dropped from F-16s
has covered the city's sky.
Fighters smuggle the sunlight
through tunnels
beneath our houses.
 |
| Mosab Abu Toha (1992- ) |
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
To the People of the State of New York:
QUEEN ANNE, in her letter of the 1st July, 1706, to the Scotch Parliament, makes some observations on the importance of the UNION then forming between England and Scotland, which merit our attention. I shall present the public with one or two extracts from it: "An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches, and trade; and by this union the whole island, being joined in affection and free from all apprehensions of different interest, will be ENABLED TO RESIST ALL ITS ENEMIES." "We most earnestly recommend to you calmness and unanimity in this great and weighty affair, that the union may be brought to a happy conclusion, being the only EFFECTUAL way to secure our present and future happiness, and disappoint the designs of our and your enemies, who will doubtless, on this occasion, USE THEIR UTMOST ENDEAVORS TO PREVENT OR DELAY THIS UNION."
 |
| John Jay (1745-1829) |
The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the price which it cost them. Although it seems obvious to common sense that the people of such an island should be but one nation, yet we find that they were for ages divided into three, and that those three were almost constantly embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another. Notwithstanding their true interest with respect to the continental nations was really the same, yet by the arts and policy and practices of those nations, their mutual jealousies were perpetually kept inflamed, and for a long series of years they were far more inconvenient and troublesome than they were useful and assisting to each other.
Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations, would not the same thing happen? Would not similar jealousies arise, and be in like manner cherished? Instead of their being "joined in affection" and free from all apprehension of different "interests," envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy, instead of the general interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits. Hence, like most other BORDERING nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them.
The most sanguine advocates for three or four confederacies cannot reasonably suppose that they would long remain exactly on an equal footing in point of strength, even if it was possible to form them so at first; but, admitting that to be practicable, yet what human contrivance can secure the continuance of such equality? Independent of those local circumstances which tend to beget and increase power in one part and to impede its progress in another, we must advert to the effects of that superior policy and good management which would probably distinguish the government of one above the rest, and by which their relative equality in strength and consideration would be destroyed. For it cannot be presumed that the same degree of sound policy, prudence, and foresight would uniformly be observed by each of these confederacies for a long succession of years.
Whenever, and from whatever causes, it might happen, and happen it would, that any one of these nations or confederacies should rise on the scale of political importance much above the degree of her neighbors, that moment would those neighbors behold her with envy and with fear. Both those passions would lead them to countenance, if not to promote, whatever might promise to diminish her importance; and would also restrain them from measures calculated to advance or even to secure her prosperity. Much time would not be necessary to enable her to discern these unfriendly dispositions. She would soon begin, not only to lose confidence in her neighbors, but also to feel a disposition equally unfavorable to them. Distrust naturally creates distrust, and by nothing is good-will and kind conduct more speedily changed than by invidious jealousies and uncandid imputations, whether expressed or implied.
The North is generally the region of strength, and many local circumstances render it probable that the most Northern of the proposed confederacies would, at a period not very distant, be unquestionably more formidable than any of the others. No sooner would this become evident than the NORTHERN HIVE would excite the same ideas and sensations in the more southern parts of America which it formerly did in the southern parts of Europe. Nor does it appear to be a rash conjecture that its young swarms might often be tempted to gather honey in the more blooming fields and milder air of their luxurious and more delicate neighbors.
They who well consider the history of similar divisions and confederacies will find abundant reason to apprehend that those in contemplation would in no other sense be neighbors than as they would be borderers; that they would neither love nor trust one another, but on the contrary would be a prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual injuries; in short, that they would place us exactly in the situations in which some nations doubtless wish to see us, viz., FORMIDABLE ONLY TO EACH OTHER.
From these considerations it appears that those gentlemen are greatly mistaken who suppose that alliances offensive and defensive might be formed between these confederacies, and would produce that combination and union of wills of arms and of resources, which would be necessary to put and keep them in a formidable state of defense against foreign enemies.
