salvation and entrance into that kingdom. He preached the central message of the name of Jesus Christ. And back in Acts 4:12, we were reminded that there is no other name given among men under Heaven whereby we must be saved but the name of Jesus Christ. So he preached entrance into the kingdom through the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And when they heard the full word of the kingdom and how to come in and they understood fully the work of Jesus Christ, they believed, were baptized, both men and women. They were delivered from the bondage of Satan and also delivered from the bondage of Simon.
Now, when Simon saw this, I suppose his attitude was, "If you can't lick 'em, join 'em." He was impressed by Philip's preaching and he wanted that power so that he could hold the people. If Philip had a power that surpassed his, he wanted that power. And so we see he had a wrong view of supernatural power. He saw supernatural power as a way to fulfill his own ambition, rather than as a way to transform his sinful life. And he sought Christ for his own gain and his own good and his own purposes. So many like that; so many want Jesus for what He can do for them. Wrong motive, a wrong motive.
But it looked awfully good though, at Verse 13, "Simon himself believed." There it is. It says he believed. Now what kind of faith is this? He believed, and "When he was baptized," – he believed to the point of obedience." So we said three things; believe, obey, and continue. He believed, he was obediently baptized and "he continued with Philip." Boy, looks good. It's like all the parts are there, and he was amazed, "beholding the miracles and signs which were done." But the problem was he wanted miracle power. He wanted all the goodies that could possibly be gained to him personally. There was no sense of self-sacrifice, no sense of giving up his sin. There was no legitimate perception of spiritual power, supernatural power. True salvation does not come to those who grab at the things that God offers, who grab at the power of God with a self-indulgent sentiment, with the goal of self-fulfillment.
The third thing is, he not only had a wrong view of self and a wrong view of supernatural power, but he had a wrong view of the Spirit. Notice this. He thought he could buy the Holy Spirit, verse 14. "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit." The giving of the Holy Spirit throughout the book of Acts was done, first of all to the Jews, then the Samaritans and then the Gentiles. And, in each case, when the Spirit of God came, apostles were present so that everyone would know that the Gentiles and the half-breed Samaritans had received the same Spirit and the same power as the Jews had on the day of Pentecost.
And so it was for the apostles to be present. Thus, when this faith came to the Samaritans, Peter and John came in order to be there for the receiving of the Spirit. "For, as yet, He was fallen on none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." They had to wait for the Spirit in that early time in order that it might be confirmed to them and to the whole world through the apostles that they had received the same thing that the Jews had received, so there would be no dichotomy in the church. "They laid their hands on them. They received the Holy Spirit."
Now there must have been some attendant miracles. We don't know what they were. Perhaps there was even a display, as the cloven tongues of fire that appeared in Acts 2. perhaps there was the speaking in languages unknown to them. The display was obvious enough. It says in verse 18 that Simon saw it. "When he saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money." Now he must have seen some supernatural display.
And he said that's what I want. How much is it? How much do I pay for that? "Saying, 'Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.'" I want that magic. I want that ability. He just flipped out when he saw the power that was demonstrated through Peter and John. And Simon wanted that miracle power, and so he treats Peter like he's some kind of a – of a snake oil salesman, dispensing supernatural goodies, and he wanted to know what the price was. He didn't want the sanctifying grace of the Spirit. He only wanted the power of the Spirit. And he thought he could buy it.
I'll never forget a man that I met who was very wealthy. And I was talking to him, I think it was in about October or November of the year, and he told me that he was convinced Jesus was coming on December 31st at midnight. And that was the Rapture of the church. And he was dead serious. He was a realtor in the south Orange County area, and he said, "In order for me to be ready to meet God and be sure I'm going in the Rapture, between now and then, I'm going to liquidate all of my assets," which came to a little over $500,000. And so, literally, within the next six weeks, this man liquidated half a million dollars.
He bought Bibles and shipped them – the – the Vietnam War was going on. He shipped them over to Vietnam, I think something like twenty or forty thousand Bibles. He bought thousands upon thousands of praying hands, plastic praying hands that glow in the dark, and sent boxes of them to churches all over the country and all around the world. He bought plaques. He had holy hardware. He bought everything in sight and shipped it all over everywhere and got himself ready for the Rapture, feeling he could buy his way in by doing these kind of good deeds. He wanted to be sure he paid the price, to buy into grace in time for the Rapture. That man had to be disappointed a lot of ways. One, the Rapture didn't happen. Two, in his heart, he knew he didn't purchase salvation. Three, he didn't have any more assets.
