Former American president Donald Trump, shortly after being shot in Pennsylvania. (July 13, 2024)
Here’s how I learned that someone tried to kill Donald Trump.
Our number-two daughter and granddaughter were visiting over the weekend. We were talking about something entirely different when our number-two daughter looked at her smartphone — one of those things that connects whoever’s holding it to humanity’s social media and information services.
She said something like ‘oh! someone shot Trump’, and we went on with our conversation.
That was late Saturday. By Sunday evening, our son-in-law had finished business in southern Minnesota, spent a few hours with us, and set off with number-two-daughter and our granddaughter to their home in North Dakota.
Don’t get me wrong: I care about what happens in my country, and think that taking potshots at presidential candidates — or presidents — is a very bad idea. But I’m not obsessively focused on politics or politicos.
I hadn’t planned on writing more about Corey Comperatore, but his last words showed up in my news feeds today. “Get down!” isn’t particularly profound, but was eminently practical at the time.
“…In an interview with the New York Post on Monday, Helen Comperatore, the widow of Corey Comperatore, shared her husband’s last words, spoken as he shielded his family from bullets that ultimately took his life.
Corey Comperatore, who was killed while protecting his family.
I figure that what Wikipedia started calling “Attempted assassination of Donald Trump” will be in the news for at least most of this week.
Some news that I’ve seen so far has focused on a probably-mixed-up kid who winged Mr. Trump: and was promptly killed. By then, he’d wounded at least a couple other folks, and killed Corey Comperatore.
Other news pieces opined on the political angle of Saturday’s incident.
I’m not going to do either. Not today, at any rate.
Instead, I’ll share — I wouldn’t call it good news.
But seeing a little attention paid to someone who hadn’t been attacking a politician? That’s a nice change of pace.
Seems that Corey Comperatore was a project and tooling engineer. He had either been or maybe still was a volunteer firefighter. And he’d been the former chief of the Buffalo Township Volunteer Fire Company.1
So much for my culture’s conventional summary of who someone is. Or, in this case, was. From where I’m standing, Corey Comperatore was also a husband and father who died while protecting his family.
“…State police and a SWAT team then began evacuating everyone in the bleachers. Joseph said that he helped officials carry the dead man off of the bleachers to a tent nearby and that officials put a towel over his head before they carried him off….
“…He said the man was facing Trump at the very far left part of the bleachers….
“…Joseph, an OB-GYN, said that he told police he could help render assistance but that police said they did not need him, so he helped with the man who was killed.
“He said that the man’s family was in the bleachers with him and that they were in shock and didn’t know what was going on. About five family members were there, two of whom were ‘hysterical,’ Joseph said. The family was taken to the tent with their deceased relative.…” [emphasis mine]
This Joseph deserves mention, too. He was there, helping a family deal with sudden death. I figure that’s a corporal act of mercy: which is Catholic-speak for giving practical help. Not that lending a hand with the body of a family member will make everything better.
“[Pennsylvania Governor Josh] Shapiro says he has been speaking to the families of the two people who were shot and are still being treated.
“He then goes onto [!] pay tribute to volunteer fire chief Corey Comperatore, 50, who he says was killed last night and ‘dived on his family’ to protect them.…”
“…Mr. Shapiro said early Sunday afternoon that he’d spoken with Mr. Comperatore’s wife and daughters.
“‘Corey was a girl-dad. Corey was a firefighter. Corey went to church every Sunday,’ the governor said, noting that he’d sought permission from Helen Comperatore to share their conversation. ‘He was so excited last night to be there with [Trump] and the community.’
“He said Ms. Comperatore wanted everyone to know that her husband died a hero. ‘Corey dove on his family to protect them last night at this rally,’ he said.…” [emphasis mine]
And, finally, good for Pennsylvania’s governor, who apparently got the okay from the widow before saying good things about her husband.
Family, Country, and Priorities
Donald Trump and Secret Service, shortly after he was shot. (July 13, 2024) Evan Vucci’s photo, via AP.
Again, I care about what happens in my country. I think the election looming this November matters, and so does the national convention happening this week.2 But I don’t think it’s all that matters.
As the “original cell of social life”, family matters. But it shouldn’t be at the top of my priorities. That’s where God belongs. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2113, 2207)
On the other hand, I think Corey Comperatore did the right thing, protecting his family.
I regret, very much, that he died while doing so. Human life, all human life, is precious. And that’s another topic:
Surfside Beach, Texas: the main roadway, a stop sign, debris, and lots of water. (July 8, 2024)
Folks living in the Caribbean, Yucatan Peninsula, and south Texas are cleaning up after Hurricane Beryl. Some are also mourning those who didn’t survive the storm.
I haven’t been personally affected by Beryl, although my in-laws are in Louisiana, next state over. They seem to have been away from the worst weather, for which I’m grateful.
This week I’ll take a quick look at what happened, what the storm doesn’t mean, and — as usual — whatever else comes to mind.
“Hurricane Beryl struck Texas early Monday as a Category 1 storm and not only brought heavy rains … but also left over 1.9 million homes and businesses in the Greater Houston area without power….”
By Monday evening, the storm had killed more than a dozen folks. Nearly three million in Texas were without power, not a trivial issue during a Texas summer.
