Much of yesterday’s irritation stemmed from receiving the latest copy of the LifeSiteNews magazine called “Faithful Insight.” I read a bit, threw it across the counter in disgust, and then picked it up again, tried to read more, and threw it (again in disgust), onto the floor. It was the third go that finally worked.
It’s such a mess.
Oh, I could write so much about what I find!
Give me a shovel or give me a toothpick, I’ll show you all the problems in these magazine pages.
But this is going to cost me some time.
Oh, I wish I had the kind of clout that you’d just believe me! I wish, this once, that I did have some sort of following, where I could say “Go” and people would just go. I wish I had that kind of pull.
If I did, oh, I’d pull you all off of that boat. I’d yell, “People, please, get off of that boat! Your life-vests are ready, tug on the string. Jump! Leap! Whatever you do, just please get off! That John-Henry Westen boat is just going to crash.
Lusitania, Titanic, whatever you call it, it’s going down!
Please don’t you go with it.”
But my howling will all be for naught. I have no such reputation to rely on. I can only give you some kind of plodding argument, some step-by-step analysis, and hope you’ll bear with me, and hope you’ll forward my blog post. Oh, to go viral, this once, ah – I’ve been everything else, now I want to be a disease! “Viral” – what a word! Arguably worse than being compared to an insect (that happened yesterday). So bear with me as I inspect and dissect this horrid old rag, with what time I’ve got.
Oh people! If you could see what I see!
Oh John-Henry Westen! In one issue, you’ve given me so many fine pickings. Where shall I start? Where do I begin?
Ah, how about here, where you announce what kind of letters to the Editor (that’s you) you’ll accept.
I find it strange. He writes:
We welcome thoughtful, respectful letters from subscribers that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic letters will seldom be published, with a notable exception in this issue.
Alright. Does anybody see a problem with that second sentence?
Aside from sounding rather like a man who needs his ego tenderly guarded, I am wondering, who is going to be the judge of what is hostile? How will you prevent “hostile” from referring to someone who doesn’t agree with you or what you’re doing? Abortion is a hot topic, a divided topic. Anyone working in the pro-life world needs to be ready to encounter opposition. It’s a hot kitchen.
And who is going to decide what is “propagandistic”? What on earth does that mean? If I have to use that word, then surely LifeSiteNews is itself propagandistic. It would be a classic example, if anything is. This magazine has a very particular world-view, and it tries to spread it. If ‘propagandistic’ means sprinkling your ideas here there and everywhere, then surely LifeSiteNews does it.
(To be clear, I’m not personally opposed to spreading ideas around, or writing letters that spread ideas around. I’m just pointing out that he objects to something which his own magazine does.)
Look at what he says – it sounds a lot like bragging as he describes his own sprinkling and scattering, in the same Editorial. Sounds like spreading oneself around, the way a “propagandist” might:
“We’ve been sending 4,000 trial copies per month to different groups of potential subscribers …”
[in other words, 4,000 NON-SUBSCRIBERS]
He adds a P.S. to his Editorial, as follows:
P.S. Please help us, through your networks of friends and family, to increase the number of Faithful Insight subscribers. The messages [ahem, propaganda?] in these magazines are crucial and need to be read by many thousands. Send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with the full particulars of prospects [not “people,” you note, it’s “prospects”] you believe may be genuinely interested in subscribing to Faithful Insight … [in other words, NON-SUBSCRIBERS] we also need you to personally communicate with each person to let them know this is coming. If you are able, although this is not mandatory [Oh thank you thank you Mr Westen, merciful Mr Westen that you’ll let me recommend and promote your magazine without making it mandatory that I pay you], a donation to offset the cost of approximately $8 for sending each magazine would be appreciated.
My point is that Mr. Westen is so appalled at the idea of receiving a propagandistic letter, but I see abundant illustrations of how delighted he is at the spread of his own empire and his magazine. And he wants to enlarge the LifeSiteNews reach.
And speaking of spreading of empires, I always find it really icky when people tell me how very darn big their empires have become.
