The Duty to Paratge. Ma'aht: Natural Order, Doing the Right, Balance.

 A Case for Linguistic Recycling. Cultural Recycling.

Re-Use  Paratge, Ma'at or Ma'aht.

The Duty to "Paratge" -  Old Roots

Speak, O Past. (Rub the lamp). 

(Intone) We are sick of government faction fights and global warming fisticuffs in high places, and healthcare issues becoming toxic. And yes there's more.  There is seeking self-interest at the expense of what is right, with religions as profit-minded as Wall Street, and the winner of toys is cheered on culturally as the loser dissolves into a puddle and the winner does little victory tippytoes and fist bumps supporters.

(The lamp stirs).  Suddenly, out wafts -- what? Paratge.  Out comes -- what?  Ma'aht.  What?  What are those?  What are they telling us? Why are they here?

We haven't a clue at first, because we don't have the concepts to define paratge and ma'aht in ready form in our language.  We acknowledge no duty to paratge, to ma'aht. Is that so?  If we have no concept for something, do we even see it. Here is a clue:  If we do paratge, we are wimps in the eyes of those who strut and count.

Paratge and ma'aht.  Find them at The History of the Languedoc, at ://www.midi-france.info/190403_paratge.htm/

I.  Paratge 

Paratge stems from the old Occitan language of midi-France, the area known as Languedoc, and words from that language spilled over into England through people who spoke it in medieval times. But the Occitan concept of  "paratge" got lost as English forms took over.

Some still speak Occitan, in southern France, Pyrrhenees, Italy - there are some six dialects, see Occitan Language at ://www.omniglot.com/writing/occitan.htm/ See there its alphabet and pronunciations, and listen to a bit of it.  There are numerous related languages, spanning large geographic areas. It is not dead, just marginalized out of sight.

The Christian religious branch known as Cathars ("dualists" - another topic, and they were designated as heretics, see ://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/primarysourcesalbigensiancrusade.html/ spoke Occitan, but the term also appeared in other French areas, and areas where that religious group did not dominate.  See FN 1.

The concept: 

Paratge is a word that combines
a) medieval chivalrous ideas of honor, gentility, courtesy, with an additional obligation,
b) a duty to do what is right.

A duty to a natural order and balance moral code - "Paratge".  That is more than a religious precept - do this because a deity says so, says someone.  It is a universal.  Paratge stood for what ought to be done to foster the natural order, balance.  A noble subject, such as a Duke, could even remind a Pope of the duty to paratge. The duty to paratge makes sense as a duty to an ethos.

Blasphemy, say we capitalists. Our system does not thrive on that stuff. Is that so?

Have we gone too far without it? 

There are stirrings of concern about the bents of our linguistic group, the Western Financial and Military Mogul.  For example, there are criticisms in news and financial analyses of Goldman Sachs and its direction, its goal of profits period, regardless, with an old societal service component down the tubes, see The New Republic, Has Goldman Sachs Lost Its Soul, at ://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121551520/  "You lie!" shout the emboldened boors, modeling after those who are clueless.

Recycle.

This is not a religious piece. This asks, instead, that if other cultures have concepts for living together in a degree of harmony that ours does not, could we benefit from finding them and recycling, reusing them.  And if our culture does not have a concept, is that because there is none such, or because we beat it out of somebody.

Linguistics.  Cultural concepts. 

When languages disappear, or are superseded, concepts also get shoved aside in favor of the ones who win, who either defeat or sell the people on the new.

For example, the Cathar Christians, when their lands were being invaded by the French and other Christians who followed Rome's version, were horrified that the French "Christians" did not have the concept of paratge to govern their actions.

The French Christians from the north had no concept for it, no respect for it. Instead, they brought "deceit, brutality, vandalism, lying, hypocrisy, even mass-murder."  See ://www.midi-france.info/190403_paratge.htm.  Rub the lamp. Oops.  Lamp went out. And this is progress? This is religious improvement?

Paratge in our history: 

Here is a fair use quote from this very large site on the Cathars and the Crusades (the Albigensian Crusades) against them, that virtually wiped them out, finally and with slaughter: This is from the Canso (Song of the Cathar Wars) and first lines shown in Occitan.  There are other, long quotes in Occitan and translation at that site.  Here, at this piece, the defenders at Muret had lost:

"Toto lo mons ne valg mens, de ver o sapiatz,
Car Paratges NE fo destruitz e decassatz
E totz Crestianesmes aonitz abassatz."

"It diminished the whole world, be sure of that,
For it destroyed and drove out paratge,
It disgraced and shamed all Christendom."

A Canso is a song in the form that troubadours used, see ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canso_%28song%29/ - a good starting point. Read about the Song of the Cathar Wars at ://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/ctit.htm/' and part in narrative form at ://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/ctit3.htm.  Note that the Song begins in the voice of a supporter of the crusaders at the Siege of Termes, and refers to Brabanters. That is part of Belgium-Netherlands, showing from how far afield the crusaders came.

But halfway through the entire song, another anonymous voice takes over, supporting the Cathars - it looks like the quote above is from that section. Another Cathar supporter site:  the Historia Albigensis, by Peter of Les Vaux de Cerney, see ://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/historiaalbigensis.html/

Paratge in action:

Go back to the Crusades. Saladin, in the Holy Land, says the site Languedoc site, says of Richard the Lionheart (of England) that his horse was killed. And Saladin sent him another.  Amazing, to militarists today.  Is this so?

We looked it up:  it is so  This site says Saladin gave two equine replacements, see ://www.biographybase.com/biography/Saladin.html/ And Richard then offered his sister to marry Saladin's brother. Scroll down the crusades-encyclopedia site for more history, French, English.

Then the idea of paratge dissolves as the "West" develops according to Rome. Read more about Saladin, in the stories from his lands, at ://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197003/saladin-story.of.a.hero.htm/  It appears that he indeed knew "paratge".  A multi-cultural concept.  An honorable one.

So, Christianity took the other road. And here we are. What if the Popes had lost. What if their military and administration skills failed, and nobody bought their version of dogma, interpretation of matters subject to multiple interpretations. Would a western culture of tolerance and respect, a different culture from competion and accumulation, have won.

