NEWSER STORY ON SALLY RIDE, FIRST AMERICAN WOMAN TO WALK IN SPACE, AND HER HIDDEN STORY

Newser had a story on Sally Ride and it brought many comments.  Mine is below, and then Buckoux attacked my view in a powerful, and thought-provoking manner.  I replied.  I must admit I am no attorney, and I may be wrong on some of this.  Maybe all of this.  But I hope it stimulates thought on the part of readers.---Hugh Murray

Why Sally Ride Hid Her Sexuality

humura 11 hours ago edited

When I was young, homosexuality was a crime, and a sickness. In the daily newspaper's crime notices, so-in-so was arrested for a crime against nature. with their name and address revealed. Job loss, humiliation, and relatives might try to have the guilty party committed to an insane asylum. Many people destroyed.
The evil repercussions of a an ancient tale of 2 cities was literally a death sentence for nearly 2,000 years for gays, with widespread influence of the Justinian Code. Three cheers for the French Revolution and its revision of the laws into the Napoleonic Code, which freed Protestants, Jews, and gays.

 

Buckoux

"Three cheers for the French Revolution and its revision of the laws into the Napoleonic Code, which freed Protestants, Jews, and gays."

No. The Magna Carta and the evolution of bottom-up English Common Law is far superior to the top-down of Civil Law from the Napoleonic Code. Civil Law countries have no juries of one's peers, only judges and no grand juries, once again of ones peers. The poor countries of this world, especially Latin America, suffer the injustices of their corrupt governments due to their Napoleonic Code of law brought by the Spanish, Portuguese and French to the New World.

 

humura to    Buckoux18 minutes ago edited

One can argue English Common Law is more democratic than civil coded law. My point is that the Justinian Code embodied the prejudices and hatred of the late Roman Empire, and so the laws included restrictions on pagans, Jews, homosexuals. Continuing the trend begun by Constantine, pagan temples could become Christian churches, Jewish services had to be in the vernacular language, and could be cancelled if interfering with the Christian calendar services; and the penalty for sodomy was death, preceded by torture for both men involved.  That code, spread to influence most of Europe, meant centuries of persecution for Jews and gays and religious non-conformists. The French Revolution, which at times was a war against the Roman Catholic Church, even abolishing the Christian calendar, and replacing it with a new scientific decimal system. The 10-day week was unpopular and did not endure. The Cathedral of Notre Dame was converted into a temple for the goddess of reason, as Robespierre, wearing a toga, sought to restore some of the old religion,- but when he fell from power, and his head fell into a basket, some experiments came to an end. His Jacobin party did vote for the abolishment of black slavery in what we call Haiti, probably the first effort to free black slaves en masse, but that parliamentary effort ended with Robespierre's death also. The idea was however taken up by the black slaves themselves, who began a black rebellion in Haiti, one of the few successful slave rebellions in history. Napoleon sought to suppress it, gave up, and gave up the idea of a French empire in North America. So he took Louisiana from his brother whom he had put on the Spanish throne, and sold Louisiana to the new USA.
Another thing, if English law is so superior, how come it did not spread to neighboring Scotland, where NOT Napoleonic but civil code is still used? The French Revolution and the new Code freed Protestants in France, Jews, and gays, not only in France, but where Napoleons armies conquered. I think it was the 1850s when Victoria's Britain criminalized homosexuality in India. That did not occur in  French Indo-China and the French colonial world. And around 1900 with the conviction of Oscar Wilde, many English bachelors were seen booking ships to France and away from one aspect of English oppression.

(As much as I detest Justinian's views on gays, I must admit, I admire his governments construction of the Hagia Sophia, the church in Constantinople with the large dome, vast space inside, and few pillars to hold things up.  It took only 5 years to complete.  In the 1400s, Muslims conquered the city, and, like in the past when Christians took over pagan temples, now the Hagia Sophia became a mosque.  After WWI, a new, secular leader, Ataturk demanded women not wear the hijab, and the Hagia Sophia became a museum.  Under Turkey's recent leader Erdogen, the Hagia became a mosque once again.)