I personally find this chunk below (page 19) rather, well, tiresome and icky. It’s written by Hannah Westen [a relative, perhaps?]:
Legatus, the organization of Catholic CEOs [what’s a Catholic CEO, exactly? Is it anybody who has anything Catholic that they personally run? If so, I guess that makes me one? Glad to meet you. I’m the Catholic CEO of MinedGems, a blog from Canada], added to its list of recipients of the prestigious [Ah, prestige, how lovely – that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? As long as its prestigious, well, I’m all up for that. Good thing I have a shot at it, since I became a Catholic CEO 20 seconds ago.] Cardinal John J. O’Connor Pro-Life Award, giving it to [Guess who? Oh you clever thing, I think you’ve guessed, but just wait for it:] LifeSiteNews co-founders, Managing Director Steve Jalsevac and Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen, for their service to life through the creation and daily operation of the world’s most visited online pro-life news service.
Last year LifeSiteNews (LSN) spread the truth about life and family to 30 million unique visitors who clicked through 60 million pages.
Yup. That’s the kind of “News” that you really needed, right? Makes quite a difference in your day now, right? That is – guess what – the number one story under INTERNATIONAL NEWS BITES.
Make sure you don’t miss THAT.
(You could say I think their “International News” section bites.)
Mr. Jalsevac and Mr. Westen got an award. A prestigious award. And there’s a photo too, the only one on the page.
On the same page (INTERNATIONAL NEWS BITES) coming in as item number 3 there is this:
Pope Francis to release much anticipated Synod on the Family exhortation in March.
Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has said that Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation from the Synod on the Family is to be released in March. Vatican watchers suspect March 19, the feast of St. Joseph.
Now I personally find that last sentence funny.
In the first place, what is a “Vatican watcher” exactly? Is that a Catholic? Am I a Vatican Watcher? Or is that a non-Catholic who invents stories about the Vatican because they can’t go in and see everything for themselves, in the same way that paparazzi invent stories about politicians or Hollywood movie stars when helicopters and image-stabilization telescopic camera and video lenses aren’t quite good enough?
(Note that in the latter two cases, the ‘famous’ often hope for and expect fame. The men who become priests usually have no clue that they might later be so well-known.)
Oh well, I should be able to figure out what a Vatican Watcher is. I’ll check the Catechism. Maybe it’s in there.
Okay, so let’s see. What do they suspect?
They suspect March 19th?
What is so suspicious about March 19th? Did the date commit some kind of crime?
Too close to March 15th? I’ve heard something about the Ides of March. Guilt by association?
That seems to be a specialty of LifeSiteNews, so maybe that’s what’s going on here. If the Pope has friends that you consider “bad” then he’s perhaps a bad Pope? Hmm. Guilt by association seems to be a common theme in both Catholic Insight (which no longer runs, but is in some ways the predecessor to Faithful Insight) and Faithful Insight. I subscribed to the former magazine until I finally got sick of the way the magazine kept dividing the world into the Good Guys and the Bad Guys.
But this guilt by association is a dangerous thing, isn’t it? Wasn’t that, as a matter of fact, one of the attacks made upon Jesus, that he ‘hung out’ with those who were obviously ‘bad’? His friends included prostitutes and tax collectors.
Anyway, I find the use of the word “suspect” to be rather telling.
LifeSiteNews does a lot of suspecting. They suspect this, and they suspect that. If the Pope is friendly with the Lutherans, they suspect a whole lot of things. There’s a whole page devoted to proving that the Pope is ‘hanging out’ with them. Text plus four photos.
I’ll show you an example of what they found. Someone was standing RIGHT NEXT to someone else. Shocking.
Read this tid-bit from John-Henry Westen’s article (page 14) for yourself, but I hope you’re sitting down:
The controversy [is there one, or is that what LifeSiteNews wishes there were?] is highlighted by a recent Vatican Radio report which carried the headline “Lutherans and Catholics on the way to full Christian unity” [I thought this would be good news, but apparently it’s a horror story] and used a photo of [wait for the chilling factoid] a Catholic Bishop Denis Madden standing next to female Lutheran Bishop Elizabeth Eaton.
If you don’t mind my asking, exactly where was Bishop Madden supposed to go, during this photo? Was he supposed to stand in front of Ms. Eaton? Was he supposed to stand behind Ms. Eaton? Was he supposed to be seated, perhaps?
Then, as further proof that Pope Francis is, in fact, being friendly with the Lutherans, there are four full-colour photos showing him interacting with Lutherans. All are labelled. Consider this one label and shudder, fellow faithful Catholic:
“A pastor of the Lutheran Church in Rome”
Just frightening stuff, I tell you.