Saracens.

Extremists of any belief system have no paratge?  Explore the issue. Our extremists, other culture's extremists.  Is openness to paratge an important difference.

Read about the Saracen invasion and linguistic and other traces still in southern France, at ://www.paratage.chez.alice.fo.histoire, at ://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://paratge.chez-alice.fr/histoire.htm&ei=lYsuS7q6K5GxlAe8vK2qBw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CB4Q7gEwBTgU&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dparatge%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DWP8%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20/

Remember little dark Buckwheat in Our Gang?  Early film?  Find Buckwheat in southern France.

II.  Ma'aht  -  or Ma'at

The ancient Egyptians had a concept like paratge - see the same Languedoc history site.  Ma'aht apparently is ancient Egyptian. We'll vet the site and its information further, but stay with the idea for now.  Ma'aht connotes cosmic balance - like the natural order of paratge. But ma'aht adds to it its result - contentment, joy, light.  It is a goddess who represents ma'aht, and the idea of ma'aht even underlies the later Christian concepts of heaven and hell. See http://www.midi-france.info/190403_paratge.htm/

The goddess Maat - these spellings can be so different that it makes researching online difficult - stood for " "truth,  balance, order".  Honor.  Justice.  But the term is more a concept than an actual deity.  Without Ma'at, the world would revert to chaos.  See Egypt:  Ma'at, Goddess://www.touregypt.net/godsofegypt/maat2.htm/  She represented an abstraction, the "rational and orderly working of the universe" - see ://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/EGYPT/MAAT.HTM/  She was more the linchpin than the gods of power. 

The Orient incorporates these - in Buddhist ideas like karma, and the "right" - this is a really interesting site.

The Greeks also had the idea - in logos, or order, or pattern.  In the beginning was the logos - how and when was that concept of basic order then changed to a mere "word"?  The Christians turned the logos or pattern or order idea into their "God".  See ://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/EGYPT/MAAT.HTM/

Linguistics and how meaning changes with who plays with it.  The earliest transliteration we find has "logos" from the famous Bible verse in John 1:1 or so transliterated into "in original was the saying and the saying was toward the God and God was the saying this was original toward the God" etc., see http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf/

That indeed looks like someone else was doing the saying, and aiming it at God, that it did not originate with God, and that would fit the Egyptian model of Ma'at on top (Wisdom up there?).  Even Michelangelo has the lady looking over the deity's shoulder to see how he's doing.  See Sistine chapel.

Nothing is ever clear if you look. Things are only clear if you don't look.

 O, scholars, rub the lamp again ....  how to get paratge back, ma'aht.  Too late for Copenhagen or Washington?  Or civil discourse over tea with bags.
.............................................................................

FN 1  This site gives information about the Cathars, and their language that included that word, "paratge".  They were a large and prosperous Christian religious group, who did not follow Rome or the Pope, but had their own rituals - with elements later included in the Roman (read the site) and  located in southern France and a swath east toward Italy and west into the Pyrenhees, we understand. Visit ://www.midi-france.info/190403_paratge.htm

In the middle ages, this group were deemed heretic (look up the crusades against them - were they largely so the Roman church could get its vast land holdings and property, increase political power? go vet).

The language of the Cathars was Occitan.  The old Occitan language was the language of many prominent early English (Eleanor of Aquitaine, and King John I, for example).  Teach languages and history on a par with the theorems.  How else to open windows on perception.  How else to train to hear others.

Is this so:  some political leaders or devotees are simply bad sports when they have lost something they had wanted very much.

Bad sports. Does that idea relate to paratge. Poor sportsmanship. No sense of paratge. Dirty tricks, all that to sabotage the others before, during and after the event, denigrate the win, take away the victory. In elementary school, people would be expelled for it. Is it time to assess paratge in leadership and compel some to repeat Third Grade Sportsmanship 101.

Haiku Cao. The House is Roused. Brow Chow.

Brow Chow:

Haiku On The Occasion of the Passage,

House Vote, Healthcare. Insurance. Reform.

Laud Cao. Brow Chow, One Who Would Not Be Rammed 

Cao.  Wow.  Bow now, thou!

Howl!   Growl!   Foul trowel!   How Mao!

Tao plow. Grouse chow. Ciao.

...............................................

Editor's note:

This great work commemorates the sole Red Vote in the House of Representatives for passage of Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3692, a/k/a healthcare insurance reform bill. It was created  by Fearfog, Ad Hoc Midnight Poet Laureate Pro Tem: on the Occasion of The Passage and In Appreciation for Ahn (Joseph) Cao. It will be catalogued under the Do-We System and indexed at "House Rousers v. Grousers".

What is this Poet Laureate?

The full title is Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress.  The Poet Laureate position is filled by appointment annually by the Librarian of Congress.  The current Librarian is James Billington, age 80, and he has held that position for 22 years, originally appointed by Ronald Reagan. We may be in for a change, see ://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6674527.html/.

The Poet Laureate serves as "the nation's official lightning rod for the poetic impulse of Americans."  See ://www.loc.gov/poetry/about_laureate.html/. Fearfog may just apply.

Comments on the Occasion of the Passage:  

The Librarian of Congress Billington,
He of weighty brow,
Is even now,
Figuring out how
This came about.

"Suddenly," he was heard to exclaim, as the voting concluded and to excited bystanders, "There was this hero, Ahn, on deck. Like right on the prow, of the Ship of State, and he broke through the Ice!" Ahn was on. Cao just doing it.

Said Cao, in effectL  My constituents need this healthcare, and not ideology. See ://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/health-bill-earns-one-republican-vote/

Upshots

• Cao. The Proud. Finally, a really good Joe. Serving We the People.

Is that so, Other Joe? Isn't that the job?  You, over there.

Jowl jowl scowl.

• When the bough breaks. See Jepsen at ://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-commentaryjepsen1108.artnov08,0,7159870.story/. The Other Joe: Ciao. Now. How?

• Passage. An encouragement to governmental warming.  The Passage Through the Ice Jam.
  

• History quasi-Connection:  Cao Mao.  But in China.
  
  
  The vote by Cao is in the spirit of the studious and intelligent one of surprising name of another country's history, one Cao Mao (Yanshi or Yen-shih), but from China, 3d Century, in the time of the Three Kingdoms.  He sought to take back power from powerful officials, see ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cao_Mao/  They got him for it.
  .
  

  The Minority Wayward Voter Enforcement Room
  

  
  Now: How do grouser-enforcers inflict their punishment on this Cao for failure to toe the power line, certainly not in the same way as happened to old Cao Mao, but in the spirit of removal.
  
  Change. Challenge. Red flags.
  
  Brow chow. Food for thought. Words dance like red shoes.
  
  
  
  
  

Pulitzer Time. Deserved Incentive Prize for Excellence, Journalism. Who? Nobel Time. Deserved Achievement Prize to a Worthy Man Governing Boors

A Tale of Two Prizes.

1.  The Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama:  Do his advances and innovations in seeking Peace qualify as "achievement".  Yes. There is clear precedent for this kind of humanitarian approach to problems. See Nobel's site at ://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1999/presentation-speech.html/. Such awards are given even where the overall goal has not yet been reached.

The Peace Prize is an award to the sowers among us.

Nobel Peace Prize: A Prize for the Sower*.

* Here, example of sower, Quebec, roadside.
.

2.  The Pulitzer Price for Journalism.  Which journalist will get the Pulitzer Prize for excellence in serving the people in coverage of the Nobel.  Few qualify so far, because few reference the mandate of the Pulitzer Committee in assessing their decision. Pulitzer saw journalism as a "noble profession, and one with unequaled importance for its influence upon the minds and morals of the people." See ://www.pulitzer.org/historyofprizes/

The Pulitzer Journalism Prize is an award to those who play fair, serving truths, respecting rules, greater than self-interest.
.

Pulitzer Prize for Journalism. A prize for fair play.*

* Edwardian hatpin, golf club.
.

Modern journalism: As back in Pulitzer's day, do we now see a recurrence of yellow journalists (of which Pulitzer himself had been one): the biased opinion expressed in the guise of fact, see Yellow Journalism at ://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/spanamer/yellow.htm.  The yellow journalism of yesterday is persuasion journalism of today. Not Pulitzer material.

SUMMARY

The two sets of Prizes here have familiar names, but a closer look at their backgrounds helps assess the brouhaha about President Obama's award for the Nobel Peace Prize.  Pulitzer-Nobel. Nobel-Pulitzer. Which is which, and did the Nobel Committee stay within its mandate to reward achievement. How is "achievement" defined in the Prize context. Edit online until we get it reasonably right.

• Here we look at the prizes set up by Alfred Nobel and Joseph Pulitzer in the early 20th Century.  There is some overlap in subject matter.  Nobel rewards achievement in a) fields of knowledge in the sciences, b) the creative mind in literature,  and c) peace - human relationships on the international scale. Pulitzer rewards excellence in  a) public service in journalism, and  b) the arts and letters. 
  

• Is it appropriate for the Nobel to award the Peace Prize for Advances and Innovation, for dedication to a process, even if the goal is not yet reached, or may never be reached.  

 And, where there are obstructions set up by others or circumstances or human nature to achieving success, do the ideas of the one whose path is obstructed still get rewarded for the advances they represent. See ://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/  Changing ways of thinking is a slow process, no magic final stroke solves human problems, see the Presentation Speech for the award in 1999 at  ://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1999/presentation-speech.html/  That award was for humanitarian work in medicine, for helping.

Our conclusion so far is yes both ways. The award is appropriate, and not tarnished because Peace has not been achieved. Advances and innovation in approach can constitute "achievement" justifying a Nobel prize even if the goal itself is not yet reached. And if the goal of public service and international cooperation is being barred intentionally, by those whose own goal is to obstruct out of their own financial and political interest, and not to serve the people, and without entering into dialogue with other proposals of merit, the fact that the advances and innovations have not achieved the goal does not reflect adversely on the merits of the approach.

The Nobel Peace Prize award to President Obama was appropriate, even brilliant, because "peace" is ongoing process, never "accomplished" despite the signing of papers. Rumbles continue and reworkings always needed. There is no full stop in the field of human and state relationships. The Committee applied the mandated standards. Go back to the Presentation Speech

• So: Which journalist would get a Pulitzer Prize for Journalism in covering the issue?  Apply the Pulitzer standard. The Pulitzer journalism standard is public service, and the award is an incentive to excellence.  Excellence is a stand-alone concept; and discretionary with the Committee. A work can be excellent even if it is obstructed by others for their reasons (ban, censor, misrepresent, pan). 

Does anyone on earth have a consistent record in anything? Of course not. Pulitzer himself engaged in yellow journalism, see ://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/yellow.html/  He and Randolph Hearst and sensationalism degraded journalism.  That had an impact on international relations, see Effect of the Press on Spanish-American Relations in 1898, by John Baker, at ://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml/

The Pulitzer organization treats that as a lapse, outweighed by his achievements in public service, see ://www.pulitzer.org/biography. That is another whole topic:  Pulitzer's change of heart here?  For our purposes, we will use the Pulitzer of the Prizes, not try to sort out his inconsistencies, and the inconsistencies we see on the web about him.

With that premise, that Pulitzer engaged in Yellow Journalism but moved beyond it, our conclusion so far is that few, if any, journalists have served the public by enabling the public to draw its own conclusions.  Pulitzer fought yellow journalists. That became a mission for him.

Where is there a journalist here who is presenting first, a neutral and thorough fact background, then reasoned through to an opinion stemming from those facts deemed most relevant, that then is clearly separated by text from the fact section.  We are still looking. No Pulitzer Prize for journalism here.  All we seem to get is opinion, without reference to the standards, and a piling-on thereafter. No award for churning.

Persuasion journalism, or its extreme, yellow journalism, is not Pulitzer material.

Next steps: 

1.  Blend the two sets of Prizes to unconfuse the public. Apply the Remarkable Achievement idea of the Nobel Peace (including the advancement and innovation) and the Excellence in public service of the Pulitzer Journalism.

