Monday: Hili dialogue

June 13, 2022 • 6:30 am

Good morning on the third week in June: Monday, June 13, 2022: “National Cupcake Lover’s Day“. But why the singular possessive? Is there only one cupcake lover in the U.S.? The upside of cupcakes is that the frosting/cake ratio is higher than with normal cakes; the downside is that they’re pricey and often you want more than one.

It’s also International Albinism Awareness Day.

Stuff that happened on June 13 includes:

  • 1514 – Henry Grace à Dieu, at over 1,000 tons the largest warship in the world at this time, built at the new Woolwich Dockyard in England, is dedicated.
  • 1525 – Martin Luther marries Katharina von Bora, against the celibacy rule decreed by the Roman Catholic Church for priests and nuns.

Here are Luther and von Bora, both painted by Lucas Cranach the Elder in 1536. Cranach was a good friend of Luther’s, so these portraits are likely painted from life:

  • 1893 – Grover Cleveland notices a rough spot in his mouth and on July 1 undergoes secret, successful surgery to remove a large, cancerous portion of his jaw; the operation was not revealed to the public until 1917, nine years after the president’s death.
  • 1927 – Aviator Charles Lindbergh receives a ticker tape parade up 5th Avenue in New York City.

Here’s a silent film showing the parade. “Talkies” also started that year with “The Jazz Singer,” so there’s no sound. And since there’s no more tickertape, how do they have these parades now.= Or do they?

Ernesto Miranda (below) was accused of kidnapping and rape, and eventually confessed. But because he was not apprised of his rights, the Supreme Court vacated his conviction. However, Arizona tried him again without introducing the confession, and he was convicted (isn’t that double jeopardy?). He was convicted in 1967, sentenced to 10-20 years, but got out in 1976. He was stabbed to death in a bar fight in 1976.

A short video of the life and deeds of Thurgood Marshall. What a terrific choice LBJ made!

What a great infield! Here’s a short video of that fabled quartet. :

  • 1997 – A jury sentences Timothy McVeigh to death for his part in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
  • 2005 – The jury acquits pop singer Michael Jackson of his charges for allegedly sexually molesting a child in 1993.

DA NOOZ:

*Glory be! The good news is that the Senate has reached a bipartisan agreement on gun control. The bad new is that, as you might predict, it doesn’t do very much. The upshot (it’s been agreed to by 10 Democratic and 10 Republican Senators, which means it will pass the Senate which means that it will pass the house and become law:

The agreement, put forth by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats and endorsed by President Biden and top Democrats, includes enhanced background checks to give authorities time to check the juvenile and mental health records of any prospective gun buyer under the age of 21 and a provision that would, for the first time, extend to dating partners a bar on domestic abusers having guns.

It would also provide funding for states to implement so-called red-flag laws that allow authorities to temporarily confiscate guns from people deemed to be dangerous, as well as money for mental health resources and to boost safety and mental health services at schools.

Well, it’s better than nothing, and if it saves one life it will have been worth it. (Biden is asking for a bill to sign by late July.)

But it’s way too heavy on the GOP emphasis on “checking mental health”, for lots of homicides are committed by people with no public record of mental health issues. And there’s no ban on assault weapons, nor any raising of the gun-worthy age from 18 to 21. Another other downside is now the Republicans can gloat that they’ve passed some gun-control legislation, when we all know that they have no intention of going farther.

*Things aren’t going well for Ukraine in its war with Russia. I originally predicted that Russia would eventually take over all of the country, and I stand by that prediction, though I hope I’m wrong. Now it looks as if Russia’s taking over all of eastern Ukraine:

As fighting continues in the Luhansk region of eastern Ukraine, causing heavy casualties and leaving Ukrainian forces with dwindling ammunition, a senior U.S. defense official said Russia is likely to seize control of the entire region within a few weeks.

The cities of Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, in Luhansk, are increasingly under duress and could fall to Russia within a week, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Ukrainian officials said Russia is bombarding a chemical plant sheltering hundreds of soldiers and civilians in Severodonetsk, a strategic city that is mostly under Russian control after weeks of intense battles.Russia “will throw all their reserves in order to capture the city” within a day or two to take control of the Lysychansk-Bakhmut highway, a vital supply route, predicted Serhiy Haidai, governor of the Luhansk region.

*This is why I don’t read the Wall Street Journal‘s op-ed section, as it’s as predictably right-wing as the NYT’s is left-wing (I’m more amenable to hearing opinions, I like, of course). But this op-ed, called “The assault on the Supreme Court” has nothing to like. It’s all Republican whining about how we don’t pay as much attention to protecting the Justices (who do have protection that’s just been beefed up) as we do to the January 6 insurrection:

Democrats are upset that many Republican voters don’t consider the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot to have been an assault on democracy, and maybe one reason is that too many Democrats appear to have a double standard about which democratic institutions they want to protect.

Jan. 6 was an assault on the transfer of presidential power and Congress’s duty to certify the Electoral College votes under the Constitution. But what about the growing threat to the third branch of democratic government, the Supreme Court, and especially the seeming nonchalance toward last week’s arrest of an armed man outside the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh ?

Judging by the Democratic and media reaction, you’d think this was routine news.

I didn’t think it was routine news: it was all over the news, both in print and on television, describing a disturbed person who called 911 to tell the police that he wanted to kill a Supreme Court Justice. He was promptly arrested, and now all the judges have higher security than they did. It was taken seriously. But really, this is applies and oranges, and a supreme (pardon the pun) of whataboutism on the part of Republicans.

*When Fox News decided not to air the January 6 hearings, it didn’t just ignore what was said in the hearings, but presented a counterhearing, contantly defending Donald Trump:

When 8 p.m. Eastern rolled around, though, it became clear that the network wasn’t simply going to not cover the hearing. Instead, it began more than two hours of commercial-free rebuttal. It didn’t simply cover other things, it focused almost entirely on the hearing as though it was former president Donald Trump’s defense team — without, of course, showing its audience the prosecution’s case.

. . . Part of that was probably timing. The hearing began just as Tucker Carlson’s show kicked off, and few people in America have been more energetically engaged than Carlson in casting the Jan. 6 riot as not worthy of discussion. Or as largely innocuous, save for some vandalism.

So Carlson began by crowing about Fox’s decision to stand apart from its competitors.

“The whole thing is insulting. In fact, it’s deranged,” Carlson said. “And we’re not playing along. This is the only hour on an American news channel that will not be carrying their propaganda live. They are lying, and we’re not going to help them do it.”

Yes, God forbid that Fox News should air an hour of propaganda or dishonesty. Carlson didn’t articulate the purported lies, which he couldn’t have, because the hearing hadn’t actually begun by that point. But it didn’t matter, because his audience wasn’t hearing the evidence from the hearing anyway. Was it a lie when the hearing showed William P. Barr, Trump’s ever-loyal attorney general, describing Trump’s voter-fraud claims as nonsense? Doesn’t matter, just wave it all away as untrustworthy without actually explaining what was said and why it couldn’t be trusted.

On the rare occasions when I watch Carlson, I get really irked (even more than by Krista Tippett!). He furrows his brow with deep faux concern, but you know that inside that head is a tiny Donald Trump telling him what to say.

*Here’s a happy-ending story that you have to read for yourself (click screenshot for free access):

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, HIli’s in a muddle:

Hili: I have to think it all over.
A: What do you have to think over?
Hili: I have to give some thought to the problem of what to think over.
In Polish:
Hili: Muszę to wszystko przemyśleć.
Ja: Co musisz przemyśleć?
Hili: Muszę się zastanowić, co muszę przemyśleć.
And a photo of Baby Kulka from Paulina:

**********************

From Stash Krod:

From Beth, a parking place for those in a hurry:

From Bored Panda‘s “35 reasons why you should have a duck.”

Tweets from God. Who made these banners?

From Simon, who prefaced the link with this:

This reminded me that: A man has to stand on a mountain with his mouth open for a long time before a roasted duck will fly in – or some proverb to that effect.
This does not apply to brown bears and (unroasted) salmon!

Nor does it apply to birds. This video is really cute:

From Barry. Now this is a fearless cat!

From the Auschwitz Memorial:

Tweets from Dr. Cobb. Some eggs got mixed up here, but things will be okay. That duckling look like it was produced by a wild mallard, not a domesticated Pekin duck. And look at its tiny wings!

Matthew says, “Who knew?” I didn’t, though I love Bette Davis:

 

As lagniappe, here’s the final, tearjerking scene of her 1942 movie “Now, Voyager“.  Note that her boyfriend is named Jerry. “Jerry, don’t let’s ask for the moon. We have the stars.”

A quiz for Brits (caption should be “you can save only one”). I’d save the chips and gravy. It’s funny: I’ve spent long periods in the UK, always looking for local food, and I never saw “chips and peas.” (They sometimes serve mushy peas as a side dish with fish and chips.)

Grammar snark:

54 thoughts on “Monday: Hili dialogue

  1. and I never saw “chips and peas.” (They sometimes serve mushy peas as a side dish with fish and chips.)

    Grand belly-filling food after a day down the caves, and before the 7 hour drive back home for Monday morning lectures.
    Also, tends to not need the 10 minutes hanging around before the fish (or whatever) is cooked to-order.

    You can only save one.

    Depends on how fast you can eat.

  2. I always suspected that the mnemonic rule of thumb, ‘I before E except after C’ was proof that spelling, albeit ancient, is a counterfeit science insufficient to warrant obeisance.

    1. As Hon. Nyrum Reynolds, of Wyoming Co. said in 1835, “I will say, that a man must be a d—d fool, who can’t spell a word more than one way.””

    2. And yet I, and I’m sure all of you, can spell all those words correctly without having to think about them. How do we do that?

    3. As I learned the rule in elementary school, it is “I before E except after C and when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh.” That still leaves plenty of exceptions, but the second clause removes many of the examples at the link.

  3. I don’t mind losing the peas, but the other three options are just too hard to chose between. I’m not playing.

  4. the Supreme Court vacated his conviction. However, Arizona tried him again without introducing the confession, and he was convicted (isn’t that double jeopardy?).

    Wikipedia says

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has noted that a vacated judgment “place[s] the parties in the position of no trial having taken place at all; thus a vacated judgment is of no further force or effect.” [my italics]

    If no trial has taken place (in law), I guess it’s not double jeopardy.

    On the “impatient parking”, I love the way that the second spelling mistake is weirdly consistent with the first.

    A quiz for Brits (caption should be “you can save only one”). I’d save the chips and gravy. It’s funny: I’ve spent long periods in the UK, always looking for local food, and I never saw “chips and peas.” (They sometimes serve mushy peas as a side dish with fish and chips.)

    Those are mushy peas.

    I’d be torn between the curry sauce and gravy. I’d probably keep the gravy if forced to choose. The most important thing I learned at the University of York – my first extended stay “oop North” – is that chips go very well with gravy.

  5. If the Supreme Court should be safe from gun violence, so should the rest of us. If they are willing to let the rest of us fend off the violence, then why not allow guns in their public sessions? Ditto Congress. They always want to exempt their own spaces.

    Re: the cat and the coyote – someone is shooting video of this, unless it’s from a security camera. Why are they not intervening? I feel the same way about a lot of video presented on the internet. Standing around filming instead of trying to stop a bad situation speaks of personalities I don’t want to have anything to do with.

    L

    1. It’s clearly a security camera in this case. But I agree that too many people are choosing to film for clicks when they could be helping.

    2. I would think that cat wasn’t ‘fearless’, it was as shit-scared as can possibly be, it  just defended itself valiantly. Cat 1, dog 0 (coyotes are basically wild little dogs).

  6. Arizona tried him [Miranda] again without introducing the confession, and he was convicted (isn’t that double jeopardy?).

    A defendant who is convicted at trial and takes an appeal claiming that some error by the trial court requires that he or she be granted a new trial thereby waives any claim of double jeopardy. (An exception occurs where the defendant/appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the judge, therefore, should have entered a judgment of acquittal. If the appellate court agrees, the prosecution is prohibited from retrying the defendant.)

    Things can get a bit more complicated than that, but the above summarizes the general rule.

      1. It’s probably best to think of the double jeopardy right as a right not to be retried after an acquittal.

        After a conviction, you remain in jeopardy. Not so after an acquittal.

        1. Double jeopardy attaches to convictions as well as acquittals. After a conviction, absent a successful appeal, a defendant cannot be charged and tried for the same offense. (At English common law dating back to the Norman Conquest, the essential tenets of which the 5th Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause was meant to incorporate, a defendant who had previously been placed in jeopardy for an offense could raise the issue by entering a plea of either autrefois acquit or autrefois convict — that the defendant had previously been acquitted or convicted for the same offense.)

    1. I agree that it’s often explained that way, but the “waiver” is a legal fiction. Even if the defendant says in his or her appeal, “I do not waive my right against double jeopardy,” it’s deemed to be waived. There’s nothing voluntary about it.

    1. I agree, but not apples to oranges, rather apples to a bag of pasta (to stay within consumables, but apples and oranges are way too close in the comparison). There is no comparison between a lone loony (rumoured to be suicidal at that) and an orchestrated attack on a -more or less- democratic nation, on democracy itself, by a large group of insurrectionists led on by seditious conspirators, some which in the highest echelons of power.

  7. Question: Regarding the WARNING: ( “blah-blah-bleh-blame-every-one-else-blah-blah-bleh”) HELL AWAITS posters. Do they have any complimentary copies?

  8. Chips and curry sauce. Clear winner from my pov. I don’t think I’ve seen chips served with peas (absent fish). But it seems from Gravel Inspector, at comment one that this is a thing.

    If you really want variety on chips, I’d recommend poutine in Montreal

    The parking sign is priceless. I wonder where it is/was.

    1. The best chips I ever ate was in Belgium (of course, they invented potato chips), in the city of Ostend (Oostende). Accompanied by mussels cooked in the shell. The chips with some thyme leaves dusted over it, apart from the obligatory salt and the optional pepper, with a modest blob of mayo. The simple Sauvignon blanc was the perfect accompaniment.

      Another great way of eating chips in Belgium was in a conical paper bag (“puntzak”, I’m not sure these bags still exist) with very small sour onions (Silverskins? Button onions? Pearl onions? Diameter 1 cm or less). Their fresh tasting sourness a great contrast with the mildly unctuous blandness of the chips. As they say, a combination made in Heaven.

  9. When it comes to Bette Davis tearjerkers, I gotta go with Dark Victory, in which she plays a socialite with inoperable brain cancer who keeps up a brave front for those around her. (Ronald Reagan is pretty good as a ne’er-do-well member of her social set who’s three sheets to the wind throughout the film. And Bogey plays a horse trainer with an unsteady Irish brogue,) Here’s the trailer:

  10. The group Shutdown DC (shutdowndc.org) is planning an event “Shut Down the Supreme Court” for today, with the idea of blocking Justices from getting into the building to do their work. If the rioters on Jan. 6 had prevented Congress from convening, rather than interrupting their work, would that have been an insurrection?

    1. I think the chances of protestors shutting down the Supreme Court are nil.

      But certainly if protestors were to break into the Supreme Court building with the intent of preventing the Court from announcing one of its decisions, those protestors would be liable — and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law — for insurrection.

    2. I don’t think it technically qualifies as an insurrection, since that would not be an attempt to overthrow the Supreme Court. But of course the effort should be stopped and the miscreants should be charged appropriately.

      I don’t understand why those on the right think that crimes from the far left somehow negates the need to prosecute crimes from the far right. Can’t we agree they should all be locked up?

  11. Bill Maher shot a fish in the gun violence barrel – quite well, IMHO – in his latest “and finally, New Rule” : revenge films. Importantly, he kept video games out. Made me rethink the “nothing to do with gun violence” refrain.

    Those interested can find it on YouTube.

    1. He’s right about Hollywood’s hypocrisy but I’m not sure what he intended by pointing it out. I think he said that he didn’t intend to suggest that they stop making such movies. So what, then, was the point, Bill?

      1. What came to mind was conditional probability.

        Bill might not be able to articulate that, but clearly, his chart shows the parts of the puzzle, and I’d want to know, given any of those parts, the likelihood of the observed shootings.

