Wasting Your Life — Venerable Fulton Sheen (11 of 12 from CatholicClips, YouTube)
It’s been another ‘one of those weeks’, so I’m sharing a Bishop Fulton Sheen video (from a family retreat in the 1970s, I gather), talking about whatever comes to mind, and calling it a day.
One thing Bishop Sheen mentioned was prayer.
Prayer, Briefly
St. Peter’s Basilica, Rome.
Prayer isn’t the only part of being a Christian, a Catholic, but it’s an important part. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2558-2856)
Okay, first things first. Just what is prayer, anyway?
“For me, prayer is a surge of the heart; it is a simple look turned toward heaven, it is a cry of recognition and of love, embracing both trial and joy.” (“Manuscrits Autobiographiques”, St. Therese of Lisieux (1895-1897) via Catechism of the Catholic Church)
But if prayer wasn’t anything more than a gush of emotions, I wouldn’t have much use for it. Nothing wrong with emotions, I’ve talked about that before.1
Prayer is also a gift from God. (Catechism, 2559-2561)
So is everything else, and I’m drifting off-topic.
The Catechism’s Glossary (English language) has a pretty good definition.
“PRAYER: The elevation of the mind and heart to God in praise of his glory; a petition made to God for some desired good, or in thanksgiving for a good received, or in intercession for others before God. Through prayer the Christian experiences a communion with God through Christ in the Church (2559-2565).” (Catechism, Glossary)
Prayer involves words, gestures, or both. But it’s not just words and gestures. When I pray, all of me is praying, not just my voice and hands. That’s how it should be, at any rate. (Catechism, 2562-2564)
Putting Performance in Perspective
Another point, an important one.
Prayer isn’t magic.
Words mean things and what I’m doing as I pray matters.
But prayer isn’t about putting on a technically-competent act. What I’m doing inside matters.
“Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.” (Catechism, 2111)
Another point.
Asking God for something — better health, wisdom, whatever — can make sense. Imagining I can make God do something: that profoundly does not.
God is large and in charge. Almighty. (Catechism, 268-269)
“Our God is in heaven and does whatever he wills.” (Psalms 115:3)
That’s a scary thought, but there’s emphatically an ‘up’ side to God’s omnipotence.
“Indeed, before you the whole universe is like a grain from a balance, or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth. “But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things; and you overlook sins for the sake of repentance.” (Wisdom 11:22–23) [emphasis mine]
Categories
There’s a whole mess of ways I can sort prayers out. One of them is by looking at why I’m praying.
Taking the ‘intent’ angle, there are at least five sorts of prayer. (Catechism, 2623-2643)
Blessing and adoration
‘Returning’ God’s blessings, acknowledging that God’s God
Petition
Asking, pleading, …
Intercession
Petitioning for someone else
Thanksgiving
Just that: giving thanks
Praise
Again, just that
Let’s see. What else?
Some places are better than others for praying. (Catechism, 2691)
But “It is always possible to pray….” (Catechism, 2743)
There’s more, lots more. But like I said, it’s ‘one of those weeks’.
Doing, Understanding, Caring
“Apathy is Rampant!!! But Who Cares?” Brian H. Gill (2018)
When I get an impulse to pray, it’s very often giving thanks for something.
Or maybe it’s praise and adoration. For me, those two are much alike.
But all sorts of prayer are important. Which is why my daily prayer routine includes a bit from each category: no great virtue there, there’s lots to pray about in each one.
Happily, most of the heavy lifting for ‘intercessory/petition’ prayers — thinking of what to ask for — gets done for me. I’m part of a ‘prayer chain’, and get ‘pray for…’ items via text/email. Actually, my youngest daughter gets them, writes them on slips of paper, then passes those on to me.
The issues are mostly medical, very often distressing, and as anonymous as whoever makes the request wants.
About intercessory/petition prayers — Sometimes I’ll clearly ask for “A”. Then nothing happens, or maybe I get “∃∑”.
I figure there’s a reason. Reasons. But I also figure that, even if I got a full explanation, I still wouldn’t understand. God’s God, I’m not, and I’ve read the book of Job.