When did the independent states, into which Britain and Spain were formerly divided, combine in such alliance, or unite their forces against a foreign enemy? The proposed confederacies will be DISTINCT NATIONS. Each of them would have its commerce with foreigners to regulate by distinct treaties; and as their productions and commodities are different and proper for different markets, so would those treaties be essentially different. Different commercial concerns must create different interests, and of course different degrees of political attachment to and connection with different foreign nations. Hence it might and probably would happen that the foreign nation with whom the SOUTHERN confederacy might be at war would be the one with whom the NORTHERN confederacy would be the most desirous of preserving peace and friendship. An alliance so contrary to their immediate interest would not therefore be easy to form, nor, if formed, would it be observed and fulfilled with perfect good faith.
Nay, it is far more probable that in America, as in Europe, neighboring nations, acting under the impulse of opposite interests and unfriendly passions, would frequently be found taking different sides. Considering our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these confederacies to apprehend danger from one another than from distant nations, and therefore that each of them should be more desirous to guard against the others by the aid of foreign alliances, than to guard against foreign dangers by alliances between themselves. And here let us not forget how much more easy it is to receive foreign fleets into our ports, and foreign armies into our country, than it is to persuade or compel them to depart. How many conquests did the Romans and others make in the characters of allies, and what innovations did they under the same character introduce into the governments of those whom they pretended to protect.
Let candid men judge, then, whether the division of America into any given number of independent sovereignties would tend to secure us against the hostilities and improper interference of foreign nations.
PUBLIUS.
Jay, J (1787, November 10) Federalist 5. The Independent Journal
Jay, J. (1787, November 7) Federalist 4. The Independent Journal. https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2023/09/federalist-no-4-author-john-jay.html
Teaching English to newcomers or non-English speaking residents, in community colleges, can be a nice way of giving back to the community as well earning some part time income. In a country, such as the United States, where there is a high immigration rate, there is always a need for English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers. Whether, legal or illegal, immigrants can enroll in community colleges to learn English. In some states, it is free of charge; in others, it has a fee. In many states, you can teach ESL in community colleges if you have a Bachelor's degree. If you are looking to teach English to adults in community colleges, you will need a well written resume.
Below can provide a starting point for duties and responsibilities of an ESL teacher.
ESL Adjunct
The court adjourned on 28 October 2021 as stated on the previous post. The email below is a message sent by Mr. Jones to Ms. Jones two days after the first message was sent on OFW. Mr. Jones sent this new message to Ms. Jones' personal email account. Let's go over the email starting with the format. Mr. Jones was guided by his lawyer of the time to use this template for communication before the court reached a decision and ordered both parties to use the OFW app.
The first part is the time stamp from the email and then Mr. Jones typed the dates of his visit with his children.
He mistyped the 29 Oct as 9 Oct. We know it is mistyped because he corrected it in the next section.
9 OCT Friday – 02 Tuesday NOV 21
In the next section Mr. Jones states,
SOMETHING POSITIVE THAT HAPPENED WHILE THE CHILDREN WERE WITH ME
Friday, 29 October 2021 met children at post office completed and submitted passport renewal applications ensuring son and daughter's expired passports were submitted for renewal, We were very happy and excited to see each other
Saturday 30 October 2021, did Trunk or Treat events, took pictures, and ate a lot of candy in Aberdeen, Bel Air and Havre De Grace which featured a Hay ride, son and daughter had a great time and received a lot of candy.
Sunday and Monday we played Singles and team matches Ping Pong in the Aberdeen Proving Ground guest house and … umm daughter beat daddy in Ping pong. Son got a haircut he really likes and is very happy with.
This is an indication of a good communication when this much detail is shared with the other parent and also is a sign of good co-parenting. However, we know that this former couple has a strained relationship. We know this because they had been ordered to use a court app to communicate with each other.
That said, the last two brief paragraphs focus on the pleasant activities they participated together but the first paragraph seems to be out place. Mr. Jones states that they met in a post office and completed an application for their children's passports. Children's passports had been expired since 2018 and in 2019 Mr. Jones left the country with children's passports. He continuously refused to renew children's passport until 29 Oct 2021 court order. Clearly, the first statement is not for Ms. Jones because she was in the post office with them. Mr. Jones was documenting that he complied with the court order. However, since the passports were already submitted, this statement serves no purpose.
ORDERED that Mr. Jones shall provide Ms. Jones with the children’s passports. Both parties shall fully cooperate in renewing the children’s passports and Ms. Jones shall retain possession of the children’s passports when the children are not otherwise traveling
The next section is generic about medical issues. Mr. Jones mentions there was a medicine son had to take and took it successfully.
MEDICAL ISSUES
No medical issues,
Our son took all of his prescribed medication (Ferrous Sulfate (Iron Supplement).
The last dose taken at 0800 hours prior to breakfast on 02 Tuesday 2021
The next section points out to an effort by Mr. Y to document his claim of isolation,
SCHOOL RELATED ISSUES
N/A, November 01 – 02 - Monday and Tuesday – Parent Teacher conferences, Please ensure I am added to the emergency School contact list – Mr. Jones, CMR ...., Tel ..., email: ...
His reference to parent-teacher conferences show that he was informed of the conferences and manifest some interest in children's schooling. Since he was in town, these specific days, he could have attended the parent-teacher conferences. There is no mention of his attendance in this section.
Mr. Jones adds that his wish to be added to the emergency school contact list. Emergency lists are consist of trusted family and friends and cannot be the parents. This statement makes very little to no sense.
In the next sections there is not anything that stands out.
REGULARLY SCHEDULED WEEKLY ACTIVITIES:
N/A
SIBLING/PEER RELATIONSHIPS
No change in relationships
BEHAVIOR
The diet 29 October 2021 – 02 Tuesday is good they had a great appetite and they ate their favorite foods, were very excited to be with daddy 29 OCT – 02 NOV,
On the day of departure, son and daughter were very sad. Daughter cried and stated she misses daddy, son asked when daddy will return to Germany and when can he visit
We all stated we love each other, daddy comforted both … then .. drove home... missing them so much.
SCHEDULE CHANGE REQUEST
N/A
DISCIPLINE
N/A, No discipline issues
Although this was an unnecessary email, it was put together well for the most part. If Mr. Jones was trying to document a positive picture of his relationship with their children, he accomplished his goal in this email. However, there is one issue, he was ordered to use OFW to communicate with Ms. Jones for all communications about their children except during emergencies. This email had no indication of any kind of emergency. It is not clear what prompted Mr. Jones to sent an email about their children to Ms. Jones' personal email while a couple of days earlier he sent an email, unrelated to their children, via OFW. It is important to state only a judge can determine if an action is a contempt to court. However, this email is potentially a contempt to court. Although a well writing email, it is on the wrong platform thus Ms. Jones could have used it to sue Mr. Jones for a contempt to court.
On October 29, 2021 court ordered:
ORDERED that the parties shall both use the Close App (or the Our Family Wizard ("OFW") app should Mr. Jones pay for the costs for both parties to use the OFW app) for all non-emergency communications regarding the children. Additionally, the parties shall use the Office of Family Court Services "Email Protocol" as a basis for their communications in the Close or OFW apps.
Mr. Jones could have used this email as an opportunity to inform Ms. Jones about his purchase of OFW for both them. For unknown reasons, Mr. Jones didn't mention OFW and didn't use OFW. As advised before; before drafting an email to the other parent, determine the purpose of your email then choose the right platform. Is the email about your children or about an issue between you and the other parent? If it is about your children use OFW. If it is about something else, use other platforms. Always stay at point and no matter what or how you feel, at the moment, be clear and concise.
Here is the million dollar question, if you were Ms. Jones, would you sue Mr. Jones for a contempt to court for violating the court order?
It is assumed that John spoke French however, he must have rather spoken Saintongeaise language which was the language spoken in Saintonge. It is a language related to French but was different. Due to claims that Rachel spoke French, which is not verified, it is assumed that she learned it from her father, John. Did he learn to speak English in Nevis or did he already know it before his arrival? It is not clear. There were English speakers in Saintonge in 1600s. It is important to note, John's last name is a Frank name but there is a strong possibility he could have been English ethnically living in the Kingdom of France as a Huguenots who assimilated to French. If in fact he was Saintonge or French his name was then his name was Jean Faucette. His name must have Angloised by the British Colony in Nevis.
In 1559, a new movement started in Saintonge which was called French Calvanism and those who followed it were called Huguenots. The conflict between the Catholic rule and the Huguenots built up for more than a century before the birth of Jean. There is no record of any family members for Jean in Saintonge. Hamilton claimed that his grandfather left Saintonge after the Revocation of Edict of Nantes in 1685. As soon as Louis XIV forbade the Reformed to emigrate in 1669, and again after the revocation of the Edict, Huguenots tried to escape Saintonge to avoid force conversion back to Catholicism. Over 100,000 Huguenots crossed borders between 1685 and 1987. Men who were caught were sent to the galleys and women to jail. The exit channels were closely watched. The sea was easily crossed from the ports of Bordeaux, La Rochelle, Dieppe and Rouen, where rowing boats came and fetched fugitives and took them to English, Dutch or Danish ships anchored offshore. The ships left with a few official passengers, such as pastors, but mostly with clandestine travelers, in terrible conditions down in the holds after they had paid the smugglers handsomely. The attempts often failed because of informers. A young Jean, probably in his middle or late teens, must have followed the similar routes to escape Saintonge.
After his escape from Saintonge, on an unknown date, Jean arrived in the Island of Nevis, at the time, a British colony. There is no reason to believe that Jean had any money when he arrived in Nevis as Huguenots who escaped to other countries were extremely poor. In 1706, French invaded Nevis and in 1720, by then known as, John made his case for his loss during 1706 invasion. In 1720, in court records, John is recorded as a thirty-six year-old. if his age in 1720 was accurately recorded, in 1706 he must have been twenty-two years-old. He must have arrived earlier than 1706. This takes us to his middle or late teens to escape Saintonge. According to the census of 1708, taken just two years after the French invasion, John was found with two unidentified white females and seven slaves. Some sources claim that there was a first wife which is not supported by any official record. There is only one Marry Faucette exists as the wife of John Faucette who at the time of this census couldn't have been older than eight years-old. As for the seven slaves, this paltry number of slaves was far too few to run a sugar plantation of any size but many for a new comer who must have recently arrived to Nevis. This suggest that he had not made it as a big planter yet.
As John exploited enslaved people and gained access to a free land, he occupied a house in southern Nevis foothills. He ended up owning a small sugar plantation and had at least seven slaves. In an island such as Nevis, the nature worked against people due to constant diseases, natural disasters, etc. Thus it was inevitable that the economy would plummet. In 1737, Nevis' lost the prominence and a vast exodus happened. In 1737, Ann, who had been married a well-to-do planter named James Lytton, moved to St. Croix.
Mary and John got separated in 1740. John paid her annuity of fifty-three pounds and Mary renounced all her rights to John's sugar plantation and seven slaves. Five years later, in 1745, John died. After his dead, sources claim that he left everything he owned to his youngest, unmarried daughter, Rachel. This inheritance must have helped Rachel to find a suitor because shortly after her father's death, Rachel married a possibly Sephardic Jew named Johann Micheal Lavien.
It is not clear why John didn't leave anything to Ann, his oldest daughter, except the fact she was born out of wedlock. John must have been somewhere between sixty and/or sixty-five when he died. It is assumed John died of natural causes. In an island plagued with diseases and natural disaster, it is not hard to imagine a feeble man of over sixty struggling to survive of old age. Malaria, dysentery, and fellow fever were notorious for taking the lives of the people on the island. At the time of his death, it is not clear if Rachel, who was sixteen, was living with him. Ann was married to James and was living in St. Croix. Some sources suggests that Rachel may have left with her mother after her parents' separation in 1740.
What kind of man was John Faucette, whose wealth allowed Rachel to support herself and her children after his death? John was a man who fornicated with a child. Marry Uppingham was barely a teenager when she gave birth to Ann. He committed fornication for an unknown number of years before he finally married to Marry. Then he separated from her. It is not known if he fornicated with anyone else after his separation from his wife but in an island like Nevis it is a high possibility that he did.
As a person who escaped oppression, John's first action, after his escape, was to focus on exploiting and enslaving vulnerable people. Slave owners in Nevis were notorious for their brutality, mistreatment and even savagery against their slaves. There is no evidence to suggest John Faucette was any different. He officially owned seven enslaved people and his job was to inspect these human beings like animals before they were traded on a market place. This was how he made a living and how he gained his wealth.
As mentioned in the beginning, Alexander Hamilton never met his grandfather but did benefit from his grandfather's inheritance and earnings as a child and a teenager. Even though John never met Alexander Hamilton, John's past, his way of life, actions, etc, shaped the man Alexander Hamilton became and the life Hamilton strived for all his life.
Chernow, R. (2004) Alexander Hamilton. Penguin Books
Geni. https://www.geni.com/people/Dr-John-Faucett/6000000000984453012
Hendrickson, J. T. (1981) The Rise and Fall of Alexander Hamilton. Dodd, Mead
Newton, Michael E. Discovering Hamilton (2017, December 11) . https://discoveringhamilton.com/john-faucett-deposition-nevis-invasion-1706/
The Huguenots Refugees https://museeprotestant.org/en/notice/the-huguenot-refuge/?parc=56944
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence
To the People of the State of New York:
MY LAST paper assigned several reasons why the safety of the people would be best secured by union against the danger it may be exposed to by JUST causes of war given to other nations; and those reasons show that such causes would not only be more rarely given, but would also be more easily accommodated, by a national government than either by the State governments or the proposed little confederacies.
 |
| John Jay (1745-1829) |
It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. But, independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances.
With France and with Britain we are rivals in the fisheries, and can supply their markets cheaper than they can themselves, notwithstanding any efforts to prevent it by bounties on their own or duties on foreign fish.
With them and with most other European nations we are rivals in navigation and the carrying trade; and we shall deceive ourselves if we suppose that any of them will rejoice to see it flourish; for, as our carrying trade cannot increase without in some degree diminishing theirs, it is more their interest, and will be more their policy, to restrain than to promote it.
In the trade to China and India, we interfere with more than one nation, inasmuch as it enables us to partake in advantages which they had in a manner monopolized, and as we thereby supply ourselves with commodities which we used to purchase from them.
The extension of our own commerce in our own vessels cannot give pleasure to any nations who possess territories on or near this continent, because the cheapness and excellence of our productions, added to the circumstance of vicinity, and the enterprise and address of our merchants and navigators, will give us a greater share in the advantages which those territories afford, than consists with the wishes or policy of their respective sovereigns.
Spain thinks it convenient to shut the Mississippi against us on the one side, and Britain excludes us from the Saint Lawrence on the other; nor will either of them permit the other waters which are between them and us to become the means of mutual intercourse and traffic.
From these and such like considerations, which might, if consistent with prudence, be more amplified and detailed, it is easy to see that jealousies and uneasinesses may gradually slide into the minds and cabinets of other nations, and that we are not to expect that they should regard our advancement in union, in power and consequence by land and by sea, with an eye of indifference and composure.
The people of America are aware that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting. Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in SUCH A SITUATION as, instead of INVITING war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country.
As the safety of the whole is the interest of the whole, and cannot be provided for without government, either one or more or many, let us inquire whether one good government is not, relative to the object in question, more competent than any other given number whatever.
One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into three or four distinct independent companies.
What would the militia of Britain be if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would those three governments (if they agreed at all) be able, with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectually as the single government of Great Britain would?
We have heard much of the fleets of Britain, and the time may come, if we are wise, when the fleets of America may engage attention. But if one national government, had not so regulated the navigation of Britain as to make it a nursery for seamen--if one national government had not called forth all the national means and materials for forming fleets, their prowess and their thunder would never have been celebrated. Let England have its navigation and fleet--let Scotland have its navigation and fleet--let Wales have its navigation and fleet--let Ireland have its navigation and fleet--let those four of the constituent parts of the British empire be under four independent governments, and it is easy to perceive how soon they would each dwindle into comparative insignificance.
Apply these facts to our own case. Leave America divided into thirteen or, if you please, into three or four independent governments--what armies could they raise and pay--what fleets could they ever hope to have? If one was attacked, would the others fly to its succor, and spend their blood and money in its defense? Would there be no danger of their being flattered into neutrality by its specious promises, or seduced by a too great fondness for peace to decline hazarding their tranquillity and present safety for the sake of neighbors, of whom perhaps they have been jealous, and whose importance they are content to see diminished? Although such conduct would not be wise, it would, nevertheless, be natural. The history of the states of Greece, and of other countries, abounds with such instances, and it is not improbable that what has so often happened would, under similar circumstances, happen again.
But admit that they might be willing to help the invaded State or confederacy. How, and when, and in what proportion shall aids of men and money be afforded? Who shall command the allied armies, and from which of them shall he receive his orders? Who shall settle the terms of peace, and in case of disputes what umpire shall decide between them and compel acquiescence? Various difficulties and inconveniences would be inseparable from such a situation; whereas one government, watching over the general and common interests, and combining and directing the powers and resources of the whole, would be free from all these embarrassments, and conduce far more to the safety of the people.
But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under one national government, or split into a number of confederacies, certain it is, that foreign nations will know and view it exactly as it is; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.
PUBLIUS.
Jay, J. (1787, November 7) Federalist 4. The Independent Journal.
Jay, J. (1787, November 3) Federalist 3. The Independent Journal. https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2023/09/federalist-no-3-author-john-jay.html
 |
| Aardvark |
What is an aardvark? Aardvark is a large burrowing African mammal that feeds on ants and termites with its long and sticky tongue. It is an insectivore. It has a long snout, similar to that of a pig which is used to sniff out food. It is the last living species of Tubulidentada. The aardvark has a pig-like look. Its body is stout with a prominent arched back and is sparsely covered with coarse hairs. The limbs are of moderate length, with the rear legs being longer than the forelegs. The front feet have lost the pollex (or 'thumb'), resulting in four toes, while the rear feet have all five toes. Each toe bears a large, robust nail which is somewhat flattened and shovel-like, and appears to be intermediate between a claw and a hoof. Whereas the aardvark is considered gigitigrade it appears at times to be plantigrade. This confusion happens because when it squats it stands on its soles. A contributing characteristic to the burrow digging capabilities of aardvarks is an endosteal tissue called compacted coarse cancellous bone (CCCB). The stress and strain resistance provided by CCCB allows aardvarks to create their burrows, ultimately leading to a favorable environment for plants and a variety of animals.
 |
| Geographic Location of Aardvarks |
 |
| Depiction of god Set |
How do aardvark procreate? They birth one
at a time and only during mating season they get pregnant. Their numbers are
reportedly steady although some believe there may have been a decrease in their
numbers. Their total number in their home is unknown. Their average life span is about 23 years and they are nocturnal in their nature. Unfortunately, they have been kidnapped and put in captivities in zoos around the world. Aardvarks are very important part of their native ecosystem in southern Africa. Thus, their kidnap and captivity to other parts of the world, not only threatens their own life but also threatens the security of biological, ecological and geological ecosystem of the region. Aardvarks must be freed and returned back to their homelands.
Linguistically speaking, aardvark is a noun and name of an animal from Southern Africa scattered through multiple modern countries. The word aardvark comes from the Afrikaan language, a West Germanic language. In Afrikaan aardvark spelled as erdvark. English changed the spelling and possibly the pronunciation to fit it better with English language.
How did this animal found a word in a West Germanic language such as Afrikaan? When Dutch people went and colonized South Africa, they came across this animal and due to its similar appearance to pig, which was a known animal to Dutch people in Europe, they named it erdvark (earth pig) due to its life in burrows. Aardvark breaks into two words: aard means earth and vark means pig which means earth pig.
The answer to the ultimate question of is aardvark English? The response is a firm, no. Although English is one of the West Germanic languages, and related to Afrikaan language, the word aardvark is not English.
Examples: We saw a couple of aardvarks in San Diego zoo.
Aardvarks belong in southern Africa.
Aardvarks should be returned to their native regions.
Why do people kidnap aardvarks?
South Africans, in Zulu, call aarkvark as isambane.
Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/animal/aardvark
(2016) The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2nd printing. Martinsburg, WV
David (2018, April 18). Aardvark: The Only Living Kind of Its Species. Natucate https://www.natucate.com/en/blog/nature/aardvark
Williams, C. (2025, March 23). English Lesson 1: Letter's A's History and Meaning. https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2023/11/is-aa-english-what-does-aa-mean-history.html?spref=tw
Winer, J. Ardvark. National Geographic Kids. https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/aardvark
Depending on the legal status of couples, in the United States and around the world, majority of relationships are ending in either separations, break ups and/or divorces. Some couples are better than others when it comes to co-parenting their child or children. In a series of posts, I will provide correspondences between a former couple who are expected to co-parent their two children in the United States. These posts will focus on the provided facts, based on the written history of the couple's relationship, their court documents and email correspondences from a court application called Our Family Wizard (OFW), regular email, text messages, etc. I will try to be as objective as possible not to influence the readers' opinion of one parent or the other. The readers should judge this former couple's communications, their level of respect for one another and/or any abusive behaviors based on provided factual data. Hopefully, this will help the readers to make better decisions when writing to the other parent of their child/children.
We will try to analyze if this former couple doing anything right for the best interest of their children. What can they do differently and/or is there anything that can be done differently in a situation like theirs?
The screenshot of the email below is from OFW app. I will refer to the father of the children as Mr. Jones and the mother of the children as Ms. Jones for privacy reasons. Other than the anonymous names, everything else is factual.
At the time of this email, Mr. Jones was a 63 year-old, male. He moved to Germany around February 3, 2019. He was on his 5th marriage to a 30 year-old woman from Philippines, and was father of six children from four different women. He was employed full time and owned his own home in the State of Maryland.
Ms. Jones was a 38 year-old female, who had been living in Virginia since June 2018. She had not remarried after her divorce from Mr. Jones. She was raising their two children by herself. She was employed full time and owned her own home. However, there still was an income gap between the two in which Mr. Jones had been consistently making more money than Ms. Jones.
Mr. Jones was the Plaintiff and Ms. Jones was the defendant in this case. Mr. Jones sued Ms. Jones for custody modification, child support and contempt to court around October 2018. Ms. Jones was never served the court papers then he sued her again in November 2018 shortly after the protective order against Mr. Jones expired in August 2018.
 |
On October 29, 2021 court ordered:
ORDERED that the parties shall both use the Close App (or the Our Family Wizard ("OFW") app should Mr. Jones pay for the costs for both parties to use the OFW app) for all non-emergency communications regarding the children. Additionally, the parties shall use the Office of Family Court Services "Email Protocol" as a basis for their communications in the Close or OFW apps.
In the above email, Mr. Jones is notifying Ms. Jones that he purchased the OFW accounts for both of them on November 1, 2021. Mr. Jones mentioned of an unknown representative who would be contacting Ms. Jones but did not provide any other information as to what the mode of communication would be or the name of the representative.
Is OFW a right place to send this email? What was Mr. Jones' intent to send this email on OFW when he clearly knew Ms. Jones didn't have access to OFW app and wouldn't see the email? Why not send this notification via other means, email, text or whatsApp?
Mr. Jones might have argued that Ms. Jones could have accused him of harassment if he used any other method of communication. However, the email above has nothing that could be interpreted as a 'harassment.' Mr. Jones could have also pointed out that the court states that they must use OFW for all communications about their children and OFW as a basis for their communications. The key word here is "as a basis for their communications." The order clearly states that every communication about their children must be on OFW and if they have other conversations which do not include their children, they have to write each other as if they were communicating on OFW.
Is the email above about their children and what did Mr. Jones accomplish by sending this email via OFW?
1. I have purchased the Family Wizard app for us both. With this statement, he wanted to show that he complied with the court order.
2. You may be contacted soon from a representative with instructions on how to set up the app. This statement gives the impression that Mr. Jones provided required information to OFW representative to contact Ms. Jones. Also this statement strips him from any responsibility to set up her account. It is the OFW representative who would be contacting her. In that if Ms. Jones continued to lack access to the app,, he could have showed this email that it was OFW's responsibility to his understanding.
3. I am still learning myself. Mr. Jones' claim that he was still learning is a clear indication that he wanted to present himself as someone who didn't know much about the app either. Again, this is another way to support his claim that it was not his responsibility to provide access or information to Ms. Jones.
Did this email serve its intended purpose? Was it sent on the right platform? Was it helpful to their broken relationship? Was it even necessary to send this email?
Let's first define the purpose of this email. In this email, Mr. Jones' intended purpose was to inform Ms. Jones that he purchased the OFW app for both of them. Although, this email did serve his specific purpose, it was not sent on the right platform. This email was specific to the court order in which children weren't part of. Mr. Jones and Ms. Jones are required to solely communicate about their children on the OFW app. This notification didn't mention their children, didn't address children's needs, and wasn't about a required action for the children. Thus it didn't belong in this platform. A second reason, it didn't belong in this platform was the fact Ms. Jones didn't have access to the app and wouldn't see it until she obtained access. Emails always must be about the children on OFW. This particular email should have been sent to Ms. Jones' via her personal email (gmail, yahoo, outlook, or phone) not only because Ms. Jones didn't have access to OFW but also it was inappropriate to send this email on OFW.
Although on the wrong platform, the written email is perfect. It is clear and to the point. If the co-parent can write clearly to the point, the other parent cannot accuse the co-parent of any wrong doing. Before drafting an email to the other parent, determine the purpose of your email then choose the right platform. Is the email about your children or about an issue between you and the other parent? If it is about your children use OFW. If it is about something else, use other platforms.
Please let me know if you have ever used OFW to communicate with the other parent of your child or children. Did your email(s) serve a specific purpose?
Hear me out clearly, reason with me
I am hurting deep
inside
Lost my way, lost insight
Do not know what to do, can you help this cry out?
Seemingly dignified behaviors but they are all fuck up
Pretended very well
You could have fooled me
No! no! no! not anymore
Lied to me and hated me while made love to me
Honesty wasn’t part of your life
Screw up; you are a screw up!
Do not be proud of being a stupid thug
Sexing others, means nothing
Does not make you masculine
Screw up; yes, you are a screw up
Williams, C. (Jan 24, 2014) Bilabilabila
Williams, C. (2013, August 13) The Tongue. https://historicalmenwomenplaces.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-tongue.html
