Petey Did it Too

Petey Did it Too 

By Patrick F. Cannon

As children, many of us were faced with parents who caught us in a lie or some other transgression. A common response might have been: “Petey did it too!” Whereupon, most parents would have responded: “Just because Petey did it doesn’t make it right.”

While you might not have looked at it that way at the time, it was an early moral lesson. Then, as now, we are responsible for our own moral choices. So are politicians who justify their behavior by mouthing their own version of “Petey did it too.” The concept is still the same: your immoral act is your own responsibility, regardless of what your opponent does or says.

We’ve all seen the political commercials that associate the opposing candidate with every (presumed) outrage of his or her political party, followed by the opponent’s statement, “I’m Joe Blow and I approve this message.” By doing so, Joe has committed an immoral act. Let me repeat that, so there is no misunderstanding: Joe Blow has committed an immoral act.

Then, of course, we have the commercials produced by the PACS (political action committees); they tend to be even worse. But rarely so horrible that the candidates they support actually disavow them. Typically, they simply say they aren’t responsible for them, and let it go at that. When was the last time you heard a candidate actually call a PAC out and tell them to stop? Please let me know. I’ll cherish the moment!

There is an extensive apparatus behind these negative ads. Over the years, a new profession has reared its ugly head, whose practitioners I would call political gunfighters. Instead of “have gun, will travel,” there motto is “anything to win.”  What they do is largely amoral. They go from election to election, from candidate to candidate. While most specialize in one party or another, quite a few are happy to work for anyone who pays them. Fact checkers don’t bother them, because they aren’t interested in facts, only impressions. They are creative liars, but liars nonetheless. Did I say “amoral?” Immoral is more accurate.

A good example is a recent ad that seeks to associate Illinois governor Bruce Rauner and, by extension, Illinois Republicans with Donald Trump, who Rauner has consistently refused to endorse. It uses a statement made by the governor during the primary season when there were still numerous Republican candidates. At the time, Rauner refused to endorse any of them, simply saying he would support the party’s nominee. His comment is repeated over and over in the ad, following a series of appalling remarks by Trump.

The ads, according to the PAC that prepared and paid for them, are meant to counter what they say are negative ads about House Speaker Michael Madigan by Rauner’s forces. You know, “Petey did it too.”

Faced with a political process that has become increasing immoral, what can we do? Frankly, with the way candidates are now chosen, very little. Let’s look at the way political parties choose their candidate. Whether it’s by primary, caucus or some other “democratic” method, the system encourages all and sundry to dream of becoming president. The political gunfighters are only too happy to encourage their dreams and take their money.

This year, at the end of a grueling and expensive process, the “democratic” process produced two candidates no one seems to like. Far better, it seems to me, if the process stayed within the state and national committees of the respective parties. It would eventually become clear which candidates had the best qualifications and most support, with the final decision left to the delegates at the national convention (who would not be bound to any particular candidate). With such a system, it’s hard to imagine that Trump or Clinton would have been the choices.

Keep in mind that the primary systems are not enshrined in the Constitution or any law. They are the construct of the party’s themselves. It’s time they admitted their mistake. If they did, it would remove vast sums of money from the process, much of which goes to the gunslingers and their accomplices. To be sure, it would cause a temporary spike in the unemployment rolls, but perhaps some of the savings could be set aside for a retraining program. I would suggest “How to Lead an Ethical Life” as a prerequisite.

#####

Copyright 2106, Patrick F. Cannon

 

 

 

 

Is it a Caddy, Daddy?

Is it a Caddy, Daddy? 

By Patrick F. Cannon

There was great jubilation at the University of Chicago recently when a work of art that many had feared might have been lost forever was returned to its rightful place on the University’s Hyde Park campus.

Titled “Concrete Traffic,” it was by the well known German modernist Wolf Vostell (1932-1998). Vostell was a leader in the early days of video art and in organizing the “happenings” that were such a feature of the art world in the 1960s and 1970s. In this case, he took a 1957 Cadillac Coupe Deville and encased it in concrete. Commissioned by the fledgling Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, it was finished in 1970 and parked in a nearby parking lot. It was there for some time and apparently accumulated numerous parking tickets. Who paid the tickets seems lost to history. As for me, I wondered how they were attached, since there were no windshield wipers. Perhaps the cops taped them on the concrete, artfully one hopes.

Anyway, the sculpture was eventually donated to the University of Chicago, where it graced the campus until moved into storage to make way for the construction of the Logan Center for the Arts. In storage it may have remained – slowly crumbling away – were it not for art historian Christine Mehring. She heard about it, and arranged a visit. What she found appalled her. Here was this great work of 20th Century art moldering away out of public view.  Hunks of concrete were actually missing, as if it were merely a public sidewalk or something!

It was a challenge, and one that Professor Mehring has heroically met. At a cost of some $500,000, “Concrete Traffic” has been restored and proudly placed in a stall of honor at the University’s main parking garage. You may wonder how it could have possibly cost that much to do a bit of concrete patching. Instead of going to Craig’s List for a local concrete guy, they sought out the experts who had restored the concrete at Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim Museum in Manhattan. While the niceties might be lost to the layman, there is a great difference between a concrete conservator and a concrete repairer. The former usually has a beard and charges more. I should mention that the only part of the Caddy that’s visible is its white wall tires. As you might expect, expert opinion was also sought on the proper tire pressure.