That photo shows the Pope at his microphone and nearby, seated with hands folded in his lap, is a man (presumably he’s the referenced “a pastor of the Lutheran Church”) and this man is – get this: smiling. Is that suspicious too? Or is the smile okay? Please tell me, dear Mr. Westen, what it all means. I’m not quite as adept as you are at this game of suspicion that we pro-lifers are supposed to be playing. Please tell me what to think. What does that photo prove, exactly? Do we now know the terrible truth, that some Lutherans know how to use chairs, just like Catholics? Maybe he was even enjoying being seated! Is that why the photo matters?
Please tell me Mr. Westen. Please tell me when to be suspicious.
I will do your bidding. Are we opposed to all non-Catholics, or are we only opposed to them when they stand next to the Catholic bishops? In the case of the Pope, it seems our standards are different. I see that even being seated, with a gap of about 3 feet between chairs, is something to note.
Are we opposed to all non-Catholics, or just those who aren’t sufficiently pro-life?
In one of your feature articles (Page 9) “It’s Good Friday for the Church now, but Easter is Coming” you so very casually lump pro-family Catholics with pro-family Evangelicals.
Whoa. Wait a minute.
That was pretty slick. Where’s all the hoopla that you dished out over the Lutherans? You oppose that open courtship but suddenly I’m in bed with the Evangelicals? You know the article. You wrote that one too (you seem to be the primary writer of the magazine.)
[Mind you, I notice that the front cover almost makes it seem like it’s not another Westen article, because in italics underneath it says, Prof. Robert George. But when you look through the table of contents, you can’t find a reference to that author. Nope, it’s yet another article written by Mr. Westen. Odd.]
[But apparently Mr. Westen doesn’t call this man Prof. Robert George himself. In his editorial, John-Henry Westen refers to this man as “Professor Robby George.”
Buddies? Seems like it.]
So, what does Professor Robert/Robby George say, and who is this guy anyway? I read through the long, long quotation. I’m not particularly impressed and I don’t happen to agree. I think we’re in an eschatological springtime, but Prof Robby says not. There’s more gloom and doom from the many other articles in the magazine; apparently everything is going to go from bad to worse.
But who is this guy, anyway?
Is he Catholic? I did wonder, because he never mentions the Pope though he mentions the Church.
In this article, John-Henry Westen writes,
For Catholics, and Evangelicals in America, he said, “it is now Good Friday.” To a rousing standing ovation Professor George concluded [and then this conclusion goes on for a gazillion words. Perhaps I misunderstand, or maybe that was a very long standing ovation. I can just imagine. Clap clap clap stand stand. I think this is it! Clap clap clap! Final words, let’s send him off! Clap clap isn’t he done? Clap clap stand stand stand I think this must be the last line! Clap clap oh crap he’s not stopping but not like we can all go and sit down. Clap clap. Oh he’s done hurray big clap clap clap of relief.]
But my point is this first sentence. When did the Catholic pro-lifers get paired so quickly and so suddenly with the “Evangelicals”? What does that even mean, “Evangelical” and why is it capitalized? Is it so easily identifiable that we can tell who is and who isn’t an Evangelical? I don’t know if I know any Evangelicals. How would I know one if I saw one? What are their beliefs?
Alright. So I’ve read these supposedly great words (actually, very dull and not inspiring at all), but I still don’t know who this man is. I see his photo and I see that John-Henry Westen really likes him, but is that enough?
Perhaps I need more.
Ah, here’s a biography. That will inform me, presumably? I read:
Robert George is a McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. The New York Times declared him to be one of the most influential of conservative Christian thinkers in America.
Who was it who declared him influential?
The New York Times?
You didn’t just say,
“The New York Times” did you?
Since when, please tell me, since when do I care what the New York Times thinks? What kind of proof is that of anything? Since when does that have anything to do with anything Catholic or even pro-life at all?
If the New York Times approves then you offer this man on a plate to your readers as some kind of person to listen to? I’ve never even heard of him, and, from what I’ve read, I don’t want to hear another word from him. He makes me yawn.
Mind you, he does look well groomed. He has good hair and his beard looks perfectly trimmed.