Demanding explanations? I like understanding things. But sometimes I don’t need to, so I try to avoid fretting when I don’t understand God-level decisions.
Letting ‘I don’t understand’ morph into ‘I don’t care’: sometimes indifference makes sense, like when I don’t understand why folks extol the excellencies of pepperoni pizza. Not that many do.
But when it comes to God — indifference is not an option. Not a viable one.
Grant Hamilton’s view of William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. (1896)
Politicos being tone-deaf when it comes to faith is nothing new.
Sometimes cosplaying Jesus goes over well, at least for the intended audience. Take William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech in 1896, for example.1 Even then, it’s an arguably-risky move. On the other hand it’s nearly guaranteed to get remembered.
About politics, principles, piety and personal preferences, my gut-level response to what’s been going on is not dissimilar to Mark Twain’s imagined reader of the Deerslayer tale:
“…the reader of the Deerslayer tale dislikes the good people in it, is indifferent to the others, and wishes they would all get drowned together.…” (“Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offences” , Mark Twain (1895) via Gutenberg.org) [emphasis mine]
I don’t like “God agrees with me” politics, or folks acting as if their personal preferences are eternal, unchanging principles.
That’s a personal, emotional response. It matters, a bit, to me.
Feeling and Thinking
I haven’t talked about emotions for a while, so here’s a brief (for me) recap of why feelings matter, to an extent.
Feelings, emotions, happen: they’re part of being human. So is thinking. Or, more accurately, it should be. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 154-159, 1763-1764)
I can decide to act on whatever impulse pops up, or not act. I’ve got free will, so thinking is an option, not a hardwired response. (Catechism, 1730, 1778, 1804, 2339)
By themselves, emotions aren’t good or bad. They just happen. “Good” or “bad” come into play when I decide what to do or not do about what I’m feeling. (Catechism, 1764-1764, 1767-1768)
I’m feeling decidedly peeved by some of what’s been in my news feed this week.
Since the topical gibberish involves matters that I take seriously, I’ve decided to talk about what I’ve seen. And try to stay comparatively calm.
Pictures, American Presidents, and Getting a Grip
Posted, and deleted, April 13, 2026.
I don’t know who decided that posting a colorful and imaginative image of the American president — with glowing hands, robed in white and red —
Seriously, I don’t know who thought that would be a good idea.
Something like that would, I think, have been over the top even for the red, white, and blue-blooded radio preachers of my youth.
Their secular and religious fervor were rather thoroughly mixed, but — I’d better stop now.
Apparently the American president is intended to be viewed as a doctor.
Okay, the posture and gesture sort of fit “doctor/healer” artistic conventions, and the man lying in the foreground could be a patient. But I’ve seen doctors, off and on, all my life. They didn’t dress like that, and none of them had glowing hands.
Granted, I’ve spent most of my life in the Upper Midwest, so maybe doctors on the east coast — Good grief.
Apotheosis and Presidents: Not a New Myth-Take
Detail, Constantino Brumidi’s “The Apotheosis of Washington”, U.S. Capitol rotunda. (1865)
I gather that this week’s nifty presidential image was AI-generated. Tech behind the picture is new. More-or-less ham-handed representations of public figures in religious/mythic settings aren’t.
I still think George Washington, seated in glory between Justice and Victory in Brumidi’s “The Apotheosis…” looks like he’s about to stab Victory’s leg; and I’m drifting off-topic.
Or maybe not so much.
I don’t think 19th century Americans really believed that George Washington was on a par with the gods of Olympus. But some of them expressed arguably-excessive enthusiasm about our first president.
Remembering Who’s Who
“The Exhortation to the Apostles”, Tissot.
The iconography of this week’s nifty picture — even without the red overlay stole, there aren’t many people other than Jesus who’d be dressed like that, looking like that.
Seeing Jesus as a role model: that makes sense, although I have a hard enough time trying to imitate the Saints, let alone Jesus of Nazareth.
