Animal crackers

Home / Christmas / Animal crackers

Animal crackers were in the news recently when PETA (People for the Eating of Tasty Animals) took credit for convincing the manufacturers to change the cover illustration to one that did not depict the critters behind bars as in a circus or zoo. Readers may have been unaware of the connection between the treat and Christmas.

The National Biscuit Company in 1902 introduced “Barnum’s Animal Crackers” as a seasonal promotion. The box’s carrying string was designed for hanging on a Christmas tree at a time when candy and treats were still a typical decoration. Shirley Temple later celebrated the snack with the song “Animal Crackers in My Soup”.

More Bad Bulwer

Home / Uncategorized / More Bad Bulwer

She was like my ex-girlfriend Ashley, who’d stolen my car, broken my heart, murdered my father, robbed a bank, and set off a pipe bomb in Central Park – tall.

As the first shovelful of earth fell on her father’s coffin, Emily kneeled at the gravesite sobbing, overwrought by the sudden realization that, not only had she lost her only living relative, but she had somehow forgotten to set her DVR to record this week’s episode of “House of Cards,” an episode she had particularly wanted to see because of a rumored and breathlessly anticipated guest appearance by a nephew of Don Ho.

It was a dark and stormy night, and that translated into unchecked pandemonium among Los Angeles residents who hadn’t worn anything but open-toed shoes for five years, but tourist Alwyn Brewster was thankful for the scant traffic on Sunset Boulevard as he desperately accelerated his rental car through the tony neighborhoods, too preoccupied with the raging rivers of high-end, plastic patio-ware, which were making a break for the ocean, to notice a black Land Rover with diplomatic plates hot on his trail.

 

How Much Virtue?

Home / Something Wise / How Much Virtue?

How Much Virtue?

In 1850, Lord Palmerston the British government’s Foreign Secretary threatened war when Greece dealt unjustly with a pair of Queen Victoria’s subjects living abroad. The so-called “Don Pacifico Affair” led to a ringing assertion of the willingness of a nation to back claims by its passport holders no matter where. Palmerston felt that his country was “bound to afford protection to our fellow subjects abroad … as the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say “Civis Romanus sum”[I am a Roman citizen]; so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England, will protect him against injustice and wrong.”

On August 3, the government of Canada issued a statement of concern about the way that Saudi Arabia was treating a number of its citizens who had been agitating for further human rights inside the most Islamically conservative jurisdiction on the planet. Quite why our Foreign Affairs Minister felt moved to this action is a puzzle; activists of all sorts are repressed around the world on a daily basis, and any national interest of ours is of the most gossamer sort: one of those arrested was, apparently, the sister of an arrested blogger who is married to Ensaf Haidar, a woman with Canadian citizenship. Thus, Ottawa has imitated imperial Britain and taken its presumption one step further: now any far-flung sister-in-law of a Canadian may utter “Civis Canadiensis sum” and feel assured that our Dominion will act on her behalf.

Well, that escalated quickly. To everyone’s surprise Saudi Arabia did not take our righteous Twitter post in a spirit of chummy goodwill. It instantly declared our ambassador persona non grata, pulled their own emissary out of Canada, and ordered a legion of Saudi students and medical patients home from the land of the interfering infidel. Trade deals were threatened, Canadian grain was banned, Canadian assets were sold off, and an ominous warning emerged on a government-linked website that seemed to promise Canada the same treatment Saudi terrorists gave the World Trade Center on 9/11. Considering that Canada was hoping to soon consummate a lucrative sale of military hardware to the Saudis, it would be fair to say that our well-meaning intervention will cost our country billions of dollars.

However startled our government might have been by the Arabian response, Ottawa is not backing down. The Prime Minister has stated, “We will continue to stand up for Canadian values and universal values and human rights. Canada will always speak strongly and clearly in private and in public on questions of human rights.”

This surely prompts the question: how much virtue signalling can our country afford? What will be the price tag of Canadian demands that the USA and Mexico accept our views on gender equity in NAFTA? How far are we willing to go to make our position on Canadian values count, let us say, in a Chinese context? Are we willing to jeopardize our prosperity by interfering in Korean, Indian, Russian, or Brazilian affairs? This is an important issue on which it is possible for reasonable Canadians to disagree but we must have the debate, and soon.

Fortunately, there is a way in which we can profitably and morally stand up to trade and diplomatic bullying by one of the world’s most noxious nations, a country which still thinks that public crucifixion is a civilized response to crime. Canada should immediately cease to buy Saudi oil and replace it with western Canadian petroleum, transported securely by a pipeline. Quebec and Maritime consumers will thus be spared the sin of supporting an evil regime and see their fuel prices fall; the western Canadian economy will blossom; and Wahhabi fundamentalists will gnash their beards in impotent rage. That sounds like a win-win situation for us.

 

Bulwer-Lytton Prize Winners

Home / Uncategorized / Bulwer-Lytton Prize Winners

“It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.” So wrote Edward, Lord Bulwer-Lytton, the 19th-century English author of “The Last Days of Pompeii” and much other florid prose. 

The University of San Diego conducts an annual Bulwer Lytton Fiction Contest for imitations of such rotten writing in various categories. We will reproduce a few of them here.

In 2011 the Grand Prize went to a Wisconsin professor for this pithy gem: “Cheryl’s mind turned like the vanes of a wind-powered turbine, chopping her sparrow-like thoughts into bloody pieces that fell onto a growing pile of forgotten memories”.

The Romance award that year: “As the dark and mysterious stranger approached, Angela bit her lip anxiously, hoping with every nerve, cell, and fiber of her being that this would be the one man who would understand – who would take her away from all this – and who would not just squeeze her boob and make a loud honking noise, as all the others had”.

The History winner: “Napoleon’s ship tossed and turned as the emperor, listening while his generals squabbled as they always did, splashed the tepid waters in his bathtub.”

 

Death of a Voluntary Martyr

Home / Today in Church History / Death of a Voluntary Martyr

1941

The German-Soviet conquest of Poland in the fall of 1939 was meant not just to occupy the country but to eradicate it. “All Poles,” said Hitler, “will disappear from the world.” Both the Nazi occupation forces and the Red Army immediately set about to destroy the Polish human infrastructure, murdering the officer class, the intellectuals and professionals or interning them in concentration camps. Clergy were a particular target: thousands of priests, monks, nuns, and seminarians were murdered. To the camp at Auschwitz in 1941 was sent Maximilian Maria Kolbe, a Franciscan friar.

Kolbe was born in 1894 when most of Poland was still part of the Russian empire. He joined the Franciscans at an early age and received an excellent education in Rome where he earned doctorates in both philosophy and theology. He became a priest in 1919 and returned to the newly-independent Polish Republic where he founded a monastery and operated a religious publishing house. In the 1930s he was sent on mission to Asia where he succeeded in opening a monastery in Nagasaki, Japan.

Kolbe was arrested briefly after the German invasion. He refused to be granted protected status which his German ancestry could have won him but instead operated a hospital and refuge in his monastery, sheltering many, including over a thousand Jews. He continued his printing operation whose anti-German publications resulted in his arrest by the Gestapo and his internment in Auschwitz.

At the end of July three prisoners from Kolbe’s block escaped and, as was the custom, ten other prisoners were selected to be executed in reprisal. One of those whose names were called out was Sergeant Franciszek Gajowniczek who cried out, “My wife! My children!” On hearing this, Kolbe stepped forward and told the SS captain: “I am a Catholic priest from Poland; I would like to take his place, because he has a wife and children.” He was granted his wish and with nine other condemned was sent to an underground cell where they were to be starved to death. According to the German guards, Kolbe’s behaviour was inspiring, leading his fellow prisoners in hymns and prayers and preserving their dignity until one by one they died, leaving only him alive. At this point the Germans decided they needed the cell and finished Kolbe off with a lethal injection.