Well, Simon had such a skewed view of grace and thought he could buy into the power of the Holy Spirit. And Peter exposed him. "Peter said to him, 'Thy money perish with thee, because thou has thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money!' -- holy indignation – 'Thy money perish with thee. Thou has neither part nor lot in this matter; for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.'" Whatever kind of faith you have that led you to baptism, whatever kind of faith you had that led you from baptism to continuing following Philip is not saving faith. You will perish. He speaks of destruction and eternal hell. He's no Christian. God saw his defiled heart and Peter could see it, too. His faith could not save. He had a wrong view of self. He had a wrong view of salvation. He had a wrong view of the Spirit.
And then, fourthly, he had a wrong view of sin. He had a wrong view of sin. Watch his response. Peter says, "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness." It is so wicked to think that any work can earn salvation. So wicked to think of God only as the dispenser of supernatural goodies. "And pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." Now, Peter had a right view of sin. He said, "Repent of this wickedness, and pray that God might forgive."
You know, it's an interesting little perspective here, but men are not to repent just to get forgiveness. "Boy, I want forgiveness. I better – I better repent." No, men are – are to repent, not to get forgiveness as if it's mechanical. But men are to repent – mark this – because their heart is so burdened with their sin and so overwrought with their wickedness and evil, that they cry out to be delivered whether God forgives them or not. See the difference? That's the penitent heart. It's not mechanical. "Oh, if I want to get conversion, I better – I better repent." It's the crying out of repentance and pleading for God to please forgive. And bless His name, He will forgive.
But Peter puts true repentance in perspective here in the way that he phrases his statement. In verse 23, he says, "I perceive that you are in the bile" – the word is bile here – "you are in the bile of bitterness, and you are in the chains of iniquity." This is no Christian. Now what's going to be his view of sin? Notice verse 24. "Then answered Simon, and said, 'Pray to the Lord for me, that none of these things which you have spoken come upon me.'" What was his response? He was scared, he was fearful, he was afraid, he was terror-stricken. Some Western texts even say he was sobbing. He shook, he trembled, but he did not what? Repent. No confession, no repentance, no self-condemnation, no acknowledgement of sin, no seeking forgiveness, only fear of the consequence of his evil.
He was scared, but never saved, scared but never saved. Because he never faced the reality of his own sin. Wrong view of self. Wrong view of supernatural power. Wrong view of the work of the Spirit. Wrong view of sin. He had a faith that doesn't save. And I would ask you tonight to examine your heart to see if you have that kind of faith, that kind of shallow faith that seeks the goodies...and the signs and the wonders and the miracles and the power, and seeks to be preserved from judgment, but there's no repentance and there's no confession, and there's no crying out acknowledging sin, and no seeking forgiveness.
Now let's turn the table and let's meet a second man, an Ethiopian eunuch who is a marvelous illustration of the faith that does save. And if I may, I'd like to point to the characteristics of saving faith, elements that accompany true faith. First of all, notice verse 26. Verse 25 just tells about the fact that they went on preaching the Word and returned to Jerusalem, preached the Gospel in many villages of the Samaritans. "And an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying," – the Lord sent him a divine messenger – "Arise, Philip, and go to the south to the way that goes down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.'" Now an angelic minister comes along, finds Philip, and believe me, Philip knows something important is up. He hasn't had an angelic messenger to this point that we know of. And he is sent to Gaza.
Gaza was one of the ancient cities of the Philistines. It is on the road from Jerusalem to Egypt. If you go to Egypt via Bethlehem and Hebron, you would go through Gaza. We know it today as the Gaza Strip, that same region. Now it is God, through an angel, who commands him to go. Verse 29, "Then the Spirit said to Philip, 'Go near, join up thyself to this chariot.'" Now let me give you the first characteristic of genuine saving faith. One, it is the sovereign work of the Spirit. The preparation is so different, so different. The work of the Spirit begins in the heart and begins not only in the one who is to receive the message, but the one who is to give it, as well. The faith that saves begins with a divine preparation. It begins with a divine preparation. The sovereign work of the Spirit.
Secondly, it involves the submissive will of the servant. Verse 27, after the angel gave him the message, look at verse 27. it says, "And he arose and went:" – no wasted time; he knew he was on a divine mission – "And behold, a man of Ethiopia," – and, by the way, the Ethiopia of that day was a much larger territory than we know Ethiopia to be in this time, covering a great expanse of the northern part of Africa. And so here was this "man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure," – he was the chamberlain or the treasurer of the queen – "and had come to Jerusalem to worship."
The point I want you to note is that "Philip arose and went." He went. It seemed illogical. He was having great, great results where he was. He was preaching and people were listening and believing, being baptized. Why should he pack all this aside and take off to Gaza to talk to one person? He didn't even know what was going to happen when he was there. But the Lord had prepared everything. I love the fact that in verse 30, it says that when the Spirit said go to the guy in the chariot, verse 30 says, "And Philip" did what? Moseyed over? What did he do? He ran. He knew he was on a divine mission. So we see then that where there is saving faith, it begins with the sovereign work of the Spirit and then the submissive will of the servant.