Posting a picture of myself, dressed the way we show Jesus in religious art, posed as if laying my mystic hands on some guy? I’m no shrinking violet, but that’s something I wouldn’t do.
That’s because God’s God, I’m not, and Jesus said “I AM”. Then, and this is why I take Jesus very seriously, he made good on his claim.
Living in Today’s World, Looking Ahead
Ruins of Richmond, Virginia. (1865)
I don’t like war. It kills people and breaks things. But I’d make a terrible pacifist, since I think sometimes war is less bad than the alternative.
This is not a new idea.
“The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. ‘The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. … The one is intended, the other is not.’ (Catechism, 2263) (“…double effect…” from “Summa Theologica” , STh II-II,64,7, St. Thomas Aquinas) [emphasis mine]
“…79. …Those too who devote themselves to the military service of their country should regard themselves as the agents of security and freedom of peoples. As long as they fulfill this role properly, they are making a genuine contribution to the establishment of peace.” (“Gaudium et Spes” , Pope St. Paul VI (December 7, 1965)) [emphasis mine]
My guess is that the assorted politicos and pundits who have been talking about “just war” lately have the idea of legitimate defense in mind. Or hope that the folks they’re trying to influence will think so.
These days, the ‘just/not-just’ war we’re supposed to agree with someone about is the one involving the outfit that’s been running Iran since 1979.
It’s my considered opinion that I don’t know enough to have a considered opinion about whether the conflict counts as “legitimate defense”.
Fear, Hope, and a Very Distant Goal
The current Iranian regime’s ‘death to the Jews, death to the Great Satan (Sheytân-e Bozorg) America’ slogans aren’t reassuring. How they’ve been treating their subjects is regrettable.2
Again, I don’t know enough about what’s been happening to know whether the current war with Iran is okay.
A few more points and I’ll wrap this up.
‘Passing moral judgements’ on my country’s government: that’s part of the Church’s job. Ethics apply to everyone: even United States government officials.
“The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. ‘The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen.'” (Gaudium et Spes 76 § 3 (1965)) “It is a part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. the means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.'” (Gaudium et Spes 76 § 5. (1965)) (Catechism, 2245, 2246) [emphasis mine]
Avoiding war is a very good idea. But we do not live in an ideal world.
“All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, ‘as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.'” (Gaudium et Spes 76 § 5 (1965)) (Catechism, 2308)
The “international authority with the necessary competence and power” Pope St. Paul VI mentioned in Gaudium et Spes (Joy and Hope) does not exist. Not yet.
I think part of our job is building a “civilization of love”.
“…The answer to the fear which darkens human existence at the end of the twentieth century is the common effort to build the civilization of love, founded on the universal values of peace, solidarity, justice, and liberty….” (“To the United Nations Organization” , Pope St. John Paul II (October 5, 1995))
That’s going to take time. Generations. Centuries. Millennia. Whatever we cobble together won’t be perfect. But I think we must try, and am sure that we can do better.
I’ve talked about living in a non-ideal world before:
“…Now, Bryan was ready to conclude the speech, and according to his biographer, Michael Kazin, step ‘into the headlines of American history’.
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: ‘You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.‘
“As Bryan spoke his final sentence, recalling the Crucifixion of Jesus, he placed his hands to his temples, fingers extended; with the final words, he extended his arms to his sides straight out to his body and held that pose for about five seconds as if offering himself as sacrifice for the cause….”
(Cross of Gold speech, Bryan addresses the convention; Wikipedia) [emphasis mine]
2 Iran, very briefly, then someone’s look at the current rulers and their subjects:
“…’Ayatollah Khamenei was a man with strategic patience and was able to calculate a few steps ahead,’ he [Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. seior fellow Alex Vatanka] says. ‘That’s why I think he managed — on the back of the Revolutionary Guards — to increasingly appropriate all the levers of power in his hands and sideline everyone else.“
“Khamenei’s close ties to the Revolutionary Guards allowed Iran’s military to develop a vast commercial empire in control of many parts of the economy, while ordinary Iranians struggled to get by.
