In wake of recent storms that hit Bemidji over the 4th of July holiday, there have been reports of tree removal and cleanup scams within the city limits. Homeowners are reminded that businesses or contractors offering tree removal services within the city limits must have a license from the Bemidji City Clerk. The license assures that those offering services are bonded and insured. Homeowners are encouraged to check with Bemidji City Clerk Michelle Miller to verify contractor licenses. For more information you can call<PHONE_NUMBER>.


Hi everyone, in this tutorial I'm gonna be showing you how to plot line graph in Python. So if we want to plot a line graph in Python we need to import pyplot from myplotlib and I'm gonna use alias for this library. Let's call it plt. Now let's create a few dots to plot our graph. These dots in this list is gonna represent the values that's gonna be on y-axis. For example I'm gonna use simply numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and now let's plot our line graph by using plot function and we want to plot a line graph using these dots as y coordinates. Okay let's show this graph. I'm gonna use show method to print or show this graph to the screen. Let's run this code. As you can see here we're having one simply line graph. Also you can specify x coordinates and y coordinates on your graph. In this new example I'm gonna use two lists. First list is gonna represent dots on the x-axis and the next list is gonna represent the dots on the y-axis. I can change few dots to make this graph more interesting and I'm gonna print this graph by using lists of coordinates. Now let's run this code and now we're having a new line graph plotted with usage of matplotlib library. That's all in this tutorial. Don't forget to subscribe to our channel. See you in the next tutorial. Happy coding!


Chapter 24 of Gilbert Keith Chesterton. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Dick Bourgeois Doyle. Gilbert Keith Chesterton. By Maisie Ward. Chapter 24. Completion. There is only one part of this story that has not been told with the rest. Our Lady's Share in Gilbert's Conversion. The Chesterton family had been quite without the strange Protestant prejudice that in the minds of many Englishmen sets the mother of God against God the Son. Our Lady was respected, though of course not in vote. In a boyhood poem, Gilbert took the blasphemous lines of Swinburne's hymn to prosopine and wrote a kind of parody in reverse, turning the poem into a hymn to marry. He would, too, recite Swinburne's own lines, deliberately directing them away from Swinburne's intention and supposing them addressed to the new Christian queen of life, rather than to the fallen pagan queen of death. But I turned to her still, having seen she shall surely abide in the end, goddess and maiden and queen, be near me now and befriend. Nor was it only admiration for art that made him right, also in early youth. The Nativity of Botticelli.  But if I walked all over the world in this time, I should hardly see anything worth seeing that is not in this picture. Father O'Connor sees in the Catholic Church and conversion a hint that Mr. Bellock had been of those who tried to hustle Gilbert in his younger days. But on this profound reality of Mary's help, they could meet many years before Gilbert had finished the slow rumination of mind and the painful effort of will that had held him so long. Here is an early letter Bellock wrote to his friend. Reform Club Manchester 11th of December 1907 My dear Gilbert, I am a man afraid of impulse in boats, horses, and all action though driven to it. I have never written a letter, such as I am writing now, though I have desired to write some six or seven since I became a grown man. And the matter we discussed at Oxford, I have a word to say which is easier to say on paper than by word of mouth, or rather more valuable. All intellectual process is doubtful, all inconclusive, save pure deduction, which is a game if one's first certitudes are hypothetical and immensely valuable if one's first certitude is fixed, yet remains wholly dependent on that. Now, if we differed in all main points, I would not write thus, but there are one or two on which we agree. One is Veripassis immolatus incrute pro homine. Another is in a looking up to our dear lady, the Blessed Mother of God. I recommend to you this, that you suggest to her a comprehension for yourself of what indeed is the permanent home of the soul. If it is here, you will see it. If it is there, you will see it. She never fails us. She has never failed me in any demand. I've never written thus, as I say, and I beg you to see nothing in it, but what I say. There is no connection, the reason can seize, but so it is. If you say I want this, as in your case, to know one way or the other, she will give it to you, as she will give health or necessary money or success in pure love. She is our Blessed Mother. I have not used my judgment in this letter. I am inclined to destroy it, but I shall send it. Don't answer it. Yours ever, H. Belach. At top of the letter, my point is, if it is right, she knows. If it is not right, she knows. Gilbert believed it, and he knew that as he came to the church, he was coming to Our Lady. Now I can scarcely remember a time when the image of Our Lady did not stand up in my mind quite definitely at the mention or the thought of all these things. I was quite distant from these things and then doubtful about these things and then disputing with the world for them and with myself against them. For that is the condition before conversion. But whether the figure was distant or was dark and mysterious or was a scandal to my contemporaries or was a challenge to myself, I never doubted that this figure was the figure of the faith. That she embodied as a complete human being, still only human, all that this thing had to say to humanity. The instant I remembered the Catholic Church, I remembered her. When I tried to forget the Catholic Church, I tried to forget her. When I finally saw what was nobler than my fate, the freest and hardest of all my acts of freedom, it was in front of a gilded and very gaudy little image of her in the port of Brindisi that I promised the thing that I would do if I returned to my own land. From the well and the shallows, pages 176 to 177. In his Chaucer, G.K. quoted with considerable amusement a learned critic who said it was possible that the poet had passed through a period of intense devotion more especially towards the Virgin Mary. It is he comments, it does occur from time to time. I do not quite understand why Chaucer must have passed through this fit of devotion as if he had mariola tree like the measles. Even an amateur who has encountered this malady may be allowed to testify that it does not usually visit its victim for a brief period. It is generally chronic and in some sad cases I've known, quite incurable. From Chaucer, page 121. The Queen of Seven Swords is the great expression of Gilbert's chronic love of Our Lady and then looked up at the woman made for the morning when the stars were young. For whom more rude than a beggar's rhyme in the gutter, these songs were sung. The return of Eve exemplified a favorite thought of his. When the journalist keeps repeating that the life of religion does not lie in dusty dogmas we should stop him with a great shout, for he is wrong at the very start. It is from the seed of dogma and from that seed alone that all powers of art and poetry and devotion spring. In the days of his boyhood, when he thought Our Lady with a vague and confused respect as the Madonna he could not have written the return of Eve. That flower came from the seed of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Our Lady is the Mother of God and Our Mother, this doctrine blossomed as he wrote. I found one hidden in every home, a voice that sings about the house, a nurse that scares the nightmares off, a mother nearer than a spouse, whose picture once I saw in there, wild of old and weird and sweet, in sevenfold splendor blaze the moon, not on her brow beneath her feet. This poem, The White Witch, has in it a mingling of the old classical stories of his boyhood and the new light of Christian reality. In the everlasting man, he saw the myths as hunger and the faith as bread. Men's hearts today were withered because they had forgotten to eat their bread. The hunger of the pagans was a healthier thing than the jaded sterility of the modern world. Our Lady was ready to give that world the bread of life once more. And as he meditated on the mystery of the virgin birth, he saw God making purity creative. He alone, who overcame all heresies, could overcome the hideous heresy of birth prevention. That Christ, from this creative purity, came forth your sterile appetites to scorn. So in her house, life without lust was born.  Gode, Virgo moria, cuntas eresests, sola interremisti. Was this phrase from our Lady's office ringing in Gilbert's mind as he sang the seven champions of Christendom, disarmed and worsted in the fight? Going back to our Lady to find that she had hidden their swords where the Gospels tell us she hidden pondered all things. In her heart, from her wounded heart, Mary takes the seven swords to rearm the saints who have to reconquer the earth. Certainly he must often have thought of the litany. So many verses are based on it. Our Lord, as a baby, climbs the ivory tower of his mother's body and kisses the mystic rose of her lips. A woman was his walking home, Foderis arca ora pro novis. And he thinks of the sun, moon and stars as trinkets for her to play with, with the great heart a woman has and the love of little things. For she is a woman, a Regina Angelolorum, queen of powers and archangels. She yet belongs to the human race. Our Lady went into a strange country. Our Lady, for she was ours and had run on the little hills behind the houses and pulled small flowers. But she rose up and went into a strange country with strange thrones and powers. From a welter of comment and correspondence that followed his conversion, challenging, scarning, rejoicing, welcoming, I select two letters from the two closest of Gilbert's Catholic friends, Heller, Belach, and Maurice Barron. My dear Gilbert, I write to you from these strange surroundings the first line upon the news you gave me. I must write to you again when I have collected myself, for my reactions are abominably slow. I have, however, something to say immediately. And that is why I write this very evening, just after seeing Eleanor off at the station. The thing I have to say is this. I could not have said it before your step. I can say it so now, before it would have been like a selected pleading. The Catholic Church is the exponent of reality. It is true. As doctrines in matters large and smaller statements of what is, this it is, which the ultimate act of the intelligence accepts. This it is, which the will deliberately confirms. And that is why faith, though an act of the will, is moral. If the Ordnance map tells us that it is 11 miles to a place then, my mood of lassitude as I walk through the