By one educated guess, rebuilding after Beryl will cost upwards of $6,000,000,000.
A fair chunk of that will be in Texas, since the storm went past Houston. But I strongly suspect that places like Saint Vincent and the Grenadines will feel the cost more.
The good — or less-dreadful, at any rate — news for that island nation is that 10% of its buildings weren’t destroyed last week. It’s a bit like the 2021 La Soufrière eruption’s ‘good news’: Saint Vincent’s air and sea ports were at the other end of the island, but with the COVID-19 pandemic —1
I don’t think anyone’s feeling happy about Beryl. The known extent of loss and damage will just get bigger, as folks clear debris and take stock of their situations.
Beryl Impact by Country/Territory (as of July 8, 2024)
Disasters and Focused Wrath: No Noticeable Correlation
Beryl, seen from the GEOS-16 satellite, about three hours after landfall. (July 8, 2024)
So far, it doesn’t look like Hurricane Beryl has been worse than Katrina or Harvey, either in terms of deaths or property damage.
And I haven’t run across either an equivalent of the 1969 Camille hurricane party story, or a righteous rant like “Katrina: God’s Judgment on America”: posted anonymously in 2005, denouncing gambling and decadence.
With about a third of a billion people living here, and my country’s cultural history, I’d be surprised if someone hasn’t rung the changes on the our old ‘God Doth Wrathfully Smite Sinners’ theme.
Or done the same with our more up-to-date ‘Nature Rises in Wrath and We are Doomed’ attitude.
Each of those conventional explanations for calamities appeal, apparently, to some; but not me. Possibly because I don’t see strong correlation between folks who are behaving badly, and those who get hurt or killed in high-profile disasters.2
The Siloam Reminder
Someone whose opinion I value said that bad things happen. And when they do, it’s a reminder that straightening out my own life is prudent.
“At that time some people who were present there told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with the blood of their sacrifices. “He said to them in reply, ‘Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were greater sinners than all other Galileans? “By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did! “Or those eighteen people who were killed when the tower at Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than everyone else who lived in Jerusalem? “By no means! But I tell you, if you do not repent, you will all perish as they did!'” (Luke 13:1–5)
That doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, or fill me with (self?) righteous confidence, but I think it makes sense. Death happens. Then I go through my particular judgment: a final performance review (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1021-1022)
I know that I’m not perfectly perfect, and that’s another topic.
Perspectives
Weather radar for continental United States. (July 8, 2024)
Hurricane Beryl formed earlier than any other recorded Category 5 Atlantic Hurricane.
It’s only the second one to form in July. They usually come later in the season.
Most of the biggest, worst, and most destructive hurricanes seem to have happened in the last few decades.
Taking my cue from a famous poet — or my country’s perennial doomsayers — I could cut loose with a new-and-improved version of this meditation on World War I, the Irish War of Independence, and the Trojan War —
“…Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity….” (The Second Coming“, W. B. Yeats (1919) via Wikipedia)
But I won’t.
Before I start talking about tropical cyclones and weather satellites, I’d better explain something.
I’m about as sure as I can be that Earth’s climate is changing, has been changing, and will continue changing.
Although I think Earth’s climate would keep changing even if we had continued living in ye good olde days of cholera and famine, I also think we’re affecting climate and weather.
With about 8,000,000,000 neighbors, many of us living in or near cities, I don’t see how we could avoid make a difference in how Earth’s air and water run through their cycles.
But I do not think we are doomed.
On the other hand, I do think that places like Korea, Japan, Spain, and Malta, will be having a rough time within the next few decades; no matter what the weather is like.
I don’t mind living in a country with a slowly growing population. Although it looks like 22nd century America will be less melanin-deficient.3 And that’s yet another topic.
It’s a Changing World
Tracks of all tropical cyclones, 1985-2005, Map by Nilfanion. (2006)
Hurricanes seem to have gotten much more common over the last few decades.
There was another sharp uptick, apparently, starting around 1500. I figure that’s because Columbus stumbled on what we call the Americas in 1492. After that, just about every European ruler and merchant was trying to get a piece of the trans-Atlantic action.
Some expeditions both ran into massive storms and survived.
Since knowing about storms correlates with survival, folks started keeping records of Atlantic weather, including hurricanes: looking for patterns.
Fast-forward to the 1960s, when the first weather satellites went online. These days, I can get an almost real-time look at weather from geosynchronous satellites.
This is not the world I grew up in. I think that’s a good thing in many ways. Partly because now we can see hurricanes forming, giving folks time to get out of the way or take shelter.
I figure our weather satellites and other new tech is why we have more recorded hurricanes now, but lower death tolls.
That makes more sense to me than imagining that Poseidon sent Beryl as punishment for having his statue in a lobby of the UN General Assembly Building. Good grief. That is crazy on so many levels.
Now, about hurricanes: our name for tropical cyclones in the Atlantic.
A tropical cyclone starts when humid air, warm seawater, and several other factors get together.4
So, yes: warmer tropical seawater will lead to more tropical cyclones. But at least some of the apparent increase in hurricane activity since my youth is due to our having better tech. We’re noticing and tracking more of the things.
Days, Millennia, and Planning Ahead
NOAA Map showing remnant of Beryl. (Wednesday noon. July 10, 2024)
Recapping: Hurricane Beryl broke several records. It caused death and destruction in the Caribbean, the Yucatan Peninsula, and Texas.