Gajowniczek survived Auschwitz and another concentration camp, living out the war behind wire until the Red Army drove the Germans from Poland. He never ceased speaking of the man who had exchanged his own life for his. Soon miraculous healings were attributed to Kolbe’s heavenly intercession. In 1982 John Paul II, the first Polish pope, declared Kolbe a saint.  He is considered to be the patron of drug addicts, political prisoners, families, journalists, and the pro-life movement.

An interesting dilemma

Home / Today in History / An interesting dilemma

Death of a noble bigamist

Kitty Cannon was a pretty girl from the village of Thorpe in Essex. Her beauty led to her being courted by a number of young nobles but, none of these titled individuals condescended to breathe in her ear a single word about matrimony; so, when she was just twenty, she gave her hand, and (it is to be presumed) her heart also, to the rector of Thorpe, a Reverend Mr. Dough.

A quiet and remote parsonage, however, was not exactly suited to the taste of a young lady who had once sipped the cup of flattery from gentlemen who belonged to the clubs about St. James’s, and who moved in courtly circles. Accordingly, one evening when she was staying in London, being present at a ball in the neighborhood of the then fashionable district of Covent Garden, she managed to slip out, unobserved by her husband, and to run away with John, Lord Dalmeny, heir to vast estates and the title of the Earl of Rosbery, who was only a few years older than herself. She had no children, and doubtless his lordship was led to believe that she was a widow, and quite at her own disposal.

The pair went abroad, and remained for two or three years traveling in the sunny south; but in the early summer of 1752 Kitty Cannon, or Kitty Gough, was taken seriously ill at Florence. Her illness turned into a galloping consumption, and in the May or June of that year she died. A few hours only before her death, she wrote upon a scrap of paper, ‘I am really the wife, of the Reverend Mr. Gough, vicar of Thorpe, near Colchester, Essex ; my maiden name was Kitty Cannon, and my family belong to the same parish.  Bury me there.’

Lord Dalmeny’s young wife, as he always thought her to be, was gone before he was able to realize the full meaning of the lines which she had written. At first he was disposed to reject them, as a creation of her sick brain; it was impossible for him to believe that the dear companion of his last few years was guilty of bigamy. But, whether true or false, he at once resolved, as she lay in her coffin at Florence, to give effect to her last wish, and he instantly prepared to carry her remains over to England.

The body of this lovely woman was embalmed, and secured in ‘a very fine oaken coffin’, decorated with six large silver plates, and it was then put into a strong outer case of common deal, which concealed the ominous shape of its contents. The jewelry and wardrobe of the lady were packed in other chests, and with this cumbersome baggage Lord Dalmeny set out upon his melancholy journey by land to the south of France. At Marseilles he was able to engage a vessel to carry him and his packages by sea round to Dover, under the assumed name of Mr. Williams, a merchant of Hamburg; and on landing at Dover he transferred his belongings to a small coaster, which he hired to carry him to Harwich, then a busy and bustling port, only a few miles distant from Thorpe. The vessel, however, was forced by contrary winds to make for Colchester instead, where the Custom House officers came down to the Hythe to examine the freight before they would allow it to be landed. They could not recognize in the elegant and polished gentleman, whom they saw dressed in the deepest of black and bowed down by grief, a common business man from Hamburg; and they very naturally thought, as only seven years had passed since the rebellion of 1745, that he was some emissary of ‘the Pretender.’ So their loyalty took the alarm.

It certainly was the plain duty of Custom House officials to see that no French tobacco, gloves, lace, or brocade was brought over in these large boxes without paying duty to King George. Accordingly, without giving any attention to the remonstrance’s of Mr. Williams, they were about to plunge their knives into the larger case, when the Hamburg merchant drew his sword and told them to desist. He at once made a clean breast of the affair, telling them that he was an Englishman, and, what was more, an English nobleman, and that the chest upon the wharf contained the body of his dead wife. But this explanation did not satisfy the officers, who were not sure that there was not a murder at the bottom of the transaction. They therefore at once broke the outer chest, tore open the coffin lid, and lifted the cere-cloths from the face of the embalmed corpse. Lord Dalmeny was taken, along with the coffin, to a church near at hand, where he was detained until he could prove the truth of his story.

The news soon spread about, and crowds of the neighboring villagers came to see the fair lady’s face as she lay in her coffin. Many of these identified her features as those of the Kitty Cannon who had spent her childhood at Thorpe, and who had disappeared soon after her marriage with the vicar of that parish.

But here was a further difficulty for his lordship; for, though the rest of his story was transparently true, it was clear that the lady was not really his lawful wife. A communication was at once forwarded to the vicar, who lost no time in coming over to the Hythe and recognizing the corpse as that of his vanished partner. But what a mystery the whole affair was to him as well as to Lord Dalmeny, to whom at first, as may be supposed, he entertained and expressed no very friendly feelings. But he was soon pacified. Possibly he had preached but lately a sermon enforcing forgiveness of even intended wrongs, and here was a wrong which clearly was not intended. Accordingly as soon as he was able to contemplate the matter in all its bearings—the deception which had been practiced on the poor young nobleman, and the passionate constancy which had borne him up through his toilsome journey by land and voyage by sea in order to gratify his supposed wife’s last prayer, and the faithfulness with which, like a dog, he watched beside her coffin in the church—he felt that he could not refuse to forgive the wrong, and he consented to meet Lord Dalmeny on a friendly footing.

The interview between the two rival husbands is said in a family record to have been very moving, and no doubt must have been touching in the extreme; the only wonder is that it has not been taken by play-writers to work out as a plot for the stage. Lord Dalmeny assured the husband of his entire innocence of fraud, and of the honest intentions with which he had acted throughout. Even the discovery of his long-lost Kitty’s deceit and guilt did not put his love to shame, or shake his determination to follow her to her last resting-place. And the same was the feeling of his lordship. The next day, as soon as the magistrates were satisfied that the law had not been broken, both husbands accompanied the loved remains to Thorpe Church, where the poor frail lady was buried with all the pomp and show which could have been accorded to a real peeress. Which of the two paid the undertaker’s bill is not stated; but I have every reason to believe that the cost was paid by Lord Dalmeny, or amicably settled between them. It is said that the funeral cortege was stopped for a few minutes at the gates of the vicarage, and that the young nobleman walked into the house, from which he presently came forth arm-in-arm with Mr. Gough, who was clothed in mourning as deep as his own, and with scarf and headband to match. This happened on July 9, 1752 and seems to be the first time an Englishwoman had two husbands attend her funeral at the same time.

Battle of Amiens, 1918

Home / Today in History / Battle of Amiens, 1918

 

One hundred years ago, a Canadian army helped defeat the Imperial German army and forced the enemy high command to consider the war lost.

Eleven divisions — 3 British, 4 Canadian, and 4 Australian — 75,000 men, more than 500 tanks and nearly 2,000 planes attacked the Germans who had not dug in, as they expected to continue their own offensive.

The keys to the victory were surprise — troops and equipment were moved only at night and at the last minute — the use of Canadians and Australians as shock troops, and coordination of tanks, guns, and aircraft.

By noon the Canadians had taken over 5,000 prisoners and 161 guns at a cost of 3,500 casualties; the Australians had taken nearly 8,000 prisoners and 173 guns, and their losses were less than 3,000. The total German losses for the day, on their own estimate, were between 26,000 and 27,000. Their official account says:

As the sun set on the 8th August on the battlefield the greatest defeat which the German Army had suffered since the beginning of the war was an accomplished fact.

The Simele Massacre

Home / Today in History / The Simele Massacre

Once much of central and western Asia was populated by Christians of the Church of the East, descendants of the Nestorians who fled persecution by seeking refuge beyond the borders of the Roman Empire. The Church was largely wiped out by the Mongols of Timur but pockets survived in mountainous places.

One such remnant was the Assyrian Church living in what is now Turkey, Syria and Iraq. During the First World War the same wave of mass murders that the Turks perpetrated on their Armenian Christian minority engulfed many Assyrians.

