Safe?

I came across this piece, this morning, over on one of the grief accounts on Instagram.  It's interesting that this is part of a posting *sort of* talking about religious beliefs: the fact that her (late) husband was an atheist, and left her with the thought that we die, and that's it, and that she didn't have much background, growing up, about religious ideas or concepts, and it's kind of vague.

But, towards the end, she notes that when you met your "person," it might have been "... the first time you felt completely safe."

And, of course, recently I was talking about the word, and idea, of "safe," and the fact that it's actually a lot more complex than we initially think, and sometimes has inherent contradictions.  In security we examine that idea much more than most people ever do, but even without the security aspects it's complicated.  Just try to define "safe."

Gloria was the safest I have ever felt with anyone.  I could tell her *almost* anything.  But there were still things I *didn't* tell her, because I knew she couldn't handle it.

Which is another reason why I find the piece so interesting.  She talks about "completely safe."  In our world, safety is never perfect.  We are not perfect.  Only God is.  Only God knows everything about us, already.  And still loves us.  So we are safe ...

MGG - 6.01 - Gloria - Moving and not moving

 Gloria was an Air Force brat.  Her father moved the family whenever he got re-assigned.  Even after he left the forces, he still moved the family frequently.  Sometimes even within the same town, since he liked to be close enough to work to come home for lunch.

As I have said, Gloria was moved many times, by her father, and then by her first husband.  When she finally got rid of her first husband (very justifiably so), she rented a townhouse on Baird Road.  She stated that now that there was no man in her life to force a move, she wasn't moving again.

Again, as I frequently say, I told people that the only reason Gloria agreed to marry me, was that I moved into her place, and didn't make her move again.  So we didn't.  We stayed in that townhouse for thirty-four and a half years.

When Gloria went into hospital, the girls sat me down and asked what it would take for me to move, with their assistance, while Gloria was in hospital.  I said I needed to be able to walk to the local library, and I needed internet access.  "That's all?" asked Number One Daughter.  "That's all," I replied.

The girls had had their eye on a place in Delta, close to Number Two Daughter.  Stairs had become an issue of difficulty for Gloria in the townhouse, as it was on two levels.  In addition, getting into the bathtub, for a shower, was a difficulty, as it was a problem for Gloria to step into the tub, in order to do so.  The new place that the girls had found was on a single level, with a ground floor entrance, and no stairs.  At least, no necessary stairs.  It also had a rather large shower enclosure, which would have been perfect.  The girls had gone even further, in assessing this venue.  They told me that I was to look at unit 119, and also unit 105.  They had eliminated all the others.  I chose 105 as being most suitable, and desirable, for Gloria.

What we didn't realize, was that Gloria would rather die than move.  (At least, that's what I tell people.)  At any rate, Gloria never did move into the new place.

But we had, already, moved out of the Baird road townhouse.  In fact, we would have had to have moved out of the Baird road townhouse eventually, regardless.  The townhouse was a part of a parcel that had been packaged for redevelopment.  It had in fact been sold to new owners, and we were under threat of renoviction.  The new owners, wanting to get the best rental price for the townhouse, in the short time before redevelopment took place, decided to renovate every townhouse that was vacated before the redevelopment.

The manager, of the townhouse complex, was a fellow that we had known since he was three years old.  His parents had moved into the complex, when he was three years old, to, themselves, take up the position as manager.  His parents had managed the complex for many years.  When they gave up the management of the complex, he stepped into the position.

You will notice, that he was, at this point, over thirty years old himself, and he had, in fact, lived in the complex, for pretty much all of his life that he could remember.  In fact, the townhouse that he, himself, had lived in had changed.  His parents, had moved townhouses, themselves, preferring a different layout.  So, the one location, in all of his life, that had not changed, was our townhouse, which he had been a regular visitor to, including time when we had been babysitting himself and his sister.

He told me, after I had moved out, that being asked to renovate our townhouse, was the last straw, as far as he was concerned.  He gave up the position as manager, bought a property in the interior, and moved there, to follow other pursuits.  I thought this a bit of an odd reaction, until I thought back, and realized that our townhouse, had been the one consistent thing in his entire life, and our move out of it broke that consistency.

I should mention that, as well as having the same address, for all of our married life, we had the same telephone number.  In fact, Gloria had had that telephone number for even longer, as she had had that telephone number, in the place where she lived before the townhouse, and brought it with her when she moved.  When I moved to Delta, Telus allowed me to move that telephone number to Delta as my home phone, so I did, thereby keeping Gloria's telephone number alive.  But when the girls moved me to Port Alberni, Telus would not allow me to move that number as my home phone.  As a matter of fact, despite strenuous attempts, Telus was unable to provide me any services at all.  However, I did, eventually, get a phone from Koodo, and, as a Telus subsidiary, was able to port that number to my cell phone.  So, I still have been able to keep Gloria's phone number alive.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/12/mgg-6oo-gloria-introduction-and-glorias.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: TBA

o/' Feelings, nothing more than feelings ... o/'

The Alberni Reach Podcast is taking a bit of a break at the moment.  Apparently, we will be back on January the 14th.  But the last episode got a bit of interesting reaction.

I had been asked to talk about feelings.  Nothing more than feelings.  The person who made the suggestion to me didn't give any other details, other than that we should talk about feelings.  And when I pursued the idea that we should maybe get a little bit more specificity on that, the only additional feedback that I got was that some people seemed to be big on feelings, and other people didn't.  So, because of some related work in regard to emotions (and particularly the work that I have done in developing men's grief support), I figured that I could address that pretty easily.

And so I did, starting with the fact that our society, in general, seems to think that feelings, and emotions in general, are less important than rationality.  Feelings have to be kept under control.  We have to assess our emotions rationally, and then rationally decide on some course of action.  There are, of course, those who disagree, and feel that feelings are important, and should be expressed, and even celebrated.  But those people tend to be in something of a minority, and, in general, are disregarded by the people who run things in our society.  In general, rationality is considered to be superior to emotion.  Feelings are *mere* feelings, and nothing more.  (That wasn't *all* we talked about, but that was where it started, and what's relevant to this piece.)