The third thing I noted in this is the searching heart of the sinner, the searching heart of the sinner. Look at verse 27. This man of Ethiopia – Ethiopia, as I said, covered all the way from the Red Sea clear across to the deserts of Libya in the west. This man was attached to the king of Ethiopia. You might be interested to know that the king of Ethiopia was worshipped. In fact, they believed that the king was so sacred that he couldn't do any normal duties.
In other words, he just sat. And so the queen mother came alongside the king, and she had to do all the royal duties. So Candace – which by the way, is not a proper name, but a title like pharaoh, or like Caesar, or like czar, or something like that, an emperor, king – was the queen mother who cared for all of the issues related to the royalty of Ethiopia. This eunuch – a eunuch because, traditionally, they were castrated in order to serve in the palace and in the harem – was her trusted, honored treasurer.
Now it says that he had been to Jerusalem, he had come to Jerusalem. You know, we've got to estimate that that's probably somewhere between a 1,000 and 1,300-mile walk. That is a long trip. This is a searching sinner, friends. He's weary of the gods of his own culture. He has come to seek out the true God. And when he went to Jerusalem to seek the true God, there's little doubt in my mind that he found only ceremony, ritual, cold formality and nothing for his heart. He hungered for – for salvation, if we can put it in those terms. He hungered for God. And he was returning and sitting in his chariot reading Isaiah, the prophet, still hungry, still trying to figure it out. But here you have the searching sinner and saving faith comes to the searching sinner.
The fourth thing that I would point out, where you have genuine saving faith, is the Scriptural Word. The Scriptural Word comes by revelation. He's reading Isaiah. The Spirit says, "Philip, go and get into the chariot. Philip ran," – verse 30 – "heard him read the Prophet Isaiah and said, 'Do you understand what you're reading?'" He was reading the right book, wasn't he? He was reading Isaiah, and he was even reading Isaiah 53. Now do you know the Holy Spirit's prepared everything? Here is a guy in the desert leaving Jerusalem, dissatisfied, hasn't found the God he sought. He's got the Old Testament in his hand in some scroll form, and he's reading the 53rd chapter of Isaiah. And all of a sudden, an angel drops the evangelist Philip alongside the chariot. He runs over. Everything is prepared.
Look at his response. "Do you understand what you read?" Verse 31, he said, "How can I, except some man should guide me?" Don't you love that? "I need some help." Here is a meek, teachable, humble spirit open to the truth. And I remember Psalm 25, I think it's verse 9, "The meek shall He teach His way." The place in the Scripture which he read was this. "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb, dumb before his shearer, so opening not His mouth in His humiliation, His judgment was taken away. And who shall declare His generation, for his life is taken from the earth." In other words, he was reading Isaiah 53 verses 7 and 8. Wow, what ready heart.
But he didn't have the way to unlock it. He – he didn't understand of whom the prophet spoke. So in verse 34, "the eunuch answered Philip, and said, 'I pray you, of whom speaks the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man?" Who is this person? Who is this person who is the Savior? Who is this who will bear sin, who will die? "All our iniquities are laid on Him." He read all of that. Who is this who will take away our sin? Here is truly a seeking sinner who wants a deliverer. And the issue with him is not where do I get spiritual power. The issue with him is where do I get salvation?
And the faith that saves, fifthly, also involves a presentation of Jesus, verse 35, "And Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him" – What? – "Jesus," Jesus. And anyone who comes to true saving faith must hear the message of Jesus Christ. That's why Trumbull, who used to write books – I love the things that he wrote. He used to write books on evangelism – said that he made a vow one time. I've shared it with you past years. He said this. "Every time I have the opportunity to introduce the topic of conversation, it will always be of Jesus."
Well, Philip spoke of Jesus. All that encompasses the doctrine of salvation is bound up in Jesus. Philip gave it all to him, including teaching him about baptism. His response was the right response. And as they went on their way, he was just so thrilled and so excited. All that he had sought had come to pass. "And as they're going along, they came to a certain water. And the eunuch said, 'See, here's water! What hinders me to be baptized?'" I mean, he believed, and he knew no reason not to be baptized.
Verse 37 probably was added by a scribe, and so we would go to verse 38 in the original text. And Philip "commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." I love that. "Look, water," he says, "why can't I be baptized right now?" You know he's already put his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Philip takes him down into the water, immerses him in the water. Verse 39 says, "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip" – he was gone as fast as he had arrived – "and the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way" – confused, is that what it says? No. – "he went on his way" – What? – rejoicing."
The ordeal of Simon ended with fear. The wonderful story of the Ethiopian ended with joy. Simon had a faith that wanted to take from God. The eunuch had a faith that wanted forgiveness of sins. What kind of faith do you have? What kind of faith is your faith as you come to the Lord's table?


Clearly, potlucks with Leif and friends (and especially Sophia/Grace/Carley!) are the thing to do. If you can actually make it happen, that is. *grins* As we were all starving by the time people trickled in (half an hour late for most-- what, did you think we'd be on time? Ok Grace was, but she had no excuse to be late!), some of the cameras were understandably neglected as we tried not to eat everything in sight before the other half of the group finally made it in!
Next time, people were saying we need more wine. I guess all hard liquor that Bill and I keep around didn't appeal? I also think we need a slightly bigger place to party. Hmm. (need to buy a house...) And maybe Apples to Apples? hehehe... maybe not?


text:
Q: how to use LC3 output? so I was looking for how output works in lc3 but none of them were clear.
all I know is that it has something to do with a trap function.
so I just would like to know how to print a number to the console.

A: LC-3's output trap prints characters to the console — and that is all it can do.  This is how computers with consoles actually work — character output only.
You can print anything you need using character output only: strings, spaces, newlines, tabs, numbers, etc...
If you want multiple digit numeric output, that consists of multiple characters that are individual digit characters.  If you want formatted output, that requires characters for formatting — numbers and strings, interspersed with spaces, newlines as desired.
So, for numeric output you print as many characters as you need in order to print the digits for the number.
Conversion algorithms for number to string are often called itoa — for integer to ascii.  They convert the number to digit characters either going left to right or right to left.
A right to left approach computes value mod (%) 10 in order to extra one digit at a time, the does div (/) 10 and loops until nothing (zero) is left.  The digits, however, come out backwards, so they have to be buffered in order to reverse them so they can come out forwards.
A left to right approach starts with the maximum power of 10 as a divisor (e.g. 10,000 for 16-bit numbers, smaller for smaller number ranges), and produces one digit at a time in that manner repeating with the remainder after the division for the next digit (using the next smaller power of ten).
Complicating things is that either approach requires mod and div, which are not available directly in LC-3, but both can be had at once by repetitive subtraction.
Hex output is somewhat simpler in that it does not require divide or mod by 10, but does require a fair amount of careful shifting (which LC-3 can only do one bit at a time, and to the left, by adding something to itself).


text:
"""Rules for UnicodeString."""

__author__ = 'Tarashish Mishra'

import base64

from extensions.rules import base

class Equals(base.UnicodeStringRule):
    description = 'is equal to {{x|UnicodeString}}'

    def _evaluate(self, subject):
        return subject.lower() == self.x.lower()

class CaseSensitiveEquals(base.UnicodeStringRule):
    description = 'is equal to {{x|UnicodeString}}, taking case into account'

    def _evaluate(self, subject):
        return subject == self.x

class StartsWith(base.UnicodeStringRule):
    description = 'starts with {{x|UnicodeString}}'

    def _evaluate(self, subject):
        return subject.lower().startswith(self.x.lower())

class Contains(base.UnicodeStringRule):
    description = 'contains {{x|UnicodeString}}'

    def _evaluate(self, subject):
        return subject.lower().find(self.x.lower()) != -1

class MatchesBase64EncodedFile(base.UnicodeStringRule):
    description = (
        'has same content as the file located at '
        '{{filepath|UnicodeString}}')

    def _evaluate(self, subject):
        return base64.b64decode(subject) == self.fs.get(self.filepath)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub