Trump’s Triumphal Arch Raises Its Ugly Head

NPR reported this morning that the Trump administration is expected to break ground on its colossal triumphal arch within the next two weeks. This Trump vanity project has not gone through all the steps required by law to initiate such a project. One would especially like to know where the money for this monstrosity is coming from. But Trump, who, like all presidents, has sworn to uphold the Constitution, has a habit of ignoring the law and essentially saying to the country, “Sue me.” (There already is at least one lawsuit attempting to derail this ill-conceived project.) Alas, the judiciary never seems to act as quickly as the president, and the Supreme Court always—nearly always, anyway—seems to side with our lawless president.

Under the circumstances, this seems a good time to post links to what I have written previously about Trump’s triumphal arch. Not being a resident of the District of Columbia, some of the aesthetic and, I daresay, spiritual objections advanced by others are ones I don’t feel competent to articulate. Nonetheless, my objections to the arch are substantial and, I think, commonsensical.

I first wrote about the arch on my blog here. In “Trump’s Triumphal Arch,” I reproduced the comments I made about the arch and sent to the National Park Service (to no avail, apparently). The project also inspired my poetic inclinations. Read my poem, “Triumphal Arch.”

We should all write to our members of Congress urging them to kill this stupid and wasteful project before it gets so far along that the administration can argue that it is too late to halt construction.

Fixing Another Hymn

Many years ago, I complained about the hymn “Earth and All Stars.” I offered some alternative satirical lyrics. Eventually, I wrote an entirely new text for the popular tune. My text is quirky, though nonetheless serious. Today, I turn my attention to a perfectly fine, though perhaps not perfect, hymn.

“The Church’s One Foundation” is a popular Protestant hymn set to the tune Aurelia by Samuel Sebastian Wesley. It appears in The Hymnal 1982 of the Episcopal Church as hymn #525. Its third verse in the hymnal is the following:

Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forever more;
Till with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest.

(The punctuation above differs slightly from that of the hymnal.)

The marriage of text and tune is generally felicitous. I have always been uncomfortable with the third verse, however. The problem is with the penultimate line. The word “the” falls on the first beat of a measure. Both musically and poetically—every line begins with an iamb, an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed one—“the” should be stressed, but this stress makes no sense.

The offending line is, I think, easily fixed. In place of “And the great Church victorious,” we could substitute “And God’s great Church victorious.” One might quibble with this, I suppose. Whose church is it anyway? Usually Jesus Christ is seen as the head of the church, so a better fix might be “And Christ’s great Church victorious.” I’ll skip arguments about the Trinity here.

Reactions to the Proposed Triumphal Arch

The National Park Service is receiving public comments on the Triumphal Arch President Trump wants to build in the District of Columbia. The arch is clearly a vanity project that will surely not beautify Washington. I began writing my thoughts about the arch about a week ago. Before I had gotten very far, however, I decided to write a poem about this proposed monstrous undertaking, in part because I wanted new material for the upcoming Open Mic Night at Sulfur Books. (You can read my poem “Triumphal Arch” here.)

Having completed my poem and facing a NPS July 30 deadline for citizen comments, I returned to my original project. I completed an essay about the proposed memorial and submitted it. You can also read my thoughts about the arch, “Trump’s Triumphal Arch,” on my Web site here.

As always, comments, which you can leave below, are welcome.

Facebook Proves Maddening Once More

Yet again, Facebook has taken down one of my posts for no rational reason.

I saw the following post on my news feed:

I was attracted to this post because (1) I am interested in railroads, and (2) the fires in Ontario Province, Canada, have been affecting air quality here in Ontario County, New York, U.S.A. I thought it was reasonable to repost this story for the benefit of Facebook friends, particularly those who live in or near Clifton Springs.

I posted the original URL directly from the Trains Web site with the comment:

Smoke from Ontario fires continue to darken skies in Clifton Springs.

Almost immediately—I’m sure no human was involved—I was informed that my post had been deleted because my post “goes against our Community Standards on spam.” In particular, I was told:

The post may use misleading links or content to trick people to visit, or stay on a website.

I was not trying to trick anyone. I immediately challenged the ruling, but I could only check boxes to describe my position. I could not write an actual defense. Facebook provided the following:

Seeking more information, I thought I should see the rule that was supposedly being invoked. I then saw this:

If my post was spam, why wasn’t the original post from Trains spam? I frequently post links to my Web site and blog or to news reports from The New York Times, NPR, or other news organizations. I have no idea why my post was deemed objectionable. I was provided with this unhelpful information:

Facebook later offered this threat after telling me that my post was not being restored:

If you have a high tolerance for bureaucratic self-righteousness, you can read the full (I think) Facebook policy on spam here.

I use Facebook because it’s useful, but, in so many respects, it is maddening. Some features are poorly chosen, and the platform keeps changing how things work, seldom for the better. (The latest general annoyance is the appearance of ads in the middle of even relatively short reels.)

You can read some of my previous complaints about Facebook here.

Two Language Observations

I listen to NPR a lot. I have come to expect mostly well-spoken English on the network. Two pronunciations have surprised me of late, however. I have heard these on NPR and elsewhere.

First, there is the word missile. The word came up a lot in coverage of the Trump-Netanyahu war against Iran. I have always heard this word pronounced as ˈmi‑səl, but I was repeatedly hearing it pronounced ˈmi‑sīl. When I looked the word up in the dictionary, I was surprised to learn that this latter pronunciation is the usual British one.  As it happens, many of the reporters I was listening to on NPR were, in fact, British. Mystery solved!

Another oddity I have noticed lately is rather more annoying. It involves the simple word a. Almost always, I expect this word to be pronounced as ə—or if you prefer, uh—as in a beautiful beach. This is the usual adjectival use of the word. Normally, it is only pronounced ˈā when the word is used as a noun (i.e., to refer to the letter A) or, more rarely, as an adjective for emphasis on the singularity of the thing it modifies (e.g., ā very big deal). Recently, however—I heard an example of this usage on the ABC news tonight—a long A is being used in phrases like ā mix of sun and clouds. My guess is that announcers are trying too hard to enunciate, even when a natural pronunciation is actually called for and a long A pronunciation simply seems stilted.

Autographs

I am not a collector of autographs. The other day, however, I was reminded that I have accumulated a few over the years.

I was listening to an LP of Bach preludes and fugues yesterday. The organist was Marie-Claire Alain on a two-disc album. (I own recordings of all the Bach organ works played by Alain.) As I removed the first disc to play it, a program from a concert I attended nearly half a century ago fell out. Owning so many recordings by Alain, I was delighted to hear her play in person, and I had her sign my program, which I had saved in the album I was playing. (See the program at the left.)

I have never gotten an autograph from a politician or any other non-musician, but I have two other signatures from musicians. 

I have heard Judy Collins in concert two or three times. Before one of these, I bought one of her LPs at a record store—are you old enough, dear reader, to know about record stores?—where she was autographing purchases. She signed and personalized my album.

I have only one other musician’s autograph, that of Vladimir Ashkenazy. I had become a passionate fan of Sergei Prokofiev’s music after borrowing from the New Orleans Public Library a recording of his Second Piano Concerto, played by Malcolm Frager. While attending the University of Chicago, a friend who knew of my Prokofiev passion told me that Ashkenazy was playing the concerto at Orchestra Hall. I managed to obtain a seat at the concert in the nosebleed section. It was the most exciting concert I have ever attended; I was on the edge of my seat—quite literally—throughout the entire concerto. I was actually a bit tired from the tension when it was all over! Several years later, I got to hear Askenazy in Honolulu. I obtained his autograph, but I really wanted to see him to tell him how exciting I found that Chicago concert and to thank him for the experience.

I have since heard other pianists play the Prokofiev Second Piano Concerto. The piece is always exciting, but no performance has had the emotional power of that Chicago performance by Vladimir Ashkenazy.

Do you, dear reader, collect autographs? Whose signature has been most meaningful to you? Do you have autographs from people who are not musicians?

Arch Thoughts

Donald Trump is threatening to build a massive triumphal arch in D.C. A rendering of the proposed monument has been released:

Of course, even if the arch is built, it may or may not look like this. That details of Trump’s ballroom keep changing—not to mention his justification for the war against Iran—suggests that this project’s details are likely to be volatile.

Only yesterday, AP reported that the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, a body now composed of Trump lackeys, has approved a design for the arch somewhat modified from the image shown above. The lions—which often represent royalty—are gone, and two gold eagles have been added atop the arch. Gold remains a significant surface finish consistent with the Trump nouveau riche aesthetic. The phrases “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” are to appear on either side of the monument (in gold lettering, of course).

The most obvious criticisms of the Trump triumphal arch are that (1) it would be a major piece of architecture in our capital city reflecting the desires and aesthetics of a single man. (2) no source of funding for the arch has been identified, (3) there is no obvious need or constituency for the arch, (4) it is outrageously large (more than twice as tall as the nearby Lincoln Memorial and nearly half as tall as the Washington Monument), and (5) it interrupts the sight line across the Potomac River.