        Of course not all shootings are the same, not all shooters, certainly not all “revenge” movies. But there ought to be some filling in of a puzzle there – ascertaining the importance of these pieces – especially with the terms “mental health” being thrown about without any specifics as to what “mental health” is relevant for this problem.

        I mean, the movie excerpts were brutal – the language too.

        But Hollywood stuff will not do much. A “revenge” tacked onto the PG/R (…G?!.. JK..) rating? Pfff.

  12. I read the draft of the proposed gun law changes, and they seemed pretty reasonable to me. Particularly the idea of looking at juvenile records of purchasers under 21.
    The only concern I have is that the red flag laws should be written to prevent misuse. There is a potential for them to be used vindictively.
    But pending release of the final text of the legislation, I am cautiously optimistic.

  13. No argument against the greatness of the aforementioned Dodgers infield quartet. However, this native Chicagoan who lived a couple of blocks from Wrigley Field will always have a sentimental favorite: Santo, Kessinger, Beckert, and Banks.

      1. Not forgetting about them, but they were before my time. I grew up during Ernie Banks’s glory years.

  14. That cat was certainly not fearless! S/He puts up a great fight, but s/he’s clearly terrified!

  15. That is one very lucky cat. Seems like the coyote could have leaped high enough to still get its meal but just didn’t realize it. Cat got a few bites but perhaps only losing lumps of fur. Scary.

  16. I liked the description of Tucker Carlson furrowing “his brow with deep faux concern.” I think he always looks mystified as well. My description of this vacant stare is that Carlson looks like a man whose dog has just cooked him an omelet, and is walking in on his hind legs wearing an apron to serve it to him.

    1. To me Tucker Carlson always looks like he’s just had diarrhea and has to sit in it to for the next half hour to finish his on-air segment. At least that’s what I hope has happened.

    2. To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, a dog walking on its hind legs wearing an apron to serve an omelet is rarely something that’s done well, but one is surprised to find it being done at all.

  17. Having grown up with Fries and Gravy (a canadian high school cafeteria staple) my first allegiance would be to that combination.

    However, having discovered the addictive chips and curry sauce when visiting the UK and other parts of Europe (and finding the occasional good version at home)…I think I may have switched teams.

  18. A few comments:

    The WSJ editorial board and Fox News are nothing alike. WSJ Editorial Board on June 10: “Mr. Trump betrayed his supporters by conning them on Jan. 6, and he is still doing it.” The WSJ published an op ed by Pres. Biden a few days ago. The WSJ editorial board tilts right, but it is a lot closer to the center than the NYT.

    President Biden: “…if you wanted to think you need to have weapons to take on the government – you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

    Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., described the January 6 Capitol riot as the “culmination of an attempted coup” in his opening statement for the House Select Committee’s first hearing on their investigation.

    So which is it? Do you really need F-15s and nuclear weapons to take on the U.S. government, or is a few hundred unarmed protesters enough?

    1. Good question. It is manifestly obvious that contrary to what President Biden says an insurgency does not need jet fighters and nuclear weapons to take on a sovereign government. The insurgencies conducted by the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong, the IRA, and the Taliban have all enjoyed military success in combat against the armed forces of modern industrial states—the Taliban against three in succession. (North Vietnam had a few supposedly obsolete jet fighters which gave a good account of themselves on home turf against American planes but did not play a decisive role in victory.)

      The notion bruited by gun-control advocates that an American citizenry armed only with civilian-legal weapons could not possibly stand against modern government tyranny so don’t even go there is simply not supported by history. Total war, as the Russians are waging in Ukraine is another matter. But no one imagines that the United States military would engage in total war against American civilians—their parents and siblings and Little League coaches—, even if armed and shooting at them.

      It’s also a curious argument: if we were going to impose tyranny we would crush you with napalm, white phosphorus, artillery fire, and carpet bombing, and then we’d machine-gun the rubble and ashes to make sure you were really dead. So don’t bother arming yourselves. Gee, thanks for the heads-up.

  19. “Aviator Charles Lindbergh receives a ticker tape parade up 5th Avenue in New York City.”

    Of course, you meant “down” 5th Avenue 🙂

Leave a Reply