Category Archives: History

The First Amendment Spreads


isu

From Greenlee School web site, picture of ISU First Amendment event.

I’m pretty excited about next Tuesday night, when America celebrates Constitution Day.

MMU is hosting a panel discussion on how the First Amendment freedoms, especially of the press or speech, are related to the upcoming presidential election.

mmu

On that night, at 7 p.m. in Betty Cherry Heritage Hall, a panel will discuss how the First Amendment is a key to our political system and the election. We’ll consider questions like: Why is freedom of the press in the Constitution? At a time when the U.S. president calls journalists “enemies” and the best of their work “fake news,” what is the role of the new media? Why the distrust between the media and the public?

From the famous Ben Franklin line about whether the United States would be a monarchy or republic (“A republic, if you can keep it”) the panel event is called: “If You Can Keep It: The Election of 202 and the First Amendment.” It will feature the Executive Editor of the Gazette Zack Kucharski, retired Executive Director and Editor of Iowa Watch Lyle Mueller, MMU Assistant Professor of Political Science Richard Barrett and me.

I’m looking forward to the event, which I hope will be popular and also be part of the important, ongoing conversation we need to have in this country. In our republic, in my opinion, we have lost our way and need to reconnect and learn to speak with rather than shout at each other.

And in an era when the First Amendment is under attack, the fact that MMU is not alone in marking the First Amendment is some comfort. A number of Iowa colleges will be teaching about and celebrating freedom of expression and other First Amendment freedoms next week. I’ve seen pamphlets for events at Des Moines Areas Community College and Simpson College.

I credit Iowa State for starting us on this adventure. The Greenlee School of Journalism holds an annual springtime celebration of the First Amendment, and in April I attended a workshop they offered for educators to plan such events.

I think the September anniversary of the Constitution drew many of us Iowans to plan fall events, and DMACC and Simpson were, like MMU, inspired by ISU.

Well, good going, Cyclone nation.

Next week is also “Mercy Week,” when Mount Mercy celebrates its founding by the Sisters of Mercy and continued commitment to their legacy.

Which is cool. Celebrating the First Amendment as other Iowa colleges also do—makes the cool week way beyond cool. The coolest.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under History, Journalism, Mount Mercy

First Fall Series Presentation is a Feast for the Mind


a01

Dr. Anna Waterman, associate professor of biology, Mount Mercy University, talking about food.

Food changes everything. The way we live, where we live, how we live and the fact that we have “the man” to please and to defy—it all starts with food.

For the first several million years that our species walked on this planet, we foraged and hunted. We gathered the leaves and seeds and roots that we wanted to consume, and killed our fellow creatures and ate them.

It wasn’t an ideal life, but it was a life we were suited to. We already had fire—cooking predates our species and, along with the ability to make and use tools and weapons, is part of the legacy we get from our related hominid ancestors.

Then, about 12,000 years ago, starting in the fertile crescent of the Middle East but also independently developing in South America and China, humans began to fundamentally change the way we had lived.

logoThat fascinating history—how we are creatures of food and how our relationship to food changed everything about our lives—was the topic of Dr. Anna Waterman’s presentation “How the Agricultural Revolution Transformed Human Diet, Culture, and Society” that she gave Aug. 22 at Mount Mercy University. It was the first event in the 2019 Fall Faculty Series.

It is a bit weird to think that for most of the time we homo sapiens have been around, we shared this globe with other kinds of humans—literally other homo species besides ourselves. No more. Our spread worldwide happened before agriculture and “civilization,” and we either out-competed or eliminated our nearest relatives. (Dr. Waterman didn’t go into this point, but we also incorporated some of their DNA into ours—Neanderthal and Devonians, for example, didn’t all die out, some joined our clan).

People some 12,000 years ago began slowly to tend the plants that they like, and in what was wetter grasslands of the Middle East at that time, some of those grasses became selectively bred into cultivated grains. Those grains fueled dramatic changes in our diet—the invention of bread and beer as staples of what we eat and drink.

And with cultivated grains came larger populations, villages, hierarchies—eventually, nation states. Bosses. Work. Specialization. Organized religion. And, as formerly nomadic, now fixed peoples, we started to find that tending animals was more convenient than hunting them—chickens, pigs, cows, goats were bred from wild animals into the domestic creatures we care for and consume today.

Suddenly land wasn’t something you moved over and foraged on, it was property that was owned by some rich people. The concept of “stuff” was invented as we had fixed residences to store valued objects in.

In the blink of an eye, in the grand scheme of things, the globe was transformed. Today, there are still nomadic hunter gatherers in our human family, but they are rare, located in isolated pockets of land that typically are not that good for raising crops.

Where we can farm, we farm. Thus Iowa is carpeted with corn and soybeans from river to river, a dramatic change in the landscape from what it was 200 years ago. Our immigrant ancestors conquered the New World because residents already here did not have immunity to European diseases—caused, partly, by Europeans living in such proximity to their domesticated animal sources of protein.

Family size was dramatically changed. Nomads carry what they can, and usually can’t have more than one “carry” child at a time, so their norm was to breastfeed for three or four years, which was a form of birth control. With grain, you can make soft food that an 18-month-old can slurp down, so you can wean her and make another baby sooner. And if you’re farming, you tend to want more babies because those kids are farm labor.

The vast, varied ways that agriculture has shifted our environment, our social structures and our ways of life were interesting to hear Dr. Waterman speak about. The changes have had plusses and minuses. I’m not against having a computer to type this blog post on, nor being able to microwave my lunch.

But Dr. Waterman played an interesting game. “How many of you,” she noted, “could go out into your back yard and find stuff to eat?”

There are edible plants there, probably. If we were hunter-gatherers, we would know which roots to dig and which leaves to pluck. Today, our lives are divorced from our sources of food.

Not that I want to trade places with my great, great, great nomadic ancestor. They had cookies with this presentation Thursday night—something those ancestors never saw.

And afterwards, pizza with some brews. Beer and bread, man. They changed everything.

There are eight presentations in the fall series this year, come on down. The next presentation on Sept. 4, by Dr. Normal Linda Mattingly, will cover the history of school lunch programs.

Leave a comment

Filed under History, Mount Mercy, Science

Light a Candle and Make a Change


candle
I wish that there had been more people there, but at least some people were there, and I hope it’s a start of something.

I attended a candlelight vigil in a parking lot across the street from the Federal Courthouse in Cedar Rapids Thursday night. It was a bit informal, two speakers, the reading of names of victims from El Paso and Dayton, a moment of silence.

The location was just across the street from the handiest local symbol of the federal government, and the building where U.S. Senators from Iowa have their offices.

Memo to members of Congress: It’s 2019. 2020 is coming, and I sincerely we don’t forget what you say or fail to say at this moment.

Anyway, I took my camera, hoping a few images can help boost the signal. It was nice to see my sister and sister-in-law there, and I’m glad my wife decided to come down with me. I also ran into some Sisters of Mercy, who were nice to see.

sign

But my candle kept going out. Somehow, it felt like a symbol of the whole advocacy effort for sensible policy steps to reduce gun violence—our President says there is no political appetite for that at the moment. Sadly, he may not be wrong. If Democrats are to be elected next year in Iowa, we have to hold on, hold together, speak up and fight the headwinds of violent status quo.

It’s not time for gun reform now? Not after El Paso, Dayton, The Pulse, Sandy Hook?

My candle keeps going out. But I will keep on relighting it. The winds blow, but I will not be moved.

Enough. Time for change.

phones

Leave a comment

Filed under History, Mount Mercy, politics

Debating Guns on the Margins


We have a Second Amendment in this country that guarantees the right to bear arms.

But it’s not a right to bear military assault rifles. Control of the kinds of weapons citizens may keep, as long as those regulations fulfill reasonable public ends and are not too broad, would be constitutional. The right to bear arms is not absolute; the Second Amendment itself is the one right in the Bill of Rights that is qualified—it mentions “a well-regulated militia” and the need to defend the United States.

The First Amendment, in contrast, simply says “Congress shall make no law” that abridges freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly and the power of the people to petition government.

800px-First_Amendment_to_the_U.S._Constitution

First Amendment text, Philadelphia, from Wikimedia Commons by Zakarie Faibis.

Yet, even the apparently unqualified rights of the First Amendment sometimes have to be balanced against other rights. For example, speech that is used to commit fraud, to extract money from victims under false pretenses, is not legal expression even under our Constitution.

This weekend saw horrific mass shootings in El Paso and in Dayton, Ohio. Right now, I’m watching a pretty good MSNBC two-hour special on these shootings. Inevitably, it raises the question of gun control, and equally inevitably, it will take time before anything is done.