“Vaez says Khamenei also began to build up Iran’s defensive policies, such as developing proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip to deter a direct attack on Iranian soil.
“‘And then also becoming self-reliant in developing a viable conventional deterrence, which took the form of Iran’s ballistic missile program,’ Vaez says.
“As supreme leader, Khamenei also had the final word on anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.
“Over time, Khamenei increasingly injected himself into politics. Such was the case in 2009, when he intervened in the presidential election to ensure that his favored candidate, the controversial conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, won office.
“Iranians took to the streets to protest what was widely seen as a fraudulent election. Khamenei brutally crushed those demonstrations, triggering both a backlash and more protest movements over the years.
“Iran killed thousands of its citizens under Khamenei’s rule, including more than 7,000 people killed during weeks of mass protests that started in late December 2025, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based organization that closely tracks rights abuses in Iran….
“…By the time Khamenei died, his legacy was in tatters. Israel had hobbled two key proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, and had wiped out Iran’s air defenses. With U.S. help, it left Iran’s nuclear program in shambles.
“What remains is a robust ballistic missile program, the brainchild of Khamenei. It’s unclear who will replace him to lead a now weakened and vulnerable Iran.” [emphasis mine]
Artemis II Commander Reid Wiseman watching the Moon on Monday, April 6, 2026.
As I said when the Artemis II mission started, this is a big deal. Not an Easter-level big deal, but a big deal nonetheless.
Four of us — Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen — have gone back to the Moon.
They set a record, going 252,756 miles from Earth: farther than Apollo 13 crew’s 248,655 miles, back in 1970. But they didn’t land. So maybe I should say ‘back toward the Moon’.
Either way, as I said, it’s a big deal.
I’ve been following NASA’s live coverage of the Artemis II mission since they left.
The coverage has been 24-7, but I’ve taken the occasional break: for sleep, daily prayers, time each evening when I chat with our oldest daughter, for example. Plus all Wednesday afternoon, which wasn’t routine.
I spent Wednesday afternoon going to St. Cloud, a town about an hour down the road, for some medical stuff; and that’s another topic for another time.
Anyway, the effort of will it’s taken me to do something other than follow NASA coverage tells me that I’ve been very interested in our return to the Moon.
Science, Adventure, and Getting Bags Packed
The Integrity crew packing their gear, getting ready for Friday’s return to Earth. (April 9, 2026)
Artemis II has had its share of awe, wonder, and collecting information about the Moon, the spacecraft, and the crew.
As NASA has been saying, this is a test flight.
Getting more information about the Moon mattered during Artemis II. But the main point this time has been learning everything possible about how both spacecraft and crew perform before going back with a lander.
That’s new and exciting.
On the other hand, the mission has had its share of more-or-less-familiar routine.
Thursday, for example, the crew was preparing for their return to Earth.
Folks doing NASA coverage pointed out that the process was like packing up after a camping trip. Looked like it, too, apart from all that high-tech equipment and microgravity: ‘down’ being more a matter of choice than an enforced obligation.
Artemis Program: Not Just Like Apollo
The ‘flight deck’ of Integrity. (Friday morning, April 10, 2026)
Apollo 11 Command Module Columbia.
The Artemis II mission’s crew named their spacecraft Integrity.
The name is new, but the habit of naming isn’t: Apollo 11 Command Module’s name was Columbia.
Integrity looks a bit like the Apollo spacecraft, too, and has the same general inside layout.
But Integrity’s displays and controls look a whole lot simpler. The Apollo crew faced an impressive array of instruments and switches. Folks piloting Integrity are looking at three screens and a few dozen switches. Plus devices that remind me of notebooks I remember from the 1980s.
Something New: the Science Evaluation Room
Science Evaluation Room (SER) at Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. (April 8, 2026)
Science has been a part of every mission to the Moon, but this mission has something new. Quite a few things new, actually.
At the moment I’m thinking of the Science Evaluation Room, or SER, near Johnson Spaceflight Center’s Mission Control Room in Houston.
There’s more to SER than just having a room full of science nerds and information tech.