Beryl was downgraded to “tropical storm” Monday afternoon, July 8, 2024, By Wednesday it was moving through the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, heading for Ontario.
Like all hurricanes these days, Beryl was tracked from the time it formed.
Americans started an official Atlantic tropical cyclone record in 1851, but folks were jotting down details of major storms long before that.
For example, there’s the one that hit Haining in 251 A.D., just south of the Yangtze delta. Another killed around 10,000 folks in the Hong Kong area in 957.
Then there’s the new field of paleotempestology: a mouthful that’s our name for the study of tropical cyclones, using geological data and historical records. This helps folks like insurance underwriters, who need to know about an area’s storm history.
So far, researchers have charted out the western North Atlantic Ocean’s most recent eight millennia of tropical cyclone activity. One thing they’ve learned is that the average rate at which major storms hit any given spot — changes.
It looks like the region from New York to Puerto Rico was stormier than usual from 2,000 to 1,100 years ago. Then, starting 1,000 years back, that area and the Gulf Coast have seen comparatively few big storms.5
That’s cold comfort for folks who experienced Beryl.
But I think there’s some wisdom in remembering that the last few days, months, centuries, or millennia, aren’t all there is to humanity’s long story.
I also think that learning what the weather has been like recently is a good idea. It’ll be an even better idea, if we decide to use that knowledge. And plan ahead.
I’ve talked about storms, climate, and making sense, before:
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (AKA ENSO: “…a global climate phenomenon that emerges from variations in winds and sea surface temperatures over the tropical Pacific Ocean….”)
Madden-Julian oscillation (AKA MJO: “…the largest element of the intraseasonal (30- to 90-day) variability in the tropical atmosphere. It was discovered in 1971….”
1737 Calcutta cyclone (AKA Hooghly River cyclone of 1737, Great Bengal cyclone of 1737; the first super cyclone on record in North Indian Ocean)
1851 Atlantic hurricane season (first Atlantic hurricane season to be included in the official Atlantic tropical cyclone record: NOAA NHC HURDAT2 Atlantic Hurricane Catalog)
“There’s nothing quite so lovely as a brightly burning book”. The Hon:Mole MacCarony in Pogo. (March 30, 1953)
This isn’t the America I grew up in. But human nature hasn’t changed, and freedom of expression still makes some of us uneasy. I’ll be talking about that; and sharing a little family history that relates to the America of my youth.
Thompson Library, Ohio State U: bigger that the libraries I grew up with. Ibagli’s photo (2009)
My parents were both librarians, which may help explain my fascination with books and information in general. I think it also factors into how I feel, when the folks in charge try “protecting” us from information they don’t like.
Or go hunting for people whose opinions aren’t approved by the powers that be.
My father was head librarian at what’s now Minnesota State University Moorhead when earnest Americans like Senator Joseph McCarthy were “protecting” us from commies, fellow-travelers, and scientists.
Years later, he — my father, that is, I haven’t talked with senators — told me that he’d thought about destroying the library’s check-out records, since they showed who had read which books.
Happily, commie-hunters didn’t come looking for students and faculty with “subversive” reading habits.
Information, Attitudes, Access, and Me
Then we got the 1960s, and a whole new set of weirdnesses. That’s ‘my’ decade, when I was a teen and not on the same page as either the staunch defenders of yesteryear or folks who were following Timothy Leary’s advice.
More than a half-century has passed since then. Some folks around my age grew up, had successful careers, and are now part of The Establishment — top-drawer folks who think they know what’s best for the rest of us. Or act as if they do, at any rate.1
Me? I’ve been a sales clerk, flower delivery guy, researcher/writer, office clerk, computer operator, radio disk jockey, beet chopper, high school teacher; and finally advertising copywriter, graphic designer, and “computer guy” for a small publishing house.
My views have changed a bit over the decades.
But I still think folks should have access to information they can use. And I still think that expressing opinions is okay: even when they’re not sanctioned by the powers that be.
Free Speech, Social Media, and Perceptions
From my Google News feed: social media news items. (July 2, 2024)
“If speech is intended to result in a crime, and there is a clear and present danger that it actually will result in a crime, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from government action.” (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Primary Holding, Justia (justia.com/)) [emphasis mine]
“…Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.…” (Schenck v. United States. Baer v. United States. 439 Argued January 9,10,1919. Decided March 3, 1919. / p. 48. Library of Congress (loc.gov)) [emphasis mine]
Social media isn’t top of the charts in my news feed’s litany of dreadful dangers, malign menaces, and looming dooms. But it didn’t take me long to assemble a half dozen or so “social media” headlines.
I don’t know how many I’d have found, if I’d searched for “disinformation” articles.
Clarification time.
I think that “disinformation” — a potpourri, mishmash, whatever, of falsehood, truth, half-truth, and opinion, presented as unbiased reporting — really happens.
I strongly suspect that much “disinformation” is actually misinformation — alternatively-accurate information, and facts presented out of context.2
Misinformation, by that definition, is not deliberately deceptive. Folks reporting it don’t realize that ‘what everybody knows’ isn’t necessarily so.