CONDESCENDING POLITICALLY CORRECT ACADEMICS - FROM NEWSER, MY COMMENT

 

Is this article in Science meant to enlighten or confuse? It praises ancient Amerindian agricultural accomplishments, AD 1000 to 1600. ANCIENT? Egyptians, Sumerians, Chinese, Indians were probably producing foods sufficiently or in abundance for their empires in 3000BC. That is ancient. 1600AD and Elizabeth I is on the throne of England, beginning to nibble at the world wide Spanish and Portuguese empires.
The climate changed greatly between 1000, the era when Vikings first settled a warm, green  Greenland and the grape growing area of Canada (Vinland), but by 1350 AD the thriving Greenland colony was wiped out by the little ice age, and the Canadian settlements wiped out by hostile skrellings. The Greenland settlement was once large enough with a European way of life with cows, and several thousand people, AND a bishop recorded in records in Rome.
This article seems like affirmative action DEI history. Over praising the legitimate accomplishments of a group.  Not all people advanced at the same rate. In 3000BC England was probably no more advanced than the Menominee Amerindiaans of Michigan and Wisconsin.  Both were far behind Egypt or Babylon or India. But things change.  Around 1600 England survived the threat of the Spanish Armada, and by 1900 Britain ruled one quarter of the earth. Of course, by 2000AD the British Empire has shrunken to the Falkland Is. and a few other islands.  The much warmer period around 1000AD was not caused by automobiles, airplanes, coal fires, or bar b q grills.  The Menominee may have developed some agriculture in a difficult clime, but that is not the same as creating a major civilization.----Hugh Murray

TO BE OR NOT TO BE/ OR TO KILL OR NOT TO KILL, THAT IS THE QUESTION

This is a rare review by me of a television series, “The Sea Beyond” or as it appeared a few years ago when first televised in Italy, Mare Fuori.The series began in 2021 and four years of the series have been shown, while the 5^th series is about to begin. My review covers only series 1 and a few episodes into episode 2. I watched it on Netflix, with English subtitles and English voices. I shall discuss why I think this off-beat serial is important. It takes place in a juvenile detention center in Naples, southern Italy.

Much of the action concerns two new inmates to the Center, one is a young, tall, talented pianist, with long fingers, Filippo. His parents are wealthy and reside in northern Italy in Milan. He is on a vacation trip to Naples with friends and they are high and goofing around with locals. The group gathers round Filippo, picks him up, grabs his legs, and dangles him over a high railing. They quickly pull him back to safety, and then he wants to do the same to one of them – and proceeds to do so. He alone is holding the boy by his legs over the edge when, opps! He drops him. The young guy dies. Filippo is now considered a murderer. By contrast, Carmine is from Naples, knows the city and its ways. He is born into a crime family; indeed his mother is now the capo(capa?) of the Di Salvo family. In the series, Carmine is first seen on a roof top at a table speaking with another young man. The other guy is from a rival crime family, and the discussion quickly turns to economic conflict when Carmine accused the other gang of moving in on Di Salvo territory. The other lad pulls out a pistol, aims at Carmine, and shoots. His gun misfires. From the back of his shirt Carmine now pulls out his pistol, aims at the other guy, shoots, and then shoots a few more times to be sure. They had probably been friends before, for now Carmine puts his arms round the dead youth and hugs him.

Both Carmine and Filippo are sentenced to the Naples Center. Because they are the only 2 murderers among the inmates, they are placed in a cell together, one further down the hall from the more common inmates. Carmine may be a new to the inside, but he feels he knows the rules. He seems to be Mr. Macho, calm and cool. Filippo has never been in such an atmosphere, and hopes for early release, after all, it was not intentional, it was more like an accident. What Filippo did now know is that the youth he dropped was connected to another crime family, and they will do all to prevent an early release for the Milano. In addition, Filippo speaks northern Italian and has trouble even understanding some inmates in the Detention house. He is a fish out of water, and looks to Carmine for clues on how to survive.

While Filippo may think Carmine is on an easy street, Carmine knows better. He will not be getting out early; he will be in prisons for 20 years. He has a girl friend, already pregnant, - what kind of life can they have now? Also, Ciro is the top dog of the other inmates, and Ciro is no friend of the Di Salvo group. Filippo may think Carmine is well adjusted in the Center, but Carmine calls himself a dead man walking. But unlike Shakespeare's Hamlet, Carmine is not contemplating suicide. He is not asking To Be, or Not To Be, even though he is fully aware of life's slings and arrows. Just to walk down the hall, many of the other inmates purposely bump into him, not hard, but so he'll know he is a low man in the ranking system. Life's slings and arrows. But the sharpest arrow hits Carmine not from one of the inmates, but on visiting day.

There is a large room with tables to seat 4 scattered about, and lawyers, friends, and relatives come to see the inmates. Carmine's brother had already visited and they argued. Today, the big arrow came, his mother. She asks if it is true he does not want to do what his brother instructed him to do. Carmine squirms, “Mom, I just can't do it. I can't.” She pushes, demanding that Carmine kill a man in the Center, one who is a threat to the Di Salvo family. Again, Carmine says no. She slaps him hard. Some other tables look. Then she stands over Carmine, seemingly so sweet, and says to him softly but with an edge of disgust, “Be a Man!” and leaves.

With Hamlet, to be or not to be. Carmine has to endure the slings and arrows of living, the bumping in the hall, the minor insults. But Carmine is not thinking of suicide. To be or not to be – a man, does that mean he must kill? Carmine's question is, not to be on not to be; but to kill or not to kill.

Filippo would sometimes try to follow Carmine's advice, but sometimes he would or could not. At first, he thought he might buy good-will of the other inmates, having things purchased for them, but that did not work. They often held him more in contempt, or simply wanted more. Ciro basically forced him to join his group, and Filippo had little choice. But in following Ciro's orders, he got Carmine in trouble with a packet of drugs, for which Carmine stoically took the blame. When Filippo thought he needed a weapon, he stole a razor blade, for which some of the blame ended on Carmine. At one point a bully chokes Filippo and demands he jerk the bully off. This is not porn, and you barely see anything below the belt, but you hear the aggressor say “jerk it faster.”   Things in prisons.  On the other hand, there is a piano in a section of the Center, and Filippo's playing becomes a hit But it is not easy adjusting to confinement, and one morning Carmine sees Filippo on the floor spaced out from drugs. Carmine tries to assure him that he is better than that, the sinking into the world of addiction.

There is one administrator who takes an interest in Carmine, the Commander. He looks upon Carmine as a son, trying to disentangle him from past problems. The Commander also knows, when younger, he saw a man kill another, and the murderer was a member of the Di Salvo group. The commander was able to get Carmine to the hospital to see his pregnant girlfriend when she was getting pictures of the fetus in her stomach, the child of Carmine. The commander encourages the relationship of Carmine with Nina, his girl, to continue, even though Carmine sees a long-term confinement ahead.

One day some heavy supplies have unloaded, and Carmine is pulling the heavy cart toward a storage room inside. He is accompanied by a burly delivery worker. Once inside, the worker grabs Carmine by the throat, choking him. “Why haven't you done it? What's your plan? If you don't do it soon, we'll get you!? Coincidentally, Filippo enters the area, and sees the worker choking Carmine; “What's going on?” The worker walks away. “Carmine, tell me what happened? He was choking you.” “ Nothing happened,” the usual answer of most inmates to all questions. This time Filippo is not in the mood to hear a bull sh*t answer. “Carmine, if you don't tell me, I'm going to go to the commander.” Carmine reacts: “ You're going to go to the commander. You're going to do that. If I want to live, I have to kill the commander.” Carmine starts to cry. “To live, I have to kill the commander.” Filippo, “What are you saying?” Carmen, crying - “I don't know what to do.” as he grabs Filippo's shoulder and begins to cry on him; Filippo hugs Carmine in response. Carmine's Macho cool is washed away in his tears. To be or not to be? No, the real question here is to kill or not to kill.

In most films, this is not a question. In super heroes, if they are to save the world from Mr. Freeze, or the Joker, or the many other mighty film villains, the super heroes must be willing to kill to save the earth. How else can they save the world? Old war films, if the question is raised, it is answered in a few minutes with a bullet. There are 2 old films where this is an important question, both American films made after WWII. In 1952 “High Noon” was shown with Gary Cooper as a Sheriff in the old West and Grace Kelly (who would later be royalty in Monaco) starred. In the film, she was a Quakeress, opposed to killing, and he was to meet a criminal who threatened to kill him for sending him to jail in the past. The criminal would arrive on the train at noon. She decided she could not marry a sheriff who shoots people. Great pressure on the sheriff. What will he do? To kill or not to kill. Another film of that era, released in 1956 was “Friendly Persuasion,” with Gary Cooper again, Dorothy McGuire, and Anthony Perkins, as the young Quaker in the American Civil War. Should he take up a rifle? Should he kill? But the issue seems to have been solved long ago in Hollywood. Of course, you kill. You kill to save the world. I see far fewer films today, but I think it is a non-issue in Hollywood. That is why I am rather surprised to see the issue flare up in a serial from Italy. Also important, if you watch about 3 minutes of this serial where Carmine is choked, and finally cries “To live, I have to kill the commander, I don't know what to do.” To kill or not to kill, this scene in a serial is far more powerful than most actors in Hamlet declaring to an audience “To be or not to be, that is the question.'' Carmine's plea is far more urgent, far more immediate.  And the young Italian actor whom I had never heard of, makes his point more powerfully in 3 minutes than most Shakespearean actors as they mull over the philosophical pluses and minuses of living or suicide.  Carmine has to make a decision SOON.  Hamlet can afford to ham it up over the centuries. Carmine is played by Massimilano Caiazzo. In the early parts of Series 2 of the Serial, Carmine gets married, then has a mental breakdown, and begins to look like a shorter Luigi Mangioni with a bad haircut. As the series goes on, it becomes more of a regular teen drama, who is dating whom, etc. But the first of this series I found provocative and entertaining. Unfortunately, questions do not end with, to kill or not to kill. The next question is too often, Kill or Be Killed.