The inscriptions are curious. They are clearly taken from the “Pledge of Allegiance.” (I have problems with the Pledge, particularly with the invocation of God, but we can leave that aside for the moment.) Why should we prefer “One Nation Under God” to “In God We Trust,” which, unfortunately, is the nation’s official motto? (See my essay “A Matter of Mottos.”) The Pledge has no such official standing. Likewise, the Pledge-derived “Liberty and Justice for All” is an unofficial phrase. I would prefer simply “Liberty,” which adorns our coins. Arguably, true liberty, which is in short supply at the moment, implies justice.

Historically, triumphal arches are most often celebratory of military victories and/or the soldiers responsible for them. What is Trump’s arch for? Trump has suggested that the District of Columbia needs an arch to mark the entrance to the District. One has to ask why, however, particularly as the arch blocks significant sight lines. And where should such an entrance monument be?

According to Adam Gopnik, “When asked by a reporter whom the arch would be for, Trump said, ‘Me.’” According to Gopnik, bigness is the point of the arch. He pointed out that Hitler wanted to build an enormous arch in his proposed capital city for the Third Reich. I suggest that Trump’s arch really does celebrate a Trump victory, namely, the triumph of autocracy over democracy. (Our semiquincentennial is simply a convenient excuse to build a 250-foot tall arch.) Ironically, a gold, winged Lady Liberty adorns the top of the arch. She is, I suggest, ready to fly away from the United States.

Celebrating and Pandering

Throughout the twentieth century, steam locomotives were mostly black, with lighter smokeboxes, whose working temperature made the use of ordinary paint impractical. Rarely did they sport other colors—sometimes blue, green, or, in the case of the famous Southern Pacific GS-4s, red, orange, and silver.

The advent of diesel-electric road locomotives brought more color to the rails. The diesel’s largely flat sides facilitated decoration that the complex appliances outfitted to its stream predecessors never did. The new locomotives were billboards of color—silver, red, yellow, orange, purple, and others. Locomotive liveries usually advertised the operating railroad or, less frequently, the locomotive builder. No one could see the red, yellow, and silver warbonnet paint scheme on a GM locomotive and not know that it was motive power of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway.

Infrequently, individual diesels were painted to celebrate an event, cause, or program—the Salt Lake City Olympics or Operation Lifesaver. In a time when consolidation in the railroad industry has eliminated so many famous names, successor railroads have taken to painting locomotives in the colors of railroads they had swallowed up. These “heritage” locomotives have been quite popular with the public, even if the liveries of the “fallen flags” had never been seen on more modern motive power. 

Lately, railroads have been painting engines to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday. For example, Canadian Pacific Kansas City locomotive 1776 is mostly red with white lettering. Its undercarriage and trucks are blue, and four white stripes interrupt the red forward of a solid blue rear. Additional markings, including the America 250 logo and a tiny American flag, tastefully adorn the locomotive body.

Then there is the Union Pacific. It has a locomotive numbered 1776 that it decorated on the cheap. It is painted in UP’s standard armour yellow with silver trucks. There is a large American flag on each side, a design element similar to one that has appeared on its locomotives in the past. Like the CPKC’s commemorative locomotive, the America 250 logo appears on the side nose of the engine.

Then there is UP 4547. This locomotive, according to the railroad’s Web site, “was built in partnership with [locomotive builder] Wabtec,” though UP has provided only a drawing, not a photograph of the unit. The left and right sides of this engine are shown in this UP graphic:

Although UP 4547 is supposedly celebrating the nation’s 250th birthday, in reality, it is celebrating Donald J. Trump, whose name appears on both sides in gold lettering. The road number, of course, refers to Trump as the 45th and 47th president. The left side shows a gigantic, waving Betsy Ross flag; the right side shows a similarly depicted current U.S. flag. Where CPKC 1776 placed the America 250 logo, this locomotive displays an eagle derived very loosely from the Great Seal of the United States. The America 250 logo is nowhere to be seen.

Remarkably, UP CEO Jim Vena has insisted that this locomotive is simply honoring the nation’s 250th anniversary. “We’re actually celebrating America. We are not celebrating any individual,” he is quoted as saying. It is difficult to take this pronouncement seriously.  UP has been seeking government approval to buy Norfolk Southern. Its first merger proposal was rejected by the Surface Transportation Board as inadequate. A revised merger proposal was submitted to the STB on April 30. It is difficult to see locomotive 4547 as anything other than an attempt to win Trump’s favor by appealing to his ego.

Donald Trump regularly conflates his person with the United States itself. This is appalling and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It is equally appalling when a railroad does the same thing. Unfortunately, to get this administration to do what one wants it to do, it has become necessary to bribe the chief executive either by putting money into his pocket (or into the pockets of his family) or by appealing to his inflated ego. We are used to seeing this kind of pandering in banana republics; it is heartbreaking to see it in the United States.