rain at night, making it feel like 30, I use the will and say no. My intelligence has been convinced and I compel myself to use it against my mood. It is 11. And though I feel in the depths of my being that I have gone 30 miles and more, I know it is not yet 11. I have gone. I am by all my nature of mind skeptical. And as to the doubt of the soul, I discover it to be false. A mood, not a conclusion. My conclusion, and that of all men who have ever once seen it, is the faith. Corporate organized a personality teaching a thing, not a theory. It to you who have the blessing of profound religious emotion. This statement may seem to desiccate. It is indeed not enthusiastic. It lacks meat. It is my misfortune and youth. I had it even till lately grief has drawn the juices from it. I am alone and unfed. The more do I affirm the sanctity, the unity, the infallibility of the Catholic church. By my very isolation, do I, the more affirm it. As a man in a desert knows that water is right for man, or as a wounded dog not able to walk yet knows the way home. The Catholic Church is the natural home of the human spirit. The odd perspective picture of life, which looks like a meaningless puzzle at first, seen from that one standpoint, takes a complete order and meaning, like the skull in the picture of the ambassadors. So much for my Jijun contribution. Not without value, because I know you regard my intelligence. A perilous tool God gave me for his own purposes. One bringing nothing to me. But beyond this, there will come in time, if I save my soul, the flesh of these bones, which bones alone I can describe and teach. I know without feeling. An odd thing is such a connection, the reality of Beatitude, which is the goal of Catholic living. In Hak Urbe Lux Solanus Ver Anteranum Pax Paranus 8. Aterna Godia, Yours H.B. Morris Bering wrote, August 25, 1922, My dear Gilbert, when I wrote to you the other day, I was still cramped by the possibility of the news not being true, although I knew it was true. I felt it was true at once. Curiously enough, I felt that it happened before I saw the news in the newspaper at all. I felt that your ship had arrived at its port. But the more I felt this, the more unwilling I was to say anything before I heard the news from a source other than the newspapers. I gave way to an excess, a foolish excess perhaps of scruple. But you will, I think, understand this.  Nothing for years has given me so much joy. I have hardly ever entered a church without putting up a candle to our Lady or to St. Joseph or to St. Anthony for you. And both this year and last year in Lent, I made an Ovena for you. I know of many other people, better people far than I, who did the same. Many masses were said for you in prayers all over England and Scotland in centers of holiness. I will show you someday a letter from some nuns on the subject. A great friend of mine, one of the greatest saints I have known, Mr. Mary Annunciation of the Convent Orphanage, Upper Norwood, used always to pray for you. She, alas, died last year. Did I ever quote you a sentence of Bernard Holland on the subject of Ken Elm Henry Digby when the latter was received? Father Scott, who at last guided him through the narrow door, where one must bend one's head into the internal space and freedom of the eternal and universal Catholic Church. Space and freedom. That was what I experienced on being received. That is, what I have been most conscious of ever since. It is the exact opposite of what the ordinary Protestant conceives to be the case. To him, and not only to him, but to the ordinary English agnostic, the convert to Catholicism is abandoning his will and his independence. Sometimes they think even as nationality. At best, they think he is sheltering himself in a walled garden. At the worst, they think he is closed on himself an iron door, and shackled himself with foolish chains and sold his birthright for a crown of tinsel. And yet, their own experience, the testimony of their eyes, if they would only use them, ought to suggest to them that they might perhaps be mistaken. It would be difficult for anyone to make out a case for the un-Englishness of manning or indeed of any prominent English Catholic, whether a born Catholic or a convert. It would be difficult for them to prove that Bellach was a writer wanting an independence. It would be difficult for them to convince anyone that Father Vaughn and Lord Fitzalan were wearing fool's caps. And anybody who has thought about history or looked on at politics must have reflected that freedom resides where there is order and not where there is license, or no order. It is true in politics, it is true in art, it is the basis of our whole social life in England. Russia has just given us the most startling of object lessons. The English, with their passion for committees, their club rules, and their well-organized traffic, are daily realizing the fact. However little, they may recognize the theory. Only the law can give us freedom, said Goethe, talking of art.  Well, all I have to say, Gilbert, is that what I think I have already said to you, and what I have said not long ago in a printed book, that I was received into the church on the eve of Candle Mass, 1909. And it is perhaps the only act in my life, which I am quite certain I have never regretted. Every day I live, the church seems to me more and more wonderful. The sacraments, more and more solemn and sustaining. The voice of the church, her liturgy, her rules, her discipline, her ritual, her decisions in matters of faith and morals. More and more excellent and profoundly wise and true and right. And her children stamp with something that those outside her are without. There I have found truth in reality, and everything outside her is to me compared with her as dust and shadow. Once more, God bless you and Francis. Please give her my love. In my prayers for you, I have always added her name. Yours, Morris. It was a bit of great good fortune, although at the time he did not feel it, so that the death of the new witness in 1922 for lack of funds left Gilbert some months of uninterrupted creative thought before GK's weekly took its place. Lawrence Solomon, friend of his boyhood, and at this time a near neighbor, has told me not only how happy his conversion had made Gilbert, but also how it had seemed to bring him increased strength of character. He had told Morris Bering did not worry so much as of old because of a fundamental peace. In this atmosphere were written two of his most important books. St. Francis of Assisi published 1923. The Everlasting Man published 1925. In a poem he has expressed his sense of conversion as a new light that had transfigured life, indeed of a new life given to him. After one moment, when I bowed my head and the whole world turned over and came upright, and I came out where the old road shone white. I walked the ways and heard what all men said. They rattled reason out through many a sieve that stores the sand and lets the gold go free, and all these things are less than dust to me because my name is Lazarus and I live. Collected poems, page 387, The Convert.  Gilbert felt now the clue to history in his fingers, and he used it increasingly. The Everlasting Man is the orthodoxy of his later life, and one difficulty in dealing with it adequately was expressed in a letter from William Lyon Phelps, thanking the author for a magnificent work of genius and never more needed than now. I took out my pencil to mark the most important passages, but I quickly put my pencil in my pocket, for I found I had to mark every sentence. Reading the book for perhaps the seventh time, I can only say, I hope without irreverence, that G.K. himself says, happens to those who can read the words of the Gospel, simply enough. They will feel as if rocks had been rolled upon them. Criticism is only words about words, and of what use are words about such words as these? Rocks rolled upon them. Did he not feel crushed, overwhelmed at times, by his own thought on these immensities, or can the philosopher carry his thoughts as lightly as Gilbert so often seemed to carry his? I think not always. He must have needed superhuman strength to conceive and give birth to this mighty book. The thoughts sketched in the new Jerusalem had grown to their full fruition in an atmosphere of meditation. It would be much easier to give an outline of the everlasting man than of orthodoxy, much harder to give an idea of it. For orthodoxy consists of a hundred brilliant arguments while the everlasting man really is a vision of history supported by a historical outline. Comparing his own effort with that of H.G. Wells, Chesterton says, I do not believe that the best way to produce an outline of history is to rub out the lines. He is, like Wells, however, in not being a specialist but claiming the right of the amateur to do his best with the facts the specialists provide. Only their specialists are different specialists, and their facts, therefore, are largely different facts. Chesterton, unlike most converts, wrote concerning his own conversion the least interesting of his later books, but in the everlasting man he is not at all concerned with his own spiritual wayfaring. He merely wants to make everyone else look at what he has come to see at the end of the way. The book is an attempt to get outside man and thus see him as the strange being he really is. To get outside Christianity and see for the first time its uniqueness among the religions of the world. Why are not all men aware of the uniqueness of man and the animals and the uniqueness of the church among religions? Because they do not really look at either. Familiarity is dulled the edge of awareness. Men must be made to see them as though for the first time and it is the towering achievement of this book that reading it, we do so, see them. I desire to help the reader to seek Christendom from the outside in the sense of seeing it as a whole against the background of other historic things. Just as I desire him to see humanity as a whole against the background of natural things. And I say that in both cases when seen thus they stand out from their background like supernatural things. This being his desire he divides the book into two parts. First being the main adventure of the human race insofar as it remained heathen. And the second a summary of the real difference that was made by it becoming Christian. Notable as the first part is, it is only a preparation for the second which shows the church not as one religion among many but as the only religion for it is the only thing that binds into one both philosophy or thought and mythology or poetry. Giving us a logos who is also the hero of the strangest story in the world. He asks the man who talks of reading the gospels really to read them as he might read his daily paper and to feel the terrific shock of the words of Christ to the Pharisees or the behavior of Christ to the money changers. To look at the uniqueness of the church that has died so often but like her founder risen again from the dead. Two untrue things he felt were constantly reiterated