                                              Hugh Murray

WARNING! VIEWING "THE SEA BEYOND" ON NETFLIX MAY BE ADDICTIVE!

CIA v. USA?

    The recent attack by Ukraine deep into Russia raises many questions.  First, it was amazingly successful.  About a third of Russia's strategic bombers were attacked on the ground, safe Russian ground, remote from any borders.  Drones were the culprits, we are told.  Ukraine takes the credit.

   War inspires invention.  The American Civil War produced an early submarine that damaged a larger ship.  The Gatling gun, an early version of the machine gun, gave a preview of what later versions would do in WWI to provide great advantage to the defenders, resulting in the widespread use of trench war fare, and huge losses of men to capture small areas of territory.  The use of hot-air baloons to lift observers to better see the surrounding terrain was used in varous 19th century conflicts, but was now being replaced by airplanes, which began to add guns so they could do more than observe.  Poison gas killed on both sides.  Zeppelins bombed enemy cities.

   The tanks moved ahead despite the machine guns, and the static war of trenches was replaced by the lightning (fast) war of tanks in WWII.  Planes could shoot more and bomb more, radar helped, and bombs grew in size.  U-Boots  could hide under water longer. The Russians developed a heavier, beter armored tank with heavier fire-power, the Germans lost the Battle of Kursk, and the war in Europe.  The A-Bomb swept rhe Japanese Asian Empire into a vast nuclear cloud of death.  The war in Ukraine saw tanks of both sides stopped by drones.  What else could they do?  Recent tanks, recent fighter jets, disabled by cheap drones!  Apartment houses defaced and usually a few tenants killed by drones.

   Both Russia and Ukraine sent their drones into the territories of their opponents,  Then the REAL SURPRISE attack by Ukraine destroying rail bridges and Russia's strategic bombers.  Could Ukraine have done this alond.  Steve Bannon asserts that American intelligence services must have been involved to provide information on Russian bomber whereabouts.  American intelligence services and devices would have been required.  In taking out so many of Russia's strategic bombers, in one swoop, this, argues Bannon, was an act of war; and our intelligence was deeply involved.

   Did Trump know about this planned sneak attack?  Was he informed?  Did he approve?  Trump had been calling for the end of the war; he ran for President speaking of ending the war quickly.  The American intelligence agencies are usually globalists, anti-MAGA, pro-Democrats, as exposed by 51 leaders of the US intelligence community signing an over lie just prior to the 2020 Presidential election; they said that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation.  This was meant to let Hunter, AND JOE BIDEN off the hook of sizable corruption with China, implications.  The agencies urged Google and other big tech corporations to discount the laptop story, thereby helping Biden defeat Trump.

   Was the Ukrainian drone raid simply meant to show that the Ukraine was still capable of fighting?  Or an attempt to sabotage Trump's peace efforts?  It is possible Trump had become with Putin's delays of negotiation and therefore Trump gave his approval of the drone killing the bomber plans.  OR Trump may have been ignored or even defied; if they went ahead without his green light.

   Who runs America?  We elect Presidents and Congress; but who makes the final decisions?  It is not a new problem.  The agencies had their say in 1963 in Dallas.  Trump has had to survive a Butler, PA, assassin, and another in Florida with Ukrainian connections.

   One hopes Trump will bring Peace to Ukraine and other areas, and peace and prosperity to America.  One hopes the agencies will not stage another coup.

   Trump is an admirer of Israel's Iron Dome that protects the small nation from missiles from Iran, Yemen, and other hostile nations and territories.  Trump wants a Golden Dome to protect from Greenland to Alaska, Canada and the USA, a vast defensive dome to prevent missiles coming in to destroy our defences and cities.  Question - with drones a new and effective method of war, can drones simply slip in below the Dome and do all the damage they want???  Are Domes practical defences any more?  In the new age of the drone, can America rely on a Dome??  Hugh Murray