Well, we saw today a sharp contrast between presidents. Teleprompter Trump showed up to give one of his carefully correct, robotic speeches. Once during the speech, he said the nation must condemn white supremacy (note that he didn’t personally condemn it, he left that work to the nation). But he didn’t acknowledge that his own anti-immigrant language clearly seemed to be embedded in the motives of the El Paso shooter.

And he blew some regular Republican smoke, blaming:

• Violent video games. I’m no fan of violent media, and don’t like glorification of violence in games, movies or any entertainment. It feels like we humans have not learned much since bear baiting in medieval times, or the gladiator contests of ancient Rome. But the link between media violence and violence in life is not that clear. We’ve had years of social science on this point. Violent shooters do indeed seem to like violent video games, but the reverse is not true. Most gamers who play first-person shooter games are not violent people at all. As children in the 20th century, we were not corrupted by Road Runner cartoons, and today most gamers can distinguish between fantasy and real life. So no, Mr. President. Awful presidential racist language may contribute to violence, but not fantasy video games. I don’t want to let them off the hook—I am perfectly comfortable attacking violence or misogyny in games—I just don’t think trying to pin El Paso on that scapegoat works.

• Mental health. Just, no. Granted, a mentally ill personal may be violent—but that’s like saying sharks are dangerous. They are, but shark attacks are not a great threat—they are quite rare. A mentally ill person snapping and going on a rampage is a false cultural fear. There is a sickness of the soul that may lead to violence, but sickness of the mind is not so associated with it. Stop stigmatizing mental illness—and besides, if you are so concerned about this false link, how about better mental healthcare in general? I can agree that would be a good thing, even if I think it’s not really part of this particular public policy debate.

Besides those tired old smokescreens, on Twitter, President Trump found a new cause of mass shootings. It was done by the “Fake News.” I don’t know how that link is supposed to work. Like so many of Trump’s random tweets, it means nothing.

Contrast Trump’s lame statement with former President Obama’s statement today:

obama

The former president is a writer who can use words powerfully. The current president barely can read a teleprompter script and makes things worse whenever he goes off script.

Another point about these mass shootings: Where was the good guy with the gun who would stop it? It’s a fantasy. The good guys with guns who stopped the Dayton shooting (after too many had died) were trained police, who can’t be everywhere all the time. Amateurs with pistols are not a solution, and in fact can be part of the problem because too many gun deaths in this sick society are by suicide.

So, what is to be done?

First, let’s quit blaming the scapegoats. Let’s get the CDC to research gun violence as a public health problem. Let’s ban assault rifles, without taking lawful guns from citizens. In the long run, we can have a debate about the Second Amendment, but for now, nobody should pry anything but weapons of mass killings form anybody’s fingers. For now, lets Make American Great Again by putting back in place reasonable gun regulations that were repealed, and let’s go further. Universal background checks are something I would think most gun owners could endorse.

Second, elect Democrats. Enough is enough. As a country, we should be done with the current, fake GOP and done with the influence of the NRA. Not all Democrats are great on this issue, and electing Democrats is not in itself a complete cure—but it’s a key first step. True conservatives are pro law and order, and mass shootings are not lawful and don’t contribute to order. We need the GOP to suffer some horrific defeats to prompt that party to do some much needed soul searching. I look forward to the day when there is an effective Republican Party that deals with reality, doesn’t traduce science and can be a true conservative counterweight to the Democrats. That party does not exist today.

Third, call racism for what it is. Racism is ugly, irrational and deeply embedded in American culture. Mexico is not “sending” anybody. Anti-Hispanic rhetoric has been a feature of Donald Trump’s demagoguery, as well as casual attacks on African Americans. I say enough. In the Depression, to its shame, the U.S. even rounded up American citizens and deported them to Mexico in a racist act of racist times. (I know, I know, Hispanic or Mexican are not “races,” but the attitudes that led to this action was still racist in its nature). Trying to overcome racism is one of the longest arcs of American history. We’re not there yet, and Trump’s racist rhetoric is part of our dark past, not our better future.

Fourth, stop the religious bigotry on both sides. No, putting “God” back in schools, the protestant Christian God who dominated public discourse in the 1950s, is neither desirable nor legally practical—and it’s not an answer to this problem. As a Christian, I resent other Christians who are so bigoted and narrow-minded that they think a particular brand of Christianity should be promoted by government.

No. Freedom of religion is important to religious people of all types. We get to worship as we choose, and that is a right I hold dear. It also allows a person to be free from religion, should they so choose. On this matter of religion, government should have no role.

And, on the other hand, please, there is nothing wrong with “thoughts and prayers.” They can be empty, if they don’t motivate action, but for people of faith they are important, and sometimes in tragedy they are all that can be inadequately offered at first.

I share the frustration with politicians who offer thoughts and prayers and stop there—vote them out. I did pray in the wake of the shootings this weekend. I don’t apologize for that, nor should I have to. If you weren’t motivated to speak with your God, fair enough. If you want politicians to go beyond offering empty thoughts and prayers, I am with you.

But many social movements that have led to change had a strong prayer component. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was, among other things, a preacher. So was Bishop Desmond Tutu. Prayer can be a powerful binding force that helps unite people behind needed social change.

Anyway, it has been a depressing weekend and day. Throughout the weekend, I had that horrible “not again” reaction. Today, the president left me feeling cold, as he so often does.

But even if we are discouraged, we cannot be disengaged. The fact that change is not quick and easy is not a reason to avoid acting for change.

Thoughts and prayers for more sane public policy. Plus, please, action and votes.

1 Comment

Filed under Freedom, History, Journalism, politics

My Take: Trump is a Crook, Clearly a Crook


mueller reportI know I’m late to the party—the Mueller Report came out months ago. And I missed Bob Mueller’s public testimony on the report because I was pedaling a bicycle across Iowa.

But, early in the RAGBRAI ride, on Sunday night, I finished it—I am one of those American citizens who has taken the time to read the redacted Mueller Report.

And Trump and his “best” people are dirty—filthy, filthy dirty. They make the dark Clinton camp look like angels.

Consider:

Trump’s associates repeatedly tried to get dirt from Russia in order to beat an American political enemy. They didn’t legally conspire, mostly because they were too clueless to violate American election law, which requires the violator know that they are violating the law.

The report states: “The Office ultimately concluded that, even if the principal legal questions were resolved favorably to the government, a prosecution would encounter difficulties proving that Campaign officials or individuals connected to the Campaign willfully violated the law.”

The other elements of the crime are not difficult to show—but there was technically no crime only because prosecutors could not establish that Jared, Donald, Don Jr., etc., have any clear understanding of federal election law.

In other words, they are protected by the brain bone spurs. They could not have done it because they were too ill-informed to do it.

Let’s not forget that the investigation did result in many guilty please and prison sentences, even if Mueller concluded he could not indict a sitting president.

The real chilling part of volume one of the report, however, is the main point that is not talked about—that Russia launched a well-orchestrated cyber campaign to corrupt the American election. We can argue from here to eternity whether that flipped Michigan and Pennsylvania and Florida and gave Trump the presidency—but we know for sure that the Russians are coming. They are already sticking their cyber tentacles into our vast and leaky state-run election systems to influence the next campaign.

And Trump is such a cry baby that he insists he won a great victory on his own, and his party and administration refuse to take action to secure our elections. Democracy is endangered not by whether Trump was aided by Russian disinformation—after all, American idiots are perfectly capable, on both the left and right, of spreading garbage online—but by Russian hacking.

Volume one lays out in excruciating detail that we were attacked by a foreign power in 2016, and we already know it’s underway again in the 2020 campaign. Shouldn’t someone who is upholding our Constitution do something?

America, our democratic republic is on fire, and the firefighters are too busy bullying each other to get organized and do something about it. I would even buy into a grand compromise that put GOP minds at ease over their fake nightmare of voter fraud–tackle both problems. Even if fraud is not real, the appearance that fraud is possible is not acceptable, either.

Volume two is more personal to Trump, and more damning. He is a crook, repeatedly and clearly a crook. He did everything he could to try to obstruct a legal investigation, and still mocks it as a “witch hunt” even as he continues his black-magic verbal gas-lighting.

Trump depends on noise and amnesia. When the investigation was going on, it was a “witch hunt.” When Trump’s toady, Attorney Gen. William Barr, released a slanted summary that seemed to exonerate Trump, suddenly, for about 24 hours, Donald loved Bob.

It was bound not to last, this immature crush. Bob’s not a bloody dictator, and poor Don has a way of picking boyfriends poorly.

It seems clear that the law allows a special prosecutor to investigate obstruction of their own investigation—so labeling the second half of the volume “political” or “illegal” is the Trump team being unable to counter the facts. The president lied, tried to get a long-time Republican respected prosecutor fired and otherwise sought to constantly change testimony by witnesses in his favor.

I don’t know if any of that was clarified by Mueller’s testimony—I suspect not. But he has always said his main points are in the report.

trump

White House portrait of the crook-in-chief.

I read it. I don’t understand how anybody could read it and think Donald Trump should continue as president. He is manifestly unfit.

But more than that, again, the larger point is that the election of 2020 is already at risk. And Republicans reject the notion that they need to do anything about it, because these fire fighters are fine with fire, as long as they think they are not the ones getting burned.

Trying to fix our fractured politics was hard enough before Donald Trump. It is not getting any easier. Between Trump and Mueller, if you’re trusting Trump, I don’t want you making any hiring decisions for me.

Because you’re backing the crook.

1 Comment

Filed under Freedom, History, Journalism, politics

Candidates Hot to Beat Trump


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

It was hot Sunday, so I feel like I made a minor sacrifice as part of my civic duty.
I braved the heat to hear a number of Democrats who want to be my president speak. I think the Gazette did a fair and accurate summary of the event in their story.
For me, even the crazy author lady who doesn’t stand a chance would still be a smarter, more qualified president than the current occupant. President Trump, with his recent tweet storm, shows that his instinct is to shout, divide and do damage to democracy, all in the name of drawing attention and firing up the basest instincts of his 40 percent base.
I want him gone, now more than ever. Sure, the Obama recovery is continuing, but at the cost of piling up debt by cutting taxes and boosting arms spending at the same time—an old way of gunning the economy that is not long-term sustainable.
And on any other metric other than economics—international relationships, rule of law, sane immigration policy, the environment, race relations, women’s and minorities’ advancement and rights—this president has not only not made any progress, he has dedicated himself to doing real harm.
He didn’t drain the swamp. He brought in dumber alligators.
So, I showed up on a hot Sunday knowing that I am lucky, as an Iowan, to be able to help weed out this field of candidates. I get to start the process that leads to the nominee who (knock on wood) will crush Trump in fall of 2020.
Say what you will about Tangerine Hitler, besides energizing the basket of deplorables, he’s certainly energized us Democrats. Yet, just as he is not the whole problem in the Republican party, being against him can’t be the whole message for the Democrats.
We know what we don’t want—Trump. What do we want?
Well, of the numerous speakers who appeared Sunday, three stood out to me:
amy
Amy Klobuchar, senator form Minnesota. “America needs a president who tells the truth,” she said, and I agree. Truth telling is not a long Washington tradition; most politicians, including Democrats, spin. But the current occupant actively and intuitively lies, which is part of the caustic poison of the Trump era.
Klobuchar appeals to me for several reasons. I don’t think being a woman is the key qualifier for office, but I’m inclined to support a woman, if I can. It’s long past time for a madam president.
And Klobuchar is a folksy, talented speaker. She had many resonate lines, including stating that as president she would “stand with our allies and not coddle dictators.”
Julian
Julián Castro, former HUD secretary and former mayor of San Antonio, Texas. My third choice, foreshadowing, is Pete Buttigieg, and Castro reminds me of him. But Castro is a bit older and has more national political experience as a former cabinet member—the biggest reason I hesitate with Buttigieg is my feeling he’s not quite ready for the top job. Castro is a slightly older, more experience former mayor.
Castro is a decent story teller, and that’s an important presidential skill. I liked his short anecdote about the phone call from Barack Obama that lifted Castro on to the national stage: “If you ever get a phone call from a number that says ‘private,’ answer it,” he said. “It might be me (after he is elected president).”
I guess my reasons for picking Castro are also a bit personal and idiosyncratic. He’s from San Antonio, city that gave America one of my daughters-in-law. Hola Nalena! Then again, I’m sure that the fact Amy Klobuchar’s dad was a newspaperman doesn’t hurt her, in my book.
Anyway, Castro scored one of the biggest applause lines of the cattle calls when he set up the scene of him saying goodbye to President Trump, the helicopter in the background at the White House, newly sworn in President Castro shaking Donald Trump’s hand, and his final word to the Don: Adios!
That is what we all want to say to Donald Trump, unless it’s “you’re fired!”
pete
Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana. The fresh new face of the party, a clear crowd favorite, and it’s easy to see why. He’s bright, he’s witty and he appears thoughtful.
And he’s the anti-Trump—a soft-spoken, gay, military veteran who is a sharp young contrast to the grumpy old man.
“We may be under reacting to the moment we are in,” Buttigieg said, partly referencing Trump’s infamous Sunday morning rant.
Buttigieg had several political warnings for Democrats. One, that the party does not do well just winning the presidency back. He pledged to help other Democrats.
In Iowa, we need to keep Abby in Congress, send Steve King back to Kiron and get a senate candidate who can knock out Joni Ernst. None of those will be easy—and taking back the House and Senate are important in 2020. Buttigieg was not the only candidate to point that out, but he did it the best.
He also noted that the country does not need a “return to normal.” He said that message won’t beat Trump, and “normal does not work anymore.”
One of his lines particularly resonated with me: “Freedom is not a conservative value; it is an American value.”
I faded a bit as the candidates droned on—it was darn hot. Luckily, I had picked a patch of shade to loiter in, and my only wish would have been a place to sit down.
Still, I enjoyed a New Bo lunch, had a refreshing glass of hard cider and also heard and saw a political party that is fired up.
I’m not ready to declare for any of my three favorites, yet. I’m also interested in some candidate who did not make it to the Sunday event in Cedar Rapids, especially Senator Harris. I’m sure I’ll spend some time on web sites like this one.
But I do know which party I’ll favor in 2020. Democrats, we will be fighting it out over the next few months during the caucus and primary season, and 2020 already is shaping up to be a rough, nasty election. Whatever happens, though, I was heartened on Sunday to see so many qualified women and men who can see themselves as president.
I can only hope one of them is right. We desperately need a new direction after the dumpster fire that was Donald Trump.

