The Man Who Killed Antoine de Saint-Exupery

The BBC story says a mystery about the Little Prince author has been solved.

Mr von Gartzen told the BBC News website that he made 1,200 phone calls to former Luftwaffe pilots and their families in search of the man who shot down the French writer.

Finally, he was told about a man who had a clear memory of the events of 31 July 1944, the date Antoine de Saint-Exupery disappeared.

“I presented myself as doing research and he said: ‘You can stop researching now because I shot down Saint-Exupery’.”

That sounds like a confession. Case closed?

Lino von Gartzen said it came as a big shock: “I never thought I would find who shot him down. I was quiet for some minutes as this was too much for me”.

For another two years he continued to check Horst Rippert’s story and is convinced by it.

“From my point of view as a professional historian it’s a very, very good hypothesis and everything he told us seems to be true.

Two years of checking a story is a nice luxury to have. Most investigations I get to work on have a half-life of a couple weeks.

“He feels guilty and very, very sorry about it. He was very scared that the cheap press would massacre him.”

In the published extracts, Mr Rippert describes being a fan of de Saint-Exupery’s work. “In our youth, at school, we had all read him. We loved his books,” he said.

Talk about a gut-wrenching conclusion to the tale. Does he feel he will avoid massacre if he claims to be a fan of the man he killed? Or was he really a fan? Imagine if fighter pilots were actually worried they might shoot down their favorite author — fear of literary impact. I guess that would be a form of conscientious objection to war.

Wrong Desire is the Source of Suffering

From the Satires of Juvenal, Book IV, Satire X, as posted in Wikipedia:

orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano.
fortem posce animum mortis terrore carentem,
qui spatium uitae extremum inter munera ponat
naturae, qui ferre queat quoscumque labores,
nesciat irasci, cupiat nihil et potiores
Herculis aerumnas credat saeuosque labores
et uenere et cenis et pluma Sardanapalli.
monstro quod ipse tibi possis dare; semita certe
tranquillae per uirtutem patet unica uitae.
(10.356-64)

I will try to translate if I can find some time. Might come in handy for the session I will be leading at RSA.

Macedonia fined for Honey-eating Bear

You might be amused by a story about a someone who just can not bear the risks of wildlife:

The case was brought by the exasperated beekeeper after a year of trying vainly to protect his beehives.

For a while, he kept the animal away by buying a generator, lighting up the area, and playing thumping Serbian turbo-folk music.

But when the generator ran out of power and the music fell silent, the bear was back and the honey was gone once more.

Is this case not like suing a landlord for the behavior of a tenant?

The beekeeper should have sued whomever aided and abetted this bear, rather than the organization that provided it habitat, no?

Wonder if anyone will sue Bear Stearns for eating up all the money in Wall Street.

The “ran out of power” argument is interesting too. Perhaps a low-power music device that does not need a generator would have made more sense? Then again, it sounds like Serbian turbo-folk music might need a lot of power, even if running from a USB stick.

Lookalike legal, but acting forbidden

Here is an interesting twist to the old debate about dressing like a law enforcement officer. Someone in Las Vegas, NM has a car that looks identical to a police cruiser:

Vigil’s black-and-white car sports a red-and-blue emergency bar across the top and the word ‘police’ painted on the doors. Law enforcement agencies say what he’s done with his car isn’t illegal as long as he doesn’t act like a police officer.

Is it going to be in a play? Used for comedic or artistic purposes? How could he possibly drive on the road without “acting” like a police officer. What would distinguish him as a non-LEO?