Which completely ignores the fact that, if we were all computers (or Vulcans) and were completely rational, and not distracted by our feelings, we would never actually *do* anything.  Emotions, and feelings, are our drivers and motivators.  We have just seen an election in the United States that proves this point, and we have seen recent elections in a number of parts of the world that prove this point, and we are facing an election, in Canada, which is undoubtedly going to be run completely on emotional lines.  It's really interesting to live in a society that prides itself on its rationality, and is driving its "rationality" completely on its feelings of the moment.

But that's as may be.  Following the recording of our podcast on feelings, I got, relatively quickly, two extremely interesting reactions.  It is intriguing that, almost immediately, in our society that prides itself on rationality, and from people who obviously, verbally at least, are on the side of rationality, I got two, very similar, reactions that were completely irrational, illogical, and possibly even inherently contradictory.  Having done the podcast, starting right off the top pointing out that we do need our feelings and emotions as motivators for any kind of action, I got one reaction that, while not challenging this point, completely illustrated it.  The person, in commenting about feelings, immediately expressed the opinion that feelings were, in fact, a tool of the devil.  Possibly not in those exact words, but the person was very concerned that our feelings and emotions were, most often, sent to us from God's adversary, in order to distract us from what God wants us to do or think.  This would, of course, mean that feelings are completely untrustworthy, and should be ignored whenever possible.  In other words, feelings bad, rationality good.  Just the position that I had taken to task right at the beginning of the podcast.

And, shortly thereafter, I got another, very similar, reaction.  This one, once again, didn't challenge the idea that we needed both emotion and rationality, but charged right into the idea that feelings were everything (and I mean *everything*) that was wrong with our society.  People feel that they are the wrong gender, and therefore decide that they should switch.  And therefore feelings are the cause of all the problems in our society, and, once again, feelings bad, rationality good.  And I was struck, quite literally, speechless by this assertion.  I couldn't even respond to point out the complete irrationality of this position.  If someone decided to change gender based on mere feelings, nothing more than feelings, how could you ignore the *strength* of those feelings; the pain and the distress that must have driven someone to those feelings?  Changing genders is not easy, even in our somewhat more liberal society.  Changing genders in some societies will get you killed.  But even in our society, you are going to encounter tremendous opposition.  You are going to lose friends, and possibly family.  You may lose your job.  You will undoubtedly lose position and status in society.  Changing genders cannot be easy.  So how is it that you can possibly take the position that the feelings, that you want to change gender, are "mere" feelings; are mere emotionality; in light of the difficulties someone is going to encounter in trying to do it?

It was the irony of this fact; two champions of rationality, making two such similarly, and completely irrational statements; that struck me so forcefully.  They both felt their positions so strongly that they were unable to see the irrationalities, and inherent flaws, in their positions.

Such a position is illogical ...

(Just in case you don't get the subject line ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6vI0uE9iqM)

Proverbs 10:10

Someone who holds back the truth causes trouble, but one who openly criticizes works for peace.

Review of "Book Lovers" by Emily Henry

I guess I have to add Emily Henry to my list of authors to keep checking on for new books.

It's a rom-com.  There are two characters who, predictably, hate each other.  In this case, not because they are too different, but too similar.  It's about books.  It's about people who love books.  It's about editing books.  (I, who have lost my editor, had a bit of difficulty with that.)  It's about the tropes of a rom-com.  It's very well written.

It's about love.  It's about grief.  It's about loss and fear.  It's about home, and losing home.  (And I have lost my home.)

I should hate it, and I don't.  So it's probably very good.

MGG - 6.00 - Gloria - Introduction and Gloria's parentage

At the time I began writing this I was dieting.  I had been stuck, for a couple of months, at about 180 pounds. Every time I even think of that number, I hear Gloria's voice repeating a story from her family history. 

At one point, when Gloria was young, her family lived in the Toronto area.  At that time, her grandparents also lived in the same area.  On one occasion the whole family, including Gloria's grandparents, visited Niagara Falls.  They took the elevator down to the base of the falls.  On the long, long ride down, Gloria's Grama Campbell brightly observed oh, I wonder how far down this is.  The elevator operator replied, as he had undoubtedly done thousands and thousands of times in his career, "180 feet."  When Gloria told this story she always said the "hundred and eighty feet" in an absolutely bored, dead, flat, voice.

Gloria was a better storyteller than I am.

(We'll come back to that.)

Gloria is the daughter of Stu and Sulla Furneaux.

Stu was born in Saskatchewan, and, in common with many of those born in that province, was fiercely proud of the fact.  He was very proud of Saskatchewan, and, despite the fact that he fell in love with BC, and the Vancouver area, always held that Saskatchewan was the most marvelous place in Canada.

Stu was, in many ways, a product of his time and place.  As a bit of a farm boy, he was extremely conservative, both politically and socially.  This extended to the place and position of male and female genders.  Men and boys were superior; women and girls were to be subordinate and supportive.  There were things that men were supposed to do, and pursuits that women were supposed to do.  That was the way it was, and always had been, and the way that it should continue into the future.

Stu was quite interested in genealogy.  He had traced his family line back, supposedly in a direct and unbroken line, to about the 1600s.  He had additional genealogical material and sections, going back to when Roger de Furneaux, who came with the Norman invasion of England, was given a grant of land following the invasion.  The Furneaux name, through the centuries, developed a bewildering variety of forms such as Fernelle, Ferness, Forness, Fornow, and a number of other variants.

You will notice that this fact, of having an ancestor who came across in the Norman invasion, means that his family background originally descended from the French.  Stu very conveniently disregarded this fact.  He was very proud of being a British subject, and was an ardent monarchist.  Any mention of the fact that the Normans lived in what is now France, before they crossed the channel and invaded, was met with strong objections.

Sulla was actually Ursula.  Ursula was a family name, in her matriarchal ancestry, which was the side of the family that Sulla, and her daughter Gloria, knew the most about.  This means that the descent is through Robertson, Hardcastle, and Campbell, thus making the nominal line of descent somewhat more complex.  However, the Hardcastle women paid more attention, and, as women, who hold the family society together, they knew the stories, and the relationships, on the matriarchal side of the family.  The men, who supposedly held the official status, didn't pay as much attention to their own family stories, and so, while a few of them still existed when I married into the clan, they were far fewer, and much less well documented, in terms of the oral traditions.  Gloria had two daughters.  Gloria's brother had no children.  One of Gloria's daughters has a daughter, and that daughter has now produced another daughter.  Great women raise great women who raise great women.