1 Comment

Filed under Freedom, History, Journalism, politics

A Review of Print History in Norwich


c04-b01

Museum volunteer explains 19th century print technology, which basically was used until past mid 20th century. The keyboard is part of a Linotype machine.

I’ve given up pretending I aspire to daily blog posts during this visit to England, partly because I’ve been too busy recording my adventures in the UK on my bicycle rider blog.

But today was worthy. First of all, Amanda’s friend Lara texted her and invited us over for lunch, which basically was a traditional English breakfast—beans, eggs and toast—but done with flourish and some fresh tomatoes, too. It was quite nice.

But before that, we walked some distance downtown to visit the John Jarrold Printing Museum, a cramped, fascinating place in an old building scheduled to be taken down in an area redevelopment project this fall. I do hope that they find a new home for this museum and save all of the interesting displays; we thoroughly enjoyed our visit.

The Jarrold name in Norwich is primarily associated with a downtown department store, but the family at one time were printers, too. In fact, they published the first edition of the children’s classic “Black Beauty.” Today, the small museum preserves many pieces of printing history.

We walked in, and at first were a bit lost in the clutter, until a nice elderly gentleman, one of many volunteers who gather at the museum, took us on a tour. He basically started with Gutenberg press technology, and delighted in telling the stories behind the names of many fonts. Every once in a while, he would would pose a question about print history, and seemed a bit taken aback when I knew most answers. Then again, he didn’t know he was giving the tour to a communication professor who teaches media history, but never mind.

Even if the ideas were familiar, seeing the actual machinery and mechanics of printing was still fascinating. And he knew many more details about how the printing actually works.

We moved quickly to the 19th century and the introduction of the Linotype machine.

The first volunteer later passed us off to a second gentleman, who explained lithographic printing. I didn’t realize that the offset presses most often used today actually use basic technology that dates back to presses using stones for offset printing in the 1700s—so I learned new information.

c06-b02

Second volunteer explains offset printing, used today. The 2009 local paper he is showing the CMYK plates for reports the news that shocked Norwich–the death of Michael Jackson.

As we were leaving, a third volunteer proudly presented me with a one-page reproduction of Magna Carta, which is pretty cool and which I will probably frame and put in my office.

It was quite a day—the visit to the print museum followed by the pleasant visit with Lara and her daughter, followed by a quick bike ride.

I do hope Norwich has the good sense to somehow preserve this museum. It’s a treasure and is worth keeping.

b03

At the print museum, they noted Norwich had the first “provincial” newspaper, or English paper not published in London. As we walked home, we passed this marker on a downtown building.

Leave a comment

Filed under books, History, Journalism, Travel, Writing