"I'm looking for famous quotes that express the idea that the person who controls X controls Y."

That's how I prompted Grok just now. I was inspired by something Kakistocracy wrote in the comments in last night's café:

It’s weird to think that Musk will end up having paid far less for the United States Government than he did for Twitter.* To be fair -- what he paid for twitter was kinda the down payment for the presidency. It was a package deal. He needed both.

Here are the quotes Grok fished up for me: 

• "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." This quote from George Orwell's "1984" emphasizes how control over information (history) leads to control over future outcomes.

• "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws." Attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild, this quote suggests that control over a nation's monetary system equates to control over its governance.

• "He who controls the media, controls the mind." This is a variation on a quote by Jim Morrison, highlighting how control over information dissemination (media) can shape public perception and behavior.

• "Control the money, you control countries. Control the food, you control the world." A quote often attributed to Henry Kissinger illustrates the power of controlling essential resources like finance and food to influence global or national control.

I'd like to have those 4 over to dinner at the same time. We could talk about controlling things. Who would control the conversation, hmmm? I say Orwell. 

Anyway, Grok and I — at my prompting — proceeded to talk about the ancient Archimedes quote "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." (It's different from those other 4 quotes, but not completely different.) And then I fed Kakistocracy's quote to Grok thusly: 

Have you thought much about how American speech and writing will evolve in the next 100 years?

I'm reading the comments to my post "Trump's 6-page letter is — and he intended this — one of the prominent documents in the annals of American history." In the post, I talk about the way Trump addresses his letter to the people of the future, 100 years from now. The commenter, Freder Frederson, writes:

The letter is the ranting of an unstable old man. One hundred years from now the question will be "[What] kind of people elected this raving lunatic president?"

I don't think he's even tried to imagine how the American written language will evolve over the course of the next 100 years — with all the intense and manipulative usage raging in politics and in social and mainstream media.

I suspect that my use of the word "evolve" will set off Trump haters to characterize him as lagging  evolutionarily. He's an ape, an orange ape, an orangutan!

But I think Trump is more of an example of what lies ahead. His language is an early manifestation of evolutionary change. And he's an especially influential user of the language. Look around. More and more Americans are talking like him, including his critics!

The people 100 years from now will probably speak and write much more like him than the people of today. And if that is where we're going, they are likely to read Trump's letter as a quite ordinary expression of a President's position and to read the criticism of his letter (if it survives to be read at all) as trivial banter.

IN THE COMMENTS: Unknown said:

I am reminded of L. Sprague de Camp's "Language For Time Travellers", partially excerpted here.

For some reason that reminded me of my all-time favorite "Star Trek" thing:



That's from the episode "Omega Glory," where there are characters reciting the Preamble to the Constitution, but you can't make out the words make out the words, because they "said them so badly":

CLOUD: When you would not say the holy words, of the Ee'd Plebnista, I doubted you.
KIRK: I did not recognize those words, you said them so badly, Without meaning.
ELDER: No! No! Only the eyes of a chief may see the Ee'd Plebnista.

Please note that there are certain kinds of events in this world that I do not blog.

I will quote my mother: It will only encourage them.

CORRECTION: The post title originally began "Please not..."

I noticed the error when commenter Unknown wrote:

do you mean 'note'?

And Birkel said...

Please not to leave that title as it is.

... which I originally misread as "Please leave that title as it is," because I instantly became entranced by the accidental phrase "Please not." It's my new motto.

ADDED: I'm reading the Wikipedia article, "Speak of the devil":

"Speak of the devil" is the short form of the English-language idiom "Speak of the devil and he doth appear"... It is used when an object of discussion unexpectedly becomes present during the conversation. It can also be used about a topic that quickly becomes relevant, such as the onset of rain or a car breaking down....

The article has a long list of the equivalent expression in many languages. A sampling:

• Libyan Arabic: "آحكي على القط يجيك ينط" (`ihky al ket yajek yanot), which translates to "mention the cat, and he will come jumping"...
• Tunisian Arabic: "اذكر الصيد ياكلك" (odhkour essed yaklek), which translates to "Mention the lion, he eats you"...
• Bulgarian: "Говорим за вълка, а той - в кошарата", translated as "Speak of the wolf and it is in the sheep pen."...
• Dutch: "Als je het over de duivel hebt, trap je op zijn staart", which translates to "If you speak of the devil, you step on his tail."....
• Italian: "Parli del diavolo e spuntano le corna", which translates as "Speak of the Devil and the horns will appear."...
• Swedish: "När man talar om trollen (så står de i farstun)", which translates to "When you speak of the trolls (they stand in the entrance hall)."...
• Yiddish: "מע זאָל דערמאָנען משיחן" (me zol dermonen mshikhn) which translates to "We should have talked about the Messiah," or "אַ שאָד מ'האָט נישט גערעדט פֿון משיח" (a shod m'hot nisht geredt fun mshikh), which translates to "A shame we weren't talking about the Messiah."...