One of the things that Gloria left behind was a scrap of cardboard, the back of an old notepad, with a number of sayings that I recognize as coming from her family, and probably particularly from her mother, Sulla.  Some of these sayings are, in fact, fairly common, such as "bless your pointed little head," which I doubt that either Sulla or Gloria realized referred to microcephaly.  Or "Lord love a duck," which is fairly commonly used.  Or " a lick and a promise," or "if looks could kill," or even "from stem to dungeon," which may not be used terribly commonly anymore but was by no means something that only the family invented and used as a reference.

Lord love a duck

Ship doo crick

Happy any old day

He who is without expectations is never disappointed

Soda in the milk

A man running for his life would never see it

A lick and a promise

We're still breathing in and out

Bless your little pointed head

Love you lots

God bless Safeway and their barbecue chicken

(Clean from) stem to gudgeon

If looks could kill

Some of the phrases, however, did originate solely with the family, and generally had a story attached such as "ship do crick," which was a phrase, possibly originating with Sulla, or even with Larry, and was all that the speaker could manage in trying to reproduce the phrase "shipwrecked crew."  This was used as a reference, within the family, when the person, or more likely the whole family, had been through an ordeal and was feeling tired and wrung out.

Another reference was the phrase "soda in the milk."  This was a reference to a family event and story, when one person's birthday present or party was under discussion, and those who were discussing and planning it, wanted to keep it confidential.  This discussion was going on in the kitchen, among the women of the family, when the person whose present or party was under discussion came into the room, and wanted to know what was being discussed.  Someone thought quickly, and replied that they were discussing how much soda to put into a pan of milk, when you were boiling it, in order to prevent the milk from burning in the pan.  Therefore, from then on, the phrase "soda in the milk" became a family code for "mind your own business--we are discussing you and don't want to tell you about it."

Stu was from Saskatchewan, and Sulla was from Manitoba.  During the Second World War, Stu enlisted, and was sent to military training at a camp near Portage la Prairie.  Sulla was involved with the entertainment of the servicemen who were in training, and dated some of them, including Stu.  Stu, at one point, asked Sulla to marry him.  She said no.  Fortunately for my story, and my life, a week later she wrote back to him and asked to change her answer to yes.  They were married in Portage la Prairie.  In a bit of a tearing hurry, because, before the wedding took place, Pearl Harbor was bombed, and all leaves were canceled.  The wedding was moved up, significantly, and they were married, and immediately headed off, on the train, to Stu's posting in Nova Scotia.  Gloria was conceived in Dartmouth.  Although she was born in Sydney.

As an Air force brat, Gloria was moved from pillar to post, as her dad's postings were moved.  She grew up in various camps.  Even when Stu left the service, he still continued to move the family, frequently.  In fact, he did return to the Air force for a time, and then left it for good, but still kept moving the family.  Gloria attended thirteen schools, in eleven years of schooling.

Yes, that is eleven years.  In those days, there was no kindergarten, and, at one point, Gloria skipped a grade, and so graduated a year early.

Gloria's first husband also moved the family quite a lot.

Part of the results of all this moving was that Gloria got very good at packing.  But another aspect of it was that Gloria really, *really* hated to move.  When we got married, I took to telling people that the only reason that Gloria did agree to marry me was that I agreed to move into her place (by now in North Vancouver), and didn't make her move again.

(See also reference to moving in the last part of https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2021/12/details-on-glorias-last-weeks-in.html, in the Saturday, December 18th entry)

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/12/mgg-551-hwyd-community-policing.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/12/mgg-601-gloria-moving-and-not-moving.html

Romans 16:25-27

Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that is from faith—-to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ!  Amen.

Review of "The Wild Robot"

Like in "WALL-E" and "Short Circuit" the accidentally developed intelligence is benign, and even friendly.  (There is even a theory about why it develops this way, although that theory seems to be clearer in the filmmakers' minds than in the script.)  Unlike "Subservience" and "Ex Machina" it does not immediately try to kill us all.  Like in "Her" the intelligence leaves (for a reason), but like "The Iron Giant" there is a promise of a return.

There are a whole bunch of unanswered questions.  There has obviously (from one scene) been significant sea rise.  Was the island formerly part of the mainland?  Is that why human live in a dome?  Are there any other domes?  How do the humans live?  How do the version of the Three Laws of Robotics result in the killer robots and Vontra?  And why doesn't Vontra get what's coming to her?

But, overall, it's really sweet.

(And probably your only chance to see Mark Hamill playing a bear.)

MGG - 5.51 - HWYD - Community Policing

I am now at the stage in life where I *should* be retiring.  (No, I'm probably not going to get any more quiet.)  I never figured that I *would* get to retire.  And, indeed, I don't seem to be.  I've tried to retire.  Twice.  Neither time did it take.  (The second time this thing called "the pandemic" came along, and I was asked to write another book, and then to write another course, and ...)  I'm not getting paid any more, but I still seem to be contributing to, and therefore seeming to need to research in, the security field.

I *am* doing other volunteer work.  Most of my volunteer work is Community Policing, which is mostly about keeping people alive; and Emergency Support Services, which is mostly about keeping people alive; the hospice society, which, in my case, is mostly about comforting people who are grieving because their people have *not* been kept alive; so it's nice to go out with the trail maintenance crew (currently removing sword fern and salmonberry) or Broom Busters, and, legitimately, *kill* something.

(Then there is the fact that I volunteer with the hospice society, where we deal with people who are facing the worst situation in their lives, and also with Emergency Support Services, where we deal with people who are facing the worst situation in their lives.  Are we beginning to see a pattern in my choice of volunteer work?)

The girls are *vastly* amused that the first shift that I had with Community Policing, after having finished training, was me, as an old man (even though I do try to be hygienic), hanging around the school, handing out candy to students.  And the police were *okay* with that!  Actually I do this fairly regularly now.  Although most of the time I'm the one handing out the apples, rather than the candy. 

