The proud time to be American and British, I can just imagine the feeling.
There are some great photos on The Guardian.
✲✲✲
“US soldiers hug a woman in Piccadilly Circus, London, as they celebrate Germany’s surrender on 7 May 1945”
✲✲✲
“Crowds pack Times Square in New York on 7 May 1945 to celebrate the news of Germany’s unconditional surrender”
I like Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter.
He died today (15th December) 13 years ago - 2011.
I found this excellent talk he gave in Canada on free speech.
He didn’t live long enough to deal with cancel culture, online censorship (The Spectator), and (in England) the rise of “Non-Crime Hate Incidents” involving something like questioning an identity which the police determine is motivated by hate as a quasi crime.
Earlier today, I went to Hyde Park to attend a beautiful, weighty and moving memorial event dedicated to the memory of the victims of the savagery and evil of October 7.
I was so inspired by the faith, courage, persistence, and the love for the Jews and Israelis.
Many of the speakers touched my heart. We were joined by the released hostage Ada Sagi and her son Noam Sagi, the Holocaust survivor Mrs. Mala Tribich, and a few survivors of the Nova music festival.🥹.
So many people attended too — a reminder of the support and love for Israel.
Long live Israel! Am Yisrael Chai!
✲✲✲
Below a few photos:
Today is the 133th anniversary of the day Vincent van Gogh committed suicide.
In the year 1890, a few days after painting “Wheatfield With Crows” (above), Vincent van Gogh decides to go walking into that same field. Behind a haystack, he decides to shoots himself in the chest. Incredibly, van Gogh manages to struggle to return to his room at a nearby inn ... telling no-one of what he had done.
Only when the innkeeper discovers Van Gogh’s condition, he calls for Dr Gachet — Vincent’s physician and friend (see Van Gogh’s Portrait). Dr Gachet realises the extremity of Van Gogh’s condition and sends word to Vincent’s brother, Theo. Theo arrives the very next afternoon, and rushes to Vincent’s bedside. Vincent lived for two days after the gunshot wound. His brother Theo was able to talk with him. It’s worth noting that both Theo and Gachet believed he shot himself.
“The sadness will last forever,” Vincent tells his brother as death nears.
Vincent finally dies at 1.30am on 29th July 1890.
We can probably never truly understand the depths of his depression.
If only he knew, how much his paintings were to be loved and admired by so many people.
This photograph is the landing on Omaha beach.
It absolutely gripping and terrifying. And also mournful.
Those poor soldiers were sitting ducks in front of the landing crafts when the ramps dropped.
✲✲✲
Coast Guard historian Scott Price wrote a brief historical account of the photo in which he explains Sargent’s experience: (excerpted)
The photograph was captured by Coast Guard Chief Photographer’s Mate Robert F. Sargent, and entitled “Into the jaws of death.”
Sargent, a veteran of the invasions of Sicily and Salerno, took the photo from his landing craft at sector “Easy Red” of Omaha Beach around 7:40 a.m. local time.
The Coast Guard carried out another important mission — sending combat photographers and correspondents in with the troops. Thus, Sargent was at Normandy where he was able to capture the most famous invasion in modern history.
The Historian’s Office recently acquired a copy of the press release issued with the publication of Sargent’s photograph. Printed on brittle mimeograph paper, it has browned with age but is still legible. It was written by Coast Guard Combat Correspondent Thomas Winship who quotes Sargent extensively.
Original caption: “Into the Jaws of Death: Down the ramp of a Coast Guard landing barge Yankee soldiers storm toward the beach-sweeping fire of Nazi defenders in the D-Day invasion of the French coast. Troops ahead may be seen lying flat under the deadly machinegun resistance of the Germans. Soon the Nazis were driven back under the overwhelming invasion forces thrown in from Coast Guard and Navy amphibious craft.”
What those men went through — in that photo — that day was incredible.
I recently saw this interesting article in the paper. It lead me to discover the incredible story of a British spy during WWII of Indian/American provenance. The unveiling of this new portrait by Queen Camilla is a fitting tribute
Who is she?
She was living in London when she decided to help in the war effort in 1943. Khan - of Indian and American descent - served in the SOE (Special Operations Executive) which was set up by Winston Churchill in 1940. Operating as a spy in France, she managed to evaded capture for many months and sent vital information to the Allies. She was betrayed which resulted in her eventual arrest by the Gestapo. She escaped prison but was recaptured shortly afterwards. She was subjected to some of the most inhumane treatment by her captors. She refused to reveal - despite torture - anything to her captors, including her real name. She was sent to Dachau where, on the 13th of September 1944, she was executed.
I discovered a book about her life. The amazon site said this:
Noor was one of only three women SOE awarded the George Cross and, under torture, revealed nothing but her name - but not her real name, nor her code name, just the name she used to register at SOE: Nora Baker. Kept in solitary confinement, chained between hand and feet and unable to walk upright, Noor existed on bowls of soup made from potato peelings. Ten months after she was captured, she was taken to Dachau and, on 13 September 1944, she was shot. Her last word was 'Liberte'.
In 2022, Queen Elizabeth II died in her Platinum Jubilee year; aged 96. She was our longest-reigning monarch and dedicated her life to royal duty. There have been a few nice pieces in the press.
The portrait below was released by the King today of the late Queen. It's nice, but not the best I've seen.
✲✲✲
In defence of the Crown
I thought I'd write a little piece defending the Crown. A recent BBC poll suggested that the Crown is losing popularity among the younger generation in Britain. I'm a supporter of the constitutional settlement of 1689. But, I fear there is a serious disconnect with our history alongside a decline in social and political probities with a postmodernist decline in respect for institutions. So, I think my generation might be the last to have the Monarchy.
Our former Queen was the embodiment of what Walter Bagehot defined as the "dignified" part of the state (against the "efficient"). The Cabinet, Parliament and Prime Minister fall into the "efficient". To me, the Crown serve two important & subtle functions.
(1) Firstly, the Crown is the legitimation of power that is tied to the former Kings and Queens of England and, with it, our broader tradition and history. Constitutional monarchy gives stability. The continuous election of heads of state alters the focus of national identity. I think Presidential Republics, esp. like the United States, are the worse for it (though there are exceptions, perhaps Australia). America's political animosity and ill-will arises because it lacks an apolitical and neutral central figure of mutual respect that imbues the organs of state with a purpose and calling beyond the quotidian business of government. That is why the Crown is apolitical. Their purview extends beyond the contemporary and towards the distant future of our country. When a judge enters the court, all stand in a mark of respect. The Crown ties the whole state with the nation's dignity and history - via the sense of continuity. As Edmund Burke wrote:
People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors. Besides, the people of England well know that the idea of inheritance furnishes a sure principle of conservation and a sure principle of transmission, without at all excluding a principle of improvement.
We live in an age where there is such little respect for the offices of institutions, and a calling beyond ourselves. I was recently shocked to discover that George Catlett Marshall (who is regarded as the architect of the United States victory in WWII and served both Roosevelt and Truman administrations) completely refused to write a memoir of his time in office. The Crown stand for something quite different (exception = Harry & Markle). Today, MPs regularly appear on television shows and publish their memoirs. Despite being offered huge advances, Marshall felt publishing his autobiography would be an improper profiting from government service.
(2) Secondly, the Crown - as an institution - is the ultimate check-and-balance against dictatorships. The Crown brings that sense of respect, order and legitimacy that inherently opposes it. The Monarch lacks the power to rule, while the executive lacks the ceremonial standing and worth to command.
Well, those are my thoughts.
Have a lovely weekend.
When I was in school, I was enthralled by genetics (and even did a school-sponsored “advanced course” during my A-levels with the OU) and considered studying it as a degree. For me, Gregor Mendel is a true legend and a huge figure in the branch of genetics, within biology. The Austrian monk worked out the basic rules of inheritance well over a century ago by breeding pea plants that had sets of easily distinguishable characteristics.
But he remains largely unknown even today, whereas Darwin’s theory was accepted rather quickly in his day. At a meeting at the Brünn Natural History Society, Gregor Mendel read a paper about his findings. None of the forty-two present members probably thought it was noteworthy. Two years later, it was later published – in 1867 – as part of society’s reports. It was received by the Royal Society and the Linnean Society of London. It was only until 1900 that the three separate independent botanists specifically named Mendel by following in his footsteps.
The modern theory of evolution is a marriage in the ideas of Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin. Darwin’s theory concerned evolution through fossils and historical lineages (i.e., shared features between different animals etc.), whereas Mendel proved inheritance through genes (via breeding peas). It’s a shame that neither of these great titans ever met one another, and probably didn’t know of each other’s works.
In certain respects, Mendel was quite lucky. Residing in a monastery, he cultivated lots of peas and may have specifically picked pea as the selection of their traits presented clear dichotomies. Plants could be either tall or short (but not in between) and bear either green or yellow fruit (but not greeny-yellowy) and so on. However, as we now know, many traits – especially in humans – cannot be reduced to a single gene and are highly variable (thus, hard to measure). At any rate, he was able to extrapolate that even in crosses between greater varieties, the number of possible recombinations must be very large.
What makes Mendel so amazing is that the system he conceived of (Mendelian genetics) was an incredible feat of imagination and inspiration – and especially patience!
Nowadays, we take this point of fact for granted; but – pausing to think about it – it is an enormous conceptual jump in abstraction and ingenuity.
So, hat tip to you Gregor Mendel, our forgotten hero.
 |
| This is the front of the monastery where Gregor Mendel lived in the present day, the Augustinian order of St. Thomas’s Abbey Monastery in Brno. |