Tuesday: Hili dialogue

January 2, 2024 • 6:45 am

It’s the first Tuesday of the year, and the Cruelest Day of the week: January 2, 2024. The long and winding year of 2024 stretches out ahead. . .  It’s National Buffet Day, a great holiday, for buffets are the BEST! Here’s one filmed by Mike Chen, who patronizes and rates buffets all over the world. Here’s one he likes (start at 7:11):

 

It’s also 55 MPH Speed Limit Day (instituted on this day in 1974 by Richard Nixon), Swiss Cheese Day, Happy Mew Year for Cats Day, World Introvert Day, National Cream Puff Day, National Science Fiction Day, and the ninth of the Twelve Days of Christmas.

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this by consulting the January 2 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*This is mostly above my pay grade, but I’m putting it in here because those who know Israeli politics thinks that this is important. What happened is that, by a vote of 8-7 Israel’s Supreme Court struck down a Netanyahu-government law that limited the power of that very Court. Why this is important is that it will serve to divide Israeli society further in the middle of a war, at a time when the country should be united, but also because it shows the mess Israel is in without a constitution (it never had one). Without a constitutional division between executive, legislative, and judicial powers, the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself the powers of the judiciary, so, without explanation, it can strike down any law it wants as “unreasonable.” (Remember, the U.S. Supreme Court can strike down only those laws deemed unconstitutional.)

Israel’s highest court has struck down a controversial judicial overhaul law enacted last year by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that would have limited the justices’ power.

Israel’s Supreme Court ruled against a central piece of a judicial overhaul that Netanyahu was pushing before the war in Gaza erupted last October. The court struck down a law, which was passed in July and was akin to a constitutional amendment, that would have taken away the court’s powers to abrogate government decisions it deems to be “unreasonable in the extreme.”

The ruling could revive the deep political and social strife generated by the judicial reform last year, just as the country reels from the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas militants on southern Israel and is embroiled in a devastating war in Gaza.

Before the Oct. 7 attack, hundreds of thousands of Israelis came out weekly to protest against Netanyahu’s push to limit the powers of the court and give more control to the elected government.

Eight justices ruled in favor of striking down the law, with seven against.

Not knowing all the substance of the law that was struck down, all I can say is that the Supreme Court should not have the power to strike down laws they simplly deem “unreasonable.”  Since there’s no constitution, there’s no way to determine what is “reasonable.” I think the deeply split vote reflects the ambiguity of what the court is supposed to do. At any rate, they ruled against curbing their own power.

*The NYT tells us that Israel is withdrawing some of the IDF from Gaza to train some, allow others a rest, and also to support an economy that’s on the skids because so many men are fighting.

The Israeli military said on Monday that it would begin withdrawing several thousand troops from the Gaza Strip at least temporarily, in what was the most significant publicly announced reduction since the war with Hamas began.

The military cited a growing toll on the Israeli economy after nearly three months of wartime mobilization with little end in sight to the fighting. Israel had been considering scaling back its operations, and the United States has been prodding it to do so more quickly as the death toll and privation in Gaza rose.

. . . Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, the Israeli military spokesman, emphasized that the move to demobilize some soldiers did not suggest any compromise of Israel’s intention to continue fighting until it destroys Hamas, and the fighting across Gaza remained intense. Admiral Hagari, who had said he expected “warfare throughout this year,” indicated that some troops would be called back to service in 2024.

Reservists from at least two brigades will be sent home this week, the Israeli military said in a statement, and three brigades will be taken back for “scheduled” training. Brigades vary in size, up to roughly 4,000 troops, and the Israeli military does not disclose how many troops it has deployed in Gaza, so it was unclear how many would remain.

“This move is expected to significantly alleviate economic burdens and enable them to gather strength for upcoming activities in the next year,” the military said.

I’m sure Hamas is delighted.

*A new California law is taking effect this year, and it’s a good one: banning the carrying of guns in most public places. But the law is under a judicial “pause”, and it might be struck down by the Supreme Court.

A California law that bans people from carrying firearms in most public places will take effect on New Year’s Day, even as a court case continues to challenge the law.

A U.S. district judge issued a ruling Dec. 20 to block the law from taking effect, saying it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deprives people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones.

But on Saturday, a federal appeals court put a temporary hold on the district judge’s ruling. The appeals court decision allows the law to go into effect as the legal fight continues. Attorneys are scheduled to file arguments to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in January and in February.

The law, signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, prohibits people from carrying concealed guns in 26 places including public parks and playgrounds, churches, banks and zoos.

. . .The ban applies regardless of whether the person has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. One exception is for privately owned businesses that put up signs saying people are allowed to bring guns on their premises.

“This ruling will allow our common-sense gun laws to remain in place while we appeal the district court’s dangerous ruling,” Newsom posted to X, formerly Twitter, after the appeals court acted Saturday. “Californians overwhelmingly support efforts to ensure that places like hospitals, libraries and children’s playgrounds remain safe and free from guns.”

The California Rifle and Pistol Association sued to block the law. When U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney granted a preliminary injunction blocking the law, he wrote that the law was “sweeping, repugnant to the Second Amendment, and openly defiant of the Supreme Court.”

Screw the Supreme Court, as I disagree with their interpretation of the Second Amendment. All you have to do is read it to see that it’s a thin basis for allowing anybody to have guns.  Here:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second part of the sentence depends on the first part: the need for a well-regulated militia. The amendment was meant to ensure that a tyrannical government could be deposed by the people. Unfortunately, those conditions no longer obtain, since the government has weapons and power that could halt any insurrection.

*A passel of cartoon characters are losing their copyrights this year, including the original Mickey Mouse. Get ready for memes, clean and otherwise!

In 2024, thousands of copyrighted works published in 1928 are entering the public domain, after their 95-year term expires.

This means that those characters and stories can be remade — on the page, stage or screen — without permission. (Finally, I can make that Peter Pan musical where a middle-aged Peter laments unexplained back pains at the end of Act I.)

“It’s important for the preservation of our cultural record, for meaningful access to older works for inspiring future creativity,” Jennifer Jenkins, the director for the Center for the Study of the Public Domain at Duke Law School, said.

The crème de la crème of this year’s public domain class are Mickey Mouse and, of course, Minnie, or at least black-and-white versions of our favorite squeaky rodents that appeared in “Steamboat Willie.” Disney is famously litigious, and this copyright only covers the original versions of the character.

This is also true for music; now you can sample music made before 1928 without asking permission.  What are the consequences? Well, here’s one example given in the article: judge for yourself:

Tigger will also be liberated on Jan. 1 and could soon be reunited with Winnie the Pooh in the reborn character’s next slasher film. Yes, you read that right. In a preview of what could be awaiting other 95-year-old icons, the silly old bear became a sledgehammer-wielding monster in “Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey.” The sequel is slated for February.

*Here’s a curmudgeon after my own heart: Richard Zoglin in the Washington Post kvetches “When is this movie really going to start? I’ve been here half an hour.”  If you haven’t been to the movies in a while, but catch your flicks online, you may not be aware of the huge dollop of time occupied by commercials and trailers of movies-to-come before the movie you really want to see starts. Part of his beef:

It took me a few weeks to get out to see the new Martin Scorsese film, “Killers of the Flower Moon”; the running time of three hours and 26 minutes was pretty daunting. Still, on a recent weeknight, I trekked to my local multiplex in New York City for an 8:30 p.m. showing. Since I knew it would be a long evening, I made sure to arrive a few minutes late, to miss some of the pre-show ads and trailers.

Not late enough. I still had to sit through several minutes of previews and AMC Theatres promotions before Leonardo DiCaprio finally appeared on the screen. But not in the movie ­— he was interviewing Scorsese about the historical background of the film, which recounts the organized murders of Osage tribe members in 1920s Oklahoma. After three or four minutes of their gab, the theater finally darkened, and the film seemed ready to start. But wait — there was Scorsese again, addressing the audience to say, once more, how honored he was to “tell this powerful historical story in the most authentic way possible.” By the time the movie dawdled onto the screen, a three-hour-26-minute film had ballooned into a nearly four-hour evening.

Set aside the $10 bags of popcorn and the confusing array of projection formats — Imax, 4DX, Dolby — that can boost the ticket price to $25 or more. And I’m not complaining about audience members who talk and scan their cellphones during the movie; complaints about unruly patrons date back to the days when people used to read the title cards aloud in silent films. No, it’s the bloated running times of so many current films and the expanding pre-show folderol that have turned moviegoing into an endurance test.

I don’t care about bloated running times, as I like long movies if they’re good, but the “pre-show folderol” is intolerable!

There once was a time (it now seems quaint to recall) when you had to go to Europe to see commercials in a movie theater; American movie houses were blessedly free of them. Not anymore. On another trip to the multiplex, to see Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” (which weighs in at a relatively compact two hours and 38 minutes), I counted a dozen commercials, for everything from Hyundai to M&M’s, before the Regal voice of God told us to silence our cellphones and “enjoy the show” — after which came another slew of ads for various Pepsi drinks, six trailers for upcoming movies (because where better than a screening of “Napoleon” to look for fans of “Drive-Away Dolls” and “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom”?), and a pitch for the Regal Unlimited subscription plan. Thirty minutes in hard-sell captivity before the movie finally started.

Don’t get me wrong: I love going to the movies. After the pandemic, I returned to the theaters much sooner than most of my friends. But it’s becoming harder to justify that ordeal at the multiplex, rather than waiting a few weeks for the film to show up on Netflix or Amazon Prime.

I still prefer the big screen, but now I know to allow at least 20 minutes before the advertised film actually begins. That will be hard for someone like me who’s compulsively early.

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Andrzej and Hili are deep into philosophy:

Hili: Is the world an illusion?
A: No, but our picture of the world is a set of illusions on different levels.
Hili: You are either fibbing or philosophizing.

In Polish:
Hili: Czy świat jest złudzeniem?
Ja: Nie, ale nasz obraz świata, to zestaw złudzeń na różnych poziomach.
Hili: Coś kręcisz, albo filozofujesz.

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

From Stacey, a Charlie Hankin cartoon:

From Facebook:

From Doc Bill:

New Year’s wishes from Masih:

. . . and also a world where an activist like Masih doesn’t have to fear being killed or kidnapped.

I don’t think this kitten understands the danger, but it’s protected by a windshield, thank Ceiling Cat. Contributor Jon adds, “There are crows cawing in the background, probably alerting the neighborhood to the hawk. I think they might be on a tree branch visible toward the end of the video. (See additional attached screenshot I’ve annotated.)”  The screenshot is below the tweet

Crow-walk!

From Malcolm, a cat catching little snowballs:

An old Tracey Ullmann clip courtesy of Jez:

Two from the Auschwitz Memorial today. First, a boy gassed upon arrival, age five:

And this one. Why on earth would they be losing followers?

Two tweets from Dr. Cobb. Matthew is feeling strange because he’s published his last experimental paper. I felt exactly the same way.

. . . and one sneaky otter:

39 thoughts on “Tuesday: Hili dialogue”

  1. They are probably losing followers as people are deserting X, now run by the execrable Musky… I use it much much less now & when I do I have noticed how quiet it is in comparison with a few years ago. In fact, I go online much much less. I have a Blueskysocial account, Robin Ince is quite active there, as is Sean Carroll & other scientists, but it seems pretty quiet.

    Don’t waste your life on ‘social media’!

    2. Don’t waste your life on ‘social media’!

      Never have and never will, unless the comments section here counts—and that’s not a waste! But I think there is another factor in play here, young Twitter users who are pro-Hamas (most of them, it seems) will be cancelling their “follow” of the Auschwitz Memorial account.

      1. Not convinced twitter -X ever has been used by young people -I worked with lots of students over the life of Twitter, & almost none under 30 ever used it. Scientists, lefties, journalists, & righties…

        1. I remain on X-Twitter for a variety of reasons.
          • I like the format.
          • It has my postings & replies that I occasionally refer to and share, and I’d prefer not to lose access to them.
          • I’m curious to see the changes on the platform myself rather than via reports from people who hate Musk. (But the platform has, indeed, become more “quiet” — at least with my curated mix.)
          • Musk has some very undesirable characteristics — likely amplified by “Aspergers” or some such thing, and maybe stoked by abuse during childhood — but he also has accomplished much more than the average bear, so he remains interesting to me. (I don’t “follow” him on his platform, however, and I rarely see his postings.)
          • Many people I do follow, including scientists and atheists, remain on the platform.
          • Finally, starting over on a new platform is time-consuming, and the descriptions of other platforms haven’t enticed me to jump in order to leave X-Twitter.
          • (Also, it still seems possible that Musk could sell the platform, which would probably be a good thing.)

    3. That account has 1.5 million followers. 7,000 out of 1.5 million is around 0.5%. I think that’s probably within bounds for your hypothesis, especially considering that Musk made some antisemitic remarks on Twitter in the month or two leading up to December and the people who are likely to leave Twitter in protest at those are probably more likely than most to be following the official account of the Auschwitz Memorial museum.

    4. At least under Musk it is possible to state simple biological facts, such as that men aren’t women however they identify, without being banned. And the Community Notes feature is helpful in labelling misinformation.

        1. It would be a brave move to take on JK Rowling. Nevertheless, Twitter’s policy was to prevent the truthful sex and identity of anyone self-declaring a transgender from being told:

          Twitter updated its content moderation guidelines regarding hateful content, removing a policy that prohibited the targeted deadnaming or misgendering of transgender people. Enacted in 2018, the policy explicitly stated that it violated Twitter’s rules to repeatedly and purposefully call a transgender person by the wrong name or pronouns.

          https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/18/twitter-removed-deadnaming-misgendering-policy/

  2. (Remember, the U.S. Supreme Court can strike down only those laws deemed unconstitutional.)

    SCOTUS can also strike down state laws that contravene any form of federal law — statute, regulation, or the constitution itself — under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, paragraph 2 of the US constitution.

      1. In Ken Kukec’s statement the constitution is one of a set of 3 examples of things that state laws can not contradict, or if they do the SC has the authority to strike down those state laws.

  3. On this day:
    533 – Mercurius becomes Pope John II, the first pope to adopt a new name upon elevation to the papacy.

    1492 – Reconquista: The Emirate of Granada, the last Moorish stronghold in Spain, surrenders.

    1900 – American statesman and diplomat John Hay announces the Open Door Policy to promote trade with China.

    1900 – Chicago Canal opens.

    1920 – The second Palmer Raid, ordered by the US Department of Justice, results in 6,000 suspected communists and anarchists being arrested and held without trial.

    1921 – World premiere of the science fiction play R.U.R. by the Czech writer Karel Čapek. [The play is the origin of the word “robot”.]

    1942 – The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) obtains the conviction of 33 members of a German spy ring headed by Fritz Joubert Duquesne in the largest espionage case in United States history. [Also known as the Duquesne Spy Ring.]

    1959 – Luna 1, the first spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Moon and to orbit the Sun, is launched by the Soviet Union.

    1963 – Vietnam War: The Viet Cong wins its first major victory, at the Battle of Ap Bac.

    1967 – Ronald Reagan, past movie actor and future President of the United States, is sworn in as Governor of California.

    1971 – The second Ibrox disaster kills 66 fans at a Rangers-Celtic association football (soccer) match.

    1974 – United States President Richard Nixon signs a bill lowering the maximum U.S. speed limit to 55 MPH in order to conserve gasoline during an OPEC embargo.

    1981 – One of the largest investigations by a British police force ends when serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, the “Yorkshire Ripper”, is arrested in Sheffield, South Yorkshire.

    2004 – Stardust successfully flies past Comet Wild 2, collecting samples that are returned to Earth.

    Births:
    1886 – Apsley Cherry-Garrard, English explorer and author (d. 1959). [Member of the Terra Nova expedition and acclaimed for his 1922 account of it, The Worst Journey in the World.]

    1895 – Folke Bernadotte, Swedish diplomat (d. 1948). [Negotiated the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps. In 1945 he received a German surrender offer from Heinrich Himmler, which was ultimately rejected. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the paramilitary Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties as United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab–Israeli conflict of 1947–1948.]

    1900 – Una Ledingham, British physician, known for research on diabetes in pregnancy (d. 1965).

    1903 – Kane Tanaka, Japanese Supercentenarian, Oldest Japanese person ever, Second oldest verified person in world history (d. 2022).

    1905 – Michael Tippett, English composer and conductor (d. 1998).

    1909 – Barry Goldwater, American politician, businessman, and author (d. 1998).

    1913 – Juanita Jackson Mitchell, American lawyer and activist (d. 1992).

    1919 – Beatrice Hicks, American engineer (d. 1979).

    1920 (probable) – Isaac Asimov, American writer and professor of biochemistry (d. 1992).

    1937 – Terence Rigby, English actor (d. 2008). [Played Roy Bland in John Irwin’s TV adaptation of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.]

    1938 – Lynn Conway, American computer scientist and electrical engineer.

    1961 – Todd Haynes, American film director, screenwriter, and producer.

    1968 – Cuba Gooding, Jr., American actor and producer.

    Pining for the fjords:
    1951 – Edith New, English militant suffragette (b. 1877).

    1953 – Guccio Gucci, Italian businessman and fashion designer, founder of Gucci (b. 1881). [Great name, although when you say it out loud he sounds Irish…]

    1963 – Dick Powell, American actor, singer, and director (b. 1904). [The first actor to portray private detective Philip Marlowe on screen.]

    1977 – Erroll Garner, American pianist and composer (b. 1921).

    2005 – Maclyn McCarty, American geneticist and physician (b. 1911).

    2011 – Pete Postlethwaite, English actor (b. 1946).

    2014 – Elizabeth Jane Howard, English author and screenwriter (b. 1923). [Wrote 12 novels including the best-selling series The Cazalet Chronicles. Her stepson, Martin Amis, credited her with encouraging him to become a more serious reader and writer.]

    2022 – Richard Leakey, Kenyan paleontologist and politician (b. 1944).

    1. Stardust (2004) – While there should be no doubt regarding the heroic dimension of our astronauts, particularly those few who have left Earth’s gravity for lunar capture, trusting that the engineering of their spacecraft will work properly to send them on a return to Earth trajectory, I consider the robotic rendezvous, sampling, and high resolution photography of the planets, their rings and moons, AND the successful rendezvous and even landing on comets, asteroids, and near-Earth objects to be the most spectacular engineering achievements to improve our understanding of the science of the solar system since the telescope 400 years ago. All my science books from my 1950’s childhood could give me were blurry photos, often black and white, and some speculations by leading astronomers. My children and grand children can look at and enjoy the sharpest color images and real data.

      1. Indeed. I was particularly entranced for 11 years by the images of the Saturn system coming from the Cassini spacecraft in orbit around the planet. And I hope to live to see the planned “Dragonfly” helicopter (“rotorcraft”) fly in the dense atmosphere of Saturn’s moon, Titan.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonfly_(spacecraft)

        However, it continues to inspire me to think that people might eventually see all of our Solar System family members in person.

  4. I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding regarding the judicial overhaul in Israel. For a clear description of some of the issues, I recommend listening to this short clip by David enoch, a professor of Law and Philosophy at Oxford and the Hebrew University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnatMAiWDVA

    There are several legal opinion pieces in this website, if you are interested: https://www.lawprofsforum.org/en

    I should also note that the government plan that was under review in the court is deeply unpopular in Israel. This can be seen not only in the unprecedented demonstrations (before October), but also in multiple polls.

    2. The ‘reasonableness’ provision is not just reasonable, but essential. The UK, Australia and NZ have the ability for judges to strike down law that is not deemed ‘reasonable’. It appears Israel has no written Constitution — the same applies for the UK, Australia, and NZ. One would guess the reasonableness provision was baked into Israeli law from the outset because some of its framers knew about British law. Without such a reasonableness provision, there is nothing to stop a parliamentary majority in the UK, Australia or Keyaurastan NZ passing a law to make the nation a dictatorship and abolish democracy — since there is no written guarantee of democracy in perpetuity.

  5. The hawk looks like it might be a young one, with a lightly barred tail rather than the plain red one of an adult (though I guess some western red tails have light tails even as adults). I thought it was interesting how the hawk kept looking at its legs (rather than at the kitten) after the failed attack, as if it couldn’t believe that there was no kitten in its claws.

    1. What I want to know is: Why are there so many eyeglasses on the dashboard of the car? That is about as many in my “eyeglasses cemetery” drawer.

      1. Ha-ha! The crows preventing a murder. Very good.
        And I also wondered about what the hawk was thinking when there was nothing in its claws after the initial attack. It’s like the short video of a raccoon dunking cotton candy into water in order to wash it, and futilely probing for the candy after it disappeared, apparently not believing its eyes…

  8. The amendment was meant to ensure that a tyrannical government could be deposed by the people. Unfortunately, those conditions no longer obtain, since the government has weapons and power that could halt any insurrection.

    I don’t think we should trash the right to self-defense just because there is an opinion that we stand no chance. Certainly, disarming citizens would make that statement true, as many have found out. Joe Biden has said you can defend yourself against an F-16 with an M-16, but try telling that to the Afghans. (And that assumes that the armed forces stay loyal to the government. I would hope a pilot would have serious qualms about napalming Springfield.) Government may, in fact, be both tyrannical and incompetent. We’ve also seen that the Ukrainians and the Israelis have found that personal weapons can come in handy. While we might say that there is little chance that we would be invaded, I think people along the southern border might disagree. No, better to keep the government guessing about whether they could win.

    1. You are conflating the right to self defence with the safeguards against tyrannical governments, and to an extent, so was Jerry.

      People having guns won’t stop a tyrannical government. What stops tyranny is the constitution, the checks and balances and the fact that the law enforcement agencies are loyal to the office, not the person of the president.

      Take Trump’s insurrection as an example. Had it been successful, do you think it would have been resolved by civilians with guns? I don’t think so, in fact many of the civilians with guns were on Trump’s side.

      As for Israel and Ukraine: civilians with guns did not stop the October 7th massacre. Civilians with guns did not stop the Russian invasion. In both cases, the fight back is being led by the organised armed forces of the respective countries. It’s also worth noting that neither conflict arose from a threat from the government but from external entities. I think that’s what the founding fathers had in mind with the second amendment: external entities like Great Britain – and slave revolts of course.

      on the self defence nonsense, remember, if you own a hand gun, statistically, the person you are most likely to kill with it is yourself.

    2. I was always taught that the inclusion of the word ‘militia’ and the phase it’s used therein was because the founders didn’t want conscription or a standing army.

      Full disclosure: I own guns, but would NEVER keep a loaded one in my house, nor a loaded and/or uncased one in a vehicle.

  12. This just came over email from Gay:

    Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

    It is with a heavy heart but a deep love for Harvard that I write to share that I will be stepping down as president. This is not a decision I came to easily. Indeed, it has been difficult beyond words because I have looked forward to working with so many of you to advance the commitment to academic excellence that has propelled this great university across centuries. But, after consultation with members of the Corporation, it has become clear that it is in the best interests of Harvard for me to resign so that our community can navigate this moment of extraordinary challenge with a focus on the institution rather than any individual.

    It is a singular honor to be a member of this university, which has been my home and my inspiration for most of my professional career. My deep sense of connection to Harvard and its people has made it all the more painful to witness the tensions and divisions that have riven our community in recent months, weakening the bonds of trust and reciprocity that should be our sources of strength and support in times of crisis. Amidst all of this, it has been distressing to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate and to upholding scholarly rigor—two bedrock values that are fundamental to who I am—and frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus.

    I believe in the people of Harvard because I see in you the possibility and the promise of a better future. These last weeks have helped make clear the work we need to do to build that future—to combat bias and hate in all its forms, to create a learning environment in which we respect each other’s dignity and treat one another with compassion, and to affirm our enduring commitment to open inquiry and free expression in the pursuit of truth. I believe we have within us all that we need to heal from this period of tension and division and to emerge stronger. I had hoped with all my heart to lead us on that journey, in partnership with all of you. As I now return to the faculty, and to the scholarship and teaching that are the lifeblood of what we do, I pledge to continue working alongside you to build the community we all deserve.

    When I became president, I considered myself particularly blessed by the opportunity to serve people from around the world who saw in my presidency a vision of Harvard that affirmed their sense of belonging—their sense that Harvard welcomes people of talent and promise, from every background imaginable, to learn from and grow with one another. To all of you, please know that those doors remain open, and Harvard will be stronger and better because they do.

    As we welcome a new year and a new semester, I hope we can all look forward to brighter days. Sad as I am to be sending this message, my hopes for Harvard remain undimmed. When my brief presidency is remembered, I hope it will be seen as a moment of reawakening to the importance of striving to find our common humanity—and of not allowing rancor and vituperation to undermine the vital process of education. I trust we will all find ways, in this time of intense challenge and controversy, to recommit ourselves to the excellence, the openness, and the independence that are crucial to what our university stands for—and to our capacity to serve the world.

    Sincerely,
    Claudine Gay

    And this from the Corporation:

    Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

    With great sadness, we write in light of President Claudine Gay’s message announcing her intention to step down from the presidency and resume her faculty position at Harvard.

    First and foremost, we thank President Gay for her deep and unwavering commitment to Harvard and to the pursuit of academic excellence. Throughout her long and distinguished leadership as Dean of Social Science then as Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences – where she skillfully led the FAS through the COVID-19 pandemic and pursued ambitious new academic initiatives in areas such as quantum science and inequality – she demonstrated the insight, decisiveness, and empathy that are her hallmark. She believes passionately in Harvard’s mission of education and research, and she cares profoundly about the people whose talents, ideas, and energy drive Harvard. She has devoted her career to an institution whose ideals and priorities she has worked tirelessly to advance, and we are grateful for the extraordinary contributions she has made – and will continue to make – as a leader, a teacher, a scholar, a mentor, and an inspiration to many.

    We are also grateful to Alan M. Garber, Provost and Chief Academic Officer, who has served with distinction in that role for the past twelve years – and who has agreed to serve as Interim President until a new leader for Harvard is identified and takes office. An economist and a physician, he is a distinguished and wide-ranging scholar with appointments at Harvard Medical School, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. We are fortunate to have someone of Alan’s broad and deep experience, incisive judgment, collaborative style, and extraordinary institutional knowledge to carry forward key priorities and to guide the university through this interim period.

    These past several months have seen Harvard and higher education face a series of sustained and unprecedented challenges. In the face of escalating controversy and conflict, President Gay and the Fellows have sought to be guided by the best interests of the institution whose future progress and well-being we are together committed to uphold. Her own message conveying her intention to step down eloquently underscores what those who have worked with her have long known – her commitment to the institution and its mission is deep and selfless. It is with that overarching consideration in mind that we have accepted her resignation.

    We do so with sorrow. While President Gay has acknowledged missteps and has taken responsibility for them, it is also true that she has shown remarkable resilience in the face of deeply personal and sustained attacks. While some of this has played out in the public domain, much of it has taken the form of repugnant and in some cases racist vitriol directed at her through disgraceful emails and phone calls. We condemn such attacks in the strongest possible terms.

    The search for a new president of the university will begin in due course. We will be in further touch about the process, which will include broad engagement and consultation with the Harvard community in the time ahead.

    For today, we close by reiterating our gratitude to President Gay for her devoted service to Harvard, as well as to Provost Garber for his willingness to lead the university through the interim period to come. We also extend our thanks to all of you for your continuing commitment to Harvard’s vital educational and research mission – and to core values of excellence, inclusiveness, and free inquiry and expression. At a time when strife and division are so prevalent in our nation and our world, embracing and advancing that mission – in a spirit of common purpose — has never been more important. We live in difficult and troubling times, and formidable challenges lie ahead. May our community, with its long history of rising through change and through storm, find new ways to meet those challenges together, and to affirm Harvard’s commitment to generating knowledge, pursuing truth, and contributing through scholarship and education to a better world.

    The Fellows of Harvard College

    Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow
    Timothy R. Barakett, Treasurer
    Kenneth I. Chenault
    Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar
    Paul J. Finnegan
    Biddy Martin
    Karen Gordon Mills
    Diana L. Nelson
    Tracy P. Palandjian
    Shirley M. Tilghman
    Theodore V. Wells, Jr.

    1. First and foremost, we thank President Gay for her deep and unwavering commitment to Harvard and to the pursuit of academic excellence.
      And doubtless for her unique way of conveying the latter.

  13. Jerry wrote:

    A new California law is taking effect this year, and it’s a good one: banning the carrying of guns in most public places. But the law is under a judicial “pause”, and it might be struck down by the Supreme Court.

    The next step, as I understand it, is that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case on its merits. Regardless of the outcome, it will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court.

  14. This comment is late to the table, so to say, but I had two cats many years ago (before all cats became inside only) who loved to catch small snowballs. They jumped in the air like this cat does, often catching them, but sometimes the snowballs went straight into the snow–leaving the cats understandably confused.

  15. I am glad you brought up the movie theater issue. We went to see a film on Christmas day. It had been a long time since we had done so, as we have a wonderful setup at home.
    Anyway, the commercials were endless. Not just the car commercials, but one even advertised some sort of glue used to attach hair extensions, I think.
    And yes, it was about half an hour after showtime that the commercials finally ended, and the previews started.
    It seems a poor business model.

  16. Regarding the corporation’s comment about Claudine Gay’s “… ambitious new academic initiatives in areas such as quantum science and inequality”…

    I’m not sure why, but having those two areas of interest — and only those two areas — mentioned together gave me a bit of whiplash.

  17. “The amendment was meant to ensure that a tyrannical government could be deposed by the people.”

    Not my understanding of the amendment – it was so a nation with no standing army could depend on its people to defend itself.

Comments are closed.