I tend to do some of the the odder shifts.  For example, I have had one shift in support of a security presentation at a bank.  I do, as noted, semi-regular shifts at the high school.  This is in support of the breakfast club program at the high school.  But I will be doing another shift, staffing the speed watch van, out in front of the school, in support of the fact that the grade 11s and 12s are going to be getting a road safety presentation.  I don't know whether we, doing speed watch, are simply going to be an object lesson, or whether the students will have time to come up and look over the gear.  Speaking of the gear, another oddball shift that I'll have this weekend[1] is on Sunday morning.  There is a women's hockey tournament, and we are to be using our radar gun (a very *old* radar gun, which we aren't entirely sure still works, but is the only one that actually uses radar and is therefore likely to be able to measure the speed of a small object), to measure the speed of pucks when the skills part of the tournament practices slap shots.  On Saturday, I will be staffing a table at the Newcomers Welcome, put on by the Neighborhood Welcome company, where most of the tables will be occupied by businesses, shilling for business, but we will be trying to point out some of the volunteer organizations and opportunities in town.  A few days later, is McHappy day, and we will be helping out at one of the McDonald's restaurants in town, although I strongly suspect that we won't be terribly much help.  It'll be a visible presence for us, and a bit of a an attraction, or at least a point of interest, for the customers at McDonald's.

Okay, that was a really ... interesting ... second shift[1].  Starting with wondering, as the shift got nearer, whether it was going to happen at all.  But, eventually it did, and we drove around town looking for, well, anything suspicious.  I checked 166 cars, and none of them were stolen.

And then, pretty much at the end of the shift, the driver, heading down a back alley which did not, in fact, go through to another roadway, decided that he did not want to back up half a block down a narrow laneway.  So he decided to turn around.  And dropped the back wheels over quite a steep slope, which lifted the front wheels off the ground.  Even though the car is a four-wheel drive, when none of the wheels actually have much weight on them, it's difficult to move.

Eventually he called a tow truck, and the guy came and pulled us out in a couple of minutes.  But only after the other three guys on the crew decided to throw their combined 500 pound weight against 4,000 pounds of uncooperative car.  All happening in the pouring rain.

OK, at the moment[1] I am the newest member of the Community Policing team (and, as it happens, have currently[1] done the most volunteer hours of *any* member of the crew for this year).  I have done so many shifts that other work has started to suffer.  So, I figured I should pull back a bit.

But, on Friday, the boss sent out a call for the Saturday late shift, which was understaffed to the point that we couldn't send out *anyone* if we didn't get a couple more.  I said that I wasn't keep on a late shift, as I had a pretty busy day on Sunday.  He said that the shift ended earlier than usual: at eleven PM instead of midnight.  I didn't think that was a *huge* difference, but I signed up.

And then, late on Saturday, I realized that it was time change weekend, and, effectively (in terms of sleeping time) it *DID* end at midnight ...

I was supposed to cover the hockey tournament skills event for Community Policing.  (We had been asked to use the radar gun to measure the puck speed for slapshots).  And as I was driving around this morning, I realised that broke two rules.  Number one, I was not supposed to be on a shift by myself.  We *never* do shifts alone, and I'm the newest guy on the team, and I'm not even off probation yet.  Number two, we never do shifts on Sunday.

Oh, well.

Anyway, having gotten to the venue on time, according to the schedule that I had been given, I waited around for half an hour before anybody showed up.  At which point I was informed that the skills event had been cancelled.  A bit of a shock, that.  But, of course, I was already out.  Already had the van out, packed up yesterday[1] after the Newcomers Welcome event in preparation for the hockey tournament event.  So I had to take everything back to the office and unpack the van, so that everybody knew where everything was for the high school event on Monday.  And then take the van back to the RCMP detachment.  So that wasn't great.

[1] - as of that writing ...

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/12/mgg-551-hwyd-patent-trolls.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/12/mgg-6oo-gloria-introduction-and-glorias.html

Sermon 49 - The Advent Candle of Peace

Sermon 49 - The Advent Candle of Peace

Luke 24:36

While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

John 20:19

On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"

Uuk klah ma, Rob.  Wikaatla chachimhiy.

We'll come back to that.

Oh good, you are thinking. He can't possibly work grief into a sermon about the Advent candle of peace. 

Oh, can't I?

These days I really hate jokes about marriage, but I have to use one to start this sermon off.

An unmarried man is not complete.  Once he is married, then he is *finished*!

The reason to start off with that joke is the point out that without marriage we are incomplete.  We use this concept in many ways in sermons.  We say that the entire book of the Song of Solomon, in the Bible, is only *in* the Bible in order to illustrate that as a man is incomplete without a wife, so we, as human beings, are incomplete without God.  And when you have been married, and your spouse is taken away, you realize just how *real* this incompleteness is.  The bereaved often talk about the absence of the loved one like the absence of a limb from your body.  You are constantly moving and expecting to put your weight on a leg that is no longer there.  That means you fall over a lot.  In the book "The Grieving Brain," Mary Frances O'Connor makes a distinction between grief and grieving.  Grief is the syndrome of emotions that you feel.  But grieving is a process, the very *painful* process, of learning that everything you depended on when you were married is no longer there, and you have to *relearn* the new reality of a universe where your spouse is no longer there.

And what does this have to do with the candle of peace?  Well, the Hebrew word for peace is Shalom.  Now, when we speak of peace in English, we tend to think of peace as an absence.  Peace is the absence of war.  Peace is the absence of fighting.  Peace is the absence of conflict.  Peace is the absence of disturbance.  In English, peace, however much we want it, is not so much a thing, as an absence.

The Hebrew word, shalom, is very much a thing.  It is a *complete* thing.  It is, in fact, the definition of completeness.  We do have a phrase in English which does capture something of this idea.  It's the legal phrase, "to be made whole."  When we are talking about being made whole, in legal terms, we are talking about restitution of whatever it is that has been taken from us.  And not only the restitution of whatever has been taken, but, additionally, restitution of whatever we have lost from having temporarily had something taken away from us.  To be made whole.  To be made complete.  To regain, or to gain, whatever it is that we need, and lack.  That is Shalom.