Alright, so who else do you like?
Ah yes, you’ve got LifeSite“News” supporting David Daleiden. For him, LifeSite“News” collected 106,000 signatures of support. I read (page 8) that he was “The lead investigator behind the undercover Planned Parenthood videos.” I’ve written about those videos and those women who thought David Daleiden was a friend. I wrote recently, and I haven’t changed my mind.
I see that LifeSite“News” is sure to mention all the most important things about Mr. Daleiden. (It is a news service after all.) And, as Mr. John-Henry Westen has alerted me, the messages in these magazines are crucial and need to be read by many thousands. So here I am. Don’t waste my time. So I’m listening. What do I read? On page 8, with large photo:
Daleiden appeared unflappable – smiling, well-groomed, wearing a black jacket, blue shirt, and black tie as he spoke briefly with reporters, including LifeSiteNews.
Can you believe it? LifeSiteNews wants you to know that they were honoured in this way, rubbing shoulders with this fellow: “including LifeSiteNews.”
But anyway, I’m glad I’m reading such important Catholic literature. I’m relieved that Mr. Daleiden was well-groomed (!?) He was probably used to doing this, in preparation for hunting down his prey.
But what I really, really want to know, is, what is this man wearing these days? What colour was his shirt again? Let me write that down. I might forget, and of course, that would be bad.
I see, truly, the man does look clean shaven. Quite a nice smile; I could see how a woman might think he’s a winner, especially if he pretends he’s a doctor with a full wallet, ready to buy, ready to talk about things money can do. Yeah baby, maybe he was a talker. Or maybe he mainly smiled while he taped. Don’t know what he was into. You want to talk about gross? That’s gross.
I better unsubscribe fast. Don’t want to see Daleiden’s face again.
Let me turn the page.
Page 17. Hey look, another article by, guess who? It’s by John-Henry Westen. I don’t know about that title. Check it out. Is it just me, or does it seem, almost, sarcastic? (But what do I know about sarcasm?): “New book-length interview shows Pope is awesomely merciful.” I don’t know, Mr. Westen. Don’t know about that title. The article is full of nearly full-on attacks of His Holiness. Mr. Westen’s getting bolder by the minute.
Page 25. This article is by Dr. Edward Feser. What’s it about? Well, it’s entitled “Breaking down the degrees of papal authority.” I see. Interesting. Let me guess.
(Give me a moment. I haven’t read this one yet.)
Alright, just finished it.
Well, the good news is that it’s so long that hopefully people won’t bother to reach the end, because that’s where it’s most alarming. This is from page 28:
A Catholic who disagrees with the Church’s teaching on abortion or euthanasia is rejecting a category 1 or category 2 magisterial statement [This ‘category’ talk is chosen by Dr. Feser himself. Never read it quite like this.] — something that is never permitted. But a Catholic who disagrees with what recent popes have said about capital punishment, the war in Iraq or specific economic policies is disagreeing with category 5 statements – something that the Church Herself holds to be permissible. Hence, Catholics who condemn their fellow Catholics for disagreeing with category 5 statements are themselves the ones who are out of sync with what the Church teaches – not to mention exhibiting a lack of justice and charity.
Since the Church allows that Catholics can under certain circumstances legitimately disagree with statements of category 3, not to mention statements of categories 4 and 5, Catholic teaching therefore implies that it is possible for popes to be mistaken when making statements falling under any of these categories. It is even possible for a pope to be mistaken in a more radical way if, outside the context of his extraordinary Magisterium, he says something inconsistent with a statement of category 1 or category 2. And it is possible for a pope to fall into error in other ways, such as by carrying out unwise policies or exhibiting immorality in his personal life.
The take-home message is, here’s a map, showing what you need to agree to, and what’s optional. Here’s where the Pope can go wrong. He can go wrong like this, like that and like this over here.
Very interesting, Mr. Westen. And let me guess, you’ll be the one to tell us what to think.
You seem to like telling us what to think.
For instance, you tell us to consider Fr. Stephen A. Privett a bad guy.
You call this priest “an old foe of pro-life, pro-family Catholics.” You do your best to list his crimes. In fact, you devote four paragraphs to telling all your readers what Fr. Privett has done wrong. I’ve read your list, and all I can say is, please don’t become a prosecutor, Mr. John-Henry Westen. You would be in over your head.
These are your condemnations:
– Fr. Privett, soon after becoming President of the University of San Francisco in 2000, fired the heads of the St. Ignatius Institute, effectively ending the highly acclaimed, traditional Catholic great-books program launched there by Ignatius Press founder Fr. Joseph Fessio, one of the great heroes of the Catholic faith in America today.
TRANSLATION (assuming it’s true): Fr. Privett halted a literature program and fired the person(s) in charge of an “institute.”
– Ignoring the public protests of the faithful and even of prominent [very key word, but what I really want to know, Mr. Westen, was what the New York Times thought of them] Catholics such as … [names 7 people] Fr. Privett destroyed the program (without changing the name) going so far as to hiring dissenting instructors who, for instance, supported human cloning and euthanasia.
TRANSLATION (assuming it’s true): Fr. Privett halted a literature program and hired some different professors.
Reminder: Fr. Privett had a rocket ship of his own to fly, called the University of San Francisco. Last I checked, Mr. Westen, you weren’t in charge of it.
– In 2008, under Privett’s leadership, the University of San Francisco found itself in controversy when the university-sponsored health insurance included coverage for abortion.
TRANSLATION (assuming it’s true): The insurance policy at his university covered the cost of abortion. (Did Fr. Privett draft the insurance policy? Was this his idea? No? Then you saddle him with this, why?)
– In 2007, pro-abortion Catholic Nancy Pelosi was a commencement speaker.
TRANSLATION: Nine years ago, pro-abortion Catholic Nancy Pelosi once gave one speech at the same university where Fr. Privett was Chancellor.
– Earlier that same year, Privett gave the invocation at the opening of the pro-abortion-Democrat-controlled 110th U.S. Congress and the swearing-in of Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
TRANSLATION: Fr. Privett said a prayer, once, out loud, in front of some people.
Wow. With a list of charges like that, I don’t think Fr. Privett needs a defence.
Nevertheless, I defend. After all, Fr. Privett has asked you to stop sending your magazine his way, so he may not choose to waste his time reading your page 5 and the new way you attempt to smear his name.
You make, Mr. Westen, some complaints about Fr. Privett’s letter. You say, “and boy was his letter (published in the letters section) venomous.”
You say Fr. Privett’s letter was venomous.
That’s quite a word, “venomous.”
Let’s see this letter.
Hmm, why not re-write the whole thing? That way, when this blog post goes viral (a girl can dream, can she not?) we’ll all be able to see what he said about you and your magazine. I quote his words in blue, as being worthy of attention.
The recipient of your magazine, Fr. Charles Dullea, is long deceased. I have succeeded him as Chancellor at the University of San Francisco and for that reason alone FI was forwarded to my office.
I perused your publication and was shocked at its marked preference for the personal opinion of select cardinals over the magisterial teaching, inspiring example of Pope Francis, the visible head of the Church. Your blatant effort to undermine papal authority, however well intentioned, is scandalous and will lead others to disregard the authoritative voice of Christ’s Vicar on Earth (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church #2284 – 2287). How is it that you set yourself in judgment over the Pope? You are the classic “cafeteria Catholic” — choosing to listen only to those Popes and prelates who say what you want to hear.
I do not want to receive a publication that is neither faithful nor insightful regarding ecclesial authority, so please take Fr. Dullea off your mailing list so that I do not receive FI by default.
FI is a terrible thing to do to a tree.
Stephen A. Privett, SJ
University of San Francisco
Mr. Westen, in order to attack this letter, you have gone beyond the words of the letter itself. That itself is a bad sign on your part. If Fr. Privett’s letter were so bad, it would likely be so on its face. But when I look at the words in this letter, I see no venom.
I see a warning. I see concern for what you are doing, which is leading people astray. I see he gives you the benefit of the doubt, suggesting that perhaps you are even well-intentioned.
I don’t know if I can be so kind.
I wonder, for example, how it came to be that this magazine was sent to Fr. Charles Dullea, when you seem to have followed, so closely, the inner workings of the University of San Francisco. You seem to know so well that Fr. Dullea was succeeded by Fr. Privett.
Moreover, you say that the magazine “fell into the hands of” Fr. Privett. Well, how surprised are you? You say his letter was “unexpected” but really, you admit that you were sending your magazine to non-subscribers. You or someone in your office chose to send it to the office of the Chancellor of the University of San Francisco University. I would be surprised if it didn’t “fall into the hands of” Fr. Privett.
You should be so glad that Fr. Privett took the time to write to your magazine, and to spend a moment to show you the error of its ways. You even got a joke at the end.
Venomous? No, that’s not.
However, your response to Fr. Privett’s letter is beyond weird.
In the face of his clear words, you write, disingenuously, the following:
The condemnations of Faithful Insight (F1) by San Francisco University Chancellor Fr. Stephen Privett, SJ should be interpreted as a hearty recommendation of the magazine to Catholics on fire for faith, life and family.
Fr. Privett wrote what he wrote, and said what he said, and you say that we should interpret Fr. Privett’s letter as a “hearty recommendation” of the magazine?
Have you lost your mind?
Fr. Privett’s letter most certainly should not be interpreted that way.
Do you not understand plain English?
He just said your magazine is no good.
He just said you’re leading people astray.
He did not say he likes your magazine.
He did not recommend it.
Not even close.
He said it’s a waste of a tree.
Do you understand that?
Which part is unclear?
Don’t tell me what to think, Mr. Westen. Don’t tell me that No means Yes. Don’t tell me that Bad means Good.
I don’t care about your self-recommendation, after you slam His Holiness in numerous ways (how brazen your articles are! How bold you are to enumerate the sins of the “liberal bishops.”) But you know you speak the truth because – because – oh my, here I seem to have forgotten. Ah yes, there was something about an award. And then, there’s this on Page 18:
Moreover, in my 20 years of contact with Catholic life and family leaders around the world, I have found them to be the kindest, most generous, humble, forgiving and giving people on earth. Many of them converts or reverts, they recognize sin in their own lives and thus can reach out with unbelievable mercy and understanding to women in crisis pregnancies and to sinners suffering due to their harmful choices.
TRANSLATION: You like and admire some people. They are, in your view, pretty much the greatest people on earth. And you are their leader?
Maybe they didn’t, in fact, nominate you as their Captain. Maybe they think of you as nothing more (and nothing less) than the editor of a popular online website.
But there’s something funny about popularity.
The Catholic Church is here to stay.
One day, a post is nothing.
Another day, it goes viral.
One day, a website is everything.
The next day, it is nothing.
In your recent issue (March 2016), you have asked for “thoughtfully crafted letter submissions.” You have stated that you welcome “thoughtful, respectful letters from subscribers that add useful information or insights.” You have stated that “preference will be given to subscribers.”
Well, Mr. Westen, I have given your magazine my time. Hours, as a matter of fact. I have given you my “thoughtfully-crafted submission.” I am even a subscriber. Does that put me at the front of the line?
I suppose now I am to wait for you to decide if what I have written meets with your satisfaction.
I am to wait for you to decide whether what I have written is hostile, or not. Perhaps you will deem it venomous. Perhaps you will ignore it, the way you ignored my email to you about that Foss article.
I am to wait for you to decide whether what I have written is “propagandistic.” What a word.
Or wait a minute!
Maybe I won’t wait.
After all, I’m a CEO myself. (I nearly forgot.)
Let me introduce myself. I’m a Catholic CEO. I have a blog and it’s called MinedGems.
I have no idea about my own readership, because I don’t check my statistics. I have no idea how many “unique visitors” I have. But I do know what it means to go viral, and I really hope that this one does. (A CEO can dream, can she not?)
I’ll use your words, Mr. Westen. Maybe these will work:
Dear MinedGems Reader,
Please help me, through your networks of friends and family, to increase the number of readers of this blog post. The message in this post is crucial and needs to be read by many thousands.
[I’ll skip a Mr. Westen-style pitch for cash. Instead I’ll say,]
(Tell me, what are the odds of a photo-less post going viral if it’s almost 5000 words? Shall I add a photo of some cute kittens wearing a snowsuit or something like that? Would that help?)
The following posts discuss my concerns with LifeSiteNews:
Here’s a link to Post 64: Just Rocket
Here’s a link to Post 65: Salad, Betrayal on the Side
Here’s a link to Post 67: Unforeseen Dots – The Connection Between Posts 64 & 65