The result, according to Mehring, is a work from an “important transitional period from the happenings in the 1960s to the monumental sculptures and environments of the 1970s.”  Since Herr Vostel is no longer with us, his intended meaning is lost to us. Most people think it was an ironic comment on the wasteful consumer culture of America, typified by the land yachts that floated over the (concrete) superhighways that connected our car-mad cities, towns, villages and hamlets.

Europeans in the 1960s, burdened as they were by astronomical gas taxes, tended to drive around in cars like the VW Beetle and the iconic French classic, the Renault 2CV, which, I recall, had a suspension that consisted of husky rubber bands and tore down French roads at a breathtaking 50 miles per hour.

As it happens, I was in France in 1961-62, courtesy of the United States Army. In 1962, the Tour de France was going to pass through La Rochelle, where I was stationed. One day, my buddies and I were watching some of the preparations from a table at a harbor-front outdoor café. Imagine our surprise when a pink Cadillac convertible pulled up and parked in front of the café. Out came two couples, middle-aged and prosperous looking. The spotted us for Americans immediately and happily (for us) plied us with drink and food. They were Texans and, for a lark, were following the Tour around France.

While all this was going on, the Caddy was drawing a crowd. The looks on the French faces was not ironic disgust, but wonder and envy. The only place in France where one could then see a Cadillac was Paris, where they tended to be black and chauffer driven.

Alas, there aren’t too many Caddy convertibles of that vintage to be seen here any more. Those that survive are cherished; many are housed in museums. But, thanks to Professor Mehring and her colleagues, you can at least sense the existence of a 1957 Coupe Deville beneath the concrete at the University’s parking garage at 55th and Ellis. If you want to park near it, it will cost you four bucks an hour. But walk-ins are always free. At the cost of a little shoe leather, you can relive the ironic “happenings” of a bygone era. And wonder, as I have, how they’re going to change the tires when they inevitably collapse under the 34,000 pound weight of German irony.

#####

Copyright 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

 

Bring Your Pencil

Bring Your Pencil 

By Patrick F. Cannon

In last Sunday’s edition, the venerable Chicago Tribune, that bastion of conservative Republican values, couldn’t bring itself to endorse Donald Trump for President; nor could they find it in their hearts to once again endorse a Democrat, as they had done with Barack Obama. While recognizing her experience and undoubted intelligence, the Tribune editorial board found it impossible to overlook Hillary Clinton’s long history of secrecy and what to many seems like a persistent pattern of outright lying.

So they decided to endorse Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Now, Johnson – a two term governor of New Mexico – is now best known for not seeming to know what was going on in Aleppo, and for forgetting the name of the former president of Mexico. Frankly, off the top of my head I don’t know who he was either, but Johnson was a neighbor and I guess met him on occasion. His running mate is William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, who has also served as a US Attorney. Together, they have the executive government experience that both Trump and Clinton lack.

If they were the Republican candidates, I would not hesitate to vote for them. But, like many I’m sure, I have the nagging suspicion that voting for them would primarily help Trump, whose election would be a catastrophe for the country. For this reason, my wife Jeanette thinks the Tribune made a serious mistake in endorsing Johnson. Better, she thinks, not to have endorsed anyone.

She may be right. The last time there was a serious third-party candidate was 1992 when Ross Perot received almost 19 percent of the popular vote. Some folks at the time claimed that, absent Perot, George H.W. Bush would have beaten Bill Clinton. Actual analysis of Perot voters suggest that he took votes fairly equally from both and that Bush was going to lose anyway.

What would happen this time? Keep in mind that both Johnson and Weld were Republican governors, known for their fiscal restraint. Would disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters really vote for candidates that would likely tell them to stop whining and pay off their student loans? (A brief aside. When Calvin Coolidge was urged to forgive Great Britain’s World War I debt, he responded: “They hired the money, didn’t they?”) Or would they hold their noses and vote for Clinton, who has happily promised them a free ride (while knowing full well that Congress isn’t likely to go along).

So, my thought is that Republicans unhappy with Trump are more likely to vote for former Republicans Johnson and Weld than Hillary Clinton, thus making her chances better. Please keep in mind, however, that I’m the one who said Trump would never have enough support to get the nomination.

As for me, I plan to write in Lewis Black, who is younger than either candidate, and has a master’s degree from Yale into the bargain. So what if he’s a Socialist? He’s a funny Socialist! Also, he’s not married. Think about it.

#####

Copyright 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

Tattoo Mania

Tattoo Mania 

By Patrick F. Cannon

I think tattoos are uniformly unattractive (I was going to use a stronger word, but I’m trying to be reasonable here). Let me also stipulate that people I’m related to and have great affection for have them, although fairly discrete ones. I also readily admit that you can be a fine human being and still have a tattoo.

With these provisos out of the way, let me say that I have never seen a tattoo that improved anyone’s appearance. How does the old saying go: If God had wanted you to have a tattoo, you would have been born with one?  This leads me to explore the history of tattoos, to see if God fits in there somehow.