But it's even larger than that.  Shalom is used as the greeting at the Friday night dinner, in Jewish homes, that begins the Sabbath.  It is not just peace, but also wellness.  To be made whole, and to be well. To be made well.  To have everything that you need for wellness.  To be complete.  To be whole.  To be well.

But the word Shalom is not the only word for peace in the Bible.  Shalom comes from the Old Testament.  The New Testament was originally written in Greek.  The word for peace in the New Testament, the word used in referring to Jesus coming to the disciples, following His crucifixion, and His rising again, uses the Greek word from which we get irenic.  The Greek word for peace is interesting because it's strongest component meaning is that of rest.

And it is easy to see the need for peace there, as well.  You cannot rest if you are not at peace.  If you try to rest, and your surroundings are not peaceful, you will be constantly distracted and aroused by whatever is disturbing your peace.  Well, I suppose there are exceptions.  When completely exhausted, we can sometimes fall asleep even in chaos.  Number One Daughter, who is the very illustration of the phrase "I'll sleep when I'm dead," has famously been known to fall asleep behind the wheel of the car simply because she is at a red light.

When you go for grief support, following the death of a spouse, the counselors always talk about "self care."  What are you doing to take care of yourself.  And, in particular, they ask about what you are doing to get rest.  It is very important to rest, and allow yourself time to recover.  After one such session, in a group situation, the counselor gave us a homework assignment to think about what we were going to do to give ourselves rest.  We were to think about that, and practice it, in the week between sessions.  One night that week, I was lying in bed.  In the dark.  There was nothing to disturb me.  It was, one would think, the perfect time to rest.  And in the dark, and the quiet, and the lack of disturbance, I thought about the homework, to think about how to pursue rest.  And I realized that I *couldn't* rest, because there was, quite literally, no one to watch over me as I did.  This works out in some interesting ways when you are newly single after having been married.  The normal nicks and scratches and irregularities on your skin, and all the other things that you could ask a spouse to look at for you, when they are on your back, or under your feet, or in embarrassing places, you no longer have everyone anyone to look at, and put a Band-Aid on, or to tell you that it's nothing.  It's okay.  You never know whether you're okay, or not.

That phrase, to watch over, is very interesting.  And the Bible uses it a lot.  I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go.  You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit.  He will not let your foot slip— he who watches over you will not slumber; indeed, he who watches over Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.  The Bible says that God watches over us, and sometimes that is said even in battle situations, that we would normally think of as the very *opposite* of peace.  But this gives us peace.  This gives us rest.  At least, in theological terms.  It still doesn't do you much good if you have cut yourself or scratched yourself, in an embarrassing place, and you have no idea how to deal with it.

In terms of concepts from other languages, it is interesting to note that the Nuu-chah-nulth word chachimhiy is very similar to the word shalom, as well as irenic.  Chachimhiy means "well," or possibly "okay," but it also means safe.  It is there in the official name of the reconciliaction meetings, a reference to a "safe space."  It has these combined meanings of safety, wholeness, and wellness.

I am a security professional, and so the word "safe," and the concept of safety, is very interesting to me.  We, in the field, know that perfection in security is impossible, and so perfection in safety is impossible.  We always know that there are always failures and vulnerabilities, and we also have a concept of layered defence, or defence in depth, which holds that the imperfections of one layer of protection can be improved by adding another layer, in order to make a situation safer or more secure, but we know that we can never get to "perfectly" secure.  This has implications for our understanding of sin, but, in addition, one of the layers is that we also plan for what happens when a protection fails.  We have two modes for these plans: fail safe, and fail secure.  Fail secure means that the system and situation is protected, fail safe means that system functions will continue as best they can, even if in an insecure manner.  What this means, in practice, is that, in some situations, fail secure will protect the system from attack or loss, but it will definitely be inconvenient, and sometimes even dangerous, for people.  The idea of safety, then (and we might be coming back to grief, here) carries the idea that, even if you suffer some kind of loss, you, yourself, are protected from danger.  It is an interesting, if somewhat paradoxical, addition to the idea of peace in chachimhiy.  Are we willing to accept peace, even if it means we lose something?

And so, for Advent, I wish you Chachimhiy, Shalom, irenic peacefulness, wholeness, wellness, safety, and rest.

https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/09/sermons.html

Imaginary friends

Look, *nobody* really believes in Moldova, either ...

MGG - 5.51 - HWYD - patent trolls

I am not a lawyer.  I do not play one on TV.  To the best of my recollection, I have never taken a formal course in law.  So, how did I end up so involved with lawyers in court cases?

I got a start with investigation and legal issues, as various points came up in researching computer viruses.  Computer viruses, when I started studying them, were new, and the legal system was massively unprepared for dealing with them.  As various legal issues came up, those of us who were studying and researching in the field would have to find out more and more about the legal principles that prevented prosecutions for various types of legal issues and malware activities that we considered to be criminal.  I also, again because of the computer virus research, was studying aspects of forensics, as it related to where various computer virus authors tried to hide their works.  In addition, there were aspects of investigation that were raised, as various people tried to track down the origins of specific viruses, and, if possible, their authors.

Eventually, I collected this material and first prepared a course, and then wrote a book, on software forensics.  This occasioned more study in legal principles, in order to ensure that I wasn't making drastic mistakes, in writing the book.

And, of course, in discussing the various topics and domains in the CISSP seminars, I had to address questions of why, and why not, as related to investigations and criminal prosecutions.  I also reviewed a number of legal texts that were directed at technical issues.

I don't know how far this goes in preparing you for an occupation as a lawyer, but it has given me a significant background in the law and legal principles.  This was handy in discussing legal aspects in the CISSP seminars, but it wasn't really what got me into working with lawyers.  Although it was very helpful once I had to *start* working with lawyers.

No, what got me started working with lawyers was the reviews that I did of antiviral software.  I was not one of the researchers who made a big name by becoming a great forensic programmer, or being able to pry out the interesting bits of a specific computer virus.  No, my contribution to the field was generally much more mundane.  So many people started asking about which of the various available antiviral products was the best, that I started reviewing them.  I reviewed everything I could get my hands on.  In order to broaden the spectrum of the antivirus products that I was reviewing, I started to build contact information for the various people, and companies, that were producing antiviral software.  This became a resource for the research community, in terms of finding different approaches, and making contacts, when trying to develop new strategies for antiviral protection.  I was writing to these companies, as often as I could, to obtain copies of their particular software.

And that's what got me involved with the lawyers.  Not right away.  As a matter of fact, in doing the reviews of the antiviral programs, I never made any money out of it, and, while I'm sure it was helpful to some people, I'm not sure how important my reviews were in the overall scheme of things.  But I kept pretty much all the software, and antiviral systems, that I reviewed.  Many years later, this turned out to be very important.

I hate patent trolls.  Patent trolls are people, or companies, who think up a new product, and obtain a patent for that product.  They never actually produce such a product.  They have no intention of producing or selling the product.  They're only intention is to sit on the patent until somebody else actually produces the product, or one that is fairly similar.  At that point, the patent troll, holder of the patent, threatens to sue the person who has actually made the product.  The person who has actually made the product, wanting to recoup their investment in developing it, usually caves in and pays the extortion that the patent troll demands.

At one point this started happening with the antivirus world.  Patent trolls wrote up patent applications for various ideas that they thought might be useful in computer virus protection.  They would then sit on the patents, until some company had produced a product that was similar enough to their patent that they could threaten to sue the company.

This is where I came in.  As the patent trolls started picking on larger companies, with deeper pockets, and more access to lawyers, the large companies started to wonder if they could defend themselves against these demands and threats.  The corporate lawyers would go to intellectual property lawyers, who would start doing searches in regard to people who knew about the field of antiviral software, and would, eventually, come up with me.  The intellectual property lawyers would approach me, and ask my opinions of the patent that had been issued, and whether one could defend against it on the basis of prior art.

Generally speaking, the answer is yes.  The patent trolls don't put an awful lot of thought into writing up their patent applications, and their ideas are not terribly original for the most part.  So, when the intellectual property lawyers came to me with the situation, and the patent, and the product, I generally would be able to provide them with actual evidence that a previous program had, in fact, implemented what the patent holder had outlined in their patent application.  Since the products that I was talking about generally predated the application for the patent, this qualifies as prior art.

One would have thought that the situation was fairly simple at that point.  Unfortunately, with regard to intellectual property, nothing is ever simple.  The patent office is a department of the government.  When you challenge a patent, itself, and state that it should never have been issued in the first place, you are saying that the government has made a mistake, and was wrong.  The government does not like to be wrong.  And so, challenging a patent application itself is very difficult.  The government will defend the issuing of the patent, regardless of the validity of arguments arrayed against them, or the existence of prior art.

So, the outcome of these early approaches, in regard to patent trolls, tended to be that the company the large corporation would go to the patent trolls, who had requested 100 million dollars, and say "We could invalidate your patent but it would be very expensive; here's $100,000, go away."  The patent troll, who really hadn't expected to get 100 million dollars, would be happy to get the $100,000.  The corporation, having saved 100 million dollars, is happy.  Both the corporate lawyers, and the intellectual property lawyers, having made tons of money over this entire debacle, are happy.  And the only one who isn't happy is me.

This was a rather interesting experience, with regard to dealing with lawyers, and the legal system.  As noted, generally the outcome didn't involve a trial, so I was never asked to give evidence.  In addition, I was not generally the person who would be chosen as an expert witness for a trial if someone did choose to take the case to court.  An expert witness generally has a far greater sanding in the community than myself.  No, what I was providing was simply evidence.  In fact, the one time that I was called to give evidence in such a trial, I was not called as an expert witness, but simply as a witness of fact.  The large corporation (several large corporations, in this case) was the plaintiff in the action, and the patent troll was the defendant.  The patent troll demanded that I be called as a witness, even though I had simply provided objective evidence, in the form of the programs that represented the prior art that invalidated their patent.  But this led to a few other interesting stories.

First off, there was the matter of traveling.  This case was taking place in the United States.  As I have noted elsewhere, in order to work in the United States, you need a visa.  So, when the lawyers asked me to come and testify, I noted that they would need to write up a letter specifying that I was needed, and that there was nobody else in the United States who could do the work that I was required for, and therefore I should be given a visa for the purposes of the trial.

Even though they were lawyers, and must have had somebody in immigration law in their various offices, the lawyers were loath to do this.  I don't know why: I never did figure that out.  However, they were paying for my time, and for the airfares, so I figured if I got stopped somewhere on route, it was on their dime, and not mine.

On the particular routing that the law office set up for this itinerary, I was changing planes in Toronto.  Again, as noted elsewhere, when you change planes in Toronto from a domestic carrier, to a flight to the US, you have to change terminals.  There wasn't an undue time pressure in this particular case, but it was annoying.  And, you will remember, I have had all these experiences with the border agents, and the TN-1 visas, and, in this case, didn't have the letter applying for a TN-1 visa.  So I joined the line at the US Customs, and slowly moved up until I got to go to a desk.  The person at the desk started with the standard questions: where was I from, was it business or pleasure, what was I going to be doing in the United States.  I explained that I was going to be testifying in a court case.

At this point the entire tenor of the interrogation changed.  The person behind the desk had recently transferred to Toronto from the Mexican border.  About half of his time, while working on the Mexican border, had been spent testifying in court in various cases of people attempting to cross the border illegally, or bring illegal substances into the country.  As soon as he heard that I was testifying in a court case, he was overwhelmed with sympathy for my plight.  He didn't like testifying in court.  He sympathized with my predicament.  We talked about dealing with lawyers.  He was my new best friend.  Needless to say, I did not get stopped at the border.

Oh, but it wasn't over yet.  As I say in my presentation about testifying in court, lawyers are not just in a different occupation from those of us in information security.  Lawyers are pretty much a different *species*.  When we have an issue, usually there is either an answer, or there is not.  Very often we know whether or not there is an answer.  And if there is an answer, often there might be various ways to approach that answer, but, once you have one, it solves the problem.  And that's the end of things.

Not so with lawyers.  Ask a lawyer a question; any question at all; and the answer is probably, "It depends."  A lawyer can never give you a definitive answer.

But that's only one part of the problem.  Lawyers need to know exactly what you will say on the witness stand.  Lawyers need to know exactly the wording that you will use.  This is very important.  A specific word that you might use in answering a question on the stand may invalidate their whole case.  So they have to make sure that you are not going to use that particular word.  But lawyers cannot tell you what to say.  Having the lawyers provide you with a script is known as coaching the witness, and is improper in our legal system.  So, you spend hours, and hours, and hours, with different lawyers, over a period of days, with them asking you questions, and you answering, and the lawyers asking the same questions again, to get you to word your answer slightly differently, and only occasionally saying that you can't say that particular phrase.  I'm sure it's annoying for the lawyers, and it certainly annoying as a witness.

Or, as a potential witness.  In this particular case, there were a number of other people, whom I had worked with for many years, who were all called as the expert witnesses in the case.  I was the only witness of fact, because I had provided the evidence: the prior art programs.  Expert witnesses, at least in American courts, are allowed to sit in on the case.  Witnesses of fact, are not.  It is felt that the witnesses of fact would have their witness testimony tainted by hearing other witnesses of fact giving *their* testimony.  So all of my friends were allowed to sit in on the court case, but I was not allowed to attend, and they were not allowed to tell me anything that went on in the court.  So, when the day finally came that I was supposed to be called to testify in the case, I was put in a little antechamber, all by myself, for a few hours while they dealt with something else.  Finally one of my friends came into the antechamber.  He was grinning all over his face.  He said, "You're not going to testify.  You're not even going to be called."

Apparently one of the lawyers had made some kind of a mistake during the deposition that I had been subjected to, over a six-hour period, about six months earlier.  The patent troll's lawyers had known about this and yet had insisted on me being called as a witness.  But, at the last minute, had sprung on the court the existence of this error, and the fact that it prevented me from being called as a witness.  Apparently, the judge was absolutely livid at the waste of time occasioned by this legal trick.  It didn't actually make any difference in terms of the case: the case was decided against the patent troll.  The patent troll, in taking this course of action, must have known that it would not lead to a determination in their favor, and only did it to make the process that much more costly, and time consuming, for the corporations involved.

As I say, I really hate patent trolls.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/12/mgg-550-hwyd-computer-forensics-gotcha.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/12/mgg-551-hwyd-community-policing.html

What I do isn't rocket science.

It's *LOTS* more complex.

(I've *taught* actual rocket scientists ...)

Psalm 5:2

Listen to my cry for help, my God, for to you I pray.

*This* is the type of hacker that we need!

*This* is the type of hacker that we need!

https://www.instagram.com/p/DDJ8L_gvF9Q/

MGG - 5.50 - HWYD - Computer Forensics "gotcha"

I have a number of prepared presentations that I can deliver to conferences or user group meetings.  One is on presenting technical evidence in court.  I was asked to deliver this at a conference in Illinois one time.  I met a group, obviously of law enforcement types, just before I was to give this presentation.  We chatted, and I told them that I would undoubtedly be calling on one of their number, and so they should choose who was the best in the computer forensics area, which, despite the name, is now generally understood to be limited to the recovery of data from hard disks and other storage devices.

I always ask the same question, when I give this presentation.  I suppose that I will have to change the question, now that I'm telling all of you this, but I always have presented it as a scenario for a situation in court.  (Then again, with the increasing use of solid-state "drives," it may become redundant.)  I am the defending lawyer, and I ask one of the audience to be the expert witness, in terms of computer forensics, for the prosecution.  I ask whether, when they imaged the drive under question, they did a complete bit image copy. They generally reply that they did.  I asked what commercial software they used to make that copy.  They usually answer with one that is well known.  I asked if they ensured that they recovered both the physical and the logical slack space.  They generally answer in the affirmative.

At this point, I have proved that they don't know their stuff.  This is really all you need to do in court.  You do not need to prove that the expert witness is wrong, you just make him look like a fool.  And by saying that they used a commercial product, and that it recovered all the slack space, including both the physical and the logical slack space, they have lied.  There is no commercial product that will recover physical slack space.

I ask this question because even specialists in recovery of data very seldom understand the difference between physical and logical slack space.  There is always logical slack space on any storage disk.  Unused space, and also any space from deleted files which has been made available for storing additional files.  It is fairly random data, and may contain bits and pieces of numerous previously deleted files.  It seldom includes an entire deleted file.  But it's valuable data, nonetheless, and can be used to at least partially recover a number of files that have been deleted.

Physical slack space is very different.  It is the margin of error that disk manufacturers leave themselves.  When they produce a disc, it is much more important that any data that you write to the disc is recoverable, then that the entire space on the disc is utilized.  The physical disc is an analog object.  It is used to store data, but the use to store data relies on the creation of tracks of data, and timing indicating how much data should be put into the sectors of those tracks, while leaving a margin of time, and space, that is unused at the end of the sectors.  Thus, there is an awful lot of space on any disc in the unused space at the end of a sector, or on spaces between, or beyond, where tracks are marked on the disc.  Which, if you are a good programmer, you can access for storage.  This additional storage is completely unknown to the operating system.  And commercial products only understand the tracks and sectors that are known to the operating system.

So, I got to the point in my presentation where I needed to make the point about not having to prove the opposition wrong, you only have to prove that the opposition is an idiot.  I am making this point not for any of the lawyers in the audience who may wish to attack forensic technicians, but to warn forensic technicians that they need to be very careful about what they answer and that they completely understand the question that is being asked.

The crew of law enforcement people that I had identified just before the session were all seated together towards the back of the seminar room.  I asked if they had chosen their champion.  They all pointed at one guy.  So I started asking my questions.  He gave the predictable answers.  I then explained to the seminar why I had just proved that he was a fool.

I saw him after the seminar.  I asked if he was offended at being chosen for that particular demonstration, and he, very graciously, said no.  He gave me his card.  He was, in fact, the Director of the FBI's computer crime lab for the midwestern states.

Previous: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/11/mgg-549-hwyd-dc-snow.html

Introduction and ToC: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2023/10/mgg-introduction.html

Next: https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/12/mgg-551-hwyd-patent-trolls.html

Hallmark movie script rules

There are certain rules for a Hallmark movie script.

Do not expect anything profound in a Hallmark movie.  Any significant ideas, or even genuinely witty dialogue, must be surgically removed from the script.  Nobody wants anything demanding from these movies.  Otherwise they wouldn't have chosen a Hallmark movie.  (This is enforced so rigorously that I have documented the only two exceptions that I've ever found https://fibrecookery.blogspot.com/2024/11/another-one.html.)

Kids are generally to be avoided onscreen, but, if absolutely necessary to the plot, must be cute, and usually precocious.

Nobody.  *EVER*.  Pays for anything.  No cash.  No credit cards.  No cheques.  Just grab the item, thank the cashier, and leave.  Only *once* have I ever seen anyone exchange anything for goods or services.

Like Disney, nobody ever dies in a Hallmark movie.  This may seem odd until you start thinking about it.  Lots of people are referenced as *having* died.  There are lots of widows and widowers, sometimes (sort of) grieving.  But nobody ever dies.  (Well, OK, somebody dies in a Hallmark mystery.  But they have the good taste to do it offscreen, and before we get to know them.)

One or other of the romantic leads (generally not both) generally has a hugely insane schedule, has to work really hard, and doesn't have time for a relationship.  However, nobody ever actually has to do any actual work during the movie, or gets in trouble for taking time off to do (for example) an entire week of Christmas activities.

Hallmark movies frequently emphasize the "opposites attract" idea about romance.  The "button-down" businesswoman falls in love with the "free spirit" guy.  The grinch falls in love with the "Christmas-is-the-most-wonderful-time-of-year" girl.  Et cetera.  A major sub-variant of this theme is the small town/big city version.  Most of the time this is the big city guy/girl having to visit the small town and, while falling in love with the small town girl/guy also discovers the "true meaning" of life/Christmas/family/peace-of-mind and decides to stay in the small town.  (There is also the small town girl/guy striking out to make it in the big city and falling for the big city guy/girl, but this is less often.)

Hallmark movies frequently involve weddings.  Not necessarily between the romantic leads, but one or both (usually both) leads are involved in the wedding party and arranging the wedding.  (This is generally used to force the romantic leads to meet, interact over the wedding plans, and usually *fight* over the wedding plans.)  At some point the bride is going to have a full-on bridezilla meltdown, and sob that she just wants a perfect wedding--is that too much to ask?  (As anyone who knows the laws of thermodynamics, or security, knows, yes, it is too much to ask and you will never achieve perfection, and as anyone who knows weddings knows, if you *did* manage to pull off the perfect wedding, nobody would remember it, since what you remember about a wedding; the stories that are retold on every anniversary; are the disasters.)  Everyone involved in the Hallmark movie wedding assures the bride that, no, it is not too much to ask, and that they are all onside to arrange and hold the perfect wedding.  Immediately after they have promised to pursue the perfect wedding, the perfect wedding venue will have all the pipes in the building burst, simultaneously, ruining the perfect wedding dress, and the 700 perfect pew bows that have been made for the occasion.  Shortly after this the bride realizes that what she *really* wanted all along was a simple outdoor wedding, with her coming into it on a horsie.

The romantic leads in Hallmark movies may kiss, once.  *Only* once.  Other couples in the movie may kiss at need.  Hallmark movie aficionados know that extended make-out scenes are not allowed, and that if the central characters kiss more than once it is because the script writers have come up short, or that the actors have spoken their dialogue too fast, and the director needs another seven seconds for the mandated run-time of the movie.

If visiting a small town, it is mandatory to have an evening around a campfire or propane fire pit.  If Christmas, hot cocoa is served (but not consumed, see below), if not, marshmallows are toasted.  (The marshmallows may or may not be used to make s'mores.)  The "big city" equivalent is a walk along a waterway at night, which must involve a food truck (or trucks) at some point.

Then there is the $1.34 moment.  Hallmark movies are TV movies, and come with definite script moments to pause for blocks of commercials.  Hallmark movies are eighty-four minutes long, which, with added ads, works out to two hours of TV schedule time.  At one hour and thirty-four minutes (inclusive of ads), the romantic leads must discover the situation which, tragically, means that they can never be together.  (The situation is resolved approximately six minutes before the credits roll, although the resolution is often not a resolution at all.)

I don't know if they are the majority (apparently Hallmark has made something like forty or fifty this year), but Hallmark *Christmas* movies are a major sub-category, and have particular rules all their own.

There must be a snowball fight.  Usually in conjunction with snowperson construction.  (Although mandatory, occasionally these scenes are so short that if you sneeze at the wrong time, you'll miss them.)

At some point hot chocolate must be purchased.  (But not paid for: see above.)  Usually the hot chocolate is the "best in the world," and often because of some added component or flavour.  (Occasionally hot apple cider may be substituted, but this is frowned upon.)  The characters may take one, and only one, *very tiny* sip of the hot chocolate.

(This latter requirement is generalized to any food.  A character may take only one, very small, bite or sip of *any* coffee, other drink, burger, cookie, meal, or any other edible.)

A visit to a Christmas market is required.  It may not fit either the locale or the plot, but, somehow, a Christmas market, even if a very *strange* Christmas market (sometimes unrecognizable as such), must be implemented in the movie.

As the romantic leads realize that they are in love, and get their *one* kiss (see above), or as one or both central characters realize the true meaning of Christmas (and therefore realize that they are in love, and get their *one* kiss [see above]), it must start snowing.  As noted, Hallmark shoots a lot of Christmas movies, so most of them must be shot in the summer, when it doesn't snow.  This, and the fact that a lot of Hallmark movies are shot in Vancouver, where it often doesn't snow, is why it so seldom snows in Hallmark movies unless you are actually on a ski slope.  (It is expensive hauling all that gear up a ski slope, so you shoot the scene, whether it is snowing or not.)

A Christmas tree must be decorated, and usually must be bought at a Christmas tree lot or farm.  (But not paid for: see above.)  A recent additional requirement is that, at some point, a tangled ball of Christmas tree lights must be presented to someone to untangle.

The lead couple must go skating.

There must be gingerbread house making, Christmas cookie baking, a toy drive, or present wrapping, frequently as a contest.  Gingerbread house making is pretty much mandatory.

Christmas of Borg

I am Christmas of Borg.

Resistance is futile.

Prepare to be assimilated.

2 Corinthians 7:10

Worldly sorrow brings death.