about the gospel. One that the church had overlaid and made difficult a plain and simple story. The other that the hero of this story was merely human and taught a morality suitable to his own age in applicable in our or more complicated society. To anyone who really read the gospels the instant impression would be rather that they were full of dark riddles which only historic Christianity has clarified. The unix of the heavenly kingdom would be an idea dark and terrible but for the historic beauty of Catholic virginity. The ideal of man and woman in one flesh inseparable and sanctified by the sacrament became clear in the lives of the great married saints of Christendom. The apparent idealization of idleness above service in the story of Mary and Martha was lit up by the sight of Catherine and Claire and Teresa shining above the little home at Bethany. The meek inheriting the earth became the basis of a new social order when the mystical monks realized that the practical kings had lost. Thus if the gospel was a riddle the church was the answer to the riddle because both were created by one who knew who saw the ages in which his own creation was to find completion whose morality was not one of another age but of another world. Chesterton gathered history in his mind and saw together before the Christmas crib the shepherds who had found their shepherd the philosopher kings who would stand for the same human ideal if their names had really been Confucius or Pythagoras or Plato. They were those who sought not tales but the truth of things and since their thirst for truth was itself a thirst for God they also have had their reward. But even in order to understand that reward we must understand that for philosophy as much as mythology that reward was the completion of the incomplete. From the Everlasting Man page 211 GK II had needed the completion of incomplete human thought.  He saw in the history of the ancients a consciousness of the fall amongst a sense of the presence of the absence of God. But at Bethlehem he saw the transformation that had come upon the whole race of man with that little local infancy concealing the mighty power of God who had put himself under the feet of the world. It is rather as if a man had found an inner room in the very heart of his own house which he had never suspected and seen a light from within. It is as if he found something at the back of his own heart that betrayed him into good. It is not made of what the world would call strong materials or rather it is made of materials whose strength is in the wing levity with which they brush us and pass. It is all that is in us but a brief tenderness that is there made eternal. All that means no more than a monetary softening that is in some strange fashion become a strengthening and a repose. It is the broken speech and the lost word that are made positive and suspended unbroken. As the strange kings fade into a far country and the mountains resound no more with the feet of the shepherds and only the night and the cavern lie enfold upon fold over something more human than humanity. Also from the everlasting man page 223 It seems to me profoundly significant that Gilbert studied first in the little poor man of Assisi what Christ could do in one man before he came on to the study of what he had done in mankind as a whole of who he was who had done it. For the man thus chosen embodied the ideals that Gilbert had seen dimly in his boyhood. Ideals that most of us accept a little reluctantly from the church but which had actually attracted him towards the church. St. Francis had found the secret of life in being a servant and the secondary figure. He seems to have liked everybody but especially those whom everybody disliked him for liking. By nature he was the sort of man who has the vanity which is the opposite of pride. That vanity which is very near to humility. He never despised his fellow creatures and therefore he never despised the opinion of his fellow creatures including the admiration of his fellow creatures. He was above all things a great giver and he cared chiefly for the best kind of giving which is called Thanksgiving. If another great man wrote a grammar of assent he may well be said to have written a grammar of acceptance a grammar of gratitude. He understood down to its very depths the theory of thanks and its depths are a bottomless abyss. Here in St. Francis Gilbert saw the apotheosis of his old boyish thought that Thanksgiving is a duty and a joy and that we should love not humanity but each human. Things shadowed in the notebook are in St. Francis. The transition from the good man to the saint is a sort of revolution by which one for whom all things illustrate and illuminate God becomes one for whom God illustrates and illuminates all things. It is rather like the reversal whereby a lover might say at first sight the lady looked like a flower and say afterwards that all flowers reminded him of his lady a saint and a poet standing by the same flower might seem to say the same thing but indeed though they both would be telling the truth they would be telling different truths for one the joy of life is a cause of faith for the other rather a result of faith From St. Francis of Assisi page 11 St. Francis seemed to me the highest expression of Gilbert's mysticism. I have hesitated to use the word for it is not one to be used lightly but I can find no other. Like most Catholics I have been want to believe that to be a mystic a man must first be an ascetic and Gilbert was not an ascetic in the ordinary sense but is there not for the thinker an asceticism of the mind very searching very purifying apparently that creative writing was the hardest of hard labor that sense of the pressure of thought that made Newman call creative writing getting rid of pain by pain the profound depression that often follows the exhaustion that seems like a bottomless pit St. Therese said the hardest penance was easier than mental prayer was not much of Gilbert's thought a contemplation faith, thanksgiving, love, surely these far above bodily asceticism is so clear a man's eyesight that he may fittingly be called a mystic since he sees God everywhere the lesser man thinks of himself the more he thinks of his good luck and of all the gifts of God only a poet who was more than a poet could see so clearly of what like St. Francis was when we say that a poet praises the whole creation we commonly mean only that he praises the whole cosmos but this sort of poet does really praise creation in the sense of the active creation he praises the passage or transition from non-entity to entity there falls here also the shadow of that arch-type image of the bridge which is given to the priest is archaic and mysterious name the mystic who passes through the moment when there is nothing but God does in some sense behold the beginningless beginnings in which there was really nothing else not only appreciates everything but the nothing of which everything is made in a fashion he endures and answers even the earthquake irony of the book of Job in some sense he is there when the foundations of the world are laid with the morning stars singing together and the sons of God shouting for joy from St. Francis of Assisi pages 112 to 113 but there was in all those years another element besides the giving of thanks and the joy of creation an abiding grief for the sorrows of the sons of men and especially those of his own land in this mood the cobbitt was written nine years separate the publication of William Cobbitt from that of the history of England written at the time when Englishmen were fighting so magnificently that book had radiated G.K.'s own mood of hope but to read rural rites to meditate on cobbitt's England and then turn to the England of the hour was not cheerful for cobbitt did not draw precise diagrams of things as they were he only had frantic and fantastic nightmares of things as they are and these nightmares haunted cobbitt's biographer from cobbitt page 22 what he saw was not an Eden that cannot exist but rather a world that can exist and even that does not exist what he saw was the perishing of the whole English power of self support the growth of cities that drain and dry up the countryside the growth of dense dependent populations incapable of finding their own food the toppling triumph of machines over men the sprawling omnipotence of financiers over patriots the herding of humanity and nomadic masses in every homes or homeless the terrible necessity of peace and the terrible probability of war all the loading up of our little island like a sinking ship the wealth that may mean famine and the culture that may mean despair the bread of Midas and the sort of Damocles in a word he saw what we see but he saw it when it was not there and some cannot see it even when it is there also from cobbitt pages 14 and 15 two men had written of the reformation as the ultimate origin of these evils at a time when it was still the fashion it treated as the dawn of all good lingard himself catholic had written cautiously with careful documentation in moderate tone cobbitt a protestant had written hastily and furiously but both men had drawn in essentials the same picture jester didn't suspected that cobbitt lingard with respect largely because of the difference in the tone of the two men lingard spoke restrainedly but cobbitt's voice was raised in a loud cry he was simply a man who had discovered a crime ancient like many crimes concealed like all crimes he was as one who had found in a dark wood the bones of his mother and suddenly knew she had been murdered he knew now that england had been secretly slain some he would say might think it a matter of mild regret to be expressed in murmurs but he found a corpse gave a shout and if fools laughed at anyone shouting he would shout the more till the world should be shaken with that terrible cry in the night it is that ringing and arresting cry of murder rung from him as he stumbled over those bones of the dead england that distinguishes him from all his contemporaries also from cobbitt pages 176 and 177 yet for the christian hope remains no murder can be the end christianity has died many times and risen again for it had a god who knew the way out of the grave this quotation is from the chapter called five deaths of the faith in the everlasting man several times in the book chestered and puts aside tempting lines of thought with a remark that he intends to develop them later in one of the unwritten books that he always felt were so much better than those he actually wrote would any human life have been long enough to develop them all anyhow even the whole of this life was not available as i turn to the story of the weekly paper rising again from its ashes i ask myself the question i have often asked was it worthwhile i cannot answer the question something of his manhood seemed to gilbert he wound up with this struggle and it may be he would have been a lesser man had he abandoned it and yet at moments imagining the poetry the philosophy that might have been ours another white horse another everlasting man i am