For one thing, I was hearing a lot of back-and-forth conversation as Integrity went around the moon. The folks near the moon were noticing things and asking questions of the ones back on Earth, and vice-versa.
That sort of thing happened during the Apollo missions, of course. We’re humans, humans are social creatures, so we chew over information. It’s what we do.
What’s different this time around is that sharing information, raising questions, and following up on ‘oh, look at that’ items seems to be baked into mission procedure. I like it. A lot.
Reentry: A Bit Different This Time
NASA infographic illustrating the Artemis II Orion lofted entry sequence. (April 8, 2026)
Graph showing Apollo (green) and Orion (blue) altitude/range reentry paths. NASA (2021)
Folks at NASA figure that if there’d been anyone aboard the Artemis I Orion capsule, they’d have made it back okay.
On the other hand, the Orion’s heat shield had unexpectedly peeled away in a few spots. It’s called “char loss”.
That’s why Integrity’s reentry is being handled a little differently. Instead of skipping over the top of Earth’s atmosphere the way Artemis I did, they’ll come in a little steeper. That way, they spend less time slowing from 24,000-plus miles per hour to 19 miles an hour. More to the point, it puts less combined heat stress on the heat shield.
Later Artemis missions will have a new sort of heat shield, but turning ideas into hardware takes time.
Ionization and Radio Signals: Vexing
Reentry: it’s complicated.
During reentry, the Artemis II crew will be out of touch with folks on the ground.
It’s the usual issue. Reentering spacecraft go so fast, Earth’s air doesn’t have time to flow out of the way.
Instead, it gets compressed, heats up, and gets so hot that its atoms don’t have the usual number of electrons. The effect is called “ionization”.
Ionization affects both how radar ‘sees’ the spacecraft, and stops radio communication from getting past the ionized gas.
Being out of touch during such a vital part of a mission is a trifle vexing. Folks have been working at ways to get signals through that sheath of ionized gas. But so far, we just have to wait until the ionization goes away.
Slowing Down: FAST
NASA map showing the Artemis II Orion ground track from “entry interface”, where the Orion capsule will be about 400,000 feet up, to splashdown off San Diego. (April 8, 2026)
I heard that Integrity will cover a bit over 1,700 miles from “entry interface”, 400,000 feet up, where it starts slowing from — never mind the numbers.
When the Artemis II crew re-enter Earth’s atmosphere, they’ll be traveling very, very fast. A little over a dozen minutes later, they’ll be floating off the coast of San Diego. Along the way, they experience about 3.9 g. In other words, they feel as if they weigh almost four times what they normally do.
Acceleration — deceleration, in this case — like that is tolerable. But it’s not at all comfortable, which is another reason I suspect space tourism will remain a niche industry for a long time. And that’s yet another topic.
A New Chapter
Almost home: Artemis II approaching Earth, about an hour before reentry. (April 10, 2026)
I’m writing most of this Friday afternoon, while Artemis II is still on its way back.
The astronauts have made their final burn: a slight course correction to get them heading for the right spot over the Pacific. If all goes well, Integrity will be in the water at about seven minutes past seven p.m., CDT, Minnesota’s time zone.
Helicopters from the USS John P. Murtha will be heading heading toward them, near San Diego; and we’ll be that much close to having people working on the Moon.
“Exciting”? Yes, definitely. For me, at any rate. And, I very strongly suspect, for anyone who realizes that we’re at the beginning of a new chapter in humanity’s saga.
Spaceport America, New Mexico. (2017)
I’ll wrap this up with links: first, to what I’ve said about this sort of thing before; finally, to some of the resources I used while putting this together:1
I’m a Catholic, so this weekend I’m celebrating a particular series of events.
Seriously
Two millennia back, someone was tortured and executed. We celebrated, maybe “remembered” or “observed” would be a better word, that on Thursday and Friday.
Saturday — I see it as a day when we wait and review what led up to that execution and what happened later. The day’s readings this year are from Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Romans and Matthew.