There can indeed be excellence in the advancement, the work and the goals, despite a path obstructed by others, or no "success" yet, if ever. That means one set of blockers cannot intentionally bar the prize by their blocking.

2.  Anyone presenting stories about the Prizes, educate the public about the standards. Or

3.  Reframe "Peace" in terms of medicine. We understand the language of process, ongoing issues, application of theories, disease, treatment, and the ultimate but rare cure. Or reframe it as "pacific international relations".

Peace is waffley.  It is not a field of knowledge.  It is a manifestation, of whether we can control ourselves or not. A status that may not last despite all.  If medicine gets away with awards short of cure, why should not people get awards short of peace. Even "pacific international relations" suggests an ongoing process, change.

If we use the disease imagery, the disease is warring:  human aggression, abuse, exploitation, selfishness, obstructionism for economic or political gain at the expense of others.  Even if the disease of warring is not cured by a new application for treatment (negotiation, climate for cooperation etc), and the drive to war is not cured,  the Prize Committees propery reward the excellence of the ideas of the one on the path.

....................................................................

DISCUSSION

I.   The Prizes.  

A.  Joseph Pulitzer and His Prizes, Including for Public Service in Journalism


Joseph Pulitzer was a newspaper publisher, a visionary, Hungarian by background, "a passionate crusader against dishonest government." He set up, through his will, in about 1904, a system of prizes to be awarded, with a particular mission in journalism, history, biography, letters:  as "an incentive to excellence (emphasis supplies)".  See The Pulitzer Prizes at ://www.pulitzer.org/historyofprizes/.

Prizes were first given in 1917.  And the categories were:

• journalism
• letters and drama
• an American novel
• an original American play shown in NY
• a book on American history
• an American biography
• a history of public history, press
  
• education
• traveling scholarships

Pulitzer's Mission in Journalism:  to Serve the People. He himself engaged in yellow journalism as a method, see ://www.pbs.org/crucible/journalism.html/ but this was (or was not?) outweighed by his public service.

Serve and battle for the people. Read his mission statement in taking over The New York World in 1883: Joseph Pulitzer vowed he would make it a paper

"truly democratic... that will expose all fraud and sham; fight all public evils and abuses... that will serve and battle for the people with earnest sincerity." 

See Joseph Pulitzer at://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/pulitzer.htm

The Board was given broad discretion in how to award, and what.  The categories are not absolute. Music categories have been added, and online journalism. The Board is free to fashion its own awards, within the mission. Throughout, however, the prizes have been for excellence, as a stand-alone matter.  Whether or not others agree, or obstruct the effort, the work is assessed on its own.  The award provides an incentive to continue on the path; even if the work is not finished, "accomplished."  See excellence on the verge?  Excellent.

B.  Alfred Nobel and His Prizes, Including for Peace


Alfred Nobel (1833-1936) was an inventor, chemist and industrialist, researcher and innovator, Swedish by background. Among his inventions: a gelatine used in explosives. He also set up a system of prizes through his will, with a mission to award persons in a different field from journalism and letters.  He wanted to award those who make "remarkable achievements" in specific fields of knowledge (physics, physiology, chemistry, medicine), but also literature, and human relationships - peace.See ://www.nobelkepu.org.cn/english/100years/134172.shtml/  His own lifetime achievements?  He declared none.

That Nobel Prize site, Nobelkepu.org, is a rocky translation into English, but the more moving for its literalism in describing Alfred Nobel. He "left us lofty ideology of hardworking, looking down up material honors." He lived simply. He received many honors from other nations, but not for the dynamite. Instead, he got awards for incidentals like his cooking, or his accidental friendship with an official. Nobelkepu site.

The Nobel envisions an award for Achievement.  Achievement for purposes of the Nobel has always included advancements, insights, and innovations.  Look at the Nobel fields of knowledge, the sciences; and the creative field,  literature; and the elusive human relationship field, peace. Cancer is not yet cured; but advancements in understanding and treatment of it are rewarded, for example.  

C.  The Award of The Nobel Peace Prize Committee for 2009 to President Barack Obama.

C.1  The Nobel Committee's Stated Grounds.

Read the Nobel Committee's own standards and commentary about the nature of the achievement of Barack Obama in the cause of peace at ://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html/.

The Committee awarded the prize to President Obama

• "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples;" and 
• for his "vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." 
• for setting a "new climate" and 
• for his "use of dialogue and negotiations" as instruments for resolving conflicts.

2.3.  Issue.

The issue many journalists raise is whether, since "peace" itself in no geographic area in which President Obama has worked has not been achieved, why give the award for a work in process, for uses of tools that may not ever succeed. They equate advancement and innovation, that has not yet brought about peace, as lack of "accomplishment."  Where is the achievement, they ask.

Advances and Innovation constitute Achievement in medicine and other fields of science.  Advances and innovation constitute achievement also in human and international relations.  Cure is not the test for an award in medicine.  Neither is actual peace in our time.  O Lord!

How long, etc.


Blend in excellence.  Excellence stands alone. Intrinsic. On its own merits. Excellence can be achieved despite the obstructionism of other elements. Or no goal reached, yet, or ever. Prematurity as a criticism requires that the original intent of those awarding the prize is an award for accomplished goals, not inspiration, not incentive, not advancements or innovations. Not so.

Obama the Candidate, XL Center, Hartford 2008. The Nobel Prize for Peace, for advancements and innovations in approach to conflict resolution, well awarded.
.
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee for 2009 was correct in its award to Obama because they followed the mandate of Alfred Nobel.  They applied the standard of "remarkable achievement" to Obama's use of new tools in seeking peace (it can never be totally "achieved").   

How could the Nobel be only for "accomplishment"? Any boor can thwart progress. Just taint the test tube. Destroy the keys. Spin beyond ken. Don't show up. Elocute for an hour and a half when you are supposed to talk for 15 minutes. Say you will and then you don't.

It only takes one boor to block a road. Why elevate the boor for the blockage?  But the ideas carry on. For many recipients, implementation was delayed or never occurred.  And the Prize was appropriately awarded then and now.

II.  Which Journalists get the Pulitzer for coverage of the Nobel Peace Price Award to President Obama.


Will anyone win.  Which journalist follows the mandate of Joseph Pulitzer and his personal philosophy about merit in journalism. Which journalist dedicates himself or herself to expose fraud and sham, fight public evils and abuses, "serve and battle for the people with earnest sincerity." See ://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1165270052298/JRN_News_C/1175295286785/JRNNewsDetail.htm/

What is excellence in journalism?

• News. Present first, a neutral and thorough fact background.  Cite sources. If opinion is called for
  
• Opinion. Reason through to an opinion stemming from those stated facts, that are made available to the reader; and lay out how and why they are weighted. Use the opinion pagel or, if the piece is investigative, label it so and then put the opinion in (also clearly labeled as such). 
• no persuasion journalism (propaganda) by slipping in opinion by tilt of word in the facts, misstating or understating facts, or stage technique
• no blurring news and opinion so viewers and readers are encouraged to mistake opinion for fact
• opinion is not fact
  

Schools of Journalism have broad curricula, but so far persuasion journalism seems to be winning, see http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1212608967690/page/1212608967632/JRNSimplePage2.htm/.

Since its establishment in 1904, the Pulitzer Prize has been awarded as an incentive to excellence.  Incentive.  Incentive.  Encourage.  Cheer on.  See the site of the Prize people. And the areas.  Areas for recognition: See its site at The Pulitzer Prizes, History, at ://www.pulitzer.org/historyofprizes/.

This makes sense. How could there be "accomplishment" in eradicating corruption, fraud and exploitation. There can only be the battle for the accomplishment.  It is never done. There can be excellence in the presentation, but whether it "worked" is not the point.  And there is broad discretion in awarding the prize. Who to second-guess?

The Obama coverage?

There are no Pulitzers here.  We see opinions, disembodied from facts about the mandates of the Prizes, and churned and turned into media virus.  Persuasion journalism.  The new yellow journalism. See http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/spanamer/yellow.htm

Ayn Rand: What Antidote to the Kool-Aid of "Objectivism". Inheritance Limits.

 Explore Novelist-Theorist Ayn Rand's Ideas 
of Self-Interest and Justified Accumulation. 

Then Overlay Andrew Carnegie's Idea of Inheritance Limits.

Does that counter the accumulationism, and serve the common good? 

Politics, theologies, mindsets.  We see Ayn Rand and her books continuing to attract followers, finding solace in putting self first, regardless.  The Entitlement:  I want, I can, I will do.  How does a pluralistic society handle that kind of exclusionism, and for how long. And, how to measure what people think in the first place.

One answer may lie with the long-dead Andrew Carnegie, who proposed that taxes be abolished, but that noone can bequeath more than a reasonable maintenance amount to dependents for their lifetimes.  The rest, get this:  Either the person arranges for its disposition before the person's death, divesting himself-herself of control of it; or anything left in his or her name, not needed for the dependents' maintenance, goes to the government.  Who would want that?  Nobody.  So, everybody is incentivized (dreadful word) to divest before death as he or she desires and directs. Read the Gospel of Wealth, the Hymn to Wealth. Sometimes called The Gospel According to Andrew Carnegie.  See ://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5767/.

Would this work?  Shall we poll?  What good are polls on this or any topic.  Polls merely measure the extent to which the lines being fed out from the belief-shaper trawlers are being swallowed.  If the poll is unsatisfactory to one position, the poll shows where to buttress the hook. Polls do not measure thought, only the parroting. Is that so?

Regardless of ability to measure, we look at the beginnings of exclusionism, then its manifestations, in order to see what can be done. And arrive, we think, at Andrew Carnegie.

The agenda:

1.  Ayn Rand, who says:  Economic Egoism Wins; I do, I keep. See its manifestation in cultural anomalies that attach to religious groups,  like

2. Washington's C Street, invisible army for Christ exclusive fraternity.  C Street says this:  That God ordains my Egoism; therefore I do, I keep.  can do as I like; I do, I keep.*  Ayn Rand would not put the God in there. Then move to another angle:  

3. The Gospel of Wealth: Andrew Carnegie 1889.  He says, if you do, you keep; but only until the instant of your death.  Therefore, enjoy egoism, but divest yourself of your goods before the bell tolls; or lose it.
I do, I keep, but then I must also manage its divestment out of my hands, during my life, for good.

Andrew Carnegis's idea of inheritance limits may be the answer.  Taxation won't do it; exhortations to do the right thing will flop; but provide that your legacy depends on what you divest before you die, and we may have an incentive for a common good..

.
No posts here are an easy read. This is no sound bite.  But the issues are serious.  So follow along.
..................................................................................

1.  AYN RAND.

Suppose that the apparently vast network of prophets and disciples of Aynism, The Religion, or "Objectivism," prevail in our society. Ayn Rand, and C Street, and others hidden and disclosed, prevail in their persuasion.

Political battle lines include her philosophy, We do elections in this country, and those ideas may win out.  Malware often succeeds.

Ayn Rand was a novelist and political and economic theorist whose ideas include fostering untrammeled accumulation of wealth, the individual's self-interest as the greatest good, and do whatever is needed to keep government and its fostering of losers at the expense of winners, out.  Is that roughly it? She has an extensive following, see current overviews and comment at Ayn Rand, Aynism, Objectivism. See FN 1
.
If these Accumulationists, or Objectivists, or other title (labels count) prevail even more than they have already, and pass more laws to free themselves from traditional morality and any altruism, demonize the public good.  What is an appropriate counterbalance? Do review the company website, one of them at ://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index/  This comes across as downright benign, and maybe that is so. We are still figuring it out, and had not come to that conclusion for the common good. It may be benign for the successful, but not for the needy. A difference in "objective".

2.  WASHINGTON'S C STREET HOUSE

They force us to bring in theological terms. Consider the transgressions of the elected. Do we continue to accept their philosophy that they are the chosen here.  And we are the fodder. Here, an update, October 2009, about John Ensign.  See ://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/10/02/sen-john-ensign-scandal-gets-deeper-with-allegation-of-lobbying-misdeeds/
.

3.  ANDREW CARNEGIE and INHERITANCE LIMITS

We suggest, idea from Andrew Carnegie, that they have their accumulations, build the bigger barns for their goods all they like, but then comes the balance. We set up a tax structure, beef up escheat, or other mechanism, so that the person is highly motivated to implement himself or herself what is desired as to disposition of property, and before death.  Carnegie lived before income tax, so he did not envision a tax structure.  We have that tool.
 .
Why worship "rights" of heirs, worship "inheritance" of estates.  Time for a change. Arrange it so the person simply arranges for the reasonable support of or gifts to whomever he likes, but has to part with the property and its income to do it before he or she dies.

Time for a Bigger Barn. Go ahead.

Upshot:  Accumulationists * should not get free accumulation and long-term lifestyle at our expense; and then get broad rights to bequeath, inheritance for their heirs, as well. Take your pick. If they get the first, the Big Barn for their goods; make it in their interest to divest themselves of it, voluntarily, with themselves at the helm if they like, and before they die.

* Call Ayn Rand's followers "Randists" if you like, and that might fit because she named herself after Rand of typewriter industry fame.  But it sounds too specific to Ingersoll Rand, see http://company.ingersollrand.com/Pages/default.aspx/. We prefer Aynists because it has no prior associations.And she also made up the name "Ayn". See Aynism site.

This rambles.  So be it. We edit over time.
..............................................................
.

We can absorb the Accumulationists, 

but it takes a U-Turn, and Looking Back to Andrew Carnegie. 
.


Counterbalance with restricted estate-disposition rights

Absorbing the malware ideas of Ayn Rand takes a shift in the track, or at least a 180 degree reversal.
 .
Ask: Where does the right to bequeath property come from? Ideas of property and its disposition are cultural. Laws are set in place that effectuate cultural mindsets about property.  Those can be changed, and, with more difficulty, the mindsets as well.  Are we entitled to inherit?  Why not instead let the dear departed make that decision, about who gets what, and simply require that it be done before he or she dies.
 .
Andrew Carnegie had that idea.  Read his Gospel of Wealth at ://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1889carnegie.html/.  He actually did it himself - voluntary divestment before death. Hello, Carnegie Library, Carnegie Hall, the old Carnegie Tech now Carnegie-Mellon University.  Is Dale related? No idea.

ANDREW CARNEGIE.

Absorbing the accumulationism of Ayn Rand takes the counterbalance of Andrew Carnegie.  It takes taking Andrew Carnegie, once the richest man in the world, seriously.  See his Gospel of Wealth, Hymn to Wealth, and comments at Gospel of Andrew Carnegie, Victorian Everyman. Take that philosophy and see how it fits with today.  We can even amend it to include Subsequent Generation Generosity or Subsequent Generation Altruism, if we like  SeeAltruism: Eunice Kennedy Shriver.

His gospel of wealth, hymn to wealth, leads Carnegie to do the expected, to advocate and praise free accumulation during life; but he goes further.  Do the accumulating freely, but nobody can pass it on at death - except for enough that can be carved out for reasonable needs of dependents. Otherwise, heirs are on their own.  The heir just went out of their tires.

Do it with tax. Keep the gift tax laws in place during life, reduce the income tax. And tax the dickens out of property at death. The will comes too late.  The property has to be disposed of during the person's life.

Carnegie lived before income tax. So he had a lot. His ideas about it count.

Will somebody now do a review, objectively, for Objectivists, on the effect of increasing inheritance taxes while reducing present income taxes.  There are sad tales in Britain of heirs who are reduced to putting in tea rooms in the parlor to serve the few tourists who may find the house in the woods, or who have to turn over the place to the government.  But if the originator had set the perpetuation of the mansion up himself or herself, as the best managers around, problem solved.

Ayn says that Elvis *  is welcome to what he earns. Fine. We can go along. But why Priscilla?

That is one of a million impersonators, but the question still applies. What good is it to be an enabler of ease, the great dis-ease.  A reasonable looking-after is sufficient, then provide for the better lifetime disposition of funds. And that will be better done by the person who had the guts and chutzpa to accumulate it.  That move frees up the otherwise hangers-on to get out there and do their own accumulating. How many third generation heirs are worth much in terms of societal contribution. Or is managing an inherited portfolio sufficient for continuing privilege. That is purely cultural, taught.
.
Or is Ayn right, and societal contribution is an evil because it encroaches on accumulations. Fine, let the accumulator accumulate. Then be done with it.

TODAY - A BAT'S CHANCE OF DOING THIS?

We can afford, as a nation, and philosophically, to allow anyone to accumulate as much wealth as he or she can.  We already know how to do it.

There was once a game show about that. Imagine the shopping carts dashing frenetically up and down the aisles - grab all the cart will hold, you lucky person, you.

And, in many ways, the non-accumulators do benefit, depending on how the accumulators invest, spend. So, this is a time, place and manner analysis - divest and plan for it now, do it; and do it now.

But if you hoard, your heirs won't get it. Set it up so they use their money now, or lose it.  Use it or lose it. What happens to their estates after the Accumulators die is appalling anyway.  Noblesse oblige, even a sound wit, rarely makes it to the third generation. Otherwise the Randian-Aynist acquisitionism is sheer malware.
.
So, summing, we say,with Andrew Carnegie, you can make it, you can store it, you can use it, but you can't pass it on.  Nope. That means that anything that remains in your name, where you have any degree of control over the property's disposition, at the nanosecond of your death, goes to the government. If you don't want the government managing your stuff, and don't trust it, if government is alien to your own philosophy, that means you have to divest yourself voluntarily before you die.

We can accommodate a modicum to support spousal and minor dependents of the deceased, carve out of the estate enough for that. But if you want a legacy, your "heirs" have no right to what you earned (or inherited if you did) at all.  Your legacy is in how you managed and planned for the longterm life of your estate.  Or its dissipation.