From what’s in my news feed, I’m guessing that assorted politicos and do-gooders are at it again: and that this time they see social media as a threat.
Prepublication Censorship, a Near Miss
Fearing the Internet is not exactly new.
Maybe two decades back, I read that “net neutrality” would save the children and defend freedom. As presented, it sounded like the best thing since sliced bread.
Instead of rich folks and organizations having a louder online voice, Internet Service Providers would charge the same rates to everyone, no matter what content the customers put online. It sounded like a wonderful way of updating our rules about free speech.
Just one problem, and I’m relying on my memory here. I haven’t found recent documentation on a particular part of net neutrality that really got my attention.
All this talk about equal rates and free speech was well and good: but how could we save the children and defend freedom from Big Bad Bogeymen with naughty ideas?
The answer was simple: set up a government agency that would check content before allowing it online. That way, the American public wouldn’t be exposed to naughty ideas.
Since it was a government agency, it’d be completely unbiased, approving any and all content that was deemed proper for public perusal.
Nobody, certainly not folks pushing the idea, put it quite that way.
Attempted prepublication censorship didn’t surprise me. It’s an old idea.
What did get my attention was that the Christian Coalition and the Feminist Majority3 united in this effort to — presumably — save the children and defend freedom.
I think my country experienced a near miss when their “net neutrality” didn’t get traction.
Politics, Panic, and Principles
My country’s traditional election-year hysterics are in full cry.
I think the outcome matters. But I won’t echo either — any — side’s ardent assertions that [candidate A] will surely doom us all, while [candidate B] is above and beyond reproach. Or that you must vote for [candidate A], for otherwise [candidate B] will surely doom us all.
I suspect that politicos use wild claims and fearmongering because it’s easier to get votes when voters are too terrified to think.4 I’ve never been a fan of moral panic, I talked about that last month, and that’s another topic.
I was going somewhere with this. Let me think.
Reading habits and the Sixties.
Circumstances and censorship.
Politics and moral panic.
Right.
One reason I like living in America is that we can vote for a candidate: even if some judges disapprove of the person. I also like living in a country where we’ve got some respect for freedom of speech: and where rules about those freedoms are reviewed occasionally.
That said, I don’t think the way we run America’s government is the only right way.
There isn’t any one ‘correct’ form of government. Folks living in different cultures and eras have different needs, and that’s okay — If whatever system they use lets folks take an active part in public life, and the system follows natural law: ethical principles which apply in every time and place. (Catechism, 1915, 1957-1958)
Social Media: New Forum, Old Principles, and Being an American
Another reason I like being an American is that our government has (generally) maintained its respect for our freedoms.5
“Article the third — Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (United States Bill of Rights (1791) via Wikisource)
That won’t keep folks — well-intentioned and otherwise — from panicking when others, who aren’t the right sort, express “subversive” ideas.
And sometimes I figure the “subversive” ideas really are aimed at undercutting the common good — possibly with good intentions, and that’s yet another topic.
I might want tighter controls over who gets to express opinions online. — If I believed in the infallibility of experts and the divine right of congress to decide what we may and may not see.
But I figure that experts, journalists, members of congress, and judges are human beings: which is both good news and bad news, and that’s several more topics.
For now, I’ll be glad that folks like me are still allowed to share what we think. Even if we are doing so in a medium that didn’t exist when I was young. Again, that’s a reason I like an American.
If all this sounds familiar, it should. I’ve talked about it before:
“The Scientist as Educator and Public Citizen: Linus Pauling and His Era” Video: “Science in the McCarthy Period: Training Ground for Scientists as Public Citizens” Lawrence Badash; Special Collections, OSU Libraries; Oregon State University (October 29-30, 2007) via Internet Archive Wayback Machine
SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES. BAER v. SAME. Supreme Court. Argued Jan. 9 and 10, 1919. Decided March 3, 1919. via Legal Information Institute, Cornell University
3 It seemed like such a good idea — or — very strange bedfellows:
“…misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows….” (“The Tempest” , William Shakespeare (ca. 1610-1611) from 1863 Cambridge edition of Shakespeare, via Gutenberg.org)
Prior restraint (“The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject….”)
Master of the Revels (English official responsible for royal revels: and, from around 1580 to 1624, theatrical censorship)
“A False Alarm on the Fourth” Udo Keppler, Puck. (1902) “Uncle Sam — It’s all right! There’s no fighting! The noise you hear is just my family celebrating!”
I like that double-page cartoon by Udo Keppler. And I like his image of America: a family of sorts, where everybody doesn’t look just like me, but we can celebrate together anyway.
Another Udo Keppler cartoon, made eight years earlier, shows a different attitude. I’ll get back to that.
I’ll also be quoting John Adams, with a little the quotes’ context.
Formerly-loyal English subjects signed the Declaration of Independence on this date on July 4, 1776. That’s what Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin said, at any rate.1
I gather that “most” historians say they didn’t — that the document was signed about two months later. Why that’s so, I don’t know. I’m just glad that “most” historians aren’t trying to believe that the Declaration of Independence was part of a MAGA plot to pollute the Potomac.
I’d better clarify a few things.
First, I don’t think that history is either useless, or a pack of lies made up by folks who don’t agree with me. By academic training, I’m an historian: and wish that more professional historians would remember that today’s academic fashions are just that: fashions.