tempted to wish that these years had not thus been sacrificed to the paper which enshrined his brother's memory end of chapter 24 chapter 25 part 1 of gilbert keith chestered this is a liber vox recording all liber vox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit liber VOX dot org recording by dick bourgeois dole gilbert keith chestered by mazy ward chapter 25 part 1 the reluctant editor 19 25 to 1930 i tell you not for your comfort yea not for your your desire, save that the sky glows darker yet, and the sea rises higher, from the ballad of the white horse. Could Gilbert have divided his life between literary work, his home at top meadow, and those other elements called in the autobiography Friendship and Fulery? That life might well have been, as he himself called it, indefensively fortunate and happy. But he could not. Part of his philosophy of joy was that thanks must be given for sunsets, for dandelions, for beech trees, for home and friends, and this thanks could only be the taking of his part in the fight. He would never, he once said, have turned of his own accord to politics. It is arguable that it would have been better if he never had, but his brother had plunged into the fray with that very political paper The New Witness, and his brother's death had left it in Gilbert's hands. He felt the task to be a sacred legacy, and when the paper died for lack of funds, his one thought was how to start it again. For many months he kept the office in being, and paid salaries to a skeleton staff, consisting of Mr. Gander, a deaf old manager, Ms. Dunham, now Mrs. Phillips, and an office boy. Mr. Titterton would stroll in and play cricket with the office boy, with a paper ball, and a walking stick. Endless discussions were held as to how to restart the paper, and whether under the old name or a new one. Bernard Shaw had his own view. He wrote, 11th of February, 1923, My Dear Chesterton. Not presumed to dictate, I have all jingles delicacy, but if everybody else is advising you, why should not I? TP's weekly always had a weekly sound, but it established itself sufficiently to make that form of title the trademark of a certain sort of paper. Hence, Jack O'London's weekly, it also set the trade sheep running that way. You have the precedence of Defoe and Cobbett for using your own name, but DD's weekly is unthinkable, and WC's weekly indecent. Your initials are not euphonious. I recall that brainy song of my boyhood, UPPD, GKC, KC, KC, GKC, GKC, GKC, KC, GKC, KC. Chesterton is a noble name, but Chesterton's weekly spoils it. Call it simply Chesterton's. That is how it will be asked for at the bookstalls. You may be obliged to call leader ventures Chesterton's daily or Chesterton's annual, but this one needs no impertently superfluous definition.  A picture cover, like that of Punch, might stand even that test, if we're good enough, but where are you to find your Doyle? Take is a detestable, sniveling word. Nothing can redeem it, not even the sermon on the mount. Seven days is better, but reminds one of the police court, as well as of the creation. Every seven days would sound well. But Chesterton's leaves no room for anything else. I am more than unusually sure that I am right. Francis quite agrees with me. How would you like it? If she were to publish a magazine and call it Fanny's First Paper. Ever. GBS. If Gilbert answered this letter, his answer has disappeared. He seems to have asked permission to publish it, probably with a view to collecting further opinions. 10. Adelphi Terrace, London, WC2, February 16, 1923. My dear GKC. Of course you may publish any letter of mine that you care to, at your discretion. But not only will the publication of a letter from me not add one to your circulation, nothing but a permanent feature will do that, but it may lead you to disregard the advice I give to all the people who start labor papers, about two a week or so. Which always is, don't open with an article to say that your paper supplies a want. Don't blight your columns with messages.  Ponder this. It is sound. Your main difficulty is that the class whose champion you have made yourself reads either Lloyds or nothing. To the rural proprietor, no longer a peasant art, including ballet, is immorality. And people who idealize peasants, unpractical fools. Also, the Roman Catholic Church, embarrassed by recruits of your type, and born scoffers like Bellock who cling to the church because its desecration would take all the salt out of blasphemy, will quietly put you on the unofficial index. The Irish will not support an English journal because it occasionally waves a green flag far better than they can wave at themselves, and the number of Jews who will buy you just to see what you say about them is not large enough to keep you going. Thus, there is absolutely no public for your policy. And though there is a select one for yourself, one and indivisible, it is largely composed of people to whom your oddly assorted antipathies and pseudo-racial feuds are uncongenial. Besides, on these fancies of yours, you have by this time said all you have to say so many thousand times over that your most faithful admirers finally and always suddenly discover they are fed up with the new witness and cannot go on with it. This last danger becomes greater as you become older, because when we are young, we can tell ourselves a new story every night between our prayers and our sleep, but later on we find ourselves repeating the same story with intensifications and improvements night after night until we are tired of it. And in the end, which you have not yet reached, a story revived from the old repertory has to last for months, and is more and more shaky as the protection against thinking of business or lying there a prey to unwelcome reminiscences. And what happens to the story of the imaginative child happens also to the sermon or to the fouitton of the adult. It is inevitably happening to you. That is the case against the success of Chesterton's. Your only chance finally is either to broaden your basis or to have no basis at all, like dickens in household words and all the year round, and say, give me something with imagination in it and I can do without politics or a theoretic sociology of any kind. This is perhaps the only true Catholicism in literature. But it will hardly serve your turn, because all the articles and stories that dickens got are now mopped up by the popular press, which in his day, stuck to politics and news and nothing else. So I am afraid you will have to stand for policy, or at least a recognizable attitude unless you are prepared to write a detective story every week and make Bellick write a satirical story as well. You could broaden your basis if you had money enough to try the experiment of giving ten poor but honest men in Beaconsfield and ten more in London capital enough to start for themselves as independent farmers and shopkeepers. The result would be to ruin 18 out of the 20, and possibly to ruin the lot. You would then learn from your feelings what you would never learn from me, that what men need is not property, but honorable service. Confronted either with 20 men ruined by your act, or 18 ruined, and one fascination fledged be owning half a street in London, and the other half a parish in Bucks, you would well perhaps join the Fabian Society. The pseudo race feuds you should drop, simply because you cannot compete with the Morning Post, which gives the real thing its succulent savagery, whilst you can give only wouldn't hurt a fly affectation to it. In religion too, you are up against the fact that an editor, like an emperor, must not belong to a sect. Wells is on the right tack, my tack. See my prefaces to Androclies and Methuselah. We want the real Catholic Church above the manufactured one. The manufactured one is useful, as the Salvation Army is useful, or the formulas of the Church of Christ Scientist. But they do not strike on the knowledge box of the modern intellectual, and it is on the modern intellectual that you are depending. I am an Irishman, and know how far the official Catholic Church can go. Your ideal Church does not exist, and never can exist within the official organization in which Father Dempsey will always be efficient in Father Keegan Futile, if not actually silenced. And I know that an officially Catholic Chesterton is an impossibility. However, you must find out all this for yourself, as I found it out for myself. Your controversy is waste of time, and faith is a curious thing. I believe that you would not have become a professed official Catholic if you did not believe that you believe in transubstantiation. But I find it quite impossible to believe that you believe in transubstantiation any more than, say, Dr. Salabi does. You will have to go to confession next Easter. And to find the spectacle, the box, your portly kneeling figure, the poor devil inside, wishing you would become a fire worshiper instead of coming there to shake your soul with a sense of his ridiculousness and yours. All incredible, monstrous comic, though of course I can put a perfect literary complexion on it in a brace of shakes. Now, however, I am becoming personal. How else can I be sincere? Besides, I'm going on too long, and the lunch bell is ringing. So forgive me and don't bother to answer unless you cannot help it. Ever G. Bernard Shaw. Meanwhile, Shaw, as usual, responded cordially to Gilbert's wish to make him an early attraction in the paper, but also, as usual, urged him towards the theater, 10th of December, 1924. By all means, send me a screed about Joan of Arc for the cockpit. But I protest. I have no views about her. I am only the first man modest enough to know his place. Oprah Adele as a simple reporter and old stagehand. You should write plays instead of editing papers. Why not do George Fox, who was released from the prisons in which Protestant England was doing its best to murder him by the Catholic Charles II? George and Joan were as like as two peas in pluck and obstinacy. GBS. The specimen advance number was published before the end of 1924. In the leading article, G.K. gave us reasons for agreeing finally to use his own name, although in the form attacked by Shaw, he had first to view the proposal with a horror, which has since softened into loathing. He had looked for a title that should indicate the paper's policy. But while the policy was, in fact, a support of human normality, well distributed property, freedom in the family, yet the surrounding atmosphere was so abnormal that any title defining our doctrine makes it look doctrinaire. A name like the Distributive Review would suggest that a Distributist was like a Socialist, a Crank, or a Penitent, with a new theory of human nature. It is so old that it has become new. At the same time, I want a title that does suggest that the paper is controversial and that this is the general trend of its controversy. I want something that will be recognized as a flag, however fantastic and ridiculous, that will be in some sense a challenge, even if the challenge be received only with genial derision. I do not want a colorless name, and the nearest I can get to something like a symbol is merely to fly my own colors. Although the paper was never exclusively Catholic, that flag was as good as 4GK as it had been for Cecil of a very definite pattern, very clear colors. Religiously, the paper stood for Catholic Christianity, socially for the theory of small ownership, personal responsibility and property. It was in strong opposition, especially to socialism and even more to communism. Bernard Shaw, Gilbert once said, wanted to distribute money among the poor. We want to distribute power. During the last part of Cecil's editorship, his wife had been assistant editor of the new witness, and she had so continued when Gilbert first became editor. She was neither a Catholic nor a distributist. Religion seems not to have interested her, and her political outlook was entirely different from Gilbert's. In the Chesterton's, she dismissed distributism as quite without first principles, and a pious hope and no more. Unfortunately it was impossible for Gilbert to start his new paper with an assistant editor in entire disagreement with his views. I have sometimes wondered whether his intense dislike of having to tell Mrs. Cecil this was not almost as strong a factor in the delay as the money problem. I have learned, as this book goes to press, that Mrs. Cecil became a Catholic in 1941. There was no break in their relations. She went on writing for the paper, doing chiefly the dramatic criticism, but it is clear from her own account of the incident that she wholly misconstrued Gilbert's attitude and did not realize how far she herself had drifted from Cecil's views as well as from Gilbert's. Shaw wrote again, Reed's Palace Hotel, Madeira, 16th January 1925, my dear GKC. The sample number has followed me out here. What a collector's treasure. Considering that I had Cecil's own assurance that my quintessence of Ibsenism rescued him from rationalism and that it was written in 1889, I abandoned rationalism consciously and explicitly in 1881, I consider John Prothero's introduction of me to your readers as a recently converted materialist, rationalist to be a most unnatural act, and it would serve her right if I never spoke to her again. Rationalism is the bane of the Church. A Roman priest always wants to argue with you. A Church of England person flies in terror from an argument, a fundamentally sensible course. George Fox simply knocked our viewers out with his I have experimental knowledge of God. St. Thomas Aquinas was like me. He knew the worthlessness of ratio-synation because he could do it so well. And yet, despaired of the inspirationalists in practical life because they did it so badly. JKP doesn't know her way about in this controversy. And I cannot take up her challenge. What makes me uneasy about the prospectus is that you drag in anti-prohibition. You might as well have declared for brighter London at once or said that the paper would be printed at the office of the morning advertiser. You run the risk of the money coming from the trade. However, non-olay. Only remember the fate of all the editors. Gardner, Donald, Massingham, et cetera, et cetera, who have written without regard to their proprietors. The strength of your position is that they can hardly carry on with your name in the title without you. But they can kill the paper by stopping supplies if it does not pay. And the chances are that it will not. I've never had a farthing of interest on my shares in the new statesman and I don't expect ever shall. Therefore, keep your list of shareholders as various and as un-commercial as you can. Get Catholic money rather than beer money as I am the real patentee of the distributive state and the DS is socialism. And as furthermore, the church must remain at least neutral on prohibition as in the United States where a Catholic priest has just set a praiseworthy example of neutrality by bringing about a record cop of bootleggers. And as the success of prohibition is so overwhelming that it is bound to become a common place of civilization. You must regard it as at least possible that you will someday make the paper socialist and dry with a capital. Therefore, do not undertake to oppose anything. Stand for what you propose to advocate, whether as to property or drink or anything else, but don't state your solutions as antithesis. By the way, don't propose equal distribution of land. It's like equal distribution of metal, rough on those who get the lead and rather too jolly for those who get the gold. Your equal distribution must come to equal distribution of the national income in terms of money. The 500 pounds a year is absurd. Do you realize that it is 250 pounds at pre-war rates and subject to heavy taxation? Net 375 pounds pre-war, 182, 10, zero. You have sold yourself into slavery for 10 years for three pounds, 10, two a week. Are you quite mad? Make it at least 1500 pounds plus payment for copy. Ever, GBS. Of course, it was not merely a question of inadequate payment for his work. As time went on, a large part of the financial burden of the paper had to be carried by him. Lord Howard DeWalden helped generously and so did Mr. Chivers. Other donations came in, but mostly very small ones. No proper accounts were kept. No watch and how the money went and from time to time, Gilbert would pay off a printing bill of 500 pounds or so and go ahead hoping for better times. The money aspect did not worry him, I think, at first. There was always more to be made by a little extra effort, though a time was to come when every extra effort wearied him cruelly, but there was one thing he could not bear, corals on the board or on the staff and above all, the suggestion that he should adjudicate. He was a bad judge of men, one of his staff told me. He never shirked an intellectual issue, but in practical crisis, he was inclined to slide out. He could never, said another, stand up to accusations from one man against another. The first start was made with the existing staff of three. Miss Dunham was sub-editor and was usually left to see the paper through the press. G.K. would come up once or twice a week and dictate his own articles. You never knew when he was coming, she says, but you always knew when he was there by the smell of his cigar. He was practically a chain smoker and he always used the same brand. He left drawings on the blotter and everything else. He had no idea of time and when he said, I think I'll go out now, he might stay out for an hour or so or he might not return at all. Lighting a cigar or cigarette, he would make a sign in the air with the match. He never omitted this ritual and Miss Dunham thinks it became like tapping the railings was to Dr. Johnson.  And it is true that his feet, like his voice, seemed too small to belong to the rest of him. Her great difficulty was that she could not get him to read and select among the contributions. Too often, this was left to her and she felt painfully inadequate to the task. For the first year, all the notes of the week were written by G.K. Then he got Mr. Titterton as assistant editor and after that said the assistant editor, with simplicity, you could always tell good Titterton from bad Chesterton. Everyone who worked at the office adored G.K., especially the little people, typists, secretaries, office boys. He was so kind, Miss Dunham said. He never got angry, never minded being interrupted. If his papers blew away, he never got impatient. His patients hurt one, she had never seen him angry. That the paper was ever got out seems wonderful as the staff recall those days. Yet I think that all the stories about Gilbert's inefficiency as editor have contributed towards an impression that I shared myself until quite lately. That G.K.'s weekly was immeasurably inferior to the new witness. Going more carefully through the files, I have begun to question that impression. The paper was produced under certain obvious disadvantages. Even spending some days a week in London and telephoning freely, it is not easy to edit a paper from the country. Gilbert thought of himself as a bad editor and was not, in fact, a very good one. The contributions he accepted were uneven in quality. Both leaders and notes of the week, when not written by him, tended to be weak imitations of either himself or Bellach, tinged at times with an air of omniscience, tolerable in Bellach, but quite intolerable in his imitators. Just occasionally, the equally unedited notes and leader were in contradiction of each other, that the paper remains an exceedingly interesting one. Analyzing my earlier and late impressions, I concluded that my earlier feeling of boredom sprang from the inevitable effect of the new witness coming first and therefore having been read first. It is a disadvantage of consistency that, as Bernard Shaw remarked, you have said the same thing, you have told the same story, so often as the years go by. End of chapter 25, part one. Chapter 25, part two of Gilbert Keith Chesterton. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Dick Bourgeois Doyle, Gilbert Keith Chesterton by Maisie Ward. Chapter 25, part two. The reluctant editor, 1925 to 1930. Taking the rest of a year and returning fresh to GK's weekly, I was surprised at finding how much I enjoyed reading it and also at finding that it had been of more practical use than I remembered to the cause it served. The trend of the whole world is to make the state powerful and the family powerless. It was something that in these years, GK's weekly should have helped to smash two bills of this nature, the mental deficiency and the canal children's bills. Both these aimed at taking children from their parents, the first and the cause of health, the second of education. I guess both Gilbert wrote brilliantly and successfully. GK's weekly has much more GK in it and quite as much bellock as in the earlier years of The New Witness. Eric Gale, too, a long friend of the Chestertons, became the chief contributor on art. In 1925, he spent a night at Top Meadow to discuss the policy of the paper, especially with reference to industrialism and art. A little later, the Gils moved from Wales, much nearer to Beaconsfield and the two men met fairly often. Gils letters are interesting. They are mostly before the visit to Beaconsfield and probably led to it. He begins by attacking Gilbert for one, supporting Orphanism against Byzantineism, and two, thinking that the art of the painting began with Giotto, whereas Giotto was really much more the end. In June 1925, GK was asking him to write about Epstein. Gale agreed to do so, but insisted that Chesterton and bellock must not disagree with him, but accept my doctrine as the doctrine of GK's weekly in matters of art. Just as I accept yours and other matters. I don't intend to write for you as an outsider. Have I not put almost my last quid into your blooming company, 7% or not? God forbid that you should have an art critic who'll go around the picture shows for you and write bilge about this painter and that and this art movement and that. In the first state of effervescence, the labor he delighted in quite deadened the pain of the editor's chair. Gilbert was prepared, if necessary, to write the whole paper and to treat it as a variant on the toy theater or the sword stick. It was said that the Chicago pork machine used every part of a pig except the squeal. It might be said that the Fleet Street press machine uses only the squeal. In short, nobody reading the newspapers could form the faintest notion of how intelligent we newspaper people are. The whole machine is made to chop up each mind into meaningless fragments and waste the vast mass even of those. Such a thing as one complete human being appearing in the press is almost unknown and when an attempt is made at it, it necessarily has a certain era of eccentric egotism. That is a risk which I am obliged to run everywhere in this paper and especially on this page. As I've said, the whole business of actually putting a paper together is a new game for me to play to amuse my second childhood. And it combines some of the characters of a jigsaw and a crossword puzzle. But at least I am called upon to do a great many different sorts of things and am not tied down to that trivial specialism of the proletarian press. March 28th, 1925. And again, this paper exists to insist on the rights of man on possessions that are of much more political importance than the principle of one man, one vote. I'm in favor of one man, one house, one man, one field. Nay, I have even advanced the paradox of one man, one wife. But I am almost tempted to add the more ideal fancy of one man, one magazine to say that every citizen ought to have a weekly paper of this sort to splash about in. This kind of scrapbook to keep him quiet. April 4th, 1925. GK goes on to talk about an old idea of his. That is, a young journalist should write one article for the church times and another for Pinkham. And then put them into the wrong envelopes. It is that sort of contrast and that sort of combination that I'm going to aim at in this paper. I cannot see why convictions should look dull or why jokes should be insincere. I should like a man to pick up this paper for amusement and find himself involved in an argument. I should like him to pursue it purely for the sake of argument and find himself pulled up short by a joke. I never can see why a thing should not be both popular and serious. That is, in the sense of being both popular and sincere. For the paper had a most serious purpose. He acknowledged its defects of bad printing, which the printers indignantly denied, bad proofreading, bad editing and claimed to raise against the banner of advertisement the noble banner of apology. Because a creative revolution was what he wanted. Words and forms were hard to find. It was easy to dress up stale ideas in a new dress, but the terminology for something outside the old hack party programs had to be fresh minted. He proposed various changes after a few months running and introduced them thus. We should be only too glad if for this week only our readers would have the tact to retire and leave us alone. We are in the Hegelian condition. A condition not so much of being as of becoming.  It is even more embarrassing than being caught in the very act of evolution, which every clear-headed person would desire to avoid. December 12th, 1925. In this number he began the return of Don Quixote and also a sort of scrapbook. He invited contributions dealing with every sort of approach to distributism and promised more than one series of constructive proposals and definite schemes of legislation. We do not promise that all these schemes will exactly agree with each other or that we shall agree with all of them. Some will be more conservative, some more drastic than our own view. This article ends with an ambitious note. Very varying schemes will be admitted, but the idea of the paper will thereby be strengthened, not destroyed. For what we desire is not a paltry party program, but a renaissance. It was not the first time that he had demanded a revolution, but as the depression hit our country and big business seemed less and less capable of coping with it, the demand became more understandable and the fight against monopoly more urgent. A thinking man should always attack the strongest thing in his own time. For the strongest thing of the time is always too strong. The great outstanding fact and feature of our time is monopoly. April 25th, 1925. I've already referred to a debate on monopoly between Chesterton and Mr. Gordon Selfridge, in which Selfridge, with the familiar unreality of the millionaire, maintained that there was no such thing. Anyone who was freed opened a store in rivalry of Selfridges or to start a paper that should eclipse the Daily Mail. The only real monopoly he added gracefully was that of a genius like Chesterton, whose work the ordinary man could not emulate. The graceful compliment Chesterton answered by offering to share his last epigram with Mr. Selfridge. But as to the main contention, what could he say? It was at once too easy and absolutely impossible to answer such a speech or more truly such a speaker. Only in a country of the blind could he have won a hearing. But Chesterton persevered. Even in 1924, the shadow of large-scale unemployment had begun. At this singularly inappropriate time came the Empire Exhibition at Wembley. In the failure of its appeal, Chesterton saw hope, for he believed that from a frank facing of truth, his country might yet conquer the coming perils. That was the real weakness of Wembley, that it so completely mistook the English temperament as to appeal to a stale mood. It appealed to a stale mood of success, when we need to appeal to a new and more noble mood of failure, or at least peril. The English no longer cared to be told of an empire on which the sun never sets. Tell them that the sun is setting and they will fight through the battle, go against them to the going down of the sun. If they do not stay at it, like Joshua. We seriously propose that England should take her stand among the unhappy nations. It is too dismal of fate to go on being the happy ones. We must be as proud as Spain and Poland and Serbia. Nations made more dear to their lovers by their disasters. Our disasters have begun, but they do not seem to have endeared us to anybody in particular. Our sorrow has come, but we gain no extra loyalty by it. The time has come to claim our crown of thorns, or at least not to cover it any longer with such exceedingly faded flowers. March 21st, 1925. Always Chesterton was haunted by the present war. It seemed the Prussian peril conquered. He saw it rising again. Even before the advent of Hitler, he knew that the tribe, which had stolen from Austria and Denmark, had invaded France and crushed Poland, was without repentance. And he feared that again the stupidity or the greed behind English and American policy was giving it another opportunity. Those sturdy tutens, he wrote ironically, from whom we were descended up to the outbreak of the Great War and from whom we are now showing signs of being descended again. The misfortune was that Englishmen had ceased to try to get free from a secret government conducted by we know not whom and achieving we know not what. The real national life of our country is unconscious of its own national policy. The right hand of the Englishman that holds the plow or the sword knows not what his left hand doth with the pen and the checkbook. Man is man and Monde is master of his fate. For our government, he apologized to France. He saw it as one in the same fight against the heathenish money power and heathen Prussia. And the beating of the dark wings of enemy airplanes sounded in his dreams. As early as 1925, he wrote a Christmas play of St. George and the Dragon in which the Turkish knight embodied his vision of Prussia and St. George spoke prophetically for England. St. George. I know that this is sure, whatever man can do, man can endure, though you shall lose all laws of fight and fashion. A torture chamber from a tilting yard, though iron hard as doom grow hot as passion, man shall be hotter, man shall be more hard. And when an army in your hellfire faints, you shall find martyrs who were never saints. They wound each other and the doctor comes to help the Turkish knight. Princess, why should we patch this pirate up again? Why should you always win and win in vain? Bid him not cut the leg, but cut the loss. St. George.  Princess. If you lay there, would he let you escape? St. George. I am his conqueror and not his ape. Doctor, be not so sure of conquering. He shall rise on lighter feet, on feet that vault the skies. Science shall make a mighty foot and new, light as the feather feet of Perseus flew. Long as the seven league boots entails gone by, this shall be stride the sea and ride the sky. Thus shall he fly and beat above your nation, the clashing pinions of apocalypse. Ye shall be deep sea fish in pale prostration, under the sky foam of his flying ships. When terror above your cities dropping doom, shall shut all England in a lampless tomb.  When all their lights grow dark, their lives grow gray, what will those widows and those orphans say? St. George. St. George for Mary England. He saw the airplanes in vision and he saw courage and patriotism. I think he must rejoice today that betrayal of the Allied cause has not been at the hands of an Englishman. He had said many hard things about the English aristocracy and gentry, but these two virtues he had always granted were theirs. And in his vision he saw hope. England may soon be poor enough to be praised with an undivided heart. We're not sure that the ruins of Wembley may not be the restoration of Westminster.  