"Why are adults going to so many superhero movies? How could they possibly hold your interest? I’m genuinely mystified by this aspect of our culture."

I wrote, in last night's café. I got some answers:

1. "Do you read Homer? 'Cause, maybe it ain't Shakespeare, but it *is* Homer" (Unknown).

2. "It's a mythos of sorts, if we wanted to get all sophisticated Joseph Campbell and the hero's journey, what makes a hero — are they born or just rise to the occasion?" (narciso, with typos corrected).

3. "Ann, the reason is people are more [unintelligent] than they were in times past" (wild chicken, with rude term censored).

4. "Dreams of our youth. The military adventure, the hot girl who finally agreed to a date, the university for finding answers, hitchhiking across the country, getting into a fist fight, making money, all ended in disappointment. Why the hell does anyone go to [a movie], especially romantic movies? An escape from the disappointment with our dreams" (Limited Perspective).

5. "My best guess is that Robert Downey Junior, who riffs on the tough [sci]-fi actors of the 60s, and the other highly paid actors who portray silly superheroes, are to the 2010s what Dylan, who riffed on the tough Delta Basin singers of the 30s, was to the 1960s. When a trained actor like Downey filters an older art form, to the kids who are watching, that is ancestor worship. They don't know they are getting something that is not quite the original. They are impressed by the backstory. (Tolkien pulled this trick in the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, in a different way - making you think that there was some great archetypal background to a story about a bunch of simple little Victorian hobbits running around a landscape, seeking to do good and defeat evil). I think that the superhero movies mostly sell to people in their 30s and below, which makes sense - not that they are kids, but compared to someone like Downey, who was an adult in the early 1980s, when all sorts of great actors and actresses, now long gone, were still alive --- well, they (people in their 30s) actually are kids, more or less. Hence, while 'Ironman' may be a joke to me, someone who is older than Downey, to them it is something like art. Also who does not like to eat movie theater popcorn and drink huge sodas?" (Anonymous).

6. "There is a (Super-Hero) shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus" (Ingachuck'stoothlessARM).

7. "I’m with Althouse, I don’t understand the appeal of these superhero movies either. Wife and I just finished binge watching 'Les Miserables' on PBS app and it was wonderful, great performances by Dominic Wast and Lily Collins, and perfect sets and costumes. You would literally think you were in 1830s France. Now watching season 5 of 'Bosch' on Amazon. Nothing in theaters as good as these shows" (MountainMan).

8. "I wholeheartedly agree. 47 years ago, I devoured all the Marvel comic books (cost .20/each), learned how to read and loved them all (Silver Surfer, The Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, et seq.) As an adult nearly 50 years later, watch these loud ass movies with teens at some multiplex? Bah" (Bay Area Guy).

9. "Some of the appeal has to be in the archetypes. Hulk is a comic representation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, for example ... and that story is about the duality of man. Civilization vs. barbarism. Jordan Peterson has a lot to say about archetypes in storytelling, and why they resonate so strongly with us" (Pianoman).

10. "For many of us, we grew up reading about these characters, and still love them. For others it the attraction is the story, a story as old as man himself...good guys versus bad guys and the good guys win. How could they possibly hold your interest? The same way women are fascinated by Harlequin romances and Fifty Shades of Grey. Who wouldn't want to be Tony Stark...rich, witty, super-smart and attractive to women. Or Captain America? Or Thor? The women in this universe are all smart, successful and heroic too. I’m genuinely mystified by this aspect of our culture. Don't look now, but your elitism is showing. At least you didn't call it deplorable" (Gahrie).

I'll go to 11 for Ice Nine: "Jeez, Ann, duh! Big explosions, and awesome car chases and crashes, and super cool magic flying guys, and hot shit outfits, and really easy to follow plots, and...Oh, you said 'adults' didn't you. Sorry."

Japanese fireworks.

IN THE COMMENTS: Unknown said:

I think it's actually computer generated. No, I'm not kidding. I don't see smoke - it's low res, the sound is exactly synced (they could have altered it afterward, but...). As a software developer with a lot of experience in computer generated images, it looks totally fake to me.

Aw, too bad! I looked it up and found, at Hoax-Slayer, "'Japan’s Fireworks Best in the World' Video is A Digital Simulation."

New evidence, answering a 14-year-old question.

On February 20, 2005, I asked whether it's "party hardy" or "party hearty." The NYT had written "party hardy," and that was the first time I'd noticed the near homophones and the potential for either word to make sense — with a slight difference of meaning:

If you're trying to wish the person well in holding up to all that drinking, it's "hardy." If you want them to have a lot of rollicking fun, it's "hearty." If you're trying to say both, stick to the spoken word. If you're the NYT, and you mean to insult the catty, exclusionary state school girls, "hardy" actually is the better choice.

 I love when people comment on old posts, especially really old posts, and I was pleased to see that "Unknown" stopped by last night to contribute this:

"We Shall Overcome" is now in the public domain.

Changing "will" to "shall" was insufficiently original to turn the old spiritual into a new, copyrightable song, the federal judge ruled last September. How much money did Pete Seeger et al. rake in royalties before two film documentarians balked at paying "as much as $100,000 to use it in several critical scenes" and sued? But maybe that one judge is wrong, an more litigation would vindicate the copyright holder.  The case is now settled, we're told (NYT), seemingly because the royalties were less than the lawsuit was costing.

The erstwhile copyright holder seeks credit for having donated the royalties all these years to something called the "We Shall Overcome Fund" and for having “carefully vetted” the uses of the song. It warns us that now the song can be used “in any manner they wish, including inaccurate historical uses, commercials, parodies, spoofs and jokes, and even for political purposes by those who oppose civil rights for all Americans.”

That's called free speech. And the use of the song in parodies, spoofs, and jokes would should already have been permitted as a matter of fair use and freedom of speech — though not (until now) without a fear of litigation.

By the way, what is the good reason for changing "We will overcome" to "We shall overcome"? I can't think of one.

IN THE COMMENTS: Unknown tries to answer my question:

Shall has a softer feel and implies it will take longer and require perseverance?"

I say:

I thought of this and considered it not a "good reason."

I think "will" suggests that the people singing the words have a will and are ready to act to get what they want.

"Shall" suggests that they are passively waiting for the predicted future to arrive. I guess it's expressive of the nonviolence theme that helped white people feel the feelings that were necessary to achieve the desired results.

Don't say: I want something and I'm going to take it. Say: I believe that you will perceive that I deserve this and give it to me.

I can't remember where I originally read this example but picture a drowning man saying: "I will die, no one shall save me" or "I shall die, no one will save me." The first sentence is properly understood as the words of a man intentionally drowning himself and warning off would-be rescuers. He's informing us that he's committing suicide. The second sentence expresses despair over accidental drowning and the absence of a rescuer. I think there are old jokes based on this distinction, in which a member of a supposedly uneducated ethnic group is allowed to drown because he didn't know the proper shall/will distinction.

"And so he was really trying to dominate and then literally stalk me around the stage and I would just feel this presence behind me."

Said Hillary Clinton, talking about the last debate to Ellen DeGeneres. She also said: "He was really all wrought up, and you could just sense how much anger he had."

Sexist claptrap, in my opinion, but Trump's response, which starts out okay, ends in what I'm seeing as a rape joke:

“So I’m standing at my podium by my chair. She walks across the room. She’s standing in front of me, right next to me,” Trump claimed.“And the next day I said what did the papers say? They said, ‘he invaded her space,’” he said. “Believe me, the last space that I want to invade is her space.”

IN THE COMMENTS: A lot of people are unable or unwilling to see the innuendo that I see, perhaps because you want to protect Trump. For example I Have Misplaced My Pants says:

I see no evidence that he is referring to Clinton's [I presume Althouse suggests] vagina. Althouse, you have a dirty mind. You do this a lot. Is your mind and your blog--just want to counterbalance!

On the other hand, Unknown says:

Of course he was using double entendre. How dense are you people?

And then there is EDH:

Althouse: "ends in what I'm seeing as a rape joke" ... which I guess is okay if you're a liberal, like Norman Lear?

"Who'd wanna rape you, anyway?"

I woke up this morning with a memory of it that consisted of nothing but his scary head yelling.

Here it is, Rudy Giuliani's speech in full:



Did he say something I need to remember, something I didn't already know or something I did know put in some alarming, urgent new way?

According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Giuliani was "the emotional peak" of the night. Yeah, but what emotion was that? Morrissey said "Giuliani amplified the energy on the floor all the way to 11." But the show is for the home audience, the TV watchers, and I don't want Republicans amped up to 11 in my living room. Morrissey realizes this...

I’d say that no one up to that point captured the spirit of the convention better on the first night — and any dissension left over from the afternoon appears to dissipate entirely. Perhaps it might have been too intense for people at home, but the delegates ate it up.

... but doesn't seem to want to have to admit that it's us people at home who matter.

For insight into the live crowd/home view problem that plagues podium speakers in a big room, reconsider the Dean scream:

SALZMAN: If you watch the clip in isolation, the one that played over and over again, it seems like he had this unhinged moment. But that's just not what happened....