Second, as a slogan, I think MAGA — Make American Great Again — is silly. As I see it, America never stopped being great. My kids told me that the slogan is a response to a still-fashionable ‘blame America first’ attitude. They’ve got a point, and I think they’re right.
Third, I think America is great. And that my country isn’t perfect. That was true when we got started, and still is.
Flights of Oratory, Compromise, and a Missed Opportunity
Alfred Gale’s broadsides (ca. 1865) via Library of Congress. Ardently-held beliefs don’t necessarily make sense.
I haven’t heard the “you can’t legislate morality” slogan for quite a while.
There’s some truth in it. Making, say, pick-pocketing illegal won’t keep some folks from pick-pocketing. But we criminalize pick-pocketing anyway.
Then there’s slavery. It’s a bad idea and we shouldn’t do it. Ever. Even if it’s legal. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1903, 1950-1960, 2242, 2414, and more)
It’d have been nice if the Declaration of Independence made the abolition of slavery a founding principle for the new country.
That didn’t happen. But it might have, if an early draft hadn’t rubbed too many folks the wrong way.
“…A meeting we accordingly had, and conn’d the paper [the Declaration of Independence] over. I was delighted with its high tone and the flights of oratory with which it abounded, especially that concerning negro slavery, which, though I knew his Southern brethren would never suffer to pass in Congress, I certainly never would oppose. There were other expressions which I would not have inserted, if I had drawn it up, particularly that which called the King tyrant. I thought this too personal; for I never believed George to be a tyrant in disposition and in nature…” (John Adams to Timothy Pickering (August 6, 1822) via monticello.org) [emphasis mine]
“…Our Pleasing Hopes…” and a Persistent Perception
The Declaration of Independence, minus some of the “flights of oratory”, got signed.
Decades later, John Adams wasn’t happy about the continuing imperfections in his still-new country.
And he apparently saw problems in other countries, where “a free government” was dealing with “the Roman Catholic religion”.
“Must we, before we take our departure from this grand and beautiful world, surrender all our pleasing hopes of the progress of society, of the improvement of the intellect and moral condition of the world, of the reformation of mankind?
“The Piedmontese revolution scarcely assumed a form, and the Neapolitan bubble is burst. And what should hinder the Spanish and Portuguese constitutions from running to the same ruin? The Cortes is in one assembly vested with the legislative power. The king and his priests, armies, navies, and all other officers, are vested with the executive authority of government. Are not here two authorities up, neither supreme? Are they not necessarily rivals, constantly contending, like law, physic, and divinity, for superiority? Just ready for civil war?
“Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion? The art of lawgiving is not so easy as that of architecture or painting. New York and Rhode Island are struggling for conventions to reform their constitutions, and I am told there is danger of making them worse. Massachusetts has had her convention; but our sovereign lords, the people, think themselves wiser than their representatives, and in several articles I agree with their lordships. Yet there never was a cooler, a more patient, candid, or a wiser deliberative body than that convention….” (John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (May 19, 1821) via National Humanities Center) [emphasis mine]
I’m pretty sure that the “Piedmontese revolution” Adams mentioned was connected with the Piedmontese Republic, something that happened when the French Revolution and Napoleon hit Turin’s neighborhood.
I could let myself get upset that one of America’s founders wondered: “Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?” But I won’t.
Instead, I’ll be happy about my country’s occasionally-grudging tolerance for us.
Besides, John Adams grew up in 18th century New England, was the great-great-grandson of an immigrant from England, and saw the world through English-American eyes.2
I grew up in 20th century Minnesota. I’m the grandson of an Irish-American, the son of a Norwegian-American — the short, black-haired kind, not those blond giants — and see the world through the eyes of someone who spent his youth in the 1960s.
Expecting John Adams to have attitudes and perceptions like mine isn’t reasonable.
“…The relationship between the Catholic Church and the various political powers of the last two millennia is thorny, to say the least. Over the next few days, I will make a few observations on this important issue for provocation, conversation, and, hopefully, clarification….” (“Rick Santorum and the Kingship of Christ, Part One“, William Edmund Fahe, Crisis Magazine (March 5, 2012)) [emphasis mine]
“…thorny, to say the least….” I’ll leave it at that. For today.
Being a Good Citizen AND a Catholic
“The American Pope”. Udo Keppler’s anti-Catholic cartoon for Puck magazine. (1894)
“Print shows Cardinal ‘Satolli’ holding a crosier, sitting atop an enormous dome labeled ‘American Headquarters’, and casting a large shadow in the shape of Pope Leo XIII across the landscape of the United States, from New York City south through Washington, D.C. to the Gulf of Mexico, and west to San Francisco….” (“The American pope / Keppler“, (1894) Summary, Library of Congress)
I can see why ‘regular Americans’ would be suspicious of Cardinal Francesco Satolli and Pope Leo XIII.
They were both Italians and Catholics, which made Satolli a foreign agent in league with an international organization which was — well, not American.
Fear of foreign influence was still in play when Reverend Branford Clarke drew that “SHALL HE BE ALLOWED TO RULE AMERICA?” cartoon in 1943.
I’ll be pleased if we get through this election year without someone whipping up fears of a Catholic conspiracy. Or calling for left and and right to unite in common cause against Popish plots. The slogans would be different these days, of course.
Now, individual Catholics can be just as bonkers as anyone else.
But those of us who understand the basics of our faith, and take them seriously, must contribute to “…the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom….” (Catechism, 2239)
I’ve talked about that before, and probably will again.3
A “Patriot Dream That Sees Beyond the Years”
John Adams didn’t live to see it, but slavery is no longer legal in America. I think that’s a good thing.
Some other long-overdue corrections were getting attention during my youth. Now, a couple decades into the 21st century, America still isn’t perfect.
But I think many of us have a “patriot dream” of an America that’s less flawed than the one we’re living in. I think that’s something to remember and work toward.
“…O beautiful for patriot dream That sees beyond the years Thine alabaster cities gleam Undimmed by human tears!…” (“America the Beautiful,” Katharine Lee Bates, 1911 version, via Wikipedia)
“Animal consciousness” makes more sense than some headlines suggest — so this week I’ll be talking about new research, old ideas, and how I see being human.
Although I’m not even close to being on the same page as folks with “meat is murder” posters over their desks, I think that, by one definition, animals are conscious.
“Charles Darwin enjoys a near god-like status among scientists for his theory of evolution. But his ideas that animals are conscious in the same way humans are have long been shunned. Until now.
“‘There is no fundamental difference between man and animals in their ability to feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery,’ Darwin wrote.
“But his suggestion that animals think and feel was seen as scientific heresy among many, if not most animal behaviour experts.
“Attributing consciousness to animals based on their responses was seen as a cardinal sin….” [emphasis mine]
Pallab Ghosh may have taken his cue for religious-themed terms like “near god-like status”, “scientific heresy”, and “cardinal sin” from a scientist’s frustration with his field’s status quo.
“Unholy Trinity”, “Heretics”, Galileo — Folklore is Fine, But …
Neuroscientist Anil Kumar Seth apparently thinks the trouble started with René “Je pense, donc je suis / Cognito ergo sum / I think therefore I am” Descartes.
Descartes apparently also said that “language is the only certain sign of thought in a body”. That’s from the BBC News piece, and lines up with Descartes’ ideas about mind-body dualism, but I haven’t verified it.1
“…‘This unholy trinity, of language, intelligence and consciousness goes back all the way to Descartes,’ [Sussex University’s Prof Anil Seth] told BBC News, with a degree of annoyance at the lack of questioning of this approach until recently.
“The ‘unholy trinity’ is at the core of a movement called behaviourism, which emerged in the early 20th Century. It says that thoughts and feelings cannot be measured by scientific methods and so should be ignored when analysing behaviour….” (“Are animals conscious? How new research is changing minds” , Pallab Ghosh, BBC News (June 15, 2024)) [emphasis mine]
Behaviorism and 20th century antics — are rabbit holes I’ll sidestep today.
I think Anil Seth and Pallab Ghosh have a point. Taking a second or third look at what ‘everybody knows’ is a good idea: particularly after we’ve collected new data.
But I could do without the conventional slant on “heretics” and Galileo.
“…It is a field of study that the modern-day heretics who have signed the New York Declaration claim has been neglected, even ridiculed. Their approach, to say the unsayable and risk sanction is nothing new.
“Around the same time that Rene Descartes was saying ‘I think therefore I am’, the Catholic church found the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei ‘vehemently suspect of heresy‘ for suggesting that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe….” (“Are animals conscious? How new research is changing minds” , Pallab Ghosh, BBC News (June 15, 2024)) [emphasis mine]
Oh boy. A little background. In 1633, the Roman Inquisition found Galileo “vehemently suspect of heresy”.
Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” said that Earth goes around the Sun. As it turns out, he was right. But it took tools we developed later, and more precise observations, to demonstrate that the heliocentric model is essentially accurate.
I strongly suspect that Galileo’s abrasive personality, regrettable connotations of “nuncius” in his 1610 “Sidereus Nuncius”, and 17th century European politics factored into Galileo’s trouble.
I’ve talked about this before, and probably will again. Mainly because folklore about ‘Galileo, champion of science against the forces of superstition and oppression’ is so firmly embedded in my culture.
It makes a good story, but it also does no favors to either science, religion, or folks who think pursuing truth is a good idea.2
Conscious? A Better Term Would be “Sentient”
Whether or not animals are conscious depends on what “conscious” means.
Being “conscious” could mean being self-aware, or being aware of phenomena inside (or outside) oneself.
Neither of those definitions say what the “self” is, or how the state of self-awareness could be measured by an outside observer. Or, for that matter, whether an outside observer would be sufficiently not-self to be considered truly “outside”.
Wrenching myself back to whether or not animals are “conscious”, one more excerpt from that BBC News piece:
“…The argument went that projecting human traits, feelings, and behaviours onto animals had no scientific basis and there was no way of testing what goes on in animals’ minds.
“But if new evidence emerges of animals’ abilities to feel and process what is going on around them, could that mean they are, in fact, conscious?
“We now know that bees can count, recognise human faces and learn how to use tools….
“… ‘If bees are that intelligent, maybe they can think and feel something, which are the building blocks of consciousness,’ [Queen Mary University of London’s Prof Lars Chittka] says….” (“Are animals conscious? How new research is changing minds” , Pallab Ghosh, BBC News (June 15, 2024))
Quebec University’s cognitive scientist Stevan Harnad said — good grief, another excerpt; but this’ll be the last one (this week) from BBC News.
“…’The field is replete with weasel words and unfortunately one of those is consciousness,’ says Prof Stevan Harnad of Quebec University.
“‘It is a word that is confidently used by a lot of people, but they all mean something different, and so it is not clear at all what it means.’
“He says that a better, less weasley, word is ‘sentience’, which is more tightly defined as the capacity to feel. ‘To feel everything, a pinch, to see the colour red, to feel tired and hungry, those are all things you feel,’ ….” (“Are animals conscious? How new research is changing minds” , Pallab Ghosh, BBC News (June 15, 2024)) [emphasis mine]
Sentience, as defined by Professor Harnad, is a pretty basic function. Stretched a bit, it would make our Mars rovers like Curiosity sentient: or conscious.
That doesn’t bother me. But I’m also not upset that Lewis Carrol had Alice chatting with an anthropomorphic sheep. It’s been years since I read about some psychologist having fits over anthropomorphic animals in stories, and I’m wandering off-topic.
If animal “consciousness” is like Harnad’s “sentience”, then I figure all animals are “conscious”: all those that have nerves, anyway. They wouldn’t last long, without some capacity to ‘feel’ their environment.
Being sapient, that’s something else.3 Having wisdom, being able to think about memories — in my darker moments, I’ve wondered how many humans actually use those abilities.
On the ‘up’ side, Pallab Ghosh is right. There hasn’t been a “eureka” moment when scientists suddenly realized that animals feel stuff. Rather, awareness that animals aren’t insensate lumps is (slowly) becoming accepted and acceptable.
Of Mice and Men and Little Albert
Dr. Jeffrey S. Mogil’s research was, I think, useful. But the Wired Science headline isn’t accurate.
Mice can’t show pain in their faces “just like humans”; more accurately, humans can’t show pain just like mice.
Our ears hardly move at all, and we don’t even have vibrissae/whiskers.
“Mice in pain have facial expressions that are very similar to human facial expressions, according to scientists who have developed the ‘mouse grimace scale.’ The pain expressions of mice could help researchers gauge the effectiveness of new drugs.
“People have been using similar facial-expression coding systems in babies and other humans who are unable to verbally express their pain. ‘No one has every [!] looked for facial expression of pain in anything other than humans,’ said Jeffery[!] Mogil of McGill University, co-author of the study….
“…Mogil first noticed that mice can sense the pain of other mice in 2006. He saw that mice were communicating their pain visually, which had to be either by interpreting each other’s facial expressions or body movements. Mogil wondered if we could see whatever the mice were seeing….
“…To test for facial expressions of the mice, Mogil put them through mild to moderate pain tests (similar to a headache or swollen finger, easily treated with Tylenol or aspirin) and used high-definition cameras to monitor their expressions. Pictures from before and after the pain stimulus were shown to technicians at the lab of colleague Kenneth Craig….”
On the other hand, our nearly-immobile ears and lack of whiskers notwithstanding, humans and mice do share facial expressions.
Maybe Mogil was the first scientist to notice “that mice can sense the pain of other mice”. Burrowing into digitized research papers would be more work than I have either time or inclination for, so I haven’t confirmed it.
My guess is that Jeffrey Mogil was right, that no scientist had (1) noticed murine facial expressions as possible social signals and (2) studied them.
However, Charles Darwin’s “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals” (1872) looked at facial expressions and body language from a biological viewpoint. It didn’t get the traction of his “Origin of Species”.
An 1873 Quarterly Journal of Science review said “The Expression…” had “so much of acute observation and amusing anecdote” that it might appeal to the general public.
Maybe Darwin’s description of expressions we share with animals offended Victorian sensibilities, or maybe “The Expression…” fell out of academic fashion.
Either way, instead of studies of emotional states shared by humans, mice, and dogs, we got behaviorism and the Little Albert experiment.
I suspect part of the problem with “The Expression…” was that it might have made the right sort feel uneasy about tormenting lab animals and using undesirables and disposable kids in their research.4
But time passed, attitudes changed. Now we’ve got new bioethics rules — and a grimace scale that’s helped keep track of how critters are feeling.
Animals, People, and Paying Attention
I don’t have scholarly research to back this up, but my experience suggests that there’s — not so much two sorts of people, as a continuum with a fair number of folks at each end.
Over on the ‘I’m a highly educated and intelligent person’ end, you’ve got folks who say that animals don’t have emotions, can’t feel pain, and are basically animated lumps of occasionally-useful material.
At the other end, you’ve got the ‘poodles are people too’ set, who take anthropomorphism to disturbing heights. Or depths.
‘Animals are lumps’ may be out of fashion now. I haven’t run into it for decades. Not in print, at any rate.
I’m not at either end, but didn’t have trouble with the idea that non-human animals experience emotions. Possibly because I grew up around animals. Cats, specifically.
Reading feline. and canine. emotions isn’t hard. It just takes paying attention. Mind you, my experience may not be normal.
I enjoy interacting socially with folks. But it’s a bit exhausting. I understand that I come across as — eccentric. Then, well into middle age, I (finally) listened to my wife and talked with a psychiatrist.
Folks with autism are supposed to be none too bright, and about as talkative as your average stump.5 I’m anything but. Even though ASD shows up in my medical chart:
ADHD: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, inattentive type
ASD: Autism spectrum disorder
Cluster A personality disorder
Schizotypal personality disorder
GAD: Generalized anxiety disorder
PDD: Persistent depressive disorder
PTSD: Post traumatic stress disorder
Good grief, I’m not even normally abnormal.
The point is that I’ve long since learned how to read facial expressions and body language when interacting with other people.
Doing the same with critters is, if anything, easier. They’re nowhere near as complicated as we are.
“Little Less Than a God” —
“The Monitor” — hydraulic mining in California. The Century Magazine (January 1883)
We’re the lords of creation, with dominion over the world and all its creatures.
So we can do whatever we want, right?
Wrong.
Make no mistake. We have “dominion”, and are very hot stuff.
“Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26)
“When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you set in place— “What is man that you are mindful of him, and a son of man that you care for him? “Yet you have made him little less than a god, crowned him with glory and honor. “You have given him rule over the works of your hands, put all things at his feet:” (Psalms 8:4–7) [emphasis mine]
But our “dominion” isn’t ownership. It’s more like part of our job description.
We have authority over the creatures of this world: as stewards. We’re responsible for taking care of our home, and leaving it in good working order for future generations. (Genesis 1:26, 2:5–8; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 16, 339, 356-358, 2402, 2415-2418, 2456)
I don’t know how many folks actually said that we were “lords of creation”. Or, rather, that gentlemen from a few countries were the rightful rulers of everyone and everything.
The only 19th century “lords of creation” references I found were from 1838 and 1859. Both were snarky commentary on current assumptions about men, those household appliances they called women, and women who weren’t cheering for the status quo.6
Those assumptions, along with a smug confidence that the upper crust were this world’s ultimate authority, were eroding during my childhood, snapped shortly thereafter, and that’s another topic. Topics.
Which reminds me. It’s been a while since I talked about being Catholic, taking the Bible seriously, Tradition with a capital “T”, the Magisterium, and making sense.
“…Know what the Bible is – and what it isn’t. The Bible is the story of God’s relationship with the people he has called to himself. It is not intended to be read as history text, a science book, or a political manifesto. In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation….” (“Understanding the Bible” , Mary Elizabeth Sperry, USCCB)
I put definitions, and links to some of what I’ve said, in the footnotes.7 Moving on.
— With All the Responsibilities That Come With Our Nature
I’m human, so I’m “an animal endowed with reason”. (Catechism, 1951)
That, and being made in God’s image, means we can and should think about what we do. (Catechism, 1950-1974, and more)
We’ve been told that we should treat animals humanely. And people, too.
“For six days you may do your work, but on the seventh day you must rest, that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and that the son of your maidservant and the resident alien may be refreshed.” (Exodus 23:12)
“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out grain.“ (Deuteronomy 25:4)
“The just take care of their livestock, but the compassion of the wicked is cruel.” (Proverbs 12:10)
“It is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ …” (1 Corinthians 9:9)
“For the scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing,’ and, ‘A worker deserves his pay.'” (1 Timothy 5:18)
Recapping, we’re animals.
But besides being animals, we’re people: made “in the image of God.” Responsibilities come with our nature, like not inflicting needless death and suffering on animals. (Catechism, 355, 361-368, 1701-1709, 1951, 2418, 2415-2418)
Using animals for food and clothing is fine. So is using animals in medical/scientific research, along with having pets and farm animals. Within reason. Loving animals is okay: loving animals the way we (should) love other people isn’t. (Catechism, 2417-2418)
That’s why I don’t have a problem with scientists (finally) coming to grips with the idea that animals are “conscious”: that they have sensations the way we do.
Maybe that recognition will help us treat animals more humanely. I hope so.
Folks in my part of Western civilization have been making some progress in terms how we treat animals. Meanwhile, some of us have been promoting daft ideas.8 And that’s yet another topic.
Or maybe not so much.
I’ve noticed that, even with election hysteria howling across my news feed, nobody’s pushing equal rights for alligators as a party platform plank. Maybe some ideas are too crazy, even for American politics.
And on that note, I’ll take a deep breath, sit still for a second, and wrap this up with the usual links:
“The facial expressions of mice” , The face of a mouse reveals its emotions Stefanie Merker, PhD / Nadine Gogolla, PhD; Newsroom, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (April 2, 2020)
“BIBLE: Sacred Scripture: the books which contain the truth of God’s Revelation and were composed by human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit (105). The Bible contains both the forty-six books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament (120). See Old Testament; New Testament.”
“HOLY SPIRIT: The third divine person of the Blessed Trinity, the personal love of the Father and Son for each other. Also called the Paraclete (Advocate) and Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit is at work with the Father and the Son from the beginning to the completion of the divine plan for our salvation (685; cf. 152, 243).”
“MAGISTERIUM: The living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give as authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture), or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church’s fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals (85, 890, 2033).”
“TRADITION: The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (75–82). The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition (83).” (Glossary, Catechism of the Catholic Church)
I’ll occasionally talk about the Bible, the Magisterium, and Tradition with a capital “T”:
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.
