The memorandum in formal script- Gramond, we thought- was an unusual feature on this lovely morning. The day, and the memo, both got our attention, since they both started out a bit chill. It was a bit like night, nature, and nurturing were bidding farewell to a winter thankfully sliding into the past. And it is the past itself that appears under assault this morning.
The legal note said it was a matter of corporate self-defense on their part. They were probably referring to the spectacular clip of the shooting on the New York Subway this week. That was a new outrage sandwiched into the Daniel Penny case still grinding forward. He is the ex-Marine accused of slaying a homeless man who was attacking riders on a sealed car a few months ago. The new case features National Guard deployments, righteous Governors and more startling violence. The context is what gets lost on the Friday dump of the mess we deal with on Saturdays. In eekend time, it just reflects the changing context about safety and disintegrating public order. The one we are told is actually getting better.
The Legal Section is of course opposed to violence, but mostly concerned about liability for a possible perception of being overly aggressive in coverage.
You know how the cycle goes. Information produced in the working week reflects stuff that has gone viral in social media. Some of it is caught and packaged to properly display correct messaging, since it could be inconvenient if not packaged properly. Like Senator Schumer’s strange remarks about the current leader of Israel. Accordingly, controversial matters are packaged up on the weekend in a manner that be easily storied in the memory hole until they figure out what can plausibly sold on Monday in support of things we are supposed to accept as truthful.
So, Saturdays we have a chance to see the last of the stories that will disappear before the new week. The Memo from Legal contained partial guidance on how to proceed with a story that had been in progress and would have been memory-holed except it continues to pop up. Our irreverent scribe Splash has been keeping some of the stories in packaging that does not reflect official messaging, but which may be noted as independent and not an official position. Our legal position is that use is justified as personal, not corporate. Splash is an independent contractor whose views do not necessarily reflect those of management. Or the low-resolution images he used for identification only.
Like the ones that set him off this morning. He had worked on the story of the removal of the Confederate reconciliation memorial over at Arlington. For our Army members, it was as visceral as dropping the “Duty, Honor, Country” from the West Point mission statement that was announced this week. It follows the VA’s dismissal and subsequent restoration of the picture of that impassioned kiss the Sailor bestowed on the nurse commemorating the end of World War II. He had made a brief scene in the circle at the Friday meeting that marks the transition from caffeine to alcohol. As a group, we are opposed to the destruction of public property, or at least a discussion about why it is necessary. Maybe before it happens. The various activities- blocking streets, shouting “River to the Sea” and stuff has been interesting. But there was another string of data about that.
That’s where Lord Arthur Balfour briefly appears in newer news than he has used to. His portrait, before during and after the Wednesday event, was striking. A quick aside for context. Arthur James Balfour was the First Earl of Balfour. He served at the zenith of what used to be known as the British Empire. He had- and still has, we assume- a string of initials after his title and name. They include the ones signifying membership as a Knight of the Garter and some others whose provenance is currently undetermined to English speakers on the west shore of the Atlantic ocean. He was Prime Minister a couple times- a Conservative PM, a term that has acquired new meaning(s) but as Foreign Secretary in 1917 issued the “Balfour Declaration” in 1917. The short memory is to recall the memo as supporting a “home for the Jewish People” in a place called Palestine. The parts that are left our include the most massive conflict in human history still in progress, and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire which had conquered the area after Rome’s massive collapse.
But Lord Balfour takes the wrap for allocating territory to which modern activists claim he had no authority to dispense. Thenprotrait of him that was defaced was done in 1914, and has hung mostly in honor since it was placed on the wall in Cambridge.
The graphic that starts this one is not intended to be partisan. It just captures something that is as extraordinary for what is not happening as what is. It is reflected in many of the graphic social anomaiies now routinely captured on cell-phone video and festooned on screens around the world. That peripheral point? No one is doing anything about it.
In the case of Lord Balfour, addition of context helps the analysis. There is more to the scene. Not included is the someone with a phone up to face to capture the video. Then, the individual in the down coat produces the spray-can of paint, which is described as having some vile additive substance contained in the tint. Then the physical attack on the canvas occurs with a steel blade, leaving his Lordship bereft of a midsection.
The other images are just contextual. Famous landscape artist John Constable, slightly earlier in era than Lord Balfour, is now under assault for his clearly patriarchal and Colonial Settler landscapes. New interpretations suggest there are some pervasive nationalist flaws in the art and the English character. The string at the bottom of the graphic represents the recent attempted defacement of the US Constitution.
That one had the same drill as the assault on Lord Balfour. The level of outrage it caused was higher here, of course, since we swore a personal oath to it. But the Founding Document shares shomething with the former prime minister. No one- including armed guards almost in the frame- did a darned thing about the defacement while it was being set up and in progress. This is an institution fully alarmed, all on camera, and protected by armed guards a few feet distant. The. whole thing strikes us as absurd as the Greta Thunberg media campaign. Or Climate Czar John Kerry.
The Archives claim the Constitution was unaffected and safe in its enclosure. “No damage was done to the document itself.” they said in a statement. That is a relief, of course, and we understand there were legible copies of the document made since it was written not-quite a quarter thousand years ago. But the people here- not exclusively white males- who swore allegiance to it are sort of irritated. Legal says to use that word instead of ‘pissed off.’ That phrase can now apparently be uttered on the media, though preferably by the contractor community. Or allegiance to the ideas contained in the document under the dust and glass and bathed in a preservative atmosphere.
What is interesting is that the Archives mission has changed, like the Army’s. They are now not considered to be just a responsible repository, but to be an instrument used to re-organize the past in a more palatable manner. That seems to be the theme on all this, and worthy of the Memo From Legal. We will use it if the legal spotlight comes our way!
Copyright 2024 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com