The first tattoo that we know about was found not too long ago, when intrepid Swiss mountaineers came upon a grizzly site as they traversed a melting glacier. What on initial appearance looked like a pile of old leather, turned out to be, on closer examination, human remains. Young Fritz was sent down the mountain to alert the proper authorities, while the others stood guard over the discovery. In due course, a helicopter from the Swiss Bureau of Mountain Cadaver Discoveries descended from the sky. Upon landing, a team emerged with a carbon fibre casket, into which they carefully placed the shriveled horror.

After a secrecy-shrouded period of extensive study, the Bureau announced to the world the discovery of a more or less intact body that was at least 20,000 years old, and whose relative preservation was likely due to being frozen in the glacier. How it could be 20,000 years old when many believe God had only created the heavens and earth some 8,000 years ago they were loathe to explain. They did speculate that the “Swiss Mountain Man,” as they called him, had been the victim of foul play, as he had a hole in his skull. Perhaps, they posited, he had been headed for warmer climes when he had been set upon by wandering brigands.

But the most stunning revelation was the discovery that he had what looked like a tattoo on his upper right arm. While somewhat faded, it appeared to be a heart pierced by an arrow. Below the heart were some symbols that may have been words of a forgotten language. Linguists are now toiling away trying to find the key that would unlock the ancient tongue, but so far no dice.

While there is no conclusive evidence, evaluation of bas reliefs at ancient ruins of Assyrian and Babylonian cities seem to show that some figures either have tattoos or are wearing Hawaiian shirts. And everyone knows that the Greeks were enthusiastic tattooists, since Homer wrote in the Iliad: “Brave Achilles, with ‘Mom’ proudly emblazoned on his manly pecs, hurled his lucky javelin at the cowering Trojans!”

When Rome came to power and subjugated the Greeks, tattooing was outlawed throughout the Empire. The guild of Greek tattooists had to go underground, but found a ready market for their talents in Egypt. While primitive tattoos were to be seen on early mummies, later mummies like the so-called “Sailor Pharaoh,” Wetses III, had quite sophisticated anchors on their biceps. Even these underground tattooists were victims of the Dark Ages that followed the Fall of the Roman Empire, but a few of the Greek tattooing families survived in the mountain fastness of the Pindus range.

In the meantime, so-called primitive peoples in the dark corners of places like the Amazon, New Guinea and the Outer Hebrides, continue to use tattoos to mollify their Gods and frighten their enemies. As they slowly become exposed to civilization, they do generally abandon tattooing in favor of Michael Jordon tee shirts.

Back to the Greeks. As the Dark Ages began to lighten up, they left their mountain hideouts and made their way to the world’s ports, where they once again began to ply their trade. There was no lack of drunken sailors, prime candidates for anchors and full-rigged sailing ships. After sobering up and reentering polite society, the former swabbies took to wearing long-sleeved shirts to hide their youthful indiscretions.

So, tattooing remained in the seedier back streets of the world’s ports of call until the now legendary Hellenic needle man, Aristotle Pennassis, changed his sign from “Tattoo Parlor” to “Body Artist.” This struck an immediate cord with rebellious youth, now as always on the lookout for ways to annoy their parents. Instead of a tattoo, they were now sporting “body art.” As with young people throughout the ages, they live only for the moment, not foreseeing that the bloom of youth will inevitably give way to the sagging wrinkles of age. And that today’s passion for Jessica may give way to tomorrow’s lust for Joe.

While I might not live long enough to see the coming horrors, it’s frightful to contemplate. Were I younger, I would put my money on the inevitable rise of tattoo removal technology. Someday, tattoos may be easier to remove than graffiti on the sides of railroad tank cars. But in the meantime, think twice before you mess with God’s handiwork (see, I did fit God in after all).

#####

Copyright 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

 

Rah, Rah, Rah, Sis, Boom, Bah!

Rah, Rah, Rah, Sis, Boom Bah! 

By Patrick F. Cannon

As an alum, I was pleased to see that Northwestern University was ranked #12 on the US News and World Report’s list of the country’s best universities. As a matter of interest, it was also ranked #25 on a list of the world’s top universities. While these rankings are gratifying, it should be noted that they reward universities that offer numerous graduate degree possibilities and carry out extensive research. It is well to remember, however, that there are many smaller schools of lower rank, particularly liberal arts colleges, which provide a comparable undergraduate degree. You may not have heard of them, since they don’t play sports as the highest level.

Northwestern does. It’s an FBS school. For the uninitiated, FBS stands for “Football Bowl Subdivision,” a designation of the NCAA for schools that belong to the conferences whose schools are eligible to play in NCAA recognized bowl games, including the one designated as the National Championship. Northwestern had a good year last year and was chosen to play in one of the lesser bowl games. Over the years, they have had a spotty record in this regard and, alas, have not gotten off to a promising start this year.

They are currently unranked among the top 25. The top ranked team, the “Crimson Tide” of the University of Alabama, is ranked #103 on the academic list. But Northwestern is at the top of another ranking – it graduates 97 percent of its football players, including 94 percent of its African-American players. Alabama’s African-American graduation rate is 56 percent. After Vanderbilt, it actually has the highest African-American graduation rate in the Southeastern Conference.  The worst is Arkansas with 31 percent!