“The Resurrection of Jesus Christ”, Piero della Francesca’s fresco in the Museo Civico di Sansepolcro.
Sunday, tomorrow, is the big celebration of our year. Calling it a celebration makes sense, since a few days after he’d been killed, Jesus stopped being dead.
By any reasonable standard, that’s a very big deal:
There’s a great deal more I could say about Easter, the Resurrection, and why Jesus matters.
But this household’s Internet provider is doing maintenance: which means I couldn’t be online as much as usual. Besides, I’ve talked about Easter and Jesus before. You’ll find a few links at the end of this post.
NOT Seriously: Easter Cards of Yesteryear
There’s a lot of history behind today’s greeting cards, starting at least when new printing technologies made mass producing the things practical. Maybe I’ll dive down that rabbit hole some day, but not this week.
Instead, I’ll share a few late-19th and early-20th century Easter-themed greeting cards I found, starting with one where I know who designed the thing: late 19th / early 20th century German illustrator Arthur Thiele.
Arthur Thiele’s “Fröhliche Ostern!” card. (1919)
One reason I don’t deplore my culture’s distressing failure to be steadfastly serious about the year’s great celebrations — is that I know a little history. Quite a little, actually. Including how folks responded to the Easter season. Besides, I don’t like hand-wringing.
A not-exactly-Easter card: apart from mentioning an egg. 😉 (Easter) rabbits juggling (Easter) eggs: a little more ‘Easter-y’.
A tip of the hat to whoever found the final three cards I’m sharing this year:
“The Milky Way pictured from the International Space Station in a long-duration photograph” (NASA (November 25, 2024))
Today’s Artemis II launch is a big deal, even if it’s not particularly “newsworthy”. As usual, my news feed has been packed with the usual direly dreadful distressful disasters: and that’s another topic.
I’m actually writing this Tuesday evening, but what I have to say matters: even if the launch is rescheduled.
Back to the Moon
“A full Moon is seen shining over NASA’s SLS (Space Launch System) and Orion spacecraft in the early hours of Feb. 1, 2026, at Launch Complex 39B at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.” (NASA photo by Sam Lott (February 1, 2026))
We’re going back to Earth’s moon. Not going for the first time, not landing, not sure to discover some totally cool new thing. But we ARE going back.
And this time the astronauts will be going farther out than anyone’s been before.
Whether that’s an important part of this test flight, something that’ll matter when landings resume, or is being done as a sort of bonus achievement: that, I don’t know. Either way, I think it’s a cool detail.
Looking Ahead, Thinking Back
“Trajectory for Artemis II, NASA’s first flight with crew aboard SLS, Orion to pave the way for long-term return to the Moon, missions to Mars” (NASA infographic (January 27, 2023))
I don’t feel about the Artemis program the way I did about the Apollo flights. That’s no surprise: I was a teenager then, now I’m an old man. But I still think humanity is headed for the stars. Eventually.
Tracy Caldwell Dyson in cupola of the ISS. (2010)
Going back to the Moon is just one step in a journey: one we started a very long time ago, when someone wondered what’s over the next hill — and decided to go and see:
Something new each Saturday.
Life, the universe and my circumstances permitting. I'm focusing on 'family stories' at the moment. ("A Change of Pace: Family Stories" (11/23/2024))
Blog - David Torkington
Spiritual theologian, author and speaker, specializing in prayer, Christian spirituality and mystical theology [the kind that makes sense-BHG]
I was born in 1951. I'm a husband, father and grandfather. One of the kids graduated from college in December, 2008, and is helping her husband run businesses and raise my granddaughter; another is a cartoonist and artist; #3 daughter is a writer; my son is developing a digital game with #3 and #1 daughters. I'm also a writer and artist.
![Illustration: 'EDL [Entry, Descent, and Landing] Aerodynamics'; from NASA's 'Aerodynamic Modeling for EDL Briefing to Summer Students and the NESC Academy', Karen Bibb (July 21, 2021)](https://i0.wp.com/brendans-island.com/blogsource/20260101ff/20260410-EDLaerodynamics-329.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
