Thursday, December 19, 2024

“The Christmas Truce of 1914 - 'Joyeux Noel'”

Full screen recommended.
“The Christmas Truce of 1914 - 'Joyeux Noel'
by Simon Rees
The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other - 
instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals.”
- Edward Abbey

“You are standing up to your knees in the slime of a waterlogged trench. It is the evening of 24 December 1914 and you are on the dreaded Western Front. Stooped over, you wade across to the firing step and take over the watch. Having exchanged pleasantries, your bleary-eyed and mud-spattered colleague shuffles off towards his dug out. Despite the horrors and the hardships, your morale is high and you believe that in the New Year the nation’s army march towards a glorious victory.
But for now you stamp your feet in a vain attempt to keep warm. All is quiet when jovial voices call out from both friendly and enemy trenches. Then the men from both sides start singing carols and songs. Next come requests not to fire, and soon the unthinkable happens: you start to see the shadowy shapes of soldiers gathering together in no-man’s land laughing, joking and sharing gifts. Many have exchanged cigarettes, the lit ends of which burn brightly in the inky darkness. Plucking up your courage, you haul yourself up and out of the trench and walk towards the foe…
The meeting of enemies as friends in no-man’s land was experienced by hundreds, if not thousands, of men on the Western Front during Christmas 1914. Today, 109 years after it occurred, the event is seen as a shining episode of sanity from among the bloody chapters of World War One – a spontaneous effort by the lower ranks to create a peace that could have blossomed were it not for the interference of generals and politicians.
The reality of the Christmas Truce, however, is a slightly less romantic and a more down to earth story. It was an organic affair that in some spots hardly registered a mention and in others left a profound impact upon those who took part. Many accounts were rushed, confused or contradictory. Others, written long after the event, are weighed down by hindsight. These difficulties aside, the true story is still striking precisely because of its rag-tagged nature: it is more ‘human’ and therefore all the more potent.

Months beforehand, millions of servicemen, reservists and volunteers from all over the continent had rushed enthusiastically to the banners of war: the atmosphere was one of holiday rather than conflict. But it was not long before the jovial façade was torn away. Armies equipped with repeating rifles, machine guns and a vast array of artillery tore chunks out of each other, and thousands upon thousands of men perished. To protect against the threat of this vast firepower, the soldiers were ordered to dig in and prepare for next year’s offensives, which most men believed would break the deadlock and deliver victory. The early trenches were often hasty creations and poorly constructed; if the trench was badly sighted it could become a sniping hot spot. In bad weather (the winter of 1914 was a dire one) the positions could flood and fall in. The soldiers – unequipped to face the rigors of the cold and rain – found themselves wallowing in a freezing mire of mud and the decaying bodies of the fallen.

The man at the Front could not help but have a degree of sympathy for his opponents who were having just as miserable a time as they were. Another factor that broke down the animosity between the opposing armies were the surroundings. In 1914 the men at the front could still see the vestiges of civilization. Villages, although badly smashed up, were still standing. Fields, although pitted with shell-holes, had not been turned into muddy lunarscapes. Thus the other world – the civilian world – and the social mores and manners that went with it was still present at the front. Also lacking was the pain, misery and hatred that years of bloody war build up. Then there was the desire, on all sides, to see the enemy up close – was he really as bad as the politicians, papers and priests were saying? It was a combination of these factors, and many more minor ones, that made the Christmas Truce of 1914 possible.

On the eve of the Truce, the British Army (still a relatively small presence on the Western Front) was manning a stretch of the line running south from the infamous Ypres salient for 27 miles to the La Bassee Canal. Along the front the enemy was sometimes no more than 70, 50 or even 30 yards away. Both Tommy and Fritz could quite easily hurl greetings and insults to one another, and, importantly, come to tacit agreements not to fire. Incidents of temporary truces and outright fraternization were more common at this stage in the war than many people today realize – even units that had just taken part in a series of futile and costly assaults, were still willing to talk and come to arrangements with their opponents.

As Christmas approached the festive mood and the desire for a lull in the fighting increased as parcels packed with goodies from home started to arrive. On top of this came gifts care of the state. Tommy received plum puddings and ‘Princess Mary boxes’; a metal case engraved with an outline of George V’s daughter and filled with chocolates and butterscotch, cigarettes and tobacco, a picture card of Princess Mary and a facsimile of George V’s greeting to the troops. ‘May God protect you and bring you safe home,’ it said. Not to be outdone, Fritz received a present from the Kaiser, the Kaiserliche, a large meerschaum pipe for the troops and a box of cigars for NCOs and officers. Towns, villages and cities, and numerous support associations on both sides also flooded the front with gifts of food, warm clothes and letters of thanks.

The Belgians and French also received goods, although not in such an organized fashion as the British or Germans. For these nations the Christmas of 1914 was tinged with sadness – their countries were occupied. It is no wonder that the Truce, although it sprung up in some spots on French and Belgian lines, never really caught hold as it did in the British sector.
With their morale boosted by messages of thanks and their bellies fuller than normal, and with still so much Christmas booty to hand, the season of goodwill entered the trenches. A British Daily Telegraph correspondent wrote that on one part of the line the Germans had managed to slip a chocolate cake into British trenches. Even more amazingly, it was accompanied with a message asking for a ceasefire later that evening so they could celebrate the festive season and their Captain’s birthday. They proposed a concert at 7.30pm when candles, the British were told, would be placed on the parapets of their trenches. The British accepted the invitation and offered some tobacco as a return present. That evening, at the stated time, German heads suddenly popped up and started to sing. Each number ended with a round of applause from both sides. The Germans then asked the British to join in. At this point, one very mean-spirited Tommy shouted: ‘We’d rather die than sing German.’ To which a German joked aloud: ‘It would kill us if you did’.

December 24 was a good day weather-wise: the rain had given way to clear skies. On many stretches of the Front the crack of rifles and the dull thud of shells ploughing into the ground continued, but at a far lighter level than normal. In other sectors there was an unnerving silence that was broken by the singing and shouting drifting over, in the main, from the German trenches. Along many parts of the line the Truce was spurred on with the arrival in the German trenches of miniature Christmas trees – Tannenbaum. The sight these small pines, decorated with candles and strung along the German parapets, captured the Tommies’ imagination, as well as the men of the Indian corps who were reminded of the sacred Hindu festival of light. It was the perfect excuse for the opponents to start shouting to one another, to start singing and, in some areas, to pluck up the courage to meet one another in no-man’s land.

By now, the British high command – comfortably ‘entrenched’ in a luxurious châteaux 27 miles behind the front – was beginning to hear of the fraternization. Stern orders were issued by the commander of the BEF, Sir John French against such behavior. Other ‘brass-hats’ (as the Tommies nick-named their high-ranking officers and generals), also made grave pronouncements on the dangers and consequences of parleying with the Germans. However, there were many high-ranking officers who took a surprisingly relaxed view of the situation. If anything, they believed it would at least offer their men an opportunity to strengthen their trenches. This mixed stance meant that very few officers and men involved in the Christmas Truce were disciplined. Interestingly, the German High Command’s ambivalent attitude towards the Truce mirrored that of the British.
Christmas day began quietly but once the sun was up the fraternization began. Again songs were sung and rations thrown to one another. It was not long before troops and officers started to take matters into their own hands and ventured forth. No-man’s land became something of a playground. Men exchanged gifts and buttons. In one or two places soldiers who had been barbers in civilian times gave free haircuts. One German, a juggler and a showman, gave an impromptu, and given the circumstances, somewhat surreal performance of his routine in the centre of no-man’s land.

Captain Sir Edward Hulse of the Scots Guards, in his famous account, remembered the approach of four unarmed Germans at 08.30. He went out to meet them with one of his ensigns. ‘Their spokesmen,’ Hulse wrote, ‘started off by saying that he thought it only right to come over and wish us a happy Christmas, and trusted us implicitly to keep the truce. He came from Suffolk where he had left his best girl and a 3 h.p. motor-bike!’ Having raced off to file a report at headquarters, Hulse returned at 10.00 to find crowds of British soldiers and Germans out together chatting and larking about in no-man’s land, in direct contradiction to his orders. Not that Hulse seemed to care about the fraternization in itself – the need to be seen to follow orders was his concern. Thus he sought out a German officer and arranged for both sides to return to their lines.

While this was going on he still managed to keep his ears and eyes open to the fantastic events that were unfolding. ‘Scots and Huns were fraternizing in the most genuine possible manner. Every sort of souvenir was exchanged addresses given and received, photos of families shown, etc. One of our fellows offered a German a cigarette; the German said, “Virginian?” Our fellow said, “Aye, straight-cut”, the German said “No thanks, I only smoke Turkish!” It gave us all a good laugh.’ Hulse’s account was in part a letter to his mother, who in turn sent it on to the newspapers for publication, as was the custom at the time. Tragically, Hulse was killed in March 1915.

On many parts of the line the Christmas Day truce was initiated through sadder means. Both sides saw the lull as a chance to get into no-man’s land and seek out the bodies of their compatriots and give them a decent burial. Once this was done the opponents would inevitably begin talking to one another. The 6th Gordon Highlanders, for example, organized a burial truce with the enemy. After the gruesome task of laying friends and comrades to rest was complete, the fraternization began.

With the Truce in full swing up and down the line there were a number of recorded games of soccer, although these were really just ‘kick-abouts’ rather than a structured match. On January 1, 1915, the London Times published a letter from a major in the Medical Corps reporting that in his sector the British played a game against the Germans opposite and were beaten 3-2. Kurt Zehmisch of the 134th Saxons recorded in his diary: ‘The English brought a soccer ball from the trenches, and pretty soon a lively game ensued. How marvelously wonderful, yet how strange it was. The English officers felt the same way about it. Thus Christmas, the celebration of Love, managed to bring mortal enemies together as friends for a time.’
The Truce lasted all day; in places it ended that night, but on other sections of the line it held over Boxing Day and in some areas, a few days more. In fact, there were parts on the front where the absence of aggressive behavior was conspicuous well into 1915.

Captain J C Dunn, the Medical Officer in the Royal Welch Fusiliers, whose unit had fraternized and received two barrels of beer from the Saxon troops opposite, recorded how hostilities re-started on his section of the front. Dunn wrote: ‘At 8.30 I fired three shots in the air and put up a flag with “Merry Christmas” on it, and I climbed on the parapet. He [the Germans] put up a sheet with “Thank you” on it, and the German Captain appeared on the parapet. We both bowed and saluted and got down into our respective trenches, and he fired two shots in the air, and the War was on again.’ The war was indeed on again, for the Truce had no hope of being maintained. Despite being wildly reported in Britain and to a lesser extent in Germany, the troops and the populations of both countries were still keen to prosecute the conflict.

Today, pragmatists read the Truce as nothing more than a ‘blip’ – a temporary lull induced by the season of goodwill, but willingly exploited by both sides to better their defenses and eye out one another’s positions. Romantics assert that the Truce was an effort by normal men to bring about an end to the slaughter. In the public’s mind the facts have become irrevocably mythologized, and perhaps this is the most important legacy of the Christmas Truce today. In our age of uncertainty, it comforting to believe, regardless of the real reasoning and motives, that soldiers and officers told to hate, loathe and kill, could still lower their guns and extend the hand of goodwill, peace, love and Christmas cheer. The Irish poet, Thomas Kettle, who was killed in the War in September 1916, captured that spirit in a poem he wrote to his little daughter, Betty, shortly before he died:
“So, here while the mad guns curse overhead,
And tired men sigh with mud for couch and floor,
Know that we fools, now with the foolish dead,
Died not for flag, nor King, nor Emperor –
But for a dream, born in a herdsman’s shed,
And for the secret scripture of the poor.”

The Poet: David Whyte, "In the Beginning"

"In the Beginning"

"Sometimes simplicity rises
like a blossom of fire
from the white silk of your own skin.
You were there in the beginning
you heard the story, you heard the merciless
and tender words telling you where you had to go.
Exile is never easy and the journey
itself leaves a bitter taste. But then,
when you heard that voice, you had to go.
You couldn't sit by the fire, you couldn't live
so close to the live flame of that compassion
you had to go out in the world and make it your own
so you could come back with
that flame in your voice, saying listen...
this warmth, this unbearable light, this fearful love...
It is all here, it is all here."

~ David Whyte

"The Prophet: On Good and Evil "

"The Prophet: On Good and Evil"

 "Of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil.
For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst?
Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves,
and when it thirsts it drinks even of dead waters.

You are good when you are one with yourself.
Yet when you are not one with yourself you are not evil.
For a divided house is not a den of thieves; it is only a divided house.
And a ship without rudder may wander aimlessly among
perilous isles yet sink not to the bottom.

You are good when you strive to give of yourself.
Yet you are not evil when you seek gain for yourself.
For when you strive for gain you are but a root
that clings to the earth and sucks at her breast.
Surely the fruit cannot say to the root,
 Be like me, ripe and full and ever giving of your abundance.
For to the fruit giving is a need, as receiving is a need to the root.

You are good when you are fully awake in your speech,
Yet you are not evil when you sleep
while your tongue staggers without purpose.
And even stumbling speech may strengthen a weak tongue.

You are good when you walk to your goal firmly and with bold steps.
Yet you are not evil when you go thither limping.
Even those who limp go not backward.
But you who are strong and swift,
see that you do not limp before the lame, deeming it kindness.

You are good in countless ways,
and you are not evil when you are not good,
You are only loitering and sluggard.
Pity that the stags cannot teach swiftness to the turtles.

In your longing for your giant self lies your goodness:
and that longing is in all of you.
But in some of you that longing is a torrent rushing with might to the sea,
carrying the secrets of the hillsides and the songs of the forest.
And in others it is a flat stream that loses itself in angles and
bends and lingers before it reaches the shore.
But let not him who longs much say to him who longs little,
 Wherefore are you slow and halting?
For the truly good ask not the naked,
 Where is your garment?
nor the houseless, What has befallen your house?"

- Kahlil Gibran
Freely download a PDF version of  "The Prophet" here:

"Robinson Jeffers on Moral Beauty, the Interconnectedness of the Universe, and the Key to Peace of Mind"

"Robinson Jeffers on Moral Beauty, the Interconnectedness
 of the Universe, and the Key to Peace of Mind"
by Maria Popova

“Happy people die whole,” Robinson Jeffers (January 10, 1887–January 20, 1962) wrote in one of his poems. “Integrity is wholeness,” he wrote in another. For Jeffers, whose verses became revered hymns of the environmental movement as Rachel Carson was making ecology a household word, this meant wholeness not only within oneself but also wholeness with the rest of the natural world, with the integrity of the universe itself - an ethos consonant with his contemporary John Muir’s insistence that “when we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” Jeffers coined the term inhumanism to describe the perilous counterpoint to this awareness. Humanity, he worried, had become too solipsistic, too divorced from the rest of nature, too blind to the “astonishing beauty of things” - beauty the protection of and participation in which is both our natural inheritance and our civilizational responsibility.

Although Jeffers’s ideas moved and influenced generations of readers, writers, artists, activists, and even policymakers - from Ansel Adams and Edward Weston to Bill McKibben and Terry Tempest Williams - he never formally articulated his spiritual credo outside of verse. Never, except once.

In the autumn of 1934, Jeffers received a letter from Sister Mary James Power - a principal and teacher at a girls’ Catholic high school in Massachusetts. A lifelong lover of poetry, Power had endeavored to edit an anthology of prominent poets’ reflections on the spiritual dimensions of their art and their creative motive force. She invited Jeffers to contribute, asking about his “religious attitudes.” His response, originally published in Powers’s 1938 book "Poets at Prayer" and later included in "The Wild God of the World: An Anthology of Robinson Jeffers" (public library), is one of the most beautiful and succinct articulations of a holistic, humanistic moral philosophy ever committed to words — some of the wisest words to live and think and feel by.

Jeffers writes: :It is a sort of tradition in this country not to talk about religion for fear of offending - I am still a little subject to the tradition, and rather dislike stating my “attitudes” except in the course of a poem. However, they are simple. I believe that the universe is one being, all its parts are different expressions of the same energy, and they are all in communication with each other, influencing each other, therefore parts of one organic whole. (This is physics, I believe, as well as religion.)"

Writing in the same era in which Carson revolutionized our understanding of the natural world and our place in it with her lyrical writings about the sea, observing that “against this cosmic background the lifespan of a particular plant or animal appears, not as drama complete in itself, but only as a brief interlude in a panorama of endless change,” Jeffers adds:

"The parts change and pass, or die, people and races and rocks and stars, none of them seems to me important in itself, but only the whole. This whole is in all its parts so beautiful, and is felt by me to be so intensely in earnest, that I am compelled to love it, and to think of it as divine. It seems to me that this whole alone is worthy of the deeper sort of love; and that here is peace, freedom, I might say a kind of salvation."

But this “salvation,” Jeffers observes in a sensitive caveat, is not something that happens to us, passively - it is something that happens in us, through our active participation in life, through the choices we make during the brief interlude of our existence as animate beings in an animate universe. Wholeness itself is a participatory act - both a faculty of being and a function of becoming, to be mastered and refined in the course of living. (I too have wondered how, in this blink of existence bookended by nothingness, we attain completeness of being.) Jeffers writes:

"I think that one may contribute (ever so slightly) to the beauty of things by making one’s own life and environment beautiful, so far as one’s power reaches. This includes moral beauty, one of the qualities of humanity, though it seems not to appear elsewhere in the universe. But I would have each person realize that his contribution is not important, its success not really a matter for exultation nor its failure for mourning; the beauty of things is sufficient without him."

Complement this fragment of the wholly ravishing "Wild God of the World" with poet and philosopher Parker Palmer, a modern-day Jeffers of a kind, on the elusive art of inner wholeness, neurologist Oliver Sacks on beauty as a lens on the interconnectedness of the universe, evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis on the spirituality of science and the interconnectedness of life."

Greg Hunter, "Will Nuke False Flag Keep Trump Out of Office?"

"Will Nuke False Flag Keep Trump Out of Office?"
by Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com

"Renowned radio host, filmmaker, book author and archeological dig expert Steve Quayle is telling the public to brace themselves for the evil deeds that will be done to try to keep President Elect Donald Trump from taking office. This includes a false flag nuke that will be blamed on Russia. One side of government is trying to nuke America, and another side of government is trying to stop it. This is what some say all the drone traffic is about. Quayle explains, “A false flag is when you initiate an illegal act. In this case, we are talking about the detonation of not only ‘dirty bombs’ but also nuclear warheads. The rumors are there are active nuclear warheads. They that hate Trump and want to literally destroy this country to save the majority of the Democrats and Republicans that appear to have an affinity for China. That came out in the Australian News about how many US politicians are on the China payroll.”

Lots of crime and treason have been going on in Washington D.C., and it only got worse in the Biden Administration. The so-called Swamp is scared. Quayle says, “They are scared because of the revelation that President Elect Trump is sending public signals that he’s going to clean house. The bottom line answer is if you have sold out to the Chinese. Our government was in collusion with the Chinese. We funded (CV19) gain of function experiments that resulted in the deaths of people who were vaccinated and participated in the knowing and willing destruction of American citizens. A top Communist Chinese Party member said with our bioweapon, we defeated the United States. They are afraid because they know what they are guilty of. President Trump has the goods on them - there is evidence.”

Quayle says there is another government group who is working to stop any false flag. Quayle contends, “They are going to use everything in their bag of evil tricks, including false flag nuclear detonations. The Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST) are good guys, and they are working tirelessly. They really want to stop this nuclear false flag,”

These people who are against Trump are both desperate and evil. Quayle says, “They will do anything, including detonation of nuclear warheads in the US to stop Donald Trump. These are soulless creatures. Their sole purpose is to destroy mankind. There is only one reason to provoke a nuclear war with Russia, and that is they don’t want Trump in office. They are Luciferian, and they want a mass sacrifice of 250 million Americans.”

In closing, Quayle says to be on the lookout for the big lie coming in the future. Quayle says, “The big lie is aliens created us, and there is no God...”There is more in the 50-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter on Rumble as he goes one-on-one with 
Steve Quayle who talks about evil demons that will try 
a nuclear false flag detonation to stop Donald Trump from taking office.

The Daily "Near You?"

Mukwonago, Wisconsin, USA. Thanks for stopping by!

"Point Of No Return..."

”There is a point of no return, unremarked at the time, in most lives.”
- Graham Greene
“When swimming into a dark tunnel, there arrives a point of no return when
 you no longer have enough breath to double back. Your only choice
 is to swim forward into the unknown… and pray for an exit.” 
- Dan Brown
“And it was pointless… to think how those years could have been put to better use, for he could hardly have put them to worse. There was no recovering them now. You could grieve endlessly for the loss of time and for the damage done therein. For the dead, and for your own lost self. But what the wisdom of the ages says is that we do well not to grieve on and on. And those old ones knew a thing or two and had some truth to tell… for you can grieve your heart out and in the end you are still where you were. All your grief hasn’t changed a thing. What you have lost will not be returned to you. It will always be lost. You’re left with only your scars to mark the void. All you can choose to do is to go on or not. But if you go on, it’s knowing you carry your scars with you.” - Charles Frazier
“Never be ashamed of a scar.
It simply means you were stronger than whatever tried to hurt you.”
- Unknown

"Truth, Beauty and the Unseen Craftsperson"

"Truth, Beauty and the Unseen Craftsperson"
I think of Bill whenever the breeze brings his chimes to life.
by Charles Hugh Smith

"Today I want to honor Bill Murath, a friend and fellow craftsperson who recently passed away from AML. (Acute myeloid leukemia). Like the vast majority of those I have come to know through countless emails, Bill and I never met in the physical world, but we bonded in the realms of spirit and craft. Bill was a unique spirit and gifted craftsperson.

Bill was a father, husband, business owner and musician, and in his younger days, a surfer who lived on the North Shore of Oahu and worked in a pizza shop to fund his surfing. I know the North Shore well and when I see a photo of him on his board, in my mind's eye I am swimming beside him.

Bill and I go way back. When he read my post "When an Old Friend Takes Her Own Life" (December 1, 2007), he responded by making two wind chimes of craft and beauty, which he mailed to me in remembrance of my dear friend. That Bill understood my loss and responded by investing his time, skill and artistry in making a gift that continues to enrich my life every day - how can I express my gratitude? I asked what I could do for him in return, he shrugged. It was a gift. When I asked him to explain how he designed the length of each chime to achieve the various tones, his explanation went over my head.

I've learned to avoid discussing beauty in my public posts because it inevitably draws the ire of those anxious to accuse me of elitism, as the mainstays of American culture are "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," i.e. entirely subjective; "only elites can afford beauty," i.e. fine art / costly objets d'art that serve as signifiers of wealth and status, and "aesthetic sensibility is snobbery," so to recognize beauty is verboten. This is a misunderstanding of the meaning of craft, which is an expression of truth and beauty that is not subject to fads or opinion.

I too am a craftsperson, but of a different sort than artists like Bill. My craft is purposefully unseen, invisible, as my skill is in doing work that goes unnoticed because it blends in with what is already there.

Bill understood the Tao of craft. If you read Zhuang Zhou (Chuang Tzu in a previous era), you'll find stories of butchers whose blade never dulls because they never hit bone, and masters who catch birds with sticks. These stories reflect that the Tao flows as skills mastered by years of discipline and effort, as the result of experience with unique situations with uncertain solutions - precisely what is beyond the reach of machines and AI, despite overblown claims to the contrary. Though our culture claims to glorify beauty, it actually glorifies ugliness. This is why it's so verboten to even discuss beauty, for that would inevitably lead to a recognition of the sea of ugliness.

To those imbued with the Tao of craft, there is immutable truth in the materials we work with. This truth is not subjective; we feel it as our second nature. The same holds for beauty: if the work is done right, it has beauty on multiple levels that is not a matter of opinion. This immutability is offensive to those who claim equal rights to "decide what's true and beautiful." The craftsperson knows from long experience, in a way the opinionated non-master-craftsperson cannot.

A machine can mix pie crust dough, and the result is low quality because there is a craft mastery to a truly wonderful pie crust. The master baker knows just how much water to add by the feel of the dough, which is partly based on the humidity and temperature of the environment. The feeling of rightness cannot be measured by instruments or taught online; it must be acquired by long experience of trial and error in unique circumstances with uncertain solutions and outcomes, what author Donald Schon called "reflection in action."

This training is never complete, of course, but the practitioner reaches a point of natural confidence that the ignorant mistake for pride or superiority. The practitioners sense the truth of the materials and the path to beauty.

My own experiences this year illustrate the point. I replaced several delaminating interior doors in a 50-year old house. I had to trim the doors to fit the opening, drill a hole for the existing lockset, and so on. The tricky part wasn't the carpentry, it was the finish. The existing doors had been "blonded," a process of rubbing white paint over the veneer and quickly wiping it off. The same technique had been applied to the tongue-and-groove redwood wall boards.

The technique looks easy, and it is, unless you're seeking to match an existing set of doors that have aged with time. Then the trick is to know how long to let the paint soak in and when to wipe the excess off so it looks like the older doors. If you wait too long, the paint dries and the finish is uneven. If you wipe it off too soon, then it's visibly lighter than the older doors. The goal is to replace the doors in such a way that casual observers don't see the new doors as replacements.

In the same house, an old pipe had been removed long ago in the bathroom and the hole had been filled with an ugly wood plug. There is no way anyone could claim this plug was anything but ugly. So I used a couple of tricks and mixed up several shades of paint to match the existing linoleum flooring. The casual observer won't see it.

A spot of dry rot on an exterior window frame turned out to be a fist-sized sponge of rotted wood that included some of the siding, frame, sill and trim. A robot would have opted for the "obvious" solution which was replacing the entire window frame, window and siding--a job that would cost a lot of money. I knew this was unnecessary and so I set the blade depth of our wormdrive Skilsaw and free-handed a surgery which I completed with a hammer and chisel.

Firing up a Skilsaw to free-hand cut away parts of the window sill, frame, trim and siding of a single-wall house demands a certain level of experience, as each such job is unique. It's not a factory environment. The saw weighs 13 pounds, it's threatening to rain so there's a pressing time element, the ground is uneven and the tool is inherently dangerous. A YouTube video isn't going to give you the skill that only experience provides. It boils down to the feel you have for the blade and the wood.

This is the craft. It becomes part of you, a second nature called up as needed, for your hands do the work "all by themselves," without conscious guidance. Your mind isn't wandering, it's observant, but no more than that. You let the work get done by staying out of its way.

Again, the truth is in the materials: you sense the density and soundness of the wood by the feel of the chisel. The beauty is in the invisibility of the repair, which required fashioning three small complex multi-cut pieces of new wood with a chisel and a hacksaw, as the blade is finer than our handsaw.

I think of Bill whenever the breeze brings his chimes to life. My craft is not up to his, but given my 50 years of experience, I can recognize and honor his achievement, and admire the truth and beauty of his craft and life. I miss you, Bill.

Here are photos of his chimes, and a brief recording of one. One holds court in a corner of our kitchen, where it catches the tradewind breezes from the dining nook windows. It is a musical "kitchen god" for those familiar with Chinese traditions.


The other holds court in our living room, where it comes to life in the tradewinds wafting through the windows overlooking our yard. That it shares the space with our very old embroidered dragon seems appropriate.

This book helps us understand Bill's level of craft. "The Unknown Craftsman: A Japanese Insight into Beauty" (1972)

"How Humanity Discovered We’re All Made Of “Star Stuff'”

"How Humanity Discovered 
We’re All Made Of “Star Stuff'”
by Big Think

"If you zoom out on the question, “Where do you come from?”, you might point to your ancestors who lived centuries ago. Zooming out further, you could look back on the evolution of Homo sapiens in Africa some 300,000 years ago, or the first vertebrates to crawl out of the ocean 370 million years ago, or life first forming on Earth several billion years before that.

But if you really take the long view, you’ll see that humanity’s story was already taking shape before our planet existed. “All of the rocky and metallic material we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interior of a red giant star,” the astronomer Carl Sagan wrote in 1973. “We are made of star-stuff.” Sagan was far from the first person to note our cosmic lineage, however. This week, we dive into centuries of history to trace how scientists discovered that we are, in a very real sense, the children of ancient stars.

Each one of us - in a very physical and physiological way - is 13.8 billion years old. This is the age of the Universe. It took our cosmos this long to forge the elements and build up the cumulative complexity that makes us what we are. It took the Universe 13.8 billion years to create creatures capable of realizing they are the result of an agglomeration this lengthy.

This is another way of understanding one of Carl Sagan’s most famous sayings. In 1973, Sagan memorably declared we “are made of star stuff.” By this, he meant that the matter within our bodies is the byproduct of deceased stars. We, quite literally, are ancient stardust.

But people haven’t always appreciated this. Far from it. What’s more, Sagan was far from the first to claim we are forged of “star stuff.” The debate - about whether our bodies are comprised of the same ingredients as suns - has raged for centuries. This is the story of how we figured out we are descended from the chemical cauldrons that are suns, and how this transformed our sense of who and what we are.

A seismic shift in worldview: As far back as the early 1500s, the pioneering Swiss alchemist Paracelsus was confidently stating our bodies “are not derived from the heavenly bodies.” The stars “have nothing to do” with us, he stressed: their material bequeaths no “property” nor “essence” to us. Going even further, Paracelsus declared that, even if there “had never been” any stars, humans would have been born - and would continue being born - without noticing any significant difference. He acknowledged we, of course, need our Sun, for warmth and light. But “beyond that,” the distant stars “are neither part of us nor we of them.”

Paracelsus was not alone in this. The dominant view, tracing back to Aristotle, had long assumed that the Earth and other celestial bodies weren’t just separated by a chasm in space, but by distinctions in all other qualities too. The terrestrial and heavenly realms were thought of as separate spheres of existence - governed by entirely different laws and constituted from different materials.

But in the decades after Paracelsus passed away in 1541, a revolution began, merging these two domains by proving the heavenly and Earthly were governed by the same rules. This was thanks to Galileo, his telescope, and the founding of the modern scientific method. As Francis Bacon summed up in 1612, the “separation supposed betwixt” the celestial and the terrestrial had been proved “a fiction.” The forces shaping things down here, Bacon stressed, are the same as those driving orbits up there.

This was a seismic shift in worldview, the proportions of which are hard for us to appreciate today. Throughout the 1600s, ponderers like René Descartes began announcing it means we can conclude the “matter of the heavens and of the earth is one and the same.” But even though the following century saw the building of ever-bigger telescopes - to better spy on distant stars - there still remained no way of conclusively confirming this fact. For all anyone knew, the heavens could be made of elements completely alien to those found on Earth.

As the 1800s opened, the stars still seemed distant and unfamiliar enough that the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel could dispassionately compare them to a “rash” besmirching the night sky. Similarly dismissive, the influential French polymath Auguste Comte asserted in 1835 that our species would never ascertain the elemental ingredients of suns. He boasted that not even the “remotest” posterity will unlock knowledge about the bodily properties of objects beyond our Solar System.

“We must keep carefully apart the idea of the Solar System and that of the Universe,” Comte continued curmudgeonly, “and be always assured that our only true interest is in the former.” For Comte, this proved no tragedy or privation. “If knowledge of the starry heavens is forbidden,” he explained, “it is no real consequence to us.”

Inventor of words like “sociology” and “altruism,” otherwise impressively prescient, Comte was being overconfident. It’s no understatement to say this was - and remains - one of the worst-ever predictions about the future of human inquiry.

In 1859, just two years after Comte died, the field of spectroscopy was founded by Gustav Robert Kirchoff and Robert Bunsen. Using analysis of light emitted and absorbed by objects to ascertain their chemical constitution, their method eventually proved the stars are made of the same elements we find laced throughout mundane matter on Earth. This was thanks to work conducted by Margaret and William Huggins from their private observatory in South London. They proved Paracelsus wrong, and Comte along with him.

In ensuing decades, scientists began announcing that “the whole visible Universe” - from our “central star” to the outermost “nebulae” - had been “reached by our chemistry, seized by our analysis, and made to furnish the proof that all matter is one.” Ninety-one years before Sagan said the same thing, in August 1882, the French spectroscopist Jules Janssen made the claim: “these stars are made of the same stuff as we.”

People found comfort in this. During a 1918 speech, the Canadian poet and physician Albert D. Watson declared that, thanks to the spectroscope, “loftier qualities of our being” were being revealed - hitherto invisible to us. “We are made of universal and divine ingredients,” Watson explained.

He saw this as salutary: It means we should start acting accordingly, to live up to the station implied by our “ingredients.” If we are made of “universal” elements, so too should our “conduct, ambitions, and aspirations” assume an identical scope. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust may still apply, but at least each passing life is a corpuscle made from the same ash as stars.

Others felt similarly. In 1923, the Harvard astronomer Harlow Shapley mused that “man, beast, rock, and star” are all part of the same corporeal family. Astronomy’s “recent” breakthroughs, he explained, have confirmed “the uniformity of all chemical composition.” “We would ask for no higher immortality,” Shapley concluded, than to be “made of the same undying stuff as the rest of creation.”

Shapley reiterated the same message, six years later, in an interview making the cover of The New York Times. It was accompanied by a striking illustration, depicting a human figure against a backdrop of spiral galaxies and streaking comets. The title read: “The Star Stuff That Is Man.” In terms of bodily makeup, we seemed siblings to the stars.
It’s telling Shapley used words like “undying” and “immortality.” It was, at this time, still an open question as to whether the Universe itself was eternal. The evidence had not yet been gathered to decide conclusively either way. Assuming the cosmos was eternal, as most scientists back then did, it was also possible to hold that life itself had also never begun: that living things simply have always existed and forever will, circulating like dust motes in an undying cosmic swirl.

But then, as the century wore on, evidence began accumulating indicating the Universe itself - and therefore, also, matter as a whole - had a hot beginning. Scientists also began remarking that, if this is true, there must have been a time when life also - cosmically speaking - could not have existed, anywhere.

Through the 1940s, the Russian polymath George Gamow developed theories explaining how the most abundant and lightest elements - hydrogen and helium - had been forged in the Universe’s fiery, explosive beginning. But our bodies are comprised of heavier, more complicated elements than these: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, sulphur.

It fell to the intransigent English astronomer Fred Hoyle to expose - through the 1940s and 1950s - how the heavier elements of our living world had all been cooked within dying stars: by fusing simpler nuclei into more complicated arrangements, before puffing them out into space via the solar death rattle that is a supernova explosion.

In this way, the evolutionary ancestry of all matter had been revealed. Hoyle unveiled the processes through which heavier elements are built up from the lightest, by the systole and diastole of dying stars. He also, through this, revealed our umbilical link to some of the most powerful energetic events in the cosmos.

The children of stars: We aren’t siblings of stars, it turned out. Given we are made from elements originally forged within senile suns, it is truer to say we are their children. This is our genetic link to the Universe: our shared cosmic heritage, the ancient atomic alchemy of the cosmos.

Adding a Shakespearean spin to the motif, the journalist George W. Gray - whilst reflecting on Hoyle’s revelations - mused that “we are such stuff as stars are made of.” “The sense of kinship of life stuff with star stuff is inescapable,” Gray continued, and it touches “physicists” as much as “sentimental laymen.”

From here, the motif became common parlance for popular science. Just a few years prior to Sagan, the German writer Hoimar von Ditfurth repeated the phrase in his 1970 book "Children of the Universe." The cosmos, Ditfurth reflected, “used an entire Milky Way, with its hundreds of billions of suns in order to create the commonplace objects that surround us.” Continuing, Ditfurth marveled: “if certain vast cosmic events had not taken place, nothing in our everyday world would now exist.” This is why, in a very literal sense, each one of us is roughly 13.8 billion years old.

Each of us isn’t just a product of events in our early childhoods, which continue shaping the way we are today. The same link - of the present to the past  - applies just as much to events, interlinked, leading all the way back to the Big Bang. Had they not happened, or happened differently, we wouldn’t be here to ponder today.

Across the ages, one of the eldest assumptions has been that the basic building blocks of our world are sealed away from time. That is, that while the things built from matter, from mountains to monkeys, have ancestries and biographies - in the sense they are born, develop, and decay - atoms themselves don’t suffer such inconveniences. The elements were assumed eternal: not subject to change.

One of the deepest, most surprising, revelations of modern science - uncovered thanks to our probing into things at the largest and smallest scales - has been that matter itself has its biography. That is, the elements have a family history, where what’s simpler sometimes becomes the parent of things more complex. The truth of common descent stretches far beyond biology. When Sagan pronounced that “we are made of star stuff,” he was contributing his bit to this centuries-long effort: representing our cumulative, collective fight to figure out our place in this cosmos and our relationship to it. It turns out this relationship is parental, in the most profound sense. Our very atoms betray the birthmarks of our amniotic link to this aging, explosive Universe."

Ever wonder why there's always "A Look to the Heavens" post?
Home...  ;-)

"How It Really Is"

MORALS? This is 'Murica, fool! "Morals? We ain't got no morals. 
We don't need no morals. I don't have to show you any stinking morals!"

Concept gleefully stolen from here:

"Every Normal Man..."

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
 - H. L. Mencken
“Platitudes are safe, because they're easy to wink at, but truth is something else again.”

“A man who has blown all his options can't afford the luxury of changing his ways. He has to capitalize on whatever he has left, and he can't afford to admit - no matter how often he's reminded of it - that every day of his life takes him farther and farther down a blind alley. Very few toads in this world are Prince Charmings in disguise. Most are simply toads... and they are going to stay that way. Toads don't make laws or change any basic structures, but one or two rooty insights can work powerful changes in the way they get through life. A toad who believes he got a raw deal before he even knew who was dealing will usually be sympathetic to the mean, vindictive ignorance that colors the Hell's Angels' view of humanity. There is not much mental distance between a feeling of having been screwed and the ethic of total retaliation, or at least the random revenge that comes with outraging the public decency.”

“A man has to BE something; he has to matter.”
- Hunter S. Thompson

Dan, I Allegedly, "The Bill Is Coming Due"

Full screen recommended.
Dan, I Allegedly, AM 12/19/24
"The Bill Is Coming Due"

"The bill is coming due, and it's time to pay up. I've got insider info on the massive wave of foreclosures hitting both residential and commercial real estate. You won't believe what my friends in the foreclosure business told me over dinner! Hot Tip: Find out if your landlord is paying their bills before it's too late!
Learn about:
• The shocking drop in multifamily housing starts.
• Elizabeth Warren's scathing letter to Trump.
• Elon Musk's net worth doubling since the election.
• AT&T and Amazon's return-to-office drama."
Comments here:

“Nine Meals from Anarchy”

Nine Meals from Anarchy
by Jeff Thomas

“In 1906, Alfred Henry Lewis stated, “There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy.” Since then, his observation has been echoed by people as disparate as Robert Heinlein and Leon Trotsky. The key here is that, unlike all other commodities, food is the one essential that cannot be postponed. If there were a shortage of, say, shoes, we could make do for months or even years. A shortage of gasoline would be worse, but we could survive it, through mass transport, or even walking, if necessary.

But food is different. If there were an interruption in the supply of food, fear would set in immediately. And, if the resumption of the food supply were uncertain, the fear would become pronounced. After only nine missed meals, it’s not unlikely that we’d panic and be prepared to commit a crime to acquire food. If we were to see our neighbor with a loaf of bread, and we owned a gun, we might well say, “I’m sorry, you’re a good neighbor and we’ve been friends for years, but my children haven’t eaten today – I have to have that bread – even if I have to shoot you.”

So, let’s have a closer look at the actual food distribution industry, compare it to the present direction of the economy and see whether there might be reason for concern.

The food industry typically operates on very small margins – often below 2%. Traditionally wholesalers and retailers have relied on a two-week turnaround of supply and anywhere up to a 30-day payment plan. But an increasing tightening of the economic system for the last eight years has resulted in a turnaround time of just three days for both supply and payment for many in the industry. This is a system that’s already under sever pressure, and has no further wiggle room should it take significant further hits.

If there were a month where significant inflation took place (say, 3%), all profits would be lost for the month, for both suppliers and retailers, but goods could still be replaced and sold for a higher price next month. But, if there were three or more consecutive months of inflation, the industry would be unable to bridge the gap, even if better conditions were expected to develop in future months. A failure to pay in full for several months would mean smaller orders by those who could not pay. That would mean fewer goods on the shelves. The longer the inflationary trend continued, the more quickly prices would rise to hopefully offset the inflation. And ever-fewer items on the shelves.

From Germany in 1922, to Argentina in 2000, to Venezuela in 2016, this has been the pattern, whenever inflation has become systemic, rather than sporadic. Each month, some stores close, beginning with those that are the most poorly-capitalized. In good economic times, this would mean more business for those stores that were still solvent, but, in an inflationary situation, they would be in no position to take on more unprofitable business. The result is that the volume of food on offer at retailers would decrease at a pace with the severity of the inflation.

However, the demand for food would not decrease by a single loaf of bread. Store closings would be felt most immediately in inner cities, when one closing would send customers to the next neighborhood, seeking food. The real danger would come when that store had also closed and both neighborhoods descended on a third store in yet another neighborhood. That’s when one loaf of bread for every three potential purchasers would become worth killing over. Virtually no one would long tolerate seeing his children go without food because others had “invaded” his local supermarket.

In addition to retailers, the entire industry would be impacted and, as retailers disappeared, so would suppliers, and so on, up the food chain. This would not occur in an orderly fashion, or in one specific area. The problem would be a national one. Closures would be all over the map, seemingly at random, affecting all areas. Food riots would take place, first in the inner cities, then spread to other communities. Buyers, fearful of shortages, would clean out the shelves.

Importantly, it’s the very unpredictability of food delivery that increases fear, creating panic and violence. And, again, none of the above is speculation; it’s an historical pattern – a reaction based upon human nature whenever systemic inflation occurs.

Then… unfortunately… the cavalry arrives. At that point it would be very likely that the central government would step in and issue controls to the food industry that served political needs, rather than business needs, greatly exacerbating the problem. Suppliers would be ordered to deliver to those neighborhoods where the riots were the worst, even if those retailers were unable to pay. This would increase the number of closings of suppliers. Along the way, truckers would begin to refuse to enter troubled neighborhoods and the military might well be brought in to force deliveries to take place.

So what would it take for the above to occur? Well, historically, it has always begun with excessive debt. We know that the debt level is now the highest it has ever been in world history. In addition, the stock and bond markets are in bubbles of historic proportions. They are most certainly popping.

With a crash in the markets, deflation always follows, as people try to unload assets to cover for their losses. The Federal Reserve (and other central banks) has stated that it will unquestionably print as much money as it takes to counter deflation. Unfortunately, inflation has a far greater effect on the price of commodities than assets. Therefore, the prices of commodities will rise dramatically, further squeezing the purchasing power of the consumer, thereby decreasing the likelihood that he will buy assets, even if they’re bargain-priced. Therefore, asset-holders will drop their prices repeatedly, as they become more desperate. The Fed then prints more to counter the deeper deflation and we enter a period when deflation and inflation are increasing concurrently.

Historically, when this point has been reached, no government has ever done the right thing. They have, instead, done the very opposite – keep printing. Food still exists, but retailers shut down because they cannot pay for goods. Suppliers shut down because they’re not receiving payments from retailers. Producers cut production because sales are plummeting.

In every country that has passed through such a period, the government has eventually gotten out of the way, and the free market has prevailed, re-energizing the industry and creating a return to normal. The question is not whether civilization will come to an end. (It will not.) The question is the liveability of a society that is experiencing a food crisis, as even the best of people are likely to panic and become a potential threat to anyone who is known to store a case of soup in his cellar.

Fear of starvation is fundamentally different from other fears of shortages. Even good people panic. In such times, it’s advantageous to be living in a rural setting, as far from the centre of panic as possible. It’s also advantageous to store food in advance that will last for several months, if necessary. However, even these measures are no guarantee, as, today, modern highways and efficient cars make it easy for anyone to travel quickly to where the goods are. The ideal is to be prepared to sit out the crisis in a country that will be less likely to be impacted by dramatic inflation – where the likelihood of a food crisis is low and basic safety is more assured.”
If they act like this over a TV what happens when there's no food?