The statistics that interest me most, however, are the ones that compare the percentage of African-American football and basketball players to the percentage of African-Americans in the student body as a whole. At Alabama, 4.5 percent of the student body are black men against 71.6 percent in the two sports. At Arkansas, 2.4 percent of the student body are black men, but 63 percent in the two sports.

The reasons for the relatively low graduation rates for black men are very complicated, too complicated for this space. But it is clear, however, that some FSB universities are perfectly willing to recruit talented athletes, knowing they are unlikely to graduate. They do this with the promise that their programs are the ones most likely to lead to high-paying careers in the NFL and NBA. These professional sports are true meritocracies, able to pick and choose the most talented prospects. What some FSB schools fail to tell recruits is that fewer than 2 percent of college athletes will every make it to the professional level, even though 68.7 percent of players in the NFL are black, and nearly 75 percent in the NBA.

What the dry statistics truly mean is that too many African-American athletes go home without an education, and without a career. It also means, to me, that if the universities with low graduation rates worried as much about education as they do about winning championships, those graduation rates would increase. Schools like Northwestern may not realistically aspire to the ultimate athletic prizes, but can take pride in having the highest graduation percentage of African-American athletes, even if it’s just slightly better than that somewhat more athletically successful school in far away South Bend, Indiana.

#####

Copyright 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

 

Numbers, Numbers, Numbers

Numbers, Numbers, Numbers 

By Patrick F. Cannon

I heard a radio report recently that claimed that 40 million children go to bed hungry every night in the United States. I’m not sure where they got this number. An admittedly quick check found another source that said that one million was the correct figure. But then I found another source that took a somewhat different approach: it said that 50 million people of all ages went to bed hungry and woke up hungry.

I’m not sure where the larger figures come from either, but I suspect it has some relationship to the number of people living below the poverty line. The latest statistics I could find put that number at 13.5 percent of the population in 2015, or roughly 42 million, down a full percentage point for the year. The percentage has fluctuated over the years, but the current rate is below the average since 1960. But like all the numbers I have quoted, it’s misleading.

In 1960, for example, the rate was nearly 20 percent in a period before President Johnson’s famous “War on Poverty” began to take effect. Now, even though the resulting programs are now quite extensive and have expanded regularly in both Republican and Democratic administrations, most are ignored when the government computes the poverty line.

According to Harvard University sociologist Christopher Jencks, who carefully studied this issue, the true poverty rate is 4.8 percent. Unlike the Federal government, he included the programs that were designed to raise low income families out of actual poverty. While it would take up too much space to list all of them, the more familiar include the Earned Income Tax Credit; housing subsidies; food assistance including food stamps and school meals; and Medicare and Medicaid and other healthcare assistance through the Affordable Care Act. When you add the numerous privately-funded programs, including food pantries, you can well believe the Kaiser Foundation’s study that concluded that parental neglect was the cause of most childhood hunger, not actual poverty.

As the national election nears, all of us need to be careful about taking on faith the numbers that the candidates throw at us. I have mentioned before in this space that Mr. Trump continues to try to convince the electorate that the country is gripped in a crime wave.  It’s not. Nor is free trade the calamity that Hillary Clinton and her union supporters claim. Although there are other factors, free trade agreements have been a key factor in reducing abject poverty in the world (defined by the World Bank as an income of $1.90 a day or less) from 44 percent in 1980 to a projected less than 10 percent at the end of 2015. Pandering politicians have also conveniently forgotten that protectionist policies in the 1930s only served to deepen and prolong the Great Depression.

Oh, and by the way, median household income increased 5.2 percent in 2015. The Democrats will take credit for this, just as the Republicans would if they held the White House. All of them conveniently forget the historic ebbs and flows of the business cycle. I try not to.

#####

Copyright 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

The Drama Begins II

The Drama Begins II 

A One Act Play 

By Patrick F. Cannon

Scene: We are in the Oval Office at the White House at 5:00 pm on January 20, 2017. Former President Bill Clinton, alone, sits behind the desk. He smiles wistfully as he looks around the room, decorated much as he remembers it, except for a photo of the Class of 1965 from Maine South High School in Park Ridge, Illinois that has pride of place on one wall. The door opens and President Hillary Rodham Clinton enters, pauses when she sees her husband at her desk, mutters “shit” under her breath and walks directly to a side door that leads to a small private space. She opens it, looks around, and seeing nothing, slams it shut and faces her husband.

Hillary: You’ve had your fun. I don’t want to see you there again.

Bill: Ah, Hill, just havin’ a little fun. Here, take a load off.

(Bill Clinton gets up from the chair and moves to the other side of the desk, Hillary takes his place, and looks around the Oval Office with a look of pure joy.)

Hillary: Well, it took awhile, but I finally made it. By the way, just what did I promise old Bernie if he would support me?

Bill: It was kind of vague – I think you mentioned some kind of cabinet position.

Hillary: Well, it’s one thing to make a promise, but what cabinet office would suit an unreconstructed socialist like Bernie?

Bill: How about Secretary of Agriculture? I can hear the old coot now advocating the redistribution of the land and forming collective farms. He’ll put the fear of God in Monsanto and the rest of that crowd.

Hillary: Well, maybe I need to think about Bernie a little more. Elizabeth Warren is the more immediate problem. I just know she’s going to ask for Treasury. Imagine what my donors would say to that! By the way, someone has to tell her she can’t wear the same color pants suit as me. They’ll start calling us tweedle dum and tweedle dee. You’re the Chief of Staff now. Have our people talk to hers and get this coordinated. By the way, what president started this thing about walking part of the way during the Inaugural Parade?

Bill: I think it was Jimmy Carter.

Hillary: Fat lot of good it did him. Anyway, he didn’t have to wear high heels – my feet are killing me.

(Bill picks up a phone.)

Bill: Darlin’, would you send someone up to the residence and get the President a pair of flip flops?  She does love her flip flops.

(He hangs up and smiles.)

See, Hill, what the President wants the President gets.

Hillary: Who’s this “darlin’” you called?

Bill: Just one of the new interns I hired to help out around here.

Hillary: Intern! Intern! Don’t you ever learn? I want all of our female interns sent over to work for Rahm at Homeland Security.

Bill: Ah, Hill, can’t I keep just a couple?

Hillary: No way. We barely won the election, so I don’t want people to get started talking about you. And please try to remember to call me “Madame President” when anyone else is in the room.

Bill: OK, OK. But keep in mind that no one likes you, and it was me who put you over the top. And of course the dumb Republicans helped too by nominating a knucklehead like Trump.

Hillary: It did help me, but keep in mind that they did keep control of Congress. So much for the death of the Republican Party.

Bill: I think that might work out just fine. You know most of them, and what makes them tick. His eminence the former President wouldn’t stoop to their level, even the Democrats. But you never minded being down in the mud where they’re comfortable, and they know they’d lie and cheat just like you to be President. That’s why they liked Lyndon more than Jimmy, and why they’ll be willing to deal. And that’s the Gods honest truth.

Hillary: It is a great country, isn’t it? And that’s no lie.

#####

Copyright 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

The Three “Rs” — Renaissance, Reformation and Rugby

Chapter 7

The Three “Rs” – Renaissance, Reformation and Rugby

By Patrick F. Cannon

(Editors Note: You will notice the curious title of this chapter. The author makes the dubious claim that Rugby was invented in 1567. I have found no evidence to support this claim. Mr. Cannon has generally been scrupulous in his researches, but has failed in this instance, or so it seems to me. You have been warned,) 

The most curious fact about the Renaissance is that it originated in Italy but is described with a French word. It of course means “rebirth.” In Italian it’s “rebirtho,” so maybe that’s why the French is preferred.

At any rate, as we have learned, when the Dark Ages dawned, monks had spirited copies of the ancient Greek and Roman texts to Ireland. They had not only protected them, but also made many copies. When the coast was clear, they began travelling to Europe and wherever they went established great universities and bookshops.

By the 14th Century, they had managed to teach the previously loutish priests in Europe to read and write Latin. This strengthened the church, since they could now correspond from country to country with their temporal rulers being none the wiser. As often happens, one of the priests spilled the beans to King Louis the Learned of France, who demanded to learn the ancient tongue (or the distraught priest wouldn’t have one of his own). After that the genie was truly out of the bottle and soon the upper classes were chattering away in the language of the Caesars.

The Irish priests were soon doing a brisk business. Readers were truly astonished to discover that civilizations that were long dead had in fact been more advanced than their own. Instead of slogging through turds and urine in the streets, it appeared that the Romans had invented something called the sewer to carry the smelly stuff away underground into nearby rivers. If they could duplicate this marvel, they could start wearing nicer shoes!

Time passed, as it almost always does, and soon everyone who was anyone was wearing Italian shoes and having their portraits painted.

This preoccupation with shoes and self-image has persisted right up to the present, so we owe a great debt to the Renaissance men. In philosophical terms, this is called humanism. Prior to then, people worried more about what God might think of them; ever after, keeping up with the Borgia’s became an obsession.

The names of the great artists of Italy ring loudly through the ages – Donatello, Michelangelo, Raphael, Brunelleschi and Titian. But we remember only their first names, thus starting a tradition of calling artists by only one of their given names that persists to this day. Who indeed knows the full names of Picasso, Monet, Degas and Dali? Or, in another realm, the full names of Elvis, Brittany and Beyonce? If someone is known by their full name – Andy Warhol, Norman Rockwell, Lawrence Welk – you can be assured that their fame will be fleeting.

The one exception that proves the rule is, of course, Leonardo de Vinci. This was truly a Renaissance man! In addition to painting and sculpture, Leonardo dabbled in architecture, military engineering, poetry, philosophy and backward handwriting. His sketchbooks are full of wondrous things, including what appears to be an airplane. While much of this is amusing in its way, it did prevent Leonardo from doing what he did best – painting portraits of enigmatic young women like the famous Mona Lisa.

Unfortunately, his restless experimenting with new techniques ruined his other famous work, the Last Supper. Not content with the tried and true methods of fresco painting, he experimented with new paint formulations and the great painting began to deteriorate soon after it was finished. While attempts have been made from time to time to restore the work, it’s now very difficult to see who’s eating what.

The other great artist – immortalized by that great modern statue, Charlton Heston – was Michelangelo. He worked on the grand scale. His great David must be two stories high and David’s sex is not in doubt (although, curiously, women did not appear to have genitals until the 20th Century). His other great work is the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel at the Vatican in Rome. Done for Pope Julius II, the paintings best known image shows the finger of God waking up sleeping mankind. For hundreds of years, tourists have stared rapturously up at this stunning work, providing continuing work for street corner chiropractors.

Michelangelo was purported to be the first homosexual. While there is no direct evidence (his not getting married may only have shown good sense), it cannot be denied that the men in his works tend to be muscular and comely fellows, while the women tended to fat. On the other hand, Rubens’ women were certainly chubby and we know he was a happily married man with several children. Since he was also rather more surly than gay, Michelangelo’s sexual preference may never be known with certainty.

Lest we think that the Renaissance was limited to the arts, we should be reminded of the groundbreaking political scientist, Niccolo Machiavelli. In his famous book, The Prince, he laid out the path that politicians have been trodding to this day. While his ideas can be complex (and are written in Italian for some reason), they can be summarized as follows:

+All power corrupts, so you might just as well have as much as possible.

+Elections can be useful, but only if you can control the results.

+It’s OK to kill your opponents, but only if you can blame someone else.

+Damn with faint praise.

+Wage war on the weak; ingratiate yourself to the strong.

+Never give a sucker an even break.

The spread throughout Europe of these and other useful ideas was made possible through the coincident invention of the printing press by Johann Gutenberg. Prior to his invention of moveable type in the mid-15th Century, books were hand lettered by the ubiquitous Irish monks. Now, you could carve letters in blocks of wood and move them around to suit. Once you had set a page in type, you could print many copies without recourse to multiple monks. Because spectacles had not yet been perfected, the size of the letters, and thus the books, tended to be rather large. It took a good man to carry a Gutenberg Bible! The Irish copyists soon became redundant and most returned to Ireland, where they took to the drink.

Had the monks been aware of what was going on in Wittenberg, they might have stuck around. It seems that an Augustinian monk named Martin Luther had gotten fed up with the Roman Catholic Church’s most lucrative fundraising scheme (bingo hadn’t yet been invented) – the selling of Indulgences. Simply put, Indulgences were pardons for your sins. Say you had spent your life whoring, gambling and cheating your fellow man. You could pop around to your local priest, confess your sins, do penance and promise to sin no more. What could be simpler? But what if the penance consisted of wearing sackcloth and ashes and crawling up the Matterhorn on your hands and knees?

If you had the cash, there was a better alternative. Go to the same priest, list your sins and assign a monetary value to each one. Then pay up like a man and wipe the slate clean. Then go and sin some more, and so on. The priest took his cut and sent the rest to Rome. The Pope could then afford to hire Michelangelo to paint the ceiling, thus encouraging the arts. Everyone benefited, which is the essence of economics.

For reasons of his own, Luther didn’t think this system was right. Perhaps he wasn’t getting his share. Nevertheless, he sat down one day in 1517 and soon had a list of 95 Theses (reasons) why the Church had gone astray. Instead of mailing them to Rome, he nailed them to the door of the local church. Most of the Wittenbergers couldn’t read, so they want about their business wondering who the crazy monk was. But agents of the Pope were soon on to him.

News didn’t travel fast in those days, so it was 1521 before the church leaders gathered for the Diet of Worms (named for the city, not the participants). Poor Luther was condemned as a heretic and excommunicated. One of those who most roundly criticized Luther was King Henry VIII of England. For his support, Pope Leo named Henry “Defender of the Faith.” Later, he had cause to regret this.

Not for the first time (or presumably the last) the Church misjudged public opinion. It turned out that only the wealthy few could afford to buy indulgences. The rest were tired of crawling on their hands and knees up stone staircases and decided to support Luther. Being simple people, they called themselves Lutherans instead of Anti-Indulgencers. It’s just as well, since few people would want to belong to a church call the Anti-Indulgencers, Missouri Synod.

Soon, others got on the Luther bandwagon and began to protest against the abuses of the Roman church. Indeed, there were so many protestors that the general term Protestants was coined to describe them, although each retained their own special name. Thus, the followers of John Calvin became knows as Calvinists. Less successful was Johannes Bigams, who espoused plural marriage. To this day, Bigamist has a naughty connotation.

It must be said that support for the Reformation was not entirely religious in nature. As usual, princes and other nobles saw an opportunity for feathering their nests by seizing church property. When Henry in England got wind of this, his anti-reformation zeal began to cool.

What really brought him around, however, was the Pope’s refusal to grant him a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, who had not given him an heir. Henry, it must be said, had never quite understood how some Italian in Rome could possibly be smarter and more powerful than he (and have more money) and decided that the Church in England needed a leader closer to home, and one who wasn’t adverse to divorce, namely himself.

He granted himself a divorce and married Anne Boleyn in 1533. Alas, she didn’t do any better than Catherine and was executed in 1536. He kept trying though and had six wives in all. Shakespeare immortalized Henry’s hapless quest for the perfect wife in his play, The Merrie Wives of Windsor. His many marriages and their expense may have hastened his seizure of Church property, which he accomplished with the Act of Supremacy in 1534. While some of the abbeys still stand in England, most have been converted into expensive country hotels.

With creativity flourishing in the arts, and people happily killing one another over religion, it might seem that little time was available for other amusements. Nevertheless, in precincts remote from the great centers of art and religion, young men were busy inventing amusements that have, in our day, assumed greater importance than either art or religion – sport.

Although the Olympic Games had fallen victim to Roman prudery, to be replaced by the clothed brutality of the Coliseum, young men in more primitive regions kept the sporting flame alive. After battle, for example, the winners often beheaded the vanquished, then would choose a likely head and toss it around for amusement. In Asia, with horses more available, they would toss the head around on horseback until one of the warriors reached an end line, by which time the head was somewhat the worse for wear. Another fresh head was usually available and so the game would continue. The man who tossed the head over the end line was called the “chucker,” a term still used in a modern variation called polo.

In Europe, only the nobles could afford to keep horses and indulge in the sport of jousting. The lower orders enjoyed watching the matches, but their sporting spirit was confined to placing a bet or two. Then one day in 1567 at a small school in the English village of Rugby, one of the lads came upon a pig’s bladder, left behind by the schools butcher. Being naturally curious, he picked it up and noticed that one could blow into one of the tube like appendages and capture the air within.

He tied the tube into a knot and happily threw the pigskin bladder into the air. His fellow students gathered round and soon were cheerfully throwing the pigskin back and forth. There were 22 of them, and being English they soon had things organized. The headmaster, a divine named Dr. Arnold, codified the rules and they have changed little since. One is permitted to run with the ball, kick it and throw it to ones teammates. Holding the ball has its dangers, since your opponents can tackle you. Although it’s unclear just why it’s done, every so often the referee takes the ball and has all the players grovel in the mud together for a bit, then throws the ball under them, whereupon the running, kicking and tackling begin anew.

Rugby was invented by the sons of the upper and middle classes, and was thought to be a gentleman’s game, despite the mud, but a variation was made available to the lower orders. Now called “football” (or soccer by ignorant Americans), it did not permit players to hold the ball and run with it. One could hit it with ones hand or kick it. No tackling was permitted, since it was thought the poor were too weak and undernourished to stand the punishment.

Modern games such as American football, ice hockey, field hockey, La Crosse, and kick-the-can are familiar derivatives. Meanwhile, down the road at Eton College, the more intellectual students there had taken to whacking rocks about with small tree branches called “crickets.” Eventually, one of the boys would throw a rock to his fellow Etonian and he would hit it back. Due to their intellectual prowess, the boys soon made up rules that remain puzzling to this day.

Not to be outdone, over in the former colonies in North America, young men invented a variation called baseball, and made sure that the rules would be as incomprehensible to Englishmen and Cricket was to them.

Sport’s relationship with history is well known. Cricket gives us a good example. When the English expanded their Empire, they brought the game with them. Initially, the natives were as puzzled by it as Americans still are. Eventually, they began to catch on. When the Australians, Indians and Pakistanis actually beat teams from the mother country, it was considered that they were finally intelligent enough to govern themselves. And while the English later had second thoughts about this, it was too late.

And who can forget the Duke of Wellington’s remark that the Battle of Waterloo was won “on the playing fields of Eton.” Perhaps Napoleon was not so much defeated as confused.

#####

Copyright 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

 

The Drama Begins

The Drama Begins 

By Patrick F. Cannon

A One Act Play

Scene: We are in the Oval Office at the White House at 5:00 pm on January 20, 2017. President Trump sits behind his desk. The room looks much the same as we might expect, except that the President’s chair is set on a riser and is trimmed in gold. Oh, and there is a row of slot machines placed rather discretely against one wall. The word “Trump” flashes in neon at the top of each.

Sarah Palin, the White House Chief of Staff, enters and bows to her boss, who beckons her to be seated. Through a secret door, a hairdresser enters and begins to reassemble the President’s famous orange hair, which became somewhat tousled during the inaugural parade, what with the wind and his white horse bucking occasionally.

Trump: Sarah! We’ve got them by the shorts now! I can’t wait to get started. Did they start on the wall yet?

Palin: Well, see, I tried to do it first thing, but Inauguration Day is some kind of Federal holiday, so I couldn’t find anyone.

Trump: Damn! Well, let’s get on it first thing tomorrow. And let’s make sure we send that Mexican president guy – Jose or whatever his name is – a bill once a week until it’s done.

Palin: I think his name is Pablo, but I’ll double check. Anyways, tomorrow’s Saturday and no one will be in their offices until Tuesday, since Monday is another Federal holiday.

Trump: Another one?

Palin: Jeez, I asked the same thing. It’s Civil Service Day – it’s the anniversary of the passage of the Civil Service Act, which prevents the President from ever firing anyone.