In August, 1933 a new wave of massacres was aimed at the Assyrians, as Kurds and Arab nationalists carried out a number of massacres. A British observer described the scene at the village of Simele which was attacked on August 7:

A cold blooded and methodical massacre of all the men in the village then followed, a massacre which for the black treachery in which it was conceived and the callousness with which it was carried out, was as foul a crime as any in the blood stained annals of the Middle East. The Assyrians had no fight left in them, partly because of the state of mind to which the events of the past week had reduced them, largely because they were disarmed. Had they been armed it seems certain that Ismail Abawi Tohalla and his bravos would have hesitated to take them on in fair fight. Having disarmed them, they proceeded with the massacre according to plan. This took some time. Not that there was any hurry, for the troops had the whole day ahead of them. Their opponents were helpless and there was no chance of any interference from any quarter whatsoever. Machine gunners set up their guns outside the windows of the houses in which the Assyrians had taken refuge, and having trained them on the terror stricken wretches in the crowded rooms, fired among them until not a man was left standing in the shambles. In some other instance the blood lust of the troops took a slightly more active form, and men were dragged out and shot or bludgeoned to death and their bodies thrown on a pile of dead.

These actions led to the coining of the word “genocide”. The symbol above in Syriac commemorates the date August 7

The Dumbing-Down of Public Symbols

Home / Something Wise / The Dumbing-Down of Public Symbols

When I was a younger man, back when Lester Pearson was Prime Minister and Pluto was still a planet, I attended the University of Saskatchewan. It had a very simple coat of arms: three wheat sheaves and an open book whose pages displayed the motto “Deo et Patriae”  — “For God and Country”.

Years later, I taught History at the University of Regina which had an equally noble motto: “As One Who Serves”, words Jesus Christ used to describe himself in the Book of Luke. Still later, I taught at the University of Manitoba whose arms were jam-packed with religious imagery: St John the Evangelist and his eagle, St George’s cross, and a book with a quote in Latin from the Old Testament: “To these children God gave knowledge”.

The universities of western Canada abound in coats of arms with Christian messages. The University of Alberta’s motto is “Quaecumque Vera”, referencing St Paul’s advice to the church at Philippi: “Whatsoever things are true…” Calgary’s crest bears the message, in Gaelic, “I will lift up mine eyes” which any fan of the Book of Psalms could continue — “unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth.” God’s first words in the Bible, “Let there be light”, is the motto, in Hebrew, of the University of Victoria.

Readers may be surprised to learn of this flourish of Christianity in the halls of higher education, but that is because today’s universities usually present only watered-down versions of their crest, denuded of Latin (too elitist) and of religion (too exclusive). The U of A’s web site, for example, shows only a shield and a stylized landscape. UVic presents three birds above an empty book, while Manitoba’s largest university gives us a buffalo, a crown, a maple leaf and another book – empty, of course. Under the shield, where a motto should be, is a banner with the inspiring phrase: “Est. 1877”. Truly, words to live by.

And what of my University of Saskatchewan? Well, the wheat sheaves are still there, as is the book. But now the pages are blank. God and country have disappeared.

All of this is the result of deliberate policy to strip religion from the public square in the name of “diversity”. We can see this most clearly in the University of Alberta’s retreat. Before 1999 graduates receiving their diplomas were told to use their degrees “for the glory of God and the honour of their country.” Even as late as 2009 the university admitted students to their degree with the charge “for all who believe to serve your God.” The latest version tells students to “serve our community for the public good”.

These changes came at the behest of Chancellor Doug Stollery, a corporate lawyer, who wished to spare the feelings of those in the audience who profess no religion. He also removed the notion of conveying a blessing on students and the university in his opening remarks. When a student on the General Faculty Council noted that this would make a statement that as an institution the university was not comfortable acknowledging faith, Mr. Stollery, whom no one can accuse of being a terribly deep thinker, was unmoved. He said that one could, after all, join a religious group on campus or attend a class on religion. What was important was “inclusivity” — and apparently one achieves this goal by excluding any reference to faith or a deity.

Mr. Stollery’s views are not unique. All across the country, old values such as God, honour, tradition, or patriotism, are being excised from public ceremony or symbology as being aggressive or divisive. A nation with no common values except the determination that we will not have common values cannot long survive.