“Chagall Window”, a Dag Hammarskjöld memorial: free-standing stained glass. (1963-1964)
105 years ago, a bunch of VIPs signed off on stopping the debacle we call World War I.
The November 11, 1918, armistice was a very big deal at the time; and still is. Although for different reasons.
Here in the United states, we called November 11 Armistice Day until 1954. Then it was re-named Veterans Day. It’s related to Remembrance/Poppy Day and Volkstrauertag.1
Veterans Day was and is a time to remember and honor all who have served in my country’s armed forces.
That strikes me as a good idea.
So does remembering why serving in our armed forces has been and remains necessary. And is necessary for any country whose leaders think the lives of citizens matter.
Still Learning
I’d prefer saying that humanity has finally learned that killing our neighbors is a bad idea and we shouldn’t do it.
But my news feed tells me that we haven’t all gotten the memo.
I think it’d be dandy, if politely asking armed thugs and their rulers to please stop killing and kidnapping — would stop those activities in places like Ukraine and Israel.
What would be dandy isn’t always possible.
Sometimes armed thugs ignore polite requests.
I talked about double effect, legitimate defense, and what St. Thomas Aquinas said, a couple weeks back.2
Wishes, Death at a Music Festival, Consequences
As long as I’m playing “I wish”, and since we live in a world where Gaza’s rulers decided that killing and kidnapping Jews was vital to their holy war against the (perceived) corrupters of Islam — Uff da. You can’t make this stuff up.
Anyway, we live in a non-ideal world.
So wishing that Gaza’s rulers had decided that killing Jews wasn’t nice — would be a nice thing to wish, but wouldn’t unkill those folks who’d committed the sin of being at a music festival.
Neither would wishing that Hamas isn’t continuing their allegedly-holy war, while using their subjects as a little extra protection for their shelters.
Can’t say that I blame them. The way things are, they can count on sympathy and headlines, whenever their subjects learn that living on top of their rulers’ shelters can have unpleasant consequences.3
“…Somethin’ to Say….”
“…Somethin’ to say on the eleventh day of November.” Walt Kelly’s Pogo. (November 11, 1953)
Porky Pine had a point. If I’m going to say something on the eleventh day of November, I should give it some thought. Maybe not spending a whole year in the process.
Anyway, I came up with two quotes: one about serving in a country’s armed forces, another what Lincoln said about human nature.
First, by way of recognizing and thanking those who have served in this country’s military:
“…Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2265, 2310)
Finally, something to think about.
The usual sound and fury of my country’s presidential election is already in progress.
There’s nothing I can do about that. But I can suggest that there is some wisdom in remembering that this isn’t our first election cycle. And, despite the impression left by headlines and sound bites, it’s probably not our last.
I think Abraham Lincoln made sense in a short speech he made, after winning a second term as president in 1864.
This was during the American Civil War, our only internal war so far:4 and something I sincerely hope we don’t go through again.
“…The strife of the election is but human nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What has occurred in this case must ever recur in similar cases. Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we will have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged….” (“On Democratic Government“; Response to a Serenade, November 10, 1864; Abraham Lincoln (November 10, 1864) via Project Gutenberg) [emphasis mine]
I’ve seen no indication that we’ve gotten any more silly or wise over the half-century or so since I started paying attention.
But I have noticed that we can learn.
We don’t have to.
We’ve got free will, so running around a familiar squirrel cage is an option.
Or we can, each of us, think about what’s happening, and what has happened before — and seriously consider not making the same mistakes again.
It’s not easy, but I think it’s a good idea anyway:
And now, a whittled-down version of that 2017 post.
Perhaps I should remember my station, and be respectfully silent before the weekend’s mighty display of power and glory.
I am, after all, but one of those who live neither in the Northeast megalopolis nor the shining lands of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Daylight Saving Time — Again — Still
Enough of that ‘umble posturing.
If you live in America, there’s a pretty good chance that you remembered to set your clock back an hour during the weekend. We’ve gone through this routine every year for — too long, I think.
This is where I usually start talking about when this nonsense started, why we did it, and why it’s still a twice-yearly ritual.
…
The Open Heart paper in PubMed’s online resource may be the most interesting of the lot.
The odds are pretty good that you didn’t enjoy the benefits of a DST-induced acute myocardial infarction last spring.
My guess is that we’re not absolutely, positively sure that the DST jump causes the increase in acute myocardial infarction.
Pinning down the exact metabolic, neurological, and probably psychological and behavioral causes is another set of tasks. I suspect that there must be an iron-clad case before national leaders will consider changing this hallowed custom.
Myocardial infarction is geek-speak for heart attack.
…
Properly, or weirdly, considered, it’s an opportunity to skip work. Sometimes permanently.
…
Daylight Saving Time: How SADIST Could Make it Worse
Now, my modest proposal; something I first suggested in spring of 2007. I figure it’s time to run this up the flagpole again.
With any luck, someone will think I’m serious — and suggest something that makes more sense. Like dropping DST.
Sure, some other countries have their own versions. But I suspect ‘everyone’s doing it’ isn’t a particularly good excuse.
Enough preamble. Here it is.
Three more ways that changing the clock (and, while we’re at it, the calendar) that could CHANGE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE:
1. Set clocks back 12 hours during August. Keeping people quiet during the day could save enormous amounts of energy that would otherwise be wasted on air conditioning stores and offices.
2. Set clocks back ten hours and forty minutes at noon on April 15. This 10:40 time shift would remind those who wait until the last minute to file tax returns by the date.
It’d also give them more than a full business-day’s-worth of additional time to get their forms in.
Ten hours and forty minutes is a large time shift, so clocks should be set forward one hour and twenty minutes at 2:00 a.m. — For eight days — April 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.
The reason should be obvious: to minimize psychological stress.
Although this stress-relieving measure might not save significant amounts of energy, the psychological effects could make a significant difference in quality of life.
“Quality of life” is such a nifty-sounding phrase: you know it’s gotta be a good idea
3. Finally, replace the evening of December 31 with Substance Abuse and Drug Interaction Study Time. The acronym should be easy to remember: SADIST.
SADIST: If At First You don’t Succeed, Threaten
Instead of over-indulging during New Year’s Eve parties, citizens would be encouraged to learn about substance abuse, dangers of mixing prescription drugs and alcohol.
This should reduce deaths in drunk-driving accidents, alleviate the need for expensive security measures in places like New York’s Times Square, and promote sober, healthy lifestyles among the general public.
And if you don’t agree, SADIST activists could say that those who oppose them promote drunkenness, debauchery, and delinquency. Or say they’re drug pushers.
…
I’ve gotten the impression that logic has very little to do with politics, and even less with real-world analogs to SADIST.
Can’t say that I blame folks running the show for using raw emotion and discouraging logic.
Encouraging the masses to start thinking might — — — actually, I think that’d be a good thing.
It might disrupt ‘business as usual.’
I think that could be a very good thing indeed.
The status quo isn’t particularly peachy these days. I think a growing number of Americans are realizing that.
Experience suggests that hard times aren’t nearly as bad for folks, in our hearts, as ‘good times’ like the late 1940s and 1950s.
I like being an American, mostly, but realize that this isn’t a perfect country.
Wasn’t in my youth, either. What we’ve got now is, in some ways, an improvement.
You see, I remember the ‘good old days.’ And am glad they’re gone. (August 20, 2017)
Getting back to SADIST and irrational appeals, be honest: if you follow political news, you’ve run across something that’s pretty much as sensible as SADIST.
It’s not just ‘those people.’
I’ve still got a few politically-inclined folks in my social media feeds, on several sides. Some of them get pretty vehement. To be polite.
It’s nothing new.
But it’s no incentive for me to wade into that particular sewage lagoon.
Then there’s the French Revolution’s calendar, and that’s another topic, for another day.
More, mostly how I see life and death, health, pleasure and moderation, and getting a grip:
Currier & Ives: “The progress of the century…”. (ca. 1876)
This week I’ll be looking at:
Parts of that “…Progress of the Century…” lithograph
A few lines from three poems by Tennyson
What’s changed over the last couple centuries
What hasn’t
I’ll also explain why I don’t “believe in” Progress with a capital “P”.
On the other hand, I’d rather be living today than in 1923 or 1823.
That’s partly because we’ve made considerable progress, lowercase “p”, on the technology side of our lives. And some remarkable lowercase progress on the social side, too.
I’ve been running a fever this week, so the discussion of Progress and progress is a whole lot shorter than I’d planned. Which may be a good thing.
This week’s post may be a trifle more digressive than usual. You have been warned.
“…Peace. Good will….” These were good ideas the 1870s, and still are.
That Currier & Ives lithograph’s full title is “The progress of the century — the lightning steam press, the electric telegraph, the locomotive, the steamboat”. All four new technologies were making a difference in people’s lives.
But they’re not what the mottoes on that telegraph tape are about. It reads, top to bottom:
“GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST. ON EARTH PEACE. GOODWILL TOWARD MEN.” “LIBERTY AND UNION NOW AND FOR EVER” “ONE AND INSEPARABLE” (Currier & Ives: “The progress of the century…”. (ca. 1876))
First of all, and briefly, about that first line. It’s an abbreviation of this bit from Luke:
“And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host with the angel, praising God and saying: “‘Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.'” (Luke 2:13–14)
Much as I’d like “on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests” and “on earth peace” to mean, in practical terms, the same thing — I’m pretty sure that God’s favor doesn’t entirely rest on everyone.
Not if “favor” means something like “approval”.
I know that sounds “judgmental”, but think about it.
If God ‘favored’ — gave approval to — everybody, then I’d have to try believing that God’s stamp of approval was on what everyone did. Like, for example, both on feeding the poor and on killing folks because they have the ‘wrong’ ancestors.
I can sympathize with folks who chucked “Biblical morality” because ranting loonies said rock and roll music was “Satanic”.
But I’m sure that some actions are wrong, no matter how I feel or what the circumstances, that “legal” and “right” aren’t the same thing, and that’s another topic. Topics.
Basically, I don’t see God as a senile but cheerful grandfather.
“…By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right. and by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness — the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy. What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, ‘What does it matter so long as they are contented?’ We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven — a senile benevolence who, as they say, ‘liked to see young people enjoying themselves’ and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, ‘a good time was had by all’. not many people, I admit, would formulate a theology in precisely those terms: but a conception not very different lurks at the back of many minds. I do not claim to be an exception….” (“The Problem of Pain“, III Divine Goodness, C. S. Lewis (originally published 1940) via Samizdat University Press, Québec, used w/o permission) [emphasis mine]
Principles
Alfred Gale’s Broadsides (ca. 1865) via Library of Congress, used w/o permission.
I figure that the Currier & Ives telegraph tape’s next two lines, “liberty and union … one and inseparable”, were inspired by relief that the American Civil War was over. And had been for about a decade.
I suspect that this particular Currier & Ives lithograph was more popular north of the Mason-Dixon line.
But maybe by the mid-1870s, more survivors in the Confederate states had started seeing advantages to being part of a Union. Or maybe not.
Back when I watched coverage of national political conventions, at least a half-dozen or so delegates would say something like ‘the sovereign state of [non-New England state] casts its vote for…’.
The balance of state and federal authority has been shifting in my country since day one.
I see advantages in having, for example, a national highway system and currency that’s good in all 50 states. But I’m also glad that energy and road repair policy here in Minnesota isn’t entirely decided by folks living on the east coast.
Basically, I think state’s rights can make sense. Even though that’s apparently a controversial idea. Which brings me to our only internal war.
The main reason for the American Civil War was the noble North’s abhorrence of slavery.1 At least, that’s what I’ve read. It’s probably true, but I strongly suspect the situation wasn’t nearly that simple.
I also suspect that religious whack jobs of the 1860s weren’t limited to the Confederacy.
“…Abolitionism made the war by electing a sectional President on a Sectional Platform. Its avowed object was to take away the rights of the Slave-States expressly guaranteed to them by the Constitution. “LIBERTY, EQUALITY AND FRATERNITY!” (“Pictorial History of the Cause of the Great Rebellion,” Vol. II, Alfred Gale (1865) via Library of Congress, used w/o permission)
And that’s yet another topic.
One more point.
Slavery is 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)
Steam, Reform, and Poisoned Candy
Currier & Ives: “The progress of the century…”, detail, locomotive with spark arrestor. (ca. 1876)
Not all “locomotives” ran on rails in the 19th century. At least some self-propelled road vehicles were called “locomotives”.
I don’t know when we started having different words for (railroad) locomotive, tractor, truck, and so on.
Anyway, the 1800s is when folks worked the bugs out of steam engines, and began building continent-spanning railroad networks.
Earlier this week, I made an incomplete list of 19th and 20th century tech developments:2
19th century
1802: Trevithick’s Coalbrookdale Locomotive
1803-1805: Morphine isolated
1816: Francis Ronalds (static) electrical telegraph (among others)
1832: Schilling telegraph
1834, 1840, 1848, 1849, 1854, 1856, 1871, and other: telephone
1843: Lightning steam press
1848: Float glass
1849: Corliss steam engine
1852: Giffard dirigible
1853: Otis safety elevator
1854: Rickett of Buckingham steam car
1854: Internal combustion engine
1856: Bessemer converter (maybe 1851, or some other time)
1897, 1901, 1903, 1904, 1906: Powered flight (Which year? Take your pick)
20th century
1910: laparoscopy
1923: Diphtheria vaccine
1926: Pertussis vaccine
1926: Liquid-propellant rocket
1927: Tuberculosis vaccine
1927: Tetanus vaccine
1935: Yellow fever vaccine
1938-1970s and beyond: hip replacement
1940-1941 Penicillin
1947: Defibrillator
1958: Pacemaker
1958: Integrated circuit
1961: Cochlear implant
1963-1972: CT scan
1960s: Antiviral drugs
1963: Lava lamp
1980: Flash memory
1981: Scanning tunneling microscope
1983: Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet
1986: National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET:forerunner to the Internet)
1989: MCI Mail, CompuServe email
1990: World Wide Web
1995: PHANToM system (Personal HAptic iNTerface Mechanism)
1996: USB ports
1997: Hybrid vehicle
A Long-Overdue Change
Currier & Ives, “The progress of the century…”: a steamboat. (ca. 1876)
On the ‘up’ side, steam engines helped folks get more done, move goods and people faster, and even provide power for telegraphs that helped us communicate faster than we had in the 19th century’s ‘good old days’.
But they didn’t make us understand that human beings are people, no matter who our ancestors are.
“‘…We blowed out a cylinder-head.’ “‘Good gracious! anybody hurt?’ “‘No’m. Killed a [redacted] “‘Well, it’s lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt….’ (“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” Part 2 (1885), Chapter XXXII, Mark Twain; via gutenberg.org)
More than a century after “Huckleberry Finn” began offending folks, it’s easier to say that non-Anglos are people: and get taken seriously. Shift the vocabulary a bit, though, and ethnicity still seems to matter. And that’s yet again more topics.
As for me, I look “Anglo”, but I’m not. Not by some standards, at any rate.
And “Anglo” or not, I’m Catholic: so seeing everyone as “people” is a must. That’s everyone, no matter where the person’s from, what he or she has done: everyone. (Catechism, 360, 1700-1706, 1932-1933, 1935, 2258, 2268-2283)
Which reminds me of something good that happened during the 19th century.
Like I said earlier, slavery is a bad idea and we shouldn’t do it. Ever.
But slavery has been both a cross-cultural tradition and a vital part of the economy at least since we started keeping records, several millennia back.
This ancient tradition started unraveling recently.
Slavery as an institution was first regionally criminalized during the 12th century. The pace picked up considerably a few centuries back. My country’s nation-wide ‘no slavery’ laws got traction around 1804 and took hold in 1865.
But wealthy Americans with employees living in slavery-like conditions are a recurring news item. And slavery is still legal in some parts of the world.3
What impresses me is that it’s become unfashionable. At least here. That’s a start.
(Optionally) Rational Animals
Currier & Ives, “The progress of the century…”: a boy using printer’s tools. (ca. 1876)
Child labor, child labor laws, and letting kids learn marketable skills, is a tangled mess I won’t try sorting out this week.4 Or next, for that matter.
I think there was and is genuine exploitation of children, and that it’s a bad idea.
I also think children and parents are people, that we have responsibilities: and, I hope obviously, that children are not property. (Catechism, 2217-2230, 2378)
Exploding steam engines, seeing some folks as not-people, and those who treat kids like property — strongly suggest that all is not right with the world.
Which brings up a question.
Several, actually, but I’ll focus on one.
Once we all agree that something is a bad idea and we shouldn’t do it, why don’t we all stop doing it?
For one thing, getting everyone to agree is often an issue.
For another, although we’re rational animals: acting reasonably isn’t hard-wired into us. We’ve got free will, so each of us can decide that thinking is too much work. (Catechism, 1730, 1951)
Deciding that avoiding bad behavior is worth the effort would be a whole lot easier, if it weren’t for original sin.
My native culture’s quirks being what they are, a clarification: humanity isn’t garbage, utterly and unalterably bad. That is not what “original sin” means. Not for a Catholic, at any rate.
We were and are basically “very good”, like all of God’s creation. But the first of us decided that “I want” mattered more than God’s “you should”. We’ve been living with consequences of that choice ever since. God did not, however, change our nature. We are wounded, but not corrupted. (Genesis 1:27, 31, 3:1–19; Catechism, 31, 299, 355-361, 374-379, 398, 400-406, 405, 1701-1707, 1949)
The Candy Man Could
What happened on October 30, 1858, wasn’t criminal.
At least, that’s what British courts decided after tracing 20 deaths to candy sold from a stall in Bradford’s Greenmarket.
The verdict made sense, in a way.
Whipping up a batch of candy laced with enough arsenic to kill about 2,000 people was an accident: regrettable, but quite unintentional.
Here’s how it happened.
William “Humbug Billy” Hardaker, or maybe it’s Hardacre, I’ve seen it spelled both ways, and I’m drifting off-topic.
Anyway, Humbug Billy ordered humbugs, a sort of hard candy, from a candymaker.
The candymaker didn’t have enough plaster of paris on hand, so he sent one of his lodgers to a druggist. “Plaster of paris” is not a typo. Gypsum plaster, plaster of paris, was cheaper than sugar: and often used as a sugar substitute in ‘the good old days’.
The druggist was sick, so he told his assistant where to find plaster of paris. Which, as it happened, was in a barrel right next to an identical barrel containing arsenic trioxide.
I gather that folks had been getting fed up with food that wasn’t as-advertised and impromptu preparation of pernicious pharmaceuticals.
If that’s so, then the 1858 Bradford Halloween body count was the straw that killed the camel. Or something like that.
The Pharmacy Act 1868 set up rules for storing, handling, and selling poisons. That legislation was, at the time, a big deal. And quite arguably saved lives.5
“Forward!” — With Hope
“Disaster on the Railway between Versailles and Bellevue, 8th May 1842”, A. Provost.. (ca. 1850)
“If anything can go wrong, it will.” (Murphy’s law)
“Murphy was an optimist.” (O’Toole’s commentary on Murphy’s Law)
Alfred Tennyson was born in 1809, died in 1892, started writing poetry in his teens, and was England’s Poet Laureate from 1850 to 1892.
He’s among my favorite poets, which helps explain why I used this quote last week:
“…For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;… “…Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world. “There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe, And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law….” (“Locksley Hall“, Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1835))
Tennyson was in his mid-20s when he wrote that. His narrator is fictional, and apparently not entirely on the same page as the young Tennyson.
But I suspect Tennyson shared some of his narrator’s hopeful outlook.
At the time, there were reasons for an upbeat attitude. Hobhouse’s Act (1831) and Althorp’s Act (1833) put limits on child labor. The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 outlawed slavery everywhere in the British Empire.
Small wonder that Tennyson’s narrator saw a smooth (rail) road ahead.
“…Not in vain the distance beacons. Forward, forward let us range; Let the great world spin forever down the ringing grooves of change….” (“Locksley Hall“, Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1835)) [emphasis mine]
About those “ringing grooves of change”: Alfred Tennyson had seen a railroad train at the Liverpool and Manchester Railway’s opening.
But a whole lot of other folks were there, too. So many that Tennyson couldn’t see the train’s wheels. He got the impression that they ran in grooves.6
Tennyson wrote “Forward, forward let us range” in 1835.
Just over a half-century later, he wrote this:
“…Gone the cry of ‘Forward, Forward,’ lost within a growing gloom; Lost, or only heard in silence from the silence of a tomb. “Half the marvels of my morning, triumphs over time and space, Staled by frequence, shrunk by usage into commonest commonplace! “‘Forward’ rang the voices then, and of the many mine was one. Let us hush this cry of ‘Forward’ till ten thousand years have gone….” (“Locksley Hall – Sixty Years After“, Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1886))
I talked about why I won’t “hush this cry of ‘Forward’ till ten thousand years have gone” last week.
This week, I’ll make a guess or two as to why Tennyson’s “Locksley Hall” sequel didn’t seem so optimistic.
These days, a standard-issue explanation for “Locksley Hall — Sixty Years After” is that the Industrial Revolution didn’t deliver on its promises. And, presumably, it took Tennyson five decades to notice.
There may be something to that.
Charge of the Light Brigade and a Poet Laureate
Print of Richard Caton Woodville Jr.’s “The Charge of the Light Brigade”. (ca. 1895)
But I suspect some of Tennyson’s apparent change in attitude stems from his having paid attention during the mid-19th century.
And from his having been England’s Poet Laureate for about a half-dozen years when he wrote “…Sixty Years After”.
A poet laureate’s job. basically, is writing poetry for special occasions: from the government’s viewpoint. There’s considerable prestige to the job.
But I can see a down side, too.
Take, for example, the Charge of the Light Brigade: a world-class military SNAFU.
The last I checked, academics are still debating how and why two British lords failed to obliterate a light cavalry unit. A unit that was on their side.
Despite being sent up and down a valley covered by artillery on three sides, Lord Cardigan’s Light Brigade had several horses and riders at the end of the day. Apparently Lord Raglan wanted Lord Cardigan to send them somewhere else.7
“…Forward, the Light Brigade!” Was there a man dismay’d? Not tho’ the soldier knew Some one had blunder’d: Their’s not to make reply, Their’s not to reason why, Their’s but to do and die….” (“The Charge of the Light Brigade“, Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1854))
I don’t blame Tennyson for presenting pointlessly suicidal bravery as a virtue. He was, after all, working for the English government: tasked with putting a positive spin on a debacle that’s still famous, make that infamous, more than a century later.
But I can see how that sort of thing could put a damper on youthful enthusiasm for cries of “forward! forward!”
Progress, Problems, Making Choices
I was going to talk about Progress with a capital “P”, but like I said: I’ve been running a fever this week.
So that’s not going to happen. Not today.
Instead, here’s a quick explanation for why I think Progress — the notion that the human condition will inevitably improve — no matter what daft, demented, destructive decisions we make?
😕
Oh, boy. Fever. What’s been in my news feed. Moving along.
Basically, I can’t take the inevitability of Progress with a capital “P” seriously.
Mainly because I’m 72, and have been paying attention. I’m also, by training and interest, an historian: and know that humanity has been through the occasional speed bump.
But we’ve been through the occasional speed bump. And we’re still here.
Good grief, the Black Death didn’t do much more than slow us down. And, bad as it was, we fixed some serious problems while recovering. Folks in Europe did, anyway. Maybe elsewhere, but I’m not all that well-versed on that.
We can make stupid, self-destructive, choices.
But we also can use our brains, and look for solutions to problems. Preferably solutions that won’t make the problems worse: but I am not going to get conventionally gloomy.
See? That was me, using my brain and making a decision. And if I can do that, I figure pretty much anyone can. And that’s — still another topic. Several, actually.
An off-duty pilot, riding in the cockpit’s jump seat, achieved momentary fame by trying to trigger both engine fire extinguishers. Putting out flaming aircraft engines can save lives. But not when the aircraft is nearly six miles, 31,000 feet, 9,400 meters, up.
Happily, the flight crew interfered with their colleague’s effort; and all 84 folks who were on board were alive and well when Alaska Airlines Flight 2059 landed.
At Portland, Oregon, rather than San Francisco, California.1 But the point is, they landed.
Underground (Literally) Schools in Ukraine
Kids in Kharkiv, Ukraine, going to class in underground bunkers isn’t exactly good news. But I figure this way, they’re somewhat less likely to get killed during Russia’s Nazi hunt.
Or whatever the current official explanation for death and destruction in Ukraine is. Apparently Russia is also saving the world from Ukrainian Satanism and black magic.2
You can’t make this stuff up.
Hey, Everybody! See What We’re Doing! — Improv by Hamas
Family photo, before Hamas attacked.
Then there’s the little live theatre presentation that Hamas broadcast recently.
“As Tsachi Idan was driven away to Gaza, his hands were still covered with his daughter’s blood.
“He wasn’t allowed to wash them after cradling 18-year-old Maayan, who was murdered in front of her family by a Hamas gunman….
“…And throughout the ordeal, Hamas rigged up a phone to broadcast the family’s pain and terror to the world on Facebook Live….”
I’ll admit to a bias. I think murder and kidnapping aren’t nice. Even if whoever’s doing it really, really wants to.
Since I’ve got free will, I could say “although personally opposed to murder and kidnapping, I don’t have the right to interfere with another person’s choice”. But I won’t. Partly because I think that makes no sense.
I think murder and kidnapping aren’t nice, even if done for a great and noble cause.
Some actions are just plain wrong, no matter what excuse I have. “…The end does not justify the means….” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1753)
Meanwhile, Back in the States
A couple weeks back, university students at Harvard reminded me of my college days. Not that they had me in mind, of course.
“Harvard student groups drew intense campus and national backlash over the weekend for signing onto a statement that they ‘hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence’ in the wake of a deadly invasion of Israel by the Islamist militant group Hamas.
“Authored by the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee and originally co-signed by 33 other Harvard student organizations Saturday, the statement came under fire from federal lawmakers, University professors, and other students….” [emphasis mine]
In a way, I don’t blame those kids for saying that “the Israeli regime” made Hamas attack the Supernova music festival, kill some Jews, and kidnap others.
The situation in what’s called the Gaza Strip isn’t ideal.
It wasn’t ideal, even before “the Israeli regime” started acting as if killing Jews isn’t nice.
Hamas — the name’s an acronym of “Islamic Resistance Movement” in Arabic — has been ruling the Gaza Strip since 2007. They’re Sunni Muslims who seem convinced that God agrees with their political views.
I’m simplifying the situation enormously. The point is, Hamas runs the Gaza Strip.
They were elected all nice and legal-like in 2006. That’s important, since democracy and elections have been all the rage since the late 18th century.3
I can see how serious-minded college kids might think that a democratically-elected outfit with “resistance” in its name, supported by their friends, could do no wrong.
What does surprise me, or maybe “relieve” is the right word, is that at least one Harvard professor and an ex-Harvard U. president said the students weren’t absolutely right.
“…Harvard Computer Science professor Boaz Barak called on the University to remove the organizations’ school affiliations.
“‘I have a lot of criticisms of Israeli policies, but everyone who signed this statement is condoning terrorism, rape, and murder,’ Barak wrote on the social media platform X.
“Former University President Lawrence H. Summers called the joint statement ‘morally unconscionable’ in a post on X.
“‘In nearly 50 years of @Harvard affiliation, I have never been as disillusioned and alienated as I am today,’ he wrote….” J. Sellers Hill, Nia L. Orakwue; The Harvard Crimson (October 10, 2023; updated October 10, 2023)
Maybe there’s reasonable hope that more academics like Boaz Barak and Lawrence H. Summers will break ranks and Make Academia Great Again. And that’s another topic. Topics.
I don’t know why those Harvard students blamed “the Israeli regime” for the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. But I suspect that at least some may have been following an old American tradition.
I’ll get back to that.
Civilian Homes, a Little Extra Shielding — Tomayto, Tomahto.
U.S. Ambassador to Israel, in one of the Gaza Strip tunnels. (2013)
I don’t doubt that folks living in the Gaza strip are distressed just now.
Their rulers decided that killing Jews was a good idea.
Jews, or at least the Israeli government , acted as if killing Jews wasn’t acceptable.
And now folks who are not running the Gaza Strip are learning that living on top of their rulers’ tunnel networks is occasionally unpleasant.4
I gather that discussing the Hamas tunnel network(s) isn’t considered polite in proper circles, which doesn’t surprise me a bit.
Moving along.
Loving Neighbors: Not Easy, But I Must
I don’t hate those Harvard students, folks in Hamas, and certainly not folks living under Hamas rule.
More accurately, I’m not allowed to hate them. Loving God, and my neighbor, and seeing everybody as my neighbor, comes with being Catholic. (Matthew 5:43–44, 22:36–40; Mark 12:28–31; Luke 6:31, 10:25–37; Catechism, 1789)
I follow that rule better on some days than on others. But I’m obliged to try every day.
Loving my neighbor doesn’t necessarily mean endorsing whatever my neighbor does. “Love” doesn’t mean “approval”, and that’s yet another topic.
Bogeymen, Assumptions, and Attitudes: Past and Present
Cross burning and the KKK. An American tradition, but not the only one.
The United States is not now and never has been a monolithic block of like-minded people, united in their common preferences, politics, and parentage.
I very strongly suspect that’s driven various fanatically faithful folks nuts: nuttier than they were to begin with, at any rate.
Politics, Religion, and Not Missing ‘the Good Old Days’
Watson Heston’s “This is the U.S. in the Hands of the Jews”, from Sound Money magazine. (1896)
With another presidential election looming, my country’s news is already full of flying fewmets; which is about par for the course.
The current election cycle’s hysterical nonsense could be worse.
So far, I’ve seen nothing like William Jennings Bryan’s famous — or infamous — “Cross of Gold” speech. (July 9, 1896)
That bit of political theater, and Watson Heston’s “This is the U.S. in the Hands of the Jews” cartoon, were symptoms of what should have been a discussion of United States monetary policy.
A serious issue, whether or not to caffeinate America’s economy, was complicated by fallout from the then-recent Panic of 1893: and by the fears of some folks who weren’t “robber barons”.
My teen years and the 1960s overlapped almost exactly. What I’ve read about the period, and my memory, tell me that American politics wasn’t much less goofy than it was in William Jennings Bryan’s day.
My news feed tells me that both, make that all, parties still aren’t trying to help voters think. Can’t say that I blame them, sort of, and that’s yet again another topic.
I have, however, noticed that there’s less of the massively-inappropriate old-school ‘God agrees with me’ political hype.
It’s hard to imagine a politico with national ambitions presenting himself as in persona Chrisi, the way William Jennings Bryan did.5
That’s an aspect of ‘the good old days’ I emphatically do not miss.
“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” —
“Protocols” popped up around 1902.
It’s a (fictional) strategic plan for world domination by an international cabal of Jewish conspirators.
The author(s) of “Protocols” spiced it up with paraphrases from Maurice Joly’s “The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu”.
They also did a pretty good job of covering their tracks, and that’s still another topic.
The original “Protocols” was in Russian.
By 1940, it had been translated into several languages, including German and English. And had been outed as a literary forgery.
Possibly because it fit neatly into existing assumptions about Jews, a fair number of smart folks didn’t realize that “Protocols” was — at best — fiction. And, at worst, dangerous propaganda.
Henry Ford’s paper, The Dearborn Independent, published “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, as well as several commentaries on that work.
Over in Germany, excerpts from “Protocols” were adapted for classroom use.
Word finally got around that “Protocols” was about as genuine as “Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk…”. But before that happened, highly-respected folks assumed that “the international Jew” was a threat to national — nay, world — security.
Time passed.
I suspect that Germany’s purge of undesirables made anti-Semitic attitudes less fashionable, at least on my side of the Atlantic.6
But it hasn’t been all that long since I heard someone who should have known better mention ‘the Jewish threat’.
Then there’s the 1988 Hamas Charter.
Article 32 and “Protocols”
Article 32 says Hamas is against “imperialistic powers” — those who seek the corruption of Arab countries — until at last Palestine alone shall stand as the final bastion of Islam.
Reminds me of what ranting radio preachers of my youth said, actually. Except they put America and their brand of Christianity in the starring role.
Anyway, Article 32 also says that the ‘Zionist conspiracy’ is revealed in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.7
— “Several Experts” and the Reptilians
America’s better sort have a new bogeyman. Or did, three decades back.
“…The Post has been deluged with calls since that article, which described followers of television evangelists as ‘largely poor, uneducated and easy to command.’ The paper ran a correction the following day, saying there was ‘no factual basis’ for the statement….
“…Michael Weisskopf, the article’s author, said he made ‘an honest mistake, not born of any prejudice or malice for the religious right.’ He said his description was ‘overstated’ and should have been qualified by saying that evangelicals in general are ‘relatively’ poor and uneducated.
“Weisskopf said he based the description on interviews with several experts, but didn’t attribute it to anyone because ‘I try not to have to attribute every point in the story if it appears to be universally accepted. You don’t have to say, “It’s hot out, according to the weatherman.”‘…” “EVANGELICAL OUTRAGE“; Howard Kurtz, The Washington Post (February 6,1993) [emphasis mine]
Maybe the word’s getting around, that what’s “universally accepted” in the Washington, D.C., area’s better neighborhoods may not be the whole picture. And that Christians are not all radical right-wing extremist white supremacists.
But, with an election coming up — I’m just glad that only four percent of the American voting public believe that we’re threatened by space-alien shape-shifting lizard-men.8
Again, you can’t make this stuff up.
Spears, Pruning Hooks, and Making Sense in the Meantime
New York City’s Word Trade Center rubble and fires after the 9/11 attack. (September 14, 2001)
I think Isaiah had the right idea.
“In days to come, The mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established as the highest mountain and raised above the hills. All nations shall stream toward it.
“He shall judge between the nations, and set terms for many peoples. They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.” (Isaiah 2:2, 4)
And I am convinced that we’re not there yet. Not even close.
I think living in peace and harmony with all would be nice.
I admire the resolve of pacifists: and think they will, at this time, flourish. As long as they are protected by non-pacifists.
Given the sort of either-or perceptions I run into, a clarification is in order.
I do not like wars. They break things and kill people. Or, rather, people break things and kill other people in wars.
I think avoiding war is a good idea.
But I would make a terrible pacifist, because I think sometimes war is less unpleasant than the alternative.
Even before I became a Catholic, I thought human life mattered: and that stopping someone who wanted to kill another person was a good idea. Now that I’m Catholic, thinking that this is true isn’t just a personal preference. It’s an obligation.
It’s been almost a year since I talked about the idea that life matters, and that keeping folks from being killed also matters. It makes sense, but the explanation takes longer than a sound bite. So please bear with me.
Double Effect: It’s Complicated
I think human life is precious. All human life. Each person’s life. That’s because human life is sacred. We’re made “in the image of God”. (Genesis 1:27; Catechism, 2258, 2261, 2268-2283, 2319)
No matter where we live or how we act, each of us has equal dignity. Respecting “the transcendent dignity of man” can be hard, but it’s part of my faith. So is doing what’s good while avoiding what’s evil. (Catechism, 360, 1700-1706, 1928-1942)
Some of us don’t act as if everyone’s life matters. But everyone’s life matters, anyway. Including mine. So valuing my own life is a good idea.
Now let’s suppose someone tried to kill me. I’m a Catholic, so I must value my own life and value my hypothetical attacker’s life.
Here’s where it gets complicated.
I could, maybe, defend myself by avoiding the attack or stopping it without killing my hypothetical attacker. Maybe.
But suppose non-lethal prevention isn’t possible? Do I devalue my own life and let myself be killed? It is an option, but not the only one.
In this hypothetical situation, defending myself is okay: even if doing so results in my hypothetical attacker’s death.
If my intent was defending myself, if I used the least force possible, and if my attacker’s death was unavoidable in the circumstances. (Catechism, 2258, 2263-2269; “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas, II-II,64,7)
Individual ethics apply to groups, too. Avoiding war is a good idea. But sometimes the only other option is letting innocent folks get killed. (Catechism, 1909, 2263-2269, 2307-2317)
This idea of double effect, where preserving my life or the lives of others is an intended result, but the death of the attacker is not, is “legitimate defense”. (Catechism, 2263, 2265)
“This is Not Us” “Yeh Hum Naheen”
Looking for a video of that song, I learned that “this is not us” has been a provocative, polarizing, and otherwise divisive phrase.
I’m using it anyway, since the phrase expresses what I think is a reasonable idea.
I’m quite sure that not all Muslims are terrorists, and positive that not all Christians wear hoods and desire an America cleansed of people like me.
Particularly since I’m a Christian. And a Catholic, and that’s a whole bunch of rabbit holes I must ignore, if I’m going to get this thing finished in time.
Let’s see. Where was I?
An air disaster that didn’t happen.
Hamas, bogeymen, and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.
Right.
Backing up a bit, I think that Jews, Muslims, and Christians are not all mass-casualty events just waiting to happen. And I think nutty notions like those repeated in “Protocols” are common enough to warrant a little discussion.
First off: since I’m a Catholic, I must not blame our Lord’s death on “the Jews”. One way or another, we’ve all got a share in happened on Golgotha. (Catechism, 595-598)
I think that “outside the Church there is no salvation” and that God’s plan for salvation includes everybody. I must remember that someone can be seeking God and not be on the same page that I am. (Catechism, 839-856, 934-1942, 2357-2359, and more)
Basically, I must see humanity as “us”. Not “me and mine” and “those others”.
Easy? No.
Important? Yes.
On the other hand, sympathizing with Muslims who aren’t happy about being lumped in with the likes of Hamas — isn’t all that hard for me.
I grew up in a culture where ranting radio preachers and their fervent followers made negative stereotypes all too plausible.
Academic Freedom and Responsibility
The Harvard ‘it is the fault of the Jews’ SNAFU has been joined by similar expressions of solidarity — and has apparently entered the ‘support academic freedom’ phase.
I’d take stalwart defenses of academic freedom more seriously, if I hadn’t done time in academia when political correctness was in bloom: and remember when my country was recovering from Hollywood blacklists and other effects of McCarthyism.
Maybe this time freedom won’t mean “free to agree with me”. That’d be nice.
An unanswered question is why so many Harvard kids apparently hold “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence”.
These are Harvard kids. They aren’t, or shouldn’t be, particularly ignorant.
They might not be familiar with all aspects of Middle Eastern politics over the last half-century or so.
But I’d think that they’d at least be aware that it isn’t a simple ‘Hamas wears the white hat’ situation.
Then again, their parents and grandparents lived in a society where “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was occasionally taken seriously: and still is.
More recently, “imperialistic powers” have been assigned black-hat status9 by my culture’s self-described best and brightest.
With some justice: but I do not think reality is that simple.
I suppose I should be glad that a coalition of student groups at Yale hasn’t declared that Alaska Airlines is “entirely responsible” for that off-duty pilot’s behavior. Maybe they have, and it hasn’t made headlines yet.
A Civilization of Love: Something to Work Towards
New York City Central Park: August 2012. Not bad, but we can do better.
I said I was “looking for a bright side” in this post’s title. It’s high time I do that. But first, I’d better say what I mean by “love”. In this context, that is.
Love is an emotion. It’s an attraction to what is good. Love can cause desire for that which is good, but is not here. It can encourage hope, seeing a good which is possible but not present. Love is also an act of will: a decision to help another person. (Catechism, 1765-1766)
“LOVE: See Charity”
“CHARITY: The theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (1822)” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary)
Like charity, love is something we do. Not necessarily something we feel. (Catechism, 1766, 1822-1828)
That sort of love doesn’t come easy, at least not to me.
But it’s a good idea.
So are values like justice, and acts of charity; along with respecting humanity’s “transcendent dignity” — and working toward a society where justice, charity and respect are the norm. All of which starts in me, with an ongoing “inner conversion”. (Catechism, 1886-1889, 1928-1942, 2419-2442)
Again, it doesn’t come easy. But it’s a good idea, anyway.
“…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))
A “…Competent and Sufficiently Powerful Authority….”
If I think building a “civilization of love” makes sense, then how come I don’t denounce “the Israeli regime”, and anyone else who physically resists attackers?
I talked about the idea of double effect and legitimate defense before.
Much as I might prefer living in a world where such ideas are strictly hypothetical, that’s not how things work. Not now. (Catechism, 2302-2317)
“…Certainly, war has not been rooted out of human affairs. As long as the danger of war remains and there is no competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level, governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted. State authorities and others who share public responsibility have the duty to conduct such grave matters soberly and to protect the welfare of the people entrusted to their care. But it is one thing to undertake military action for the just defense of the people, and something else again to seek the subjugation of other nations. Nor, by the same token, does the mere fact that war has unhappily begun mean that all is fair between the warring parties….” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word: “Gaudium et spes“, Pope St. Paul VI, Second Vatican Council (December 7, 1965)) [emphasis mine]
Nearly six decades later, we still don’t have a “competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level”. So “legitimate defense” is still a very non-hypothetical idea.
On the whole, I’d prefer that Hamas not act as if it has remained true to the word and spirit of its charter. But I suspect that “the Israeli regime” is not completely unjustified in its efforts to keep the Gaza Strip’s current rulers from killing more Jews.
Of course, I also think that “Protocols” is a literary forgery, so I would have that opinion.
Now, about that “bright side” I mentioned.
Pope St. John Paul II’s phrase, translated as “civilization of love”, goes back at least to Pope St. Paul VI.10 Not all Popes have been Saints. But we got a bumper crop in the 20th century; and that’s — you guessed it — more topics.
“Although to some it may seem strange, Pentecost is an event that also involves the secular world. For it gave rise to a new sociology—one which penetrates the values of the spirit, which forms our hierarchy of values, and which confronts us with the truth, and with the ultimate destiny of humanity.
“It is this which has given us our belief in the dignity of the human person, and our civil customs, and which above all leads us to resolutely rise above all divisions and conflicts between humans, and to form humanity into a single family of the children of God, free and fraternal.
“We recall the symbolism at the beginning of this amazing story, of the miracle of many different languages being made comprehensible to everyone by the Spirit. It is the civilization of love and of peace which Pentecost has inaugurated—and we are all aware how much today the world still needs love and peace!” (Creating a Civilization of Love, address for Pentecost Sunday in St. Peter’s Square, Pope St. Paul VI (May 17, 1970) via Christ the Servant Parish at Our Lady of Peace Church, Canton, Ohio) [emphasis mine]
Poetry, Future Generations, and a Very Long-Haul Project
“…For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see, Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;… “…Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world. “There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe, And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law….” (“Locksley Hall“, Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1835))
That was among my favorite bits of poetry during my teens. Not surprising, since Tennyson said “Locksley Hall” expresses “…young life, its good side, its deficiencies, and its yearnings”.11
I turned 72 this year. My youthful suspicion that “the common sense of most” was a wildly-optimistic assessment has been confirmed. But those lines are still among my favorites.
However, I also appreciate Tennyson’s follow-up:
“…Gone the cry of ‘Forward, Forward,’ lost within a growing gloom; Lost, or only heard in silence from the silence of a tomb. “Half the marvels of my morning, triumphs over time and space, Staled by frequence, shrunk by usage into commonest commonplace! “‘Forward’ rang the voices then, and of the many mine was one. Let us hush this cry of ‘Forward’ till ten thousand years have gone….” (“Locksley Hall – Sixty Years After“, Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1886))
But I won’t say “Let us hush this cry of ‘Forward’ till ten thousand years have gone”.
That’s because I think we have work that can be done today.
The civilization of love outlined by popes since 1970 still makes sense. Even though, maybe because, something profoundly not like it has been making headlines.
Building a civilization of love, even cobbling together something like Tennyson’s “Federation of the world”, will take generations, centuries, of hard work, slow progress and occasional disappointments.
Make that millennia of hard work. Humanity has a backlog of unresolved issues, accumulated over uncounted ages. Making a dent in that is a very long-haul project.
But I am convinced that taking what we have, keeping what works, and fixing what doesn’t, is a good idea.
Starting now means that there will be that much less toil for future generations. Which strikes me as a good idea. They’ll have quite enough on their plate as it is. And — yeah — that’s more topics.
“An off-duty pilot has been charged with 83 counts of attempted murder, after he allegedly tried to crash a passenger jet during a flight on Sunday night.
“The suspect was sitting in the cockpit of an Alaska Airlines flight behind the captain and the first-officer, according to an airline statement….
“…In a statement, Alaska Airlines said the off-duty pilot was traveling in the flight deck jump seat, when he ‘unsuccessfully attempted to disrupt the operation of the engines.’…”
6 The international conspiracy described in “Protocols…” sounds like the plot of an old Saturday afternoon serial, but a remarkable number of folks took it seriously:
Maria Monk (author of “Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, or, The Hidden Secrets of a Nun’s Life in a Convent Exposed” (1836): and available through Amazon.com)
This is not what I’m talking about for this week’s ‘Saturday’ post.
But since I’m interested in both intellectual property rights and the fiction side of writing, I’m taking a few minutes from my Wednesday afternoon to share this excerpt and a link to Blake Hester’s article:
“The recently released Spider-Man 2 is also missing the Chrysler Building. In its place is the same building that replaced it in Spider-Man Miles Morales, though this time with a new coat of paint….
“…with the building coming under new ownership in 2019, it looks like the Chrysler Building may be making fewer appearances. We talked to a copyright lawyer about the ways buildings are protected by copyright and to developer Insomniac Games about why it had to change its version of the New York City skyline.
“The Chrysler Building opened on May 27, 1930, and stood as the tallest building in the world until the Empire State Building was completed in May 1931, one mile away. … The Art Deco building, which rises to 1,046 feet with 77 floors, is particularly famous for its eight eagles, which protrude from the exterior of the 61st floor….”
Whoops. Left out an important bit:
“…As of 1990, architectural works such as the Chrysler Building can be protected under copyright, no different than other forms of art. According to the United States Copyright Office, an architectural work is defined as ‘the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. […] Examples of works that satisfy this requirement include houses, office buildings, churches, and museums. By contrast, the Office will refuse to register bridges, cloverleaves, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, or boats (although a house boat that is permanently affixed to a dock may be registerable as an architectural work).’
“While copyright owners won’t go after a picture you took of a building, they do protect themselves from more obvious infringements, such as another company copying a building’s design for its own purpose, and building owners have, on occasion, gone after companies for copyright-protected architecture on merchandising….” (“Spider-Man 2 Is Missing This Major New York City Landmark“ Blake Hester, Game Informer (October 20, 2023)) [emphasis mine]
As I see it, folks in New York City are still allowed to look at the Chrysler Building and other non-bland objects. They’re even allowed (apparently) to take snapshots. That, my opinion, is good news.
I can, with a little imagination, see the viewpoint of a corporation bigwig who wants another corporation bigwig’s minions to give the corporation of the first part a piece of the corporation of the second part’s action — whoosh. That’s a syntactic mouthful.
Anyway, I can see why SIGNA Group and RFR Holding LLC — I gather they’re the current owners of the Chrysler Building — don’t want their big shiny building associated with Spider-Man. Not until they get an offer they like, at any rate.
On the other hand, I don’t know where the dividing line is between some New York City tourist taking pictures and the likes of Sony Interactive Entertainment and Marvel Comics. Or maybe it’s a dividing zone, where one writer or artist gets sued and another doesn’t.
This doesn’t affect me, happily. At least not yet. But I like to keep mildly up to date with rules involving intellectual property rights.
Now, I’d better get back to work on that ‘Saturday’ thing.
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))
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.
I live in Minnesota, in America's Central Time Zone. This blog is on UTC/Greenwich time.
Support this Blog:
More Perspectives From the Catholic Laity:
Blog - David Torkington
Spiritual theologian, author and speaker, specializing in prayer, Christian spirituality and mystical theology [the kind that makes sense-BHG]
I’d prefer saying that humanity has finally learned that killing our neighbors is a bad idea and we shouldn’t do it.
As long as I’m playing “I wish”, and since we live in a world where Gaza’s rulers decided that killing and kidnapping Jews was vital to their holy war against the (perceived) corrupters of Islam — Uff da. You can’t make this stuff up.
This was during the American Civil War, our only internal war so far:4 and something I sincerely hope we don’t go through again.
![Currier and Ives: 'The progress of the century - the lightning steam press, the electric telegraph, the locomotive, [and] the steamboat'. (ca. 1876)](https://i0.wp.com/brendans-island.com/blogsource/20230509ff/20231023-The_progress_of_the_century_-_the_lightning_steam_press_the_electric_telegraph_the_locomotive_and_the_steamboat_LCCN90716345-trim2-658.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
![Detail of telegraph tape, Currier and Ives: 'The progress of the century - the lightning steam press, the electric telegraph, the locomotive, [and] the steamboat'. (ca. 1876)](https://i0.wp.com/brendans-island.com/blogsource/20230509ff/20231023-The_progress_of_the_century_-_the_lightning_steam_press_the_electric_telegraph_the_locomotive_and_the_steamboat_LCCN90716345-detail1-658.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
![Detail of locomotive, Currier and Ives: 'The progress of the century - the lightning steam press, the electric telegraph, the locomotive, [and] the steamboat'. (ca. 1876)](https://i0.wp.com/brendans-island.com/blogsource/20230509ff/20231023-The_progress_of_the_century_-_the_lightning_steam_press_the_electric_telegraph_the_locomotive_and_the_steamboat_LCCN90716345-detail3-658.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
![Detail of steamboat, Currier and Ives: 'The progress of the century - the lightning steam press, the electric telegraph, the locomotive, [and] the steamboat'. (ca. 1876)](https://i0.wp.com/brendans-island.com/blogsource/20230509ff/20231023-The_progress_of_the_century_-_the_lightning_steam_press_the_electric_telegraph_the_locomotive_and_the_steamboat_LCCN90716345-detail4-658.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
![Detail of boy using printer's tools, Currier and Ives: 'The progress of the century - the lightning steam press, the electric telegraph, the locomotive, [and] the steamboat'. (ca. 1876)](https://i0.wp.com/brendans-island.com/blogsource/20230509ff/20231023-The_progress_of_the_century_-_the_lightning_steam_press_the_electric_telegraph_the_locomotive_and_the_steamboat_LCCN90716345-detail2-658.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