Your heirs have every right to earn, accumulate on their own.  Go!  And the rule applies to them when they die.  They can have all their barns while they are alive, but are well-advised to invest it and arrange its management to do your wishes after they go.

..........................................................

 FN 1  If this topic of the new rugged individualism is new to you, Ayn Rand,1902-1982,.was a novelist and economic and other theorist who espoused a kind of purist's capitalism where wealth accumulation is life's highest calling, and the successful must be protected in their privileges allowing them ot operate outside a moral sphere, and are justified in following their self-interest without regard for others' need. Her movement was called "Objectivism,"  Her economic ideas and social theories entrench powerful wealth-accumulators as an elite, justify their pursuit of self interest regardless of a common good, and demonize regulation and government interfering with "free" machinations in the market that perpetuate the long-term moral-free (that is, traditional morals) lifestyle of the privileged.  Her background and an overview of her thinking and its current application is at Ayn Rand, Aynism, Objectivism.  See also FN 1.

Can we set aside for the moment, an analysis of whether her ideas of entrenching and justifying an economic elite regardless of how they got there (the Being of Successful makes it right) or the impact on others, are good or bad for
a) democracy,where votes are votes until they are stolen or prevented or diverted
b) "we, the people" as we pursue our own lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness, or
c) the individual's greater good.

Maybe not. How can responsible people do that, set aside the ideas.  They may prevail in derailing any effort to provide economic, health, education floors - basics for everyone before an elite can go through the stratosphere.  

Ayn Rand's background is one of a minority, and maligned, who perhaps decided at an early point that no longer would she be #2, a member of an unbeloved minority, Jews in Russia,  to the majority the mainstream whites and red Russians of the time.

She was born and was raised in revolutionary Russia, as Alyssa Rosenbaum, in a Jewish family, father a pharmacist. She is not a Marxist. She was a graduate of the University in Leningrad, along with many distinguished others, and was an immigrant here in 1924.

Her ideas of untrammeled self-interest as serving the greater good, that one group's need does not justify intrusion into another's wealth,  have motivated oeople in high places for decades, and to the present. CEO's, high government officials in past decades, and to  all who see the accumulation of wealth as the main event in life. Ayn Rand, Aynism, Objectivism,

These ideas have risen to the level of a kind of religion, Aynism.  Aynism is more appropriate than "Objectivism" as an identifier of a religion.  A religion is a hehavior-advocacy system, or at least behavior-modeling.  Most western religions proseletyze and crusade, whether among a secret elite or the masses.  Aynism has a personal-interest compass for morality. It has its own dogma, prophets, disciples, and crusade-stimulating capability to weed out nonbelievers. By now, it has a large, and largely secretive, following.

Transparent mindsets can be coped with; but as always, it is the secretive that undermines the rest of us best.

See site:  ://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/rad/nonserv.htm/
................................................................

* Washington's 'invisible army' for Christ, see ://www.theweek.com/article/index/98841/DCs_invisible_army_for_Christ/.  The C Street Gang. Adultery is fine because it is in the Bible and King David did it, so go and do thou likewise? Example only.  Malware?  Or benign? Malware if you think. Read the whole article. You have time.

What about JC is in any of that C Street agenda??  Asks the curious citizen whose education, after all, is paltry, and she herself is not among the chosen, and must be mistaken.

Ayn Rand was a novelist and political and economic theorist whose ideas include fostering untrammeled accumulation of wealth, the individual's self-interest as the greatest good, and do whatever is needed to keep government and its fostering of losers at the expense of winners, out.  Is that roughly it? She has an extensive following, see current overviews and comment at Ayn Rand, Aynism, Objectivism. See FN 1
.
If these Accumulationists, or Objectivists, or other title (labels count) prevail even more than they have already, and pass more laws to free themselves from traditional morality and any altruism, demonize the public good.  What is an appropriate counterbalance? Do review the company website, one of them at ://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index/  This comes across as downright benign, and maybe that is so. We are still figuring it out, and had not come to that conclusion for the common good. It may be benign for the successful, but not for the needy. A difference in "objective".

Six States: Ouster of Elected Officials. Cult Allegiances Conflict with Duties

Map to C Street. In the News.

HEADLINE NEWS. News flash.

PETITIONS FOR CONGRESSIONAL OUSTERS OF SECRET CULT MEMBERS GAIN MOMENTUM.

Ideological Intransigence Challenged

Trompe News Services.*

In six states to date, petitions are circulating to oust those Federal Senators and Representatives who swore the oaths of their offices after their election: to uphold and defend the Federal Constitution, while concealing their true intent to subvert those obligations to their own higher theological (read "personal interest") goals.

The petitions allege:

• that those elected officials represented to their constituents that they would pursue stated political agendas;
  
• then upon taking or continuing in office, instead acted individually and in concert to further their own secret theological and personal interest goals,
  
• to the detriment of their constituents, and the Constitution.

At issue, among other criteria, is the actual 1884 oath of office for members of Congress, see ://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Oath_Office.htm/

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The issue of cult membership that conflicts with an elected official's duties to the government and constituent, is not new, and is international in scope.

However, the analysis is usually done as to the more left-wing factions. In this case, the analysis applies to the right-wing, and "Christian." Petitioners point to the analysis and concepts (again, do the jump from left-wing to right-wing) sources such as Ideological Intransigence, Democratic Centralism and Cultism, at ://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html/

Petitioners allege that, if it can be established that these Congressmen placed their loyalty at their discipleship function in the cult, rather than representing their constituents, the ouster movement is likely to gain momentum and spread to other members of the group who may not live at C Street.

Is the idea of a fraudulent election limited to issues of votes counting; and not the representations of candidates; or is political speech merely commercial speech and slick salesmanship with a tie and blow dryer, buyer beware and puffing and small print traps.
.
Those Senators and Representatives in issue so far may be reached at the C Street House, Washington DC where they reside for some $600 per month. The facility (listed as a "church") is owned by the Fellowship Foundation, a non-profit organization, that facilitates ministry activities and hosting for discipleship and training purposes. Are there conflicts of allegiance involved between the private and governmental function? Petitioners hope to explore the issue.

The Foundation is located at 2244 C Street, Arlington, VA ; and is also known as The International Foundation, The National Committee for Christian Leadership, National Leadership Council, or The Family, and variations of those names. See ://blogitical.com/2009/07/19/digging-into-the-c-street-family-post-1-the-basics/.
.
Theology. The theology of the group is not quite clear or coherent, given the secrecy, but there is to be a connection assumed from "touching the hearts of leaders" and later benefits (nature not specified) trickling to the poor and oppressed. Details not given. The original "idea" of the Founder, Jesus, is implemented here in a creative and opposite way, believe some Petitioners, whose concern remains with the impact of that on governing issues.
.
Options. Whether lawsuits are filed for the civil violations related to misrepresentation and the like, or Ouster pursued, depends upon research. This is an emerging field. Various groups are looking into electoral fraudulent misrepresentation, or perhaps fraudulent concealment of a material fact, or mere misrepresentation of a material fact that does not arise to the level of fraud. Most but voters claim they would not have voted for the candidate or incumbent if they had known his or her true allegiance, theology as overruling the Constitutional obligations. Individual religion is fine, they note, but not if it governs how they vote on constituent issues.

Membership. Members past and present include Charles Colson, the C Street Boys, Iowa senator Charles Grassley, former Sec. of State James Bakker, former Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese, business and military leaders, S. C. Gov. Mark Sanford, Nevada Sen. John Ensign, and Miss. Rep. Chip Pickering. See ://www.theweek.com/article/index/98841/DCs_invisible_army_for_Christ/

Recourse. Ousters. Ousters are not unknown in the world of elections.

For example, ousters have been allowed to proceed in the case of one Ed Jew, who apparently lied about his residence address in order to qualify for running for office, znd so violating the City Charter requirements, San Francisco case, see ://www.examiner.com/a-998223~Lawsuit_to_oust_Ed_Jew_can_move_forward.html/

The Tonto Apache Tribe is holding a special election because an official became intoxicated, there is more than that but that is the trigger, see the Rim County Gazette at ://www.rimcountrygazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4493:tribe-headed-to-special-election-for-chairperson&catid=41:tonto-apache-tribe-news&Itemid=2/

Disputes based on allegiances are commonplace in Haiti. see Common Dreams, at http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0224-09.htm/.

Accordingly, officials may be ousted for lying, and drinking to excess, and issues of allegiance are important. So, if evidence supports elected officials under the influence of C Street taking other oaths of allegiance that govern their behavior and priorites, and that supersede those of their offices and constituents, Petitioners believe they have a strong case for ouster,

The Family. What are the allegiances of our elected Congresspeople? The Week Magazine examined "The Family" and found it to be D.C.'s Invisible Army for Christ, see ://www.theweek.com/article/index/98841/DCs_invisible_army_for_Christ/ Information is evolving as people talk.

Petitioners express concern with the theology, including concepts such as: "unions and regulations are a form of blasphemy" and those in power are there because God wants them there, therefore those in power get a free ride, apparently. And for Biblical reference, go to Romans 13:1, see Scripture4All (a transliteration site from the Greek, also with narrative translation) ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom13.pdf/

Hanging one's hat on flawed theology. Hoping for the rabbit.
.
Petitioners note that is an odd hatrack on which to hang one's hat, because Paul there is writing to the down and out about coping with their lot in life, and they might as well just give Caesar what is Caesar's, as someone else said - and better.

"That passage certainly is not directed to the rulers," said one such Petitioner. "Neither Jesus nor Paul is saying, You go, guys! Power up! Yet that apparently is the interpretation. So for your readers, read that article yourself. The Week Magazine. The one to watch on this issue. Read and weep."

Did Jesus appear in 1935 to the Founder in the form of the President of U.S. Steel and say to gather key men to do the job? And that job is tending to the rich, not the poor? The ultimate trickle-down and survival of the bulliest? Petitioners suggest that people do their own research.

Further research source. A recent book explores the group from the inside. Author Jeff Sharlet wrote 'The Secret Fundamentalism At The Heart of American Power', see ://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060559793/The_Family/index.aspx/. Petitioners note that many fine people are probably members of this group. The concern is not with anyone being free to espouse any religion of his or her choice.

Petitioners believe, however, that an impermissible line is crossed in a democracy where the constituents be damned, think the elected official secretly, and the powers in power see themselves as justified in pursuing their own agendas as divinely ordained. And they go off and float their own boats. They are accountable only to God and each other. Not in our Congress, thank you, say the Petitioners, although many have no issue with the idea of a National Prayer Breakfast.
.
Of more interest may be the pass-through arrangements for funding various projects and persons, done so there is no trace.
.
Exposing congressmen, floating their own boats
.
Can this kind of covenant among congressmen, secretly entered into at the expense of their constituents, be countered?
.
The lawsuits and ouster petitions may soon inform the country.
.
For an overview of the Constitution, see ://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm/ For an overview of Christ, read the words that scholars conclude he really said.

Petitioners suggest that, for these purposes of measuring the match between The Family's interpretation of scripture and others', skip the spin, the institutions, the self-serving. From a fast search, no expertise, these came up: Try //www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/realwords.htm/ or ://www.unhinderedliving.com/wordsofjesus.html/

Next steps. C Street is formally a "church" for tax purposes, according to recent information. Perhaps as more people join, who do not hold to the secrecy that is paramount now, we can learn more about who voters elected and if they care about voters. As a disciple there, however, the disciple's allegiance to the group supersedes any other allegiance. They may not speak up afterwards at all.

After the petitions are filed, a possible alternative to Ouster is hearings along the lines of the Sotomayor hearings: ask, delve, then decide whether to affirm the congressperson's continuing in office, or not. Thumbs.

...................................
* Trompe News Services is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nuts and Pulp International Conglomerates, Incorporated, serving the ersatz information needs of the world. The name derives from the reverse airlift compressor of the same name, see ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trompe/, earlier derivations from the Middle French and seen in "trumpet", referencing the hot air going round and round, or trompe l'oeil, see ://www.trompe-l-oeil-art.com/