Trump: You mean I can’t fire anyone? Me? I’m the biggest “you’re fired” guy in the universe, maybe even the whole world, and I can’t fire anyone?

Palin: Oopsy, sorry for the confusion, Mr. President, you just can’t fire career bureaucrats any time you want. You have to go through the 1,340 steps as required by the regulations passed by Congress at the suggestion of the AFL/CIO. Folks you appoint, you can fire anytime you want. By the way, to get the wall started, you have to issue an Executive Order.

Trump: Do you take dictation, Sarah?

Palin: Sorry, they didn’t offer that at the Alaska School of Mines and Petroleum Jelly at Sketchifyoucan. I did pass a course in rudimentary English. Anywho, they won’t carry out an Executive Order unless it’s drafted under Regulation 640-88 as published on March 2, 1938 in the Federal Register. The guy who wrote it, I think his name is Cannon, is coming in first thing Tuesday morning to give you a hand. But there’s no hurry, since the factory in Mexico that’s going to provide the concrete for the wall takes January off so the employees can go skiing.

(President Trump, whose complexion heretofore has rather matched the color of his hair, has suddenly turned a deeper shade of red as he begins to rise out of his throne. Just then, the intercom comes on and his secretary, who speaks like an Eastern European Marilyn Monroe, breathlessly announces the arrival of the Secretary of Defense. The president takes a deep breath and sits down.)

Trump: OK, send him in.

(The door opens and Donald Rumsfeld enters. He looks around a bit before speaking)

Rumsfeld: Well, it’s been a few years, but it looks like the here is still the here I remember.

(The hairdresser has finished his work and is withdrawing.)

By golly, your hair does remind me of Reagan’s. Maybe not the exact shade of orange, but close enough so the country will feel safe again.

Trump: You’re right, Don. His hair was the greatest for this time, but mine is the greatest of all time. You don’t mind if I call you Don, do you? We wouldn’t want any confusion about who’s the greatest Donald of all time, even including Mr. Duck.

Rumsfeld: Don’t worry, Mr. President, I’m just happy to have another crack at those bastards at the Department of Defense. Who says we can’t go to war with Mexico if we want to?

Palin: I checked into that and those pinkos in Congress said they wouldn’t give you the money, and that you couldn’t do it without some kind of Congressional Resolution anyway, like the one they gave Bush on Iraq. I told them they’d be sorry, but they just laughed at me, even the Republicans. I tried my best, but couldn’t get them to budge.

Trump: I need someone to get those losers to get with the program. Palin, you’re fired! Don, how would you like to be the first man to be both Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense?  Let’s talk about it while I show you my new man cave. It’s where the White House press corps used to hang out and make up lies about me.

######

Copyright, 2016, Patrick F. Cannon

 

That Can’t Be True

That Can’t Be True 

By Patrick F. Cannon

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts recently wrote about how people continue to believe what they want to believe regardless of the facts. I’ve written before about the mistaken belief that crime is on the increase, despite statistics that show a steady decline. He quoted a recent survey that showed that 61 percent of Americans still believe that crime is increasing.

Pitts himself said that he found it hard to believe a recent survey that found a majority of Native Americans weren’t bothered by the name of the Washington Redskins. He admitted he thought the survey must be flawed in some way, despite its being commissioned by the decidedly liberal Washington Post.

The scientific method also continues to be under attack by stubborn groups who simply don’t seem to understand it. As a result, for example, children are contracting infectious diseases that should have been prevented by vaccinations; vaccinations that misguided parents believe are the cause of autism and other maladies. Now, it’s true that some very small number of children will have an adverse reaction to vaccinations (or  any other medication, for that matter), but rigorous scientific studies have shown convincingly that the benefits so far outweigh the risks that further discussion is pointless. But try telling that to the true believers.

Another hot topic among science deniers is Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Despite the fact that numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown no adverse effects from growing or eating them, there is a steady drumbeat to either ban them outright, or force producers to label products that contain them. The European Union, that bastion of bureaucratic perfection, has actually banned them. In my view, this has more to do with a persistent anti-Americanism that any real fear that they would hasten the end of the world. Perhaps our European friends are sick and tired of the undoubted fact that almost every scientific and technical advance seems to sprout first in the United States. Both in Europe and here, the anti-GMO forces are reduced to simple fear mongering. Not “the sky is falling,” but “the sky might fall.”

GMOs are just one of a series of agricultural advances that are helping to feed a growing world population. And while we might pat ourselves on the back for eating organically-grown food, we need to keep in mind that the majority of the world’s population can’t afford that luxury. It may be that organic farming methods will develop in the future to the extent that they will be able to feed the world at a price it can afford. I look forward to that day. In the meantime, I console myself with the fact that numerous studies have demonstrated that organically-raised food has no significant nutritional benefit over the stuff most people eat.

Finally, the most persistent bogus science must be astrology. Shakespeare had it right 400 years ago, when he admonished one of his characters: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” I don’t hold out much hope for its disappearance. I read recently that another bogus science, alchemy, had a famous adherent — none other than Sir Isaac Newton. Alas, he never got hit in the head with a golden apple.

######

Copyright 2106, Patrick F. Cannon