Tumgik
#Both of those statements are true and any shakespeare fan out there can back me up
edettethegreat · 4 months
Note
Which one of Shakespeare's books would you recommend to someone who hasn't read any of his works before?
I mean that’s completely a matter of personal taste, the first Shakespeare play I’ve ever read in school was The Tempest and tbh I really didn’t like it—so luckily even if you start off with a play you don’t like, that doesn’t mean you’re doomed forever to dislike Shakespeare.
These videos were my real introduction to Shakespeare, so if you wanna get quick little summaries of some of Shakespeare’s most famous plays and see what appeals to you, you can now easily do that
10 notes · View notes
letholojimin · 7 years
Text
HOUR 3 (JJK)
STUCK SERIES - HOUR 3
Tumblr media
Pairing: Jeon Jungkook x Reader Themes: high school au, badboy & fuckboy jungkook Genre: Fluff Word Count: 1,153 Summary: After being labelled the school’s biggest bad boy, Jeon Jungkook chooses to live up to the title. What he doesn’t know is that his arrogance will lead him to you.
HOUR 2 | HOUR 4 | MASTERLIST
“Wow, this place is amazing at night.” You breathe out, garnering the boy’s attention.
“Yeah,” he agrees. “It is.”
After walking around with only the faint light of the moon to guide your way within the familiar hallways of your school, you finally found the maintenance room. Both of you had messed around with a few switches until after one specific click, the familiar whirr of fans and buzz of electricity began to ring in your ears. The lights had turned on immediately, leaving you two to squint in surprise. 
“Shit!” He had exclaimed, the sudden brightness of your environment leaving you two to close your eyes for a few seconds. “That was painful.”
Soon enough, both of you guys have your eyes open and you simply nod in agreement. Basking in darkness does have its’ disadvantage for when you decide to turn on some lights. It wasn’t your fault your damn school had been irresponsible enough not to double check for any other living human beings in the buildings. 
Sure, now you had fans every other corner whatsoever but for some reason, it was just extremely hot in the area. You’re fanning yourself with your palm, as if it would do you any good, in desperation. Jungkook removes his sweater and leaves himself in a black shirt. 
“Is there no place in here with air-conditioning?” You blurt out, the warm temperature getting to your head. You did not find the maintenance room in the darkness just to continue suffering. He tilts his head to the side, trying to think of an area while you two continue walking aimlessly. 
He hums, and starts to change direction. “The library.” 
With his suggestion, you sigh in content. How did you miss that idea? You were literally there at least thrice a week. The place has the best air-conditioning system in your entire school but the problem would usually be the amount of freshmen crowding under the vents or the seniors shushing the younger classmen since they were studying profusely for their upcoming college entrance tests. The area was even more crowded during the exam season wherein everyone was actually trying to cram months of lessons into one week of ‘study sessions’.
Before you know it, you guys are entering the large, high-ceilinged area. There is moonlight glimmering in through the large panels on the right side of the library, the roof being transparent glass. You’ve never been there at night but with the dimmer lighting as compared to the day, you were sure you liked the place a lot better.
“Wow, this place is amazing at night.” You breathe out, garnering the boy’s attention. 
“Yeah,” he agrees. “It is. Especially without the noisy underclassmen. Those obnoxious little shits make this place a hangout spot.” 
With his undeniably true statement, you burst into a small fit of laughter. Jungkook doesn’t miss the way the light hits your face in an extremely flattering angle which scares him because he only thinks about that kind of stuff when the moon is the only source of light when a girl’s under him. He also doesn’t miss how you try to cover your mouth in an attempt to stay slient. 
“Why are you trying to be quiet? There’s literally nobody here to tell us shut up. “ He asks, lifting an eyebrow. As if to emphasize his point, he places the sides of his hands to surround his lips. 
“WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT!” He screams into the open area and the action makes you laugh even louder and hit his arm. He begins to chuckle at your reaction and makes his way to sit down on one of the tables near the shelves. 
“Tell me, Y/N- what exactly has been worthy of being read by you?” He asks, leaning back on the table with his arms straightened and palms pressed flat on the surface. His gaze is focused on you and you usher to one of the shelves, quickly skimming through the titles. 
Your fingers end up touching a classic- The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald and reminisce the one time you picked the book up back in your first year in high school. At that time, you only heard the name in your English class along with a brief idea of the novel but it had interested you enough to read the book. 
You hand Jungkook the pocket book and upon looking at the title, his face lights up. “This is one of my favorite books!” He exclaims as he turns the brittle pages. “I take it that you like old stories? Classic, maybe?”
You nod, lifting an eyebrow. Jeon, widely known as a heartbreaker, reading these kinds of novels? There’s definitely a lot of things that this kid was hiding from the world. He gets up from where he’s been sitting and walks over to where you were previously and begins naming books, asking you if you’ve read them. From Pride and Prejudice to Wuthering Heights up to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, you say yes to everything he’s said. 
Only when he mentions “To Kill A Mockingbird” do you actually shake your head from side to side to indicate a no. He immediately pulls the book out from the shelf. “You should really read this book. It’s amazing.” 
“When did you find the time to read all of these things? Not to be rude but you don’t exactly seem like the type to spend a weekend reading The Little Prince whatsoever.” You find yourself asking the million-dollar question and he nods slowly, understanding.
“Other people don’t really know the saying don’t judge a book by it’s cover, don’t they?” He retaliates, tapping the cover of the novel he’s encouraging you to read. “But to answer your question, I read all of these during my summers starting eighth grade. After football practice, I’d always pass by a nearby bookstore. The place introduced me to reading and I guess I began to like literature.”
You nod, making sense of his explanation. That was true- lots of people forgot that there was always more to people than they let on which was sad at times but you couldn’t help but feel guilty that you never really tried to speak to Jungkook outside of now, when both of you were stuck with each other in the confines of the school.
“Don’t take my quotation to heart, even I used to think you were just a basic goody two-shoes. We’re even.” The mood becomes lighter after that and the two of you continue to spend an entire hour basking in the night light and the comfortable temperature the library provides you two with.
Jeon Jungkook is a lot of things, and so are you. What he is tonight, however, is a young man full of surprises. And instead of worrying about how the rest of the night will go, your thoughts have turned around. 
Now, you’re looking forward to the rest of the night.
HELLO IT HAS BEEN 14 DAYS SINCE I HAVE UPDATED STUCK AND I HOPE YOU ENJOY THIS!!! IT IS MY EXAM WEEK STILL BUT PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO SEND ME QUESTIONS/REQUESTS/COMMENTS BECAUSE I APPRECIATE THAT <33
also wow this comeback is literally amazing i felt inspired to write this because of mic drop jungkook!!! also i will try to update more frequently cause ive been inactive as heck on this blog im sorry huhu 
349 notes · View notes
faithfulnews · 4 years
Text
G. K. Chesterton Before the U.S. Supreme Court
Tumblr media
No, G. K. Chesterton never appeared before the United States Supreme Court in person. (Just imagine the massive man making an impassioned case before the judges!) Yet he was quoted in 2018 and 2019 in both a dissent from Justice Neil Gorsuch and also a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Gorsuch, Chesterton, and the Fence
Justice Gorsuch opened and closed his dissent in Artis v. District of Columbia with the example of Chesterton’s fence:
Chesterton reminds us not to clear away a fence just because we cannot see its point. Even if a fence doesn’t seem to have a reason, sometimes all that means is we need to look more carefully for the reason it was built in the first place.
The same might be said about the law before us.
As a Chesterton fan, it’s exciting to see him quoted as an obvious and well-known authority. Gorsuch provides no context, footnote, or even the initials “G. K.” He assumes that, simply by saying “Chesterton,” his readers will know who he is talking about, much like we would quote Shakespeare or any other author whose authority is so evident that nothing more needs saying.
The example that Gorsuch refers to comes from Chesterton’s 1929 book, The Thing.  
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road.
The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’
To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’
“This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.
“There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”
Gorsuch returned to Chesterton’s parable of the fence at the end of the dissent:
The Court today clears away a fence that once marked a basic boundary between federal and state power. Maybe it wasn’t the most vital fence and maybe we’ve just simply forgotten why this particular fence was built in the first place. But maybe, too, we’ve forgotten because we’ve wandered so far from the idea of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers that we’ve begun to lose sight of what it looked like in the first place.
Chesterton vs. Cynicism 
In his book A Republic If You Can Keep It Gorsuch quotes from Chesterton again when exhorting his readers to avoid cynicism:
Sometimes it’s hard to see the way forward for all the trials that lie so squarely before us. But when you find yourself in doubt, I encourage you to remember this story from G. K. Chesterton. Chesterton noted that an ordinary man, asked “on the spur of the moment” to explain “why he prefer[red] civilization to savagery,” likely “would look wildly round at object after object, and would only be able to answer vaguely, ‘Why, there is that bookcase . . . and the coals in the coal-scuttle . . . and pianos . . . and policemen.’” But, as Chesterton reminds us, there is sometimes wisdom in a stuttering reply. Sometimes the virtues of civilization are too numerous to count, almost so obvious as to be too obvious to see. If asked to explain them, it’s hard to know where to begin.
The same is true of our constitutionally governed republic. We may not always notice them, but what the Constitution calls our “Blessings of liberty” are everywhere around us.
Chesterton, Justice Thomas, and the Evil of Eugenics
The second Chesterton quote shows up in a blistering concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. For 20 pages, Justice Thomas lays out the racist and eugenic roots of America’s abortion regime in all their gruesomeness. The comment from Chesterton comes during a portion in which Thomas lays out the many reasons eugenicists did their “purifying” work:
Although race was relevant, eugenicists did not define a person’s “fitness” exclusively by race. A typical list of dysgenic individuals would also include some combination of the “feeble-minded,” “insane,” “criminalistic,” “de- formed,” “crippled,” “epileptic,” “inebriate,” “diseased,” “blind,” “deaf,” and “dependent (including orphans and paupers).” Imbeciles 139; see Applied Eugenics 176–183; cf. G. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils 61 (1922) (“[F]eeble-mindedness is a new phrase under which you might segregate anybody” because “this phrase conveys nothing fixed and outside opinion.”
Chesterton’s books are full of insight and are generally suffused with humility and humor. One of the few exceptions to the typical joyful tone in Chesterton’s corpus is Eugenics and Other Evils, the book Justice Thomas quotes from here. Chesterton expresses horror and anger at the arguments from those who advocated the sterilization of inferior groups of people, arguments in the early 1900s that were embraced by many considered to be “progressive,” including Teddy Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Margaret Sanger, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Echoes of this mindset—that some are “unfit” for life or fertility—continue to show up today in both the ideology of the alt-right and the underlying ideology of recent abortion advocacy for populations in poverty. In 2009, while commenting on the court’s upholding of the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funding for abortion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked:
Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding of abortion.
Justice Thomas’s dissent ties today’s abortion regime with last century’s push for eugenics, a movement that explicitly sought to limit “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” In doing so, he turned to Chesterton’s argument against requiring sterilization of “the feeble-minded.” Here is the fuller context of Chesterton’s quote:
“The whole point of our contention is that this phrase conveys nothing fixed and outside opinion. There is such a thing as mania, which has always been segregated; there is such a thing as idiotcy, which has always been segregated; but feeble-mindedness is a new phrase under which you might segregate anybody.
“My point is not that I have never met anyone whom I should call feeble-minded, rather than mad or imbecile. My point is that if I want to dispossess a nephew, oust a rival, silence a blackmailer, or get rid of an importunate widow, there is nothing in logic to prevent my calling them feeble-minded too. And the vaguer the charge is the less they will be able to disprove it.”
Justice Thomas relies on Chesterton as part of his broader goal of showing just how expansive and insidious the eugenics mindset could be. He excoriates the “full-throated defense of forced sterilization” that marked the Supreme Court in 1927, including this chilling statement from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Near his conclusion, Thomas writes:
Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.
Thomas shares the same instinct as Chesterton in regards to eugenics, sterilization, and abortion. We can only hope more Supreme Court justices will share that revulsion in the future.
Go to the article
0 notes
willsherjohnkhan · 7 years
Text
The Inexplicable Miss Molly Hooper
Chapter 1: The Missing Pathologist
***
221B BAKER STREET - 2015
Sherlock Holmes sat at his kitchen table. In front of him a beaker on a stand over a Bunsen burner, its contents just starting to boil when his mobile began to ring. As the experiment required his full attention, being that its result would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the guilt or innocence of a client, he ignored the irritating distraction, sighing with relief when it finally stopped ringing.
Time was of the essence with an experiment such as this, any false move on his part would cause an inaccurate reading, which could result in dire consequences for his client. He was just about to add the contents of the pipet in his hand to the boiling liquid when his mobile began to ring once again.
The moment was lost, the experiment ruined.
Sherlock grabbed his phone. “What Lestrade,” he snapped. “I was just…”
“I don’t care what you’re working on Sherlock,” Lestrade growled in response. “Get your arse over to Barts morgue – now!”
And the line went dead.
Sherlock checked the screen, most put out when it confirmed that the Detective Inspector had indeed disconnected the call.
***
BARTS HOSPITAL – MORGUE
When he arrived at Barts, John was waiting for him, having been similarly summoned by Lestrade.
When they entered the morgue they found that it was an active crime scene.
When Lestrade made his way over to them. John asked. “Where’s Molly?” as he looked around for the young pathologist.
“She’s the reason for all this,” Lestrade responded as he indicated the CSI work being performed.
Sherlock glanced over as Anderson and his team worked diligently collecting swabs and samples.
Lestrade’s gaze followed Sherlock’s. “There are signs that there was a struggle. As near as we can tell Molly put up a hell of a fight.”
“So where is she?” Sherlock asked, his concern only too clear to his friends.
“There is no trace of her anywhere,” came the unsatisfactory response.
“Don’t be ridiculous Lestrade,” Sherlock responded impatiently. “She can’t have just disappeared into thin air.”
“But that’s the thing Sherlock. Molly isn’t just missing, it’s like she never existed.”
Sherlock was now genuinely annoyed. He’d always regarded Lestrade as a reasonable, down to earth sort of person. But his statement was bordering on the fanciful.
“Even if she has been kidnapped, as is clear from what’s happened here, there would still be records of her somewhere. Her Birth Certificate, Medical Degrees, friends and family,” he stated with conviction.
“But that’s just it, we’ve checked the records, there is no birth certificate for her, no lease for her flat under her name, school records, medical degrees. And even those who know her well, family and friends claim to have never heard of her…”
“That’s impossible.”
“That’s why I called you. As far as I can discover, the only people who currently remember Molly are you, me, John and Stamford. And I’m not afraid to admit that I’m concerned that there’s a very good chance that we may end up forgetting her too.”
At that moment Lestrade was called away.
Sherlock considered all that Scotland Yard detective had told him. He intended to perform his own investigation to confirm the validity of these unbelievable facts. But if they turned out to be true…
For a man used to deductive reasoning based on cold, hard logic, backed up by the application of scientific methodology. It was highly unnerving to be struck by a sense of growing unease and foreboding for the safety of his pathologist.
For wherever Molly was; she was in very grave danger.
***
Chapter 2: Out of Place, Out of Time
***
LONDON – 1895
The pain she felt as she slammed into the ground came as a huge relief to Molly Hooper. It meant that her tummy-churning journey had finally come to an end, and that she had returned back to something that resembled reality.
Momentarily stunned, she stayed where she’d unceremoniously landed, only scrambling unsteadily to her feet when she became aware of a horse-drawn carriage bearing down on her.
Her body still swaying from the after-effects of being forcibly snatched from her place of work and then almost being trampled, Molly took several calming breathes, using the time to regain her senses as she tried to establish where exactly she’d ended up.
Looking around her, she recognised enough of the buildings to know that she was still in London. She let out a sigh of relief. But as she viewed the skyline she frowned. ‘That couldn’t be right…’
Glancing around her she noted the state of the roads, the people moving all around her, and what they wore. The pungent yet fresh smell of horse manure in the air, so different from the London she knew and loved.
And she realised that her initial assessment was true….
Through an inexplicable feat of time-travel Molly Hooper has ended up in Victorian London.
And as if that wasn’t enough to get her head around, Molly now began to recognise faces in the crowd as they went about their business. It wasn’t like these people resembled people she knew in her time. She wasn’t looking at people that were related to her friends and associates. They were the people she knew.
“That can’t be good,” she muttered under her breath.
Molly was a huge fan of the TV series Doctor Who, but that didn’t make her an expert on time-travel. She remembered in the episode The Shakespeare Code when the Tenth Doctor brought Martha Jones to Elizabethan London to see William Shakespeare himself perform at The Globe Theatre. Martha had been rightly concerned about what she could and couldn’t do in case it impacted on her own timeline. But Martha hadn’t seen anyone she knew personally. No, the situation Molly found herself facing resembled more that faced by Rose Tyler and Mickey Smith in the episodes Rise of the Cybermen / The Age of Steel, what science fiction writers referred to as an Alternate Reality.
Molly decided it was time to get some answers: How was she brought here? Why was she brought here? And how she was going to get back to her own time and reality?
Decision made, Molly walked with determination through the familiar, yet strangely unfamiliar streets until she reached her destination, the address where she knew she would find the only person with a mind exceptional enough to help her – 221B Baker Street.
***
Chapter 3: A Solution to Boredom
***
221B BAKER STREET – 1895
Sherlock Holmes, Great Britain’s, if not the world’s only private consulting detective was bored. There are no cases to solve, or at least none worth his time.
Ever since the demise of Professor Moriarty, the most intellectually stimulating opponent he was ever likely to encounter, followed by the capture of Colonel Sebastian Moran, A man who managed to be both hero and villain with his remarkable air riffle. Every other case that had been brought to his attention seemed trivial and meaningless by comparison.
Compounding his situation was the simple matter that his friend and biographer, Doctor John Watson was currently away. Spending a few relaxing days with his wife, Mary in the country.
Leaving the great detective with nothing to preoccupy his mind, no way to quieten his ever-constant need for stimulation in the form of an intriguing problem to solve.
So he turned to the only option left open to him. But just as he was on the point of injecting the seven percent solution into his arm, the syringe was snatched out of his hand.
“What the bloody hell do you think you’re doing Sherlock?” exclaimed the most remarkable looking young woman the detective could ever recall having laid eyes on.
As she clutched the implement to her chest, she continued despairingly. “So some things never change.”
Though taken aback by her appearance, the detective recovered himself quickly, and instantly took inventory of the forthright young woman before him. First and foremost he noted her unconventional attire: a white coat, trousers and flat shoes, so, possibly an actress. Upon further inspection he dismissed this notion, given the monogram on the jacket, the small callosus on her fingers and the chemical odour she attempted to hide with some form of perfume, led the detective to the conclusion that she worked at the mortuary at one of London’s Hospitals. Then there was the informal way she addressed him, as though they were intimate acquaintances. There was a something about the woman, though small and plain, something that could best be described as otherworldly, which all led to the inescapable, though illogical conclusion…
“Sherlock, I think I’ve travelled in time,” came the confirmation. “Or possibly inter-dimensionally…” she added, chewing distractedly on her lower lip.
Sherlock frowned. Everything in his cold scientific heart rebelled against such fantastical notions. But as he continued to observe her, his keen intellect acknowledged that the unusual woman before him was as scientifically motivated, in the medical sciences at least, as he was, and was therefore not likely to be prone to delusions of the fanciful sort, save that of the romantic arena. But that was due entirely to her sex…
“Sherlock! Snap out of your damned Mind Palace! I need your help, now!”
Holmes felt his jaw literally drop. No one, certainly not anyone of the female persuasion had ever spoken to him quite in that manner before.
He was instantly smitten, though not in any romantic sense. He simply admired her forthright manner. Indicating the sofa with an elegant sweep of his hand. “Please take a seat, Miss…?”
“Molly Hooper,” Molly replied, as she sat down, the strange events once again threatening to overwhelm her. But she quickly regained her senses, unwilling to give in to such weakness. She needed answers.
“Now, Miss Hooper,” Holmes began. “How may I be of service?”
Looking the detective squarely in the eye, Molly began her unusual tale. “The facts are these. I’m from the year 2015. I work at St Bart’s Hospital, I’m a Pathologist, and I was just finishing up my work for the day, when I became aware of an odd glow that seemed to emanate from somewhere behind me. Before I could turn to ascertain the cause, I was grabbed from behind and pulled into… a time tunnel, or something of the like. I struggled to free myself. When I finally succeeded, I found myself… here, in London, in late nineteenth century London. But a London that contains people I know and recognise from my own time. Including you.”
“Fascinating,” Holmes murmured.
Molly looked down, the syringe still clasped in her hand. Saying aloud the events that had taken place hadn’t made the situation feel more real. Instead she was left wondering it was all a dream, or a hallucination…
But the detective would have none of it. Getting up from his chair, he retrieved the syringe from her, and placed it back in its case, before putting the case back in the desk draw.
He no longer needed the artificial stimulant. He finally had something far more intriguing to occupy his mind.
Turning back to his client he informed her. “When you eliminate the impossible, Miss Hooper, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
“So, you’re… you’re going to help me?” Molly asked, a spark of hope reigniting at the detectives determined expression.
“I am,” he assured her.
***
Chapter 4: Following in Her Footsteps
***
BART’S MORGUE – 2015
Sherlock sat watching, then re-watching the footage from the security cameras. It showed Molly going about her daily business, until there is a sudden flash of light.
Molly begins to struggle and thrash about. She appears to try and call out, but its like someone has a hand over her mouth. Except that the video footage clearly shows that she is the only person in the morgue at the time.
So what the hell is going on?
“Looks like she’s having a fit,” John offered as he watched the footage over Sherlock’s shoulder.
“Possibly,” the consulting detective replied, his eyes never leaving the screen.
“Maybe she’s finally lost her marbles,” Lestrade callously remarked. “Cutting up cadavers every day, it must pray on the mind.”
“This is Molly we’re talking about, Lestrade,” Sherlock snapped angrily. “She’s made of far sterner stuff.”
“Oh, you know her do you?” the Detective Inspector asked, clearly surprised. “If I’d known that I wouldn’t have called you in.”
John looked at Lestrade totally gob smacked. “We’re talking about Molly, Molly Hooper, Pathologist. She who has assisted not only us, but you as well Lestrade in the solving of a number of cases.”
But Lestrade’s expression remained completely blank.
“Ignore him John,” Sherlock advised. “He’s clearly come under the influence of whatever it is that is so determined that we all forget Molly Hooper ever existed.”
“But why?”
“I don’t know,” Sherlock replied honestly. “But I intend to find out.”
John peered at the footage. “What’s that?” he queried. The video showed Molly continuing her struggle against an unseen assailant, and then there was another flash of light, and Molly had disappeared. “A camera glitch?”
Sherlock got to his feet and made his way over to the spot where Molly had stood. He became immediately aware of…‘something’ there was no other way to describe the sensation that washed over him, urging him to step forward. But he refused to give into its pull, for the moment at least.
Retrieving his magnifying lens from an inside jacket pocket he spent several minutes examining the area, looking for anything that would give him a clue as to the whereabouts of the young pathologist. But it soon became evident that he wasn’t going to find any answers here.
His gaze returned to the spot where Molly had stood when she disappeared.
“You’ve found something?” John asked.
When John made to join him Sherlock ordered. “Stay back.”
John did as requested, though his expression showed genuine confusion.
Sherlock made his way back to the spot where he’d felt the unusual sensation. It was still there, but weaker. Time was running out. He dared not mention the idea that was forming in his mind to John. The former army doctor would assume he was high. As it was he was having difficulty believing it himself. It went against everything he believed in. It wasn’t logical. But he needed to make a decision, and quickly.
Turning back to address his friend, he requested. “Whatever you do John, promise me you wont forget Molly Hooper, or me.” Without waiting for a response he took a step forward, and disappeared in a flash of light.
***
BAKER STREET, LONDON – 1895
Molly and Holmes were standing outside 221B trying to hail a hansom cab when they were temporarily blinded by a bright flash.
Then they were knocked to the pavement, the result of colliding with the large object that had emerged through the light.
Holmes quickly got to his feet, before going to the aid of his client. “Miss Hooper, are you all right?”
“Molly? Is that you?”
Molly gave a gasp of surprise when she recognised the voice of the third person now getting to his feet.
“Sherlock!” she cried with delight. “How did you find me?”
Sherlock looked around him, a concerned frown marring his brow as he took in the vastly different London to the one he was used to. And then his gaze fell on Molly’s companion.
Noting the stunned expressions on both men’s faces, Molly decided there was only one thing to do. “Sherlock Holmes, circa 2015, let me introduce you to…Sherlock Holmes, circa 1895.”
***
2 notes · View notes
faithfulnews · 4 years
Text
G. K. Chesterton Before the U.S. Supreme Court
Tumblr media
No, G. K. Chesterton never appeared before the United States Supreme Court in person. (Just imagine the massive man making an impassioned case before the judges!) Yet he was quoted in 2018 and 2019 in both a dissent from Justice Neil Gorsuch and also a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Gorsuch, Chesterton, and the Fence
Justice Gorsuch opened and closed his dissent in Artis v. District of Columbia with the example of Chesterton’s fence:
Chesterton reminds us not to clear away a fence just because we cannot see its point. Even if a fence doesn’t seem to have a reason, sometimes all that means is we need to look more carefully for the reason it was built in the first place.
The same might be said about the law before us.
As a Chesterton fan, it’s exciting to see him quoted as an obvious and well-known authority. Gorsuch provides no context, footnote, or even the initials “G. K.” He assumes that, simply by saying “Chesterton,” his readers will know who he is talking about, much like we would quote Shakespeare or any other author whose authority is so evident that nothing more needs saying.
The example that Gorsuch refers to comes from Chesterton’s 1929 book, The Thing.  
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road.
The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’
To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’
“This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.
“There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”
Gorsuch returned to Chesterton’s parable of the fence at the end of the dissent:
The Court today clears away a fence that once marked a basic boundary between federal and state power. Maybe it wasn’t the most vital fence and maybe we’ve just simply forgotten why this particular fence was built in the first place. But maybe, too, we’ve forgotten because we’ve wandered so far from the idea of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers that we’ve begun to lose sight of what it looked like in the first place.
Chesterton vs. Cynicism 
In his book A Republic If You Can Keep It Gorsuch quotes from Chesterton again when exhorting his readers to avoid cynicism:
Sometimes it’s hard to see the way forward for all the trials that lie so squarely before us. But when you find yourself in doubt, I encourage you to remember this story from G. K. Chesterton. Chesterton noted that an ordinary man, asked “on the spur of the moment” to explain “why he prefer[red] civilization to savagery,” likely “would look wildly round at object after object, and would only be able to answer vaguely, ‘Why, there is that bookcase . . . and the coals in the coal-scuttle . . . and pianos . . . and policemen.’” But, as Chesterton reminds us, there is sometimes wisdom in a stuttering reply. Sometimes the virtues of civilization are too numerous to count, almost so obvious as to be too obvious to see. If asked to explain them, it’s hard to know where to begin.
The same is true of our constitutionally governed republic. We may not always notice them, but what the Constitution calls our “Blessings of liberty” are everywhere around us.
Chesterton, Justice Thomas, and the Evil of Eugenics
The second Chesterton quote shows up in a blistering concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. For 20 pages, Justice Thomas lays out the racist and eugenic roots of America’s abortion regime in all their gruesomeness. The comment from Chesterton comes during a portion in which Thomas lays out the many reasons eugenicists did their “purifying” work:
Although race was relevant, eugenicists did not define a person’s “fitness” exclusively by race. A typical list of dysgenic individuals would also include some combination of the “feeble-minded,” “insane,” “criminalistic,” “de- formed,” “crippled,” “epileptic,” “inebriate,” “diseased,” “blind,” “deaf,” and “dependent (including orphans and paupers).” Imbeciles 139; see Applied Eugenics 176–183; cf. G. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils 61 (1922) (“[F]eeble-mindedness is a new phrase under which you might segregate anybody” because “this phrase conveys nothing fixed and outside opinion.”
Chesterton’s books are full of insight and are generally suffused with humility and humor. One of the few exceptions to the typical joyful tone in Chesterton’s corpus is Eugenics and Other Evils, the book Justice Thomas quotes from here. Chesterton expresses horror and anger at the arguments from those who advocated the sterilization of inferior groups of people, arguments in the early 1900s that were embraced by many considered to be “progressive,” including Teddy Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Margaret Sanger, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Echoes of this mindset—that some are “unfit” for life or fertility—continue to show up today in both the ideology of the alt-right and the underlying ideology of recent abortion advocacy for populations in poverty. In 2009, while commenting on the court’s upholding of the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funding for abortion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked:
Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding of abortion.
Justice Thomas’s dissent ties today’s abortion regime with last century’s push for eugenics, a movement that explicitly sought to limit “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” In doing so, he turned to Chesterton’s argument against requiring sterilization of “the feeble-minded.” Here is the fuller context of Chesterton’s quote:
“The whole point of our contention is that this phrase conveys nothing fixed and outside opinion. There is such a thing as mania, which has always been segregated; there is such a thing as idiotcy, which has always been segregated; but feeble-mindedness is a new phrase under which you might segregate anybody.
“My point is not that I have never met anyone whom I should call feeble-minded, rather than mad or imbecile. My point is that if I want to dispossess a nephew, oust a rival, silence a blackmailer, or get rid of an importunate widow, there is nothing in logic to prevent my calling them feeble-minded too. And the vaguer the charge is the less they will be able to disprove it.”
Justice Thomas relies on Chesterton as part of his broader goal of showing just how expansive and insidious the eugenics mindset could be. He excoriates the “full-throated defense of forced sterilization” that marked the Supreme Court in 1927, including this chilling statement from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Near his conclusion, Thomas writes:
Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.
Thomas shares the same instinct as Chesterton in regards to eugenics, sterilization, and abortion. We can only hope more Supreme Court justices will share that revulsion in the future.
Go to the article
1 note · View note
faithfulnews · 4 years
Text
G. K. Chesterton Before the U.S. Supreme Court
Tumblr media
No, G. K. Chesterton never appeared before the United States Supreme Court in person. (Just imagine the massive man making an impassioned case before the judges!) Yet he was quoted in 2018 and 2019 in both a dissent from Justice Neil Gorsuch and also a concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Gorsuch, Chesterton, and the Fence
Justice Gorsuch opened and closed his dissent in Artis v. District of Columbia with the example of Chesterton’s fence:
Chesterton reminds us not to clear away a fence just because we cannot see its point. Even if a fence doesn’t seem to have a reason, sometimes all that means is we need to look more carefully for the reason it was built in the first place.
The same might be said about the law before us.
As a Chesterton fan, it’s exciting to see him quoted as an obvious and well-known authority. Gorsuch provides no context, footnote, or even the initials “G. K.” He assumes that, simply by saying “Chesterton,” his readers will know who he is talking about, much like we would quote Shakespeare or any other author whose authority is so evident that nothing more needs saying.
The example that Gorsuch refers to comes from Chesterton’s 1929 book, The Thing.  
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road.
The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’
To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’
“This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.
“There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”
Gorsuch returned to Chesterton’s parable of the fence at the end of the dissent:
The Court today clears away a fence that once marked a basic boundary between federal and state power. Maybe it wasn’t the most vital fence and maybe we’ve just simply forgotten why this particular fence was built in the first place. But maybe, too, we’ve forgotten because we’ve wandered so far from the idea of a federal government of limited and enumerated powers that we’ve begun to lose sight of what it looked like in the first place.
Chesterton vs. Cynicism 
In his book A Republic If You Can Keep It Gorsuch quotes from Chesterton again when exhorting his readers to avoid cynicism:
Sometimes it’s hard to see the way forward for all the trials that lie so squarely before us. But when you find yourself in doubt, I encourage you to remember this story from G. K. Chesterton. Chesterton noted that an ordinary man, asked “on the spur of the moment” to explain “why he prefer[red] civilization to savagery,” likely “would look wildly round at object after object, and would only be able to answer vaguely, ‘Why, there is that bookcase . . . and the coals in the coal-scuttle . . . and pianos . . . and policemen.’” But, as Chesterton reminds us, there is sometimes wisdom in a stuttering reply. Sometimes the virtues of civilization are too numerous to count, almost so obvious as to be too obvious to see. If asked to explain them, it’s hard to know where to begin.
The same is true of our constitutionally governed republic. We may not always notice them, but what the Constitution calls our “Blessings of liberty” are everywhere around us.
Chesterton, Justice Thomas, and the Evil of Eugenics
The second Chesterton quote shows up in a blistering concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. For 20 pages, Justice Thomas lays out the racist and eugenic roots of America’s abortion regime in all their gruesomeness. The comment from Chesterton comes during a portion in which Thomas lays out the many reasons eugenicists did their “purifying” work:
Although race was relevant, eugenicists did not define a person’s “fitness” exclusively by race. A typical list of dysgenic individuals would also include some combination of the “feeble-minded,” “insane,” “criminalistic,” “de- formed,” “crippled,” “epileptic,” “inebriate,” “diseased,” “blind,” “deaf,” and “dependent (including orphans and paupers).” Imbeciles 139; see Applied Eugenics 176–183; cf. G. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils 61 (1922) (“[F]eeble-mindedness is a new phrase under which you might segregate anybody” because “this phrase conveys nothing fixed and outside opinion.”
Chesterton’s books are full of insight and are generally suffused with humility and humor. One of the few exceptions to the typical joyful tone in Chesterton’s corpus is Eugenics and Other Evils, the book Justice Thomas quotes from here. Chesterton expresses horror and anger at the arguments from those who advocated the sterilization of inferior groups of people, arguments in the early 1900s that were embraced by many considered to be “progressive,” including Teddy Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Margaret Sanger, and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Echoes of this mindset—that some are “unfit” for life or fertility—continue to show up today in both the ideology of the alt-right and the underlying ideology of recent abortion advocacy for populations in poverty. In 2009, while commenting on the court’s upholding of the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funding for abortion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked:
Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding of abortion.
Justice Thomas’s dissent ties today’s abortion regime with last century’s push for eugenics, a movement that explicitly sought to limit “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” In doing so, he turned to Chesterton’s argument against requiring sterilization of “the feeble-minded.” Here is the fuller context of Chesterton’s quote:
“The whole point of our contention is that this phrase conveys nothing fixed and outside opinion. There is such a thing as mania, which has always been segregated; there is such a thing as idiotcy, which has always been segregated; but feeble-mindedness is a new phrase under which you might segregate anybody.
“My point is not that I have never met anyone whom I should call feeble-minded, rather than mad or imbecile. My point is that if I want to dispossess a nephew, oust a rival, silence a blackmailer, or get rid of an importunate widow, there is nothing in logic to prevent my calling them feeble-minded too. And the vaguer the charge is the less they will be able to disprove it.”
Justice Thomas relies on Chesterton as part of his broader goal of showing just how expansive and insidious the eugenics mindset could be. He excoriates the “full-throated defense of forced sterilization” that marked the Supreme Court in 1927, including this chilling statement from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Near his conclusion, Thomas writes:
Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.
Thomas shares the same instinct as Chesterton in regards to eugenics, sterilization, and abortion. We can only hope more Supreme Court justices will share that revulsion in the future.
Go to the article
0 notes