And for that something, it will fight with a lucid and just tenacity, which no mere megalomania can comprehend. We're not so perverse as to wish to see England ruined, that she may be respected. But we do think she will be happy in having the sort of respect that could remain even if she were ruined. Patriotic as the English have always been, the patriotism of their educated class has seldom had this peculiar sort of extra energy that is given by a conscience completely at rest. If that were added, they might well make such a stand as would astound the world. All their other virtues, their humor and sporting spirit and freedom from the morbidities and cruelties of fatigue might enter into their full heritage when joined to the integrity and intellectual dignity that belong to self-defense and self-respect. We are far from sure that the world has not yet to see our nation in its finest phase. What may be in the womb of night, we know not. What are those dim outlines that show on the horizon? In truth, he wrote, no man knows how near we are to death or to dawn. I'm not sure whether I'm making this speech from a scaffolding or a scaffold. It's easy for the young to undertake hard things. They never know how hard they are. And they are certain of success. The lessons of experience signify to the young that other men have failed. Their own experience shall teach others the meaning of success. But to begin again at 50, with the special spring of youth gone and with the sad lessons of one's own experience in the mind, this calls indeed for a rare courage. Gilbert knew all the cost and time, energy, money and reputation that he would have to pay, that he did pay. And he stood increasingly alone. Cecils had been the irreparable loss and others of the old circle were dropping out and their places were not filled. Jack Fillmore's death in 1926 was a heavy blow. To his memory, Gilbert dedicated The Queen of Seven Swords, published the year of his death. You go before me on all roads, on bridges broad enough to spread between the learned and the dunce between the living and the dead. The gulf between the socialist group and the distributist had become far more obvious than of your. Sean Wells would still write for GK, but only because he was their friend. And if F.Y. Eccles or Desmond McCarthy today contributed, it would too be chiefly from affection for Gilbert. One article by Mr. McCarthy described the old days when the original eyewitness was in being and he, Cecil and Bellach, sat around the table editing it and sticking trail it's thrown off in hot haste into those nasty little spaces left by articles that did not quite fit or supplying three or four articles in a ballad or bane while the printers waited. We have to print a trailette. When space is clamoring for matter, we try to put it off and yet we have to print a trailette. It is with infinite regret that we admit the silly pattern. We have to print a trailette when space is clamoring for matter. Such joyous scrambles are proper to youth and now none of them were young. All authors worthy of the name have found their platform and made permanent engagements by middle life. Professional men are absorbed by work and life. They simply had not time to give as of your to build up this new old venture. The names of Shaw and Wells continue to appear among the contributors, often enough in a religious debate. Reading the files and visiting the two men to talk of Gilbert, I made one discovery that is curious from whichever side you look at. Two able and indeed brilliant men betrayed not only an amazing degree of ignorance concerning the tenets of Catholicism, but also a bland conviction that they knew them well. Wells in conversation based his claim on the fact that he had long been intimately acquainted with an ex-none. Shaw, I fancy, felt he must know all about something that had surrounded him in infancy. For as the reader must have noticed, he is much preoccupied by the thought of his Irish descent and education. But what seems to me even stranger about the situation is the absence on the Catholic side of any effort to explain to these men the doctrines they misconstrued. Wells, for instance, gave a crude and inaccurate statement of the doctrine of the fall. Velik laughed at him. Chesterton and Father McNabb both wrote long and picturesque articles illuminating to a believer, but his instruction to an unbeliever quite useless. A correspondence that seemed like to drag on forever ended abruptly with Wells asking about the fall. Tell me, did it really happen? Which Chesterton briefly replied, yes. I imagine he thought that he and the other writers had said this several times already, but in fact they had not. Perhaps they did not realize where the beginning must be made in instructing otherwise instructed men on the subject of Catholicism. It is all very interesting and curious, but it largely explains why Berners-Shaw found it hard to believe that Gilbert believed in transubstantiation. Has any Catholic ever explained the philosophic meaning of transubstantiation to the great old Irish man of English letters? Even Gilbert was perhaps too much inclined simply to play the fool in high-spirited fashion with those who attacked the faith in his paper or other papers, but then how well he played it. Here are some imaginary interviews on, the recently discovered traces of an actual historical flood, a discovery which has shaken the Christian world to its foundations by its apparent agreement with the Book of Genesis. The Dean of St. Paul's remarked, I do not see that there is any cause for alarm. Protestantism is still founded on an impregnable rock, on that deep and strong foundation of disbelief in the Bible, which supports the spiritual and intellectual life of all true Christians today. Even if dark doubts should arise, and it should seem for the moment as if certain passages in the scripture story were true, we must not lose heart, the cloud will pass, and we have still the priceless possession of the open Bible, with all its inexhaustible supply of errors and inconsistencies, a continual source of interest to scholars and a permanent bulwark against Rome. Mr. H. G. Wells exclaimed, I'm interested in the flood of the future, not in any of these local floods that may have taken place in the past. I want a broader, larger, more complete and coordinated sort of flood, a flood that will really cover the whole ground. I want to get people to understand that in the future, we shall not divide water in this petty way, into potty little ponds and lakes and rivers. It will be one big, satisfying thing, the same everywhere. A Primois, Le Deluge. Balak in his bourgeois, boozy way, may question my knowledge of French, but I fancy that quotation will settle him. March 30th, 1929. On the favorite topic of modern advertisement, having read an essay which said that good salesmanship made everything in the garden beautiful, Gilbert again thought of Genesis. There's only one actor in that ancient drama that seems to have had any real talent for salesmanship. He seems to have undertaken to deliver the goods with exactly the right preliminaries of promises and praise. He knew all about advertisement. He may say he knew all about publicity, though not at the moment addressing a very large public. He not only took up the slogan, eat more fruit, but he distinctly declared that any customers purchasing this particular brand of fruit would instantly become as gods. And as this is exactly what is promised to the purchasers of every patent medicine, popular tonic, saline draft, or medicinal wine at the present day, there can be no question that he was in advance of his age. It is extraordinary that humanity, which began with the apple and ended with the patent medicine, has not yet become exactly like gods. It is still more extraordinary and probably the result of a malicious interpolation by priests at a later date that the record ends with some extraordinary remarks to the effect that one, thus pursuing, the bright career of salesmanship is condemned to crawl in his stomach and eat a great deal of dirt. March 23rd, 1929. The relation between Belak and the paper, as between Belak and Gilbert himself, was a unique one. Not indeed its online baguette, it was equally with Cecil Begetter of the original paper and its first editor. He was Gilbert's chief guide in the historical and political scene of Europe. Both men had shared, had fought all their lives for, their ideas of freedom, the family, restoration of property, and all that is involved in Catholic Christianity. And Belak said repeatedly that he had no platform for the continuous expression of these ideas. Such books as his Cruise of the Nona still found a wide public, as had the path to Rome a quarter century earlier. And in those books his philosophy may be read. But he had two urgent commentaries on foreign affairs and current policies. And for these GK's weekly became his platform as completely as the new witness had been in the past. To Gilbert, this appeared one chief value of the paper. In an article from which I quote in the next chapter, he gives it as one of the two reasons for which he toiled to keep GK's weekly in existence. Week by week Belak on current and foreign affairs wrote of what was happening and would presently come of it. And who can say reading those articles today that it would not have changed the defeats of this war into victory at a far earlier date had our statesman read or needed the analysis of instance of the peril of the aeroplane, of the threat of the empire from Japan, the importance of keeping Italy's friendship in the Mediterranean, the growing strength of Germany and the awful risk we took in allowing her to rearm in failing to arm against her. Whether he was right or as many held wildly wrong about what underlay our failures of judgment, his views must be briefly traced because of their effect on Gilbert and others. In the financial world, he saw England in the first years after the war dominated by the international banking power, which made us as it were a local branch of Wall Street. In his view, it was the bankers, both of America and England, who first insisted that Germany could not pay her reparations and later made England repudiate her own war debts to America. Though she had, he showed, already paid in interest in principle more than half of what she had been lent. The banks did this because they had lent commercially both to Germany and England. Some's whose safety meant more to them than money's merely owing to the nations, which would not benefit the banks. England thus became subservient to the United States and had to follow American financial policies. It was these policies that led to the abandonment of the unwritten alliance with France and especially to allowing Germany to rearm, helped by loans from these same banks to occupy their island and remilitarize the rur. Next, in Bellick's view, came a worst stage, yet in which the banks had given place to big business, which was increasingly controlling parliament. The plutocracy that had bit by bit eaten into our aristocracy and gained ascendancy in the government was not, like our ancient aristocracy, trained for business and was utterly uninformed, especially in foreign affairs. The one remaining hope, the permanent officials, especially the foreign office, were less and less listened to. Laterally, he held to that even the foreign office had lost its old sure touch. Hence, a constant vacillation in our policies, which weakened England's position and made certain some terrible disaster. This fear is ever present in Bellick's articles and ever brooded on by the editor. He rallied his forces to urge, week after week, the possible alternative to disaster, the recovery by the people of England of power and freedom, the restoration of England to its place in a restored Europe freed from the German menace. Despite the natural high spirits of certain gloom and more than a touch of fierceness marked the work of these years. Summing up the 20s of the century, Chesterton saw them as singularly bankrupt, spiritually and intellectually. And he foresaw from their sowing a miserable harvest. End of chapter 25.


I can't ever get into a session and fall in love with it if my heart's not there. So that's why I think I like doing families and kids, because seeing a kid and all their innocence and taking their picture, seriously, there's absolutely nothing better. I want my clients to walk away feeling like they made a friend and that, wow, this girl really cared about this session.


In this presentation, we will take a look at Business Combination Accounting Methods, both historic methods and the current methods. Get ready to act because it's time to account with advanced financial accounting. We're going to start off with business combinations from the past. These are not the current method that we're going to be using. However, it's good to have some historical context so that if you hear these methods, you know what you're talking about. We also want to think about these concepts in terms of just a logistical standpoint. In order to make these laws, then how would you do it? What are some of the challenges that have happened? And by looking through the historical process, you can kind of think about, okay, these are what we're put in place. I see why those were put in place here, the changes that are happening. We can see why the changes are happening and therefore have a better understanding of what we are doing and how the current process is being put in place and why the decisions were made to put it in place. In the past, we had combinations methods that included the purchase method and the pooling of interest method. Then what happened is the pooling of interest method was taken away by FASB. FASB said, hey, we're not going to allow anymore the pooling of interest method. Then the purchase method has been replaced with the acquisition method. If you hear the purchase method, that in essence is what we're currently doing. However, we changed the name from the purchase method to the acquisition method. So in the past, we had the purchase method, we had the pooling of interest method. Pooling of interest method has been removed. Then the purchase method has basically been changed or renamed and modified to the acquisition method. Therefore, what are we talking about now when we have the business combinations, which generally we're talking about the external expansion of the business, businesses expanding can do that internally or externally. We're typically talking about an external expansion and we're going to be using then the acquisition method for the business combinations related to it. So let's talk about the pooling of interest method really quick. This is going to be the old method, the old method that has been removed now. We can no longer use the pooling of interest method. So that's going to be the combining of the book values of companies. No revaluation to the fair market value under this method. So basically, if you're considering two separate legal entities and you're thinking about, if you're thinking about, okay, how am I going to do this? We got these two separate legal entities that we need to kind of merge in some way, shape or form. How can we do that? Well, one way to think about it is, well, we got, we're just going to take whatever the book values are and in essence, merge them together. And that would be basically the pooling of interest method. Now, one kind of issue with that note that you might have some things on the books like property, plant and equipment, for example, which we put on the books and historic value and then depreciate it. And usually, if there's a sale or something like that, if there's a sale that takes place with, say, the fixed assets, then usually you're going to recognize a gain or loss at that point in time that the sale took place. So if you're talking about the pooling of interest method, then if you're just using the book value, then you're not really putting the items to the fair market value. And if you consider the merger or the combination that is happening as kind of like a negotiation, which it is to a sense, there's a negotiation, there's some kind of sale taking place, then you would think if there's a sale taking place, if assets are basically being bought and sold at this point, there should be a triggering of a sales type of transaction and any gain or losses on these items that are currently at the book value should be revalued and you should have to recognize basically any gains or losses at that point in time. Also, there's kind of a push to go from an item where you're on a cost basis or book value basis to more of a fair market value basis, especially in the global accounting, so to try to conform basically with international accounting policies. There's often this push to move more towards a fair market value type of accounting method, which would be basically revaluing your assets and liabilities to reflect current prices as best as possible. There's pros and cons to that, we won't get into the pros and cons in that, but if we eliminate the pooling method and we look at the acquisition method, it kind of aligns with that type of movement, so there's been a move away from the pooling method. Now, note from a managerial standpoint, the pooling method oftentimes might be a good thing, but the people that are involved in the actual merger, the people that are merging the company, may be looking for the pooling method because there wouldn't be a revaluation at that point in time. It wouldn't trigger all the things that could be triggered with the idea of this being like a purchase kind of transaction, which would result possibly in the recognition of gains and losses with regards to the revaluation of the entity's information. Also, we have to, of course, revalue it, which probably would have been taking place if you're doing some type of combination. They probably revalued all the assets to come up with whatever the terms are of the agreement, but now you're going to have to put that into the accounting in some way, and instead of just pooling the information together on a book value method, if we eliminate the book value, the pooling method, then you're going to have to revalue the assets and that could be kind of a cumbersome situation. How do you do that with regards to some type of assets which are going to be more difficult? You have to take appraisals and things like that to get an accurate value, and, of course, that's going to be estimates in some way, shape, or form depending on the type of property. If we were to use the pooling of interest method, there would be no good will as a result of using that method. So we'll talk more about what good will is, but the concept of good will is when you think about good will, you're basically thinking, hey, there's something in this company of value above and beyond what's reflected on the balance sheet. So in other words, if you take a look at the assets minus the liabilities, that's going to give you the net assets or the equity section, and that's going to be the value that would be, in essence, the book value of the organization. If you were to have a purchase situation and the book value was exactly the same value as the market value, then when there was a purchase, you would think that the purchase price would be directly for the equity value of the organization, the net assets, the assets minus the liabilities. However, that's almost never the case, and usually there's going to be a payment oftentimes for more than the assets minus the liabilities. There's some kind of purchase beyond that. What is that? We don't really, we're going to call it good will, and that good will is basically you can think of it as future earning potential. You can think of it as a brand name investment, the name of the organization results in profits that are above and beyond basically the market standards, above and beyond just the assets minus the liabilities. So how would you get good will on the books? Well, you can't really do it internally. You don't really report good will on the books. If you're growing, you don't just say, I'm going to report good will. It typically happens as a result of some type of purchase arrangement, in which case the purchase price is greater than in essence the book value. So in essence, you're saying assets minus liabilities, equity section, net assets. The purchase price is greater than the net assets. Well, if you were then to use not the pooling method, but some type of acquisition method, you're going to have to account for that in some way. Why did someone pay more on a market basis than the assets minus liabilities? Why would somebody pay more than what you would perceive the value of the organization to be? Well, given it's an arm length transaction, given it's a market transaction, and we trust the market to determine prices, we've got to assume then that there's some type of value that's intangible that's above and beyond the assets minus the liability that the market is willing to pay for, and that intangible asset would be good will. Now, the good will being reported is something that we wouldn't have to be dealing with with the pooling method because even though there might be certainly good will in the transaction, you would just be combining the book value and due to the fact of not having to adjust the fair market value, you wouldn't be dealing with the good will. And of course, that's another reason that the regulations now don't like the pooling method because again, they want to say, hey, look, there's a market transaction happening here. There's some kind of purchase happening. That's an opportunity for us to get a valid assessment about the value of this company. There's a transaction, there's an arm length transaction, there's a market transaction. We would like then to revalue the organization at that point in time and basically have the reflecting value reflect that transaction that has taken place. So those are some of the pros and cons why the method of the pooling method has been removed. What do we have left then? We've got the acquisition method. So that's what's going to be put in place. In other words, like we say that if you look at it from an ACI, like a regulatory type of standpoint, the reason they like the acquisition method is because again, there is a transaction in essence. This is kind of like a purchase and sale taking place. You're pooling together, but you could think of it basically as a purchase that's happening. There's usually in other words a dominant kind of corporation and a corporation that's being purchased in that case. In that case, you can think of it kind of a sales transaction. There's a negotiation that's happening. That's a market activity. And that means that that market activity, we would like to have it drive what we think the value of the organization is because the market valuation is our best tool to value the organization. So at the point in time that there's this market arm's length transaction, it would be a good time to revalue the organization. So note again, from a regulatory standpoint, they're typically going to want that because you get that transparency, as we can see here, the acquisition method because you would think you get that transparency of the transaction. From a managerial standpoint, oftentimes the manager likes the book method, right? Because then you don't have to deal with the revaluation and you don't have to deal possibly with the, from a tax standpoint, you can consider the fact that if there's goodwill being paid for, then there could be gains and losses or gains typically that could be recognized and you could be tax effects on this and so that could all result in more regulatory burden as well as a tax burden.  If you take taxes aside, obviously from a regulation and a transparency standpoint, the acquisition method has a lot of virtues and good values for it. So the acquisition method, values are based on fair value of the consideration given and the fair value of any non-controlling interest that is not acquired. So when you think about the acquisition method, you're basically thinking, hey, there's a transaction happening here and usually you can figure out what the value is by the amount of consideration given, meaning how much money was paid for it and it may not be money, there might have been other things of consideration, stocks, bonds, other types of property, anything could be given in consideration, but that is easier to value. The things that are given in consideration oftentimes are easier to value so you can then look at what the consideration that was given and then consider the price. Now, it could be a little bit more confusing conceptually if there's a purchase not of 100% say of the stock of another company, they didn't purchase 100%. So then if there wasn't 100% purchase, then you have this issue of a non-controlling interest. So we'd still have to value, in essence, the non-controlling interest as well. That's going to be something that complicates matters a little bit more. So it's not like the acquisition method is an easy method, which one is easier? You could have pros and cons on a pooling versus the acquisition method, which is easier. The pooling method was probably easier because you just took the book value, you didn't have to reappraise everything or anything like that. The acquisition method you're going to have to do, of course, the appraisals to get it in place. But generally, you're thinking that the purchase, the price that you paid for it, if it was just cash, it would be something easy to value. But if it's cash and stock, then you've got to value the stock. If it's publicly traded stock, then maybe it's not too difficult because you can look at what it's trading for at a given point in time to value the stock. And if it's property that's being paid, then you've got to value possibly take appraisals on the property. So we'll talk more about that in future presentations. At this point in time, just note, acquisition method, that's the current method.


Hello, welcome back on my YouTube channel. In this video I'm going to show how to use the standalone installer for QGIS. In previous videos I've used the OSDO4W installer. In this video you will learn also how to add packages such as PCRuster to your installation, so in this case you can use the PCRusterTools plugin with the standalone installer. To install QGIS go to QGIS.org. In the upper left you can find the current version numbers. In this case version 3.28 is the RC version, RC stands for Release Candidate. This version contains the newest features, but it can also introduce new bugs that needs to be fixed over time. For operational use or courses we use the LTR version. In this case that's version 3.22, LTR stands for Long Term Release and is a version that is for a longer time maintained and bug fixed. Which gives more stability for operational use. Now click the download now button to go to the page with all the installers for the different platforms. The big green button is for the release candidate 3.28 in this case, but here we will need the link to 3.22 LTR. If you click the link you can download the standalone installer for 3.22. After downloading run the file and go through the installation wizard by clicking next. Accept the license agreement and keep the defaults and click install to start the installation. Click finish after the setup wizard is done and then you can launch QGIS. However, we would like to add a package so we're going to click right on the newly installed QGIS and choose open file location. That brings us to a list of shortcuts and we need here the setup shortcut. If we double click it will not run. So we click right and we choose run as administrator. Now the OSGO 4W setup starts and we use the advanced install and we click next and keep all the defaults. Choose one of the available download sites. And here we can maximize the screen to see what is installed with our standalone installer which is quite a lot and that's also the difference with using the OSGO 4W installer. This download was around 1 GB. If you have a low bandwidth or not much disk space it's advised to use the OSGO 4W installer method which is explained in other videos. Here search for PC Raster and click the arrow to install. After installation click finish and now the PC Raster package is added to your QGIS installation. You can run 3.22 now from the shortcut or from the start menu. And there's QGIS 3.22 and if you go to the processing toolbox you see grass and saga available there and if you install the PC Raster tools plugin then it will also work because it can find the PC Raster package in your installation. So if any plugin needs a package you go back to the OSGO 4W setup and try to find the package that is missing.