Penelope’s Loom

  In light of my recent posts on a certain tangerine colored car salesman, I think you might be interested, Dear Reader, in learning about the dangers of putting the military in charge--I mean operating relatively independently, without the leavening influence of the people's will, or the politicians.  Now trust me, this guy was a real schmuck. Who was this? His full name was Field Marshall   Horatio Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener.   I know, right? What a handle that would have been to live with.  But, who was this guy, and why do we care? As usual, you know what I am gonna say:  he was a real dickhead. Born in 1850, of relatively aristocratic English stock, he spent his early childhood in Ireland, where his parents had an estate.  However, the Field Marshall always identified himself as an ENGLISHMAN.  The family moved to the continent, specifically Switzerland in 1864, where our young Marvel hero-in-training was educated.  Eventually, he was sent to the Royal Military Acad

Did you ever read  The Illustrated Man? here's a link to the real work: https://archive.org/details/illustratedman0000brad There was the universal, quiet conceit and easiness of men accustomed to peace." "Zero Hour" “Long before you knew what death was you were wishing it on someone else.” The Illustrated Man Or, did you ever read The Martian Chronicles? (please ignore the unfortunate TV series starring Rock Hudson, or the fact that Bradbury COMPLETELY ignored Mars' poisonous atmosphere.  To be fair, the precise composition of Martian air was definitively discovered in the early 70s.  But, really, one could have properly assumed that, yes?). If you'd like the real thingie, i.e. the book:   https://archive.org/details/bwb_O8-CZL-512 Additionally, I'll include one of the scariest stories from the first work, entitled "The Veldt": https://www.juhsd.net/cms/lib/CA01902464/Centricity/Domain/256/2016_The%20Veldt.pdf "The Men of Earth came to Mars

I am not a constitutional scholar. Additionally, this document is sometimes troublesome, because certain passages are ambiguous--subject to varying interpretations. There is one question currently before the supreme court of the US, that has some far reaching implications: is Article 14, Section 3 sufficient grounds to remove the orange-faced, used car salesman from a state's ballot? Alright, that's the question, but what is the answer? Let's see if we can find out a little bit about this. Here is the 14th amendment, and then section 3: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction

 I just have to start this entry with an obvious clip.  Don't play it if it offends, alright? Behold the Scientology twit! But, seriously, I just love that clip (although I hated the movie--must be because my ex-husband loved it.) I have to put forth my obligatory luxury at this point.  This entry is going to raise issues that some might find, ah, sensational, or perhaps unnecessary.  However, for me, learning the language of important symbols provides an integral understanding of specific cultures--how they worshipped;  how they interpreted sex roles;  what their values were. Times change, and so does the meaning given to specific symbols.  Take a gander at this: I like that sequence, because it illustrates what I mean so well.  To extrapolate from the clip for a moment, let's take the most obvious changing symbol: Amazing, isn't it? The swastika. To us, this symbol is the personification of all evil;  to the ancients, it was not.  And yet, this is incredibly difficult to