TRIPPI: The biggest mistake you can make in American politics is to provide ammunition for your enemies.

MORDECAI: We didn't understand unidirectional microphones. Dean refused to get media training, so he didn't either....

IN THE COMMENTS: Unknown asks: "Ann, do you ever consider that maybe you're too fearful?"

I've considered it and I've also considered that this post does not express fear. It expresses aversion to an ugly old man yelling at me through the television. He may have wanted to reach into my psyche and stir up fears that lie deep within, but I felt nothing but superficial resistance to somebody coming at me like that. 

Unknown's full comment is actually: "Ann, do you ever consider that maybe you're too fearful? It's not flattering." And that's how men attempt to use female vanity to manipulate women. I should be afraid that I don't look pretty being afraid.

I asked for an explanation of Hillary's giant-gaping-collar costume, and you answered!

Here's where I ask, and here's the puzzling outfit:



I'm going to say right off the bat, my favorite — because it made me laugh a lot and because it's pretty damned arty — comes from Unknown, who remembered this get-up worn by the actor Emil Jannings in the 1930 movie "The Blue Angel":



And extra points to Eric the Fruit Bat for subtlety, saying "I'll let the link do the talking" and taking us here:



And to m stone for having the same idea but spelling out the functionality of a big, gaping collar: "The collar is designed to accept the bubble helmet that is worn with it." He chooses "the Alan Shepherd model":



Then we've got 2 from "Star Trek," from Quaestor and madAsHell, respectively:





The first guy is doing especially well in the gaping collar department, while the second one connects with the medallion around the neck.

And, also with a bold medallion, it's the Emperor Ming, from yoobee:



ObeliskToucher said "She's Sontaran, obviously...":



And finally — also getting a LOL from me — Joe Schmoe said "I thought she was going for the turtle look":

"Here’s my perfect blog post. There’s a story in the news. People are interested. I know something other people don't..."

"... about this general area of law, and I can say it in a few paragraphs that I can just whip out. When a reader says, 'Huh, I hadn’t ever thought about that. I hadn’t seen this precedent. I hadn’t been aware of that legal doctrine. I hadn’t realized how this analogy would fit,' that makes me feel that I’ve done what I became an academic to do, which is to spread ideas."

Says Eugene Volokh, quoted in "Right Side of the Law: Eugene Volokh’s Global Influence/The wunderkind-turned-law professor is that L.A. anomaly: an influential conservative blogger."

The "wunderkind" part includes having his IQ tested at 206 when he was 12 and
— his words —  "socially inept" and "goofy," about which he says: "Kids who fit my profile have a difficult adolescence even in a normal junior high school and high school."

IN THE COMMENTS: Unknown says he thought that quote in the post title was about me, but it's clearly not my idea of the perfect blog post for myself. It's something I do sometimes, but it's not what I like to do or hope to do and it's not at all the energy behind this blog. The classic example of what I'm trying to do with this blog is the 2005 post "Tattoos remind you of death." I don't need a tattoo saying "'Tattoos remind you of death' reminds you how to blog" to remember that.

"Why isn't this the subject of a post?"

Asks Unknown in yesterday's "April snow," and I say:

I'm not a news feed. And I don't post on everything about Dylan.

It didn't hit the level of interestingness that I was demanding at the point in my blogging day when I saw the story.

What is the sound of one hand clapping? And what is a post about posting about not posting and my posting about not posting and then posting that? Unknown!

ADDED: If I was going to do a post about Bob Dylan, it would be "Check Out Bob Dylan's NSFW Magazine Cover Designs."

As expected, I got some pushback for saying "I hope the Supreme Court blesses us with" a right to same-sex marriage.

That was a provocative way to say that it will be a blessing if the upcoming Supreme Court cases resolve this issue that is dogging and distorting the political discourse in our country.

Even to say "it will be a blessing" would have been provocative, since it seems to give God credit for whatever good happens. But that usage of "blessing" has constitutional text to support it:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

Liberty is a set of blessings, our Founders told us. The human task is to secure the blessings. If the Supreme Court says it has found a liberty — let's say a right to same-sex marriage — we may say that it is securing a liberty that is already there. When someone says "bless you," that doesn't mean that the blessing emanates from the speaker. It's short for "God bless you." It's asking God to deliver a blessing. In the Constitution, what we see is that the Framers believed that God had blessed us with liberty.

So to say "I hope the Supreme Court blesses us" is to identify the Court as the source of the blessing, to put the Court in the place of God, and to prompt and tease those who think the Court improperly makes up rights. That was deliberate and devilish temptation. Thanks for succumbing!

Below the fold are the comments that inspired this post: