6 Burst results for "Frederick William"
The Eric Metaxas Show
"frederick william" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"In World War Two, 90 years later. That's crazy, except it's true, and it is. And and by the way, again, a lot of this stuff sounds like tall tales. But the way that I think you can anyone can convince themselves. Imagine if it hadn't happened. Vladimir Putin does, he wrote in what is it, 2017, because that was the 150th anniversary of Russia giving up Russian America, that if if only this individual who he holds in great contempt, Frederick William Seward, had not injured his jaw because he fell out of the carriage and then the assailant had broken his gun, beating his son nearly to death. And it fits together. And and again, it illustrates the wisdom of Otto von Bismarck's summary. There's a special protection, special providence for the United States of America. And by the way, it becomes more recent. Now, I didn't write about this in any detail. I do mention it. President Reagan used to be known as our oldest president. But President Reagan takes a bullet that is, what was it, a quarter of an inch away from the lining of his heart. It was a very close run thing. And by the way, with six weeks' separation between the near assassination of the other great victor of the Cold War, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, what are the odds? These two old men get bullets shot into the center of their body. They should have both died. And if they had both died, then the evil empire is still in its full flowering of evil without the the the great victory that I think that America should be proud of and in bringing the end of the Cold War. I've been saying recently when people question whether we can survive the current madness on so many fronts, you know, in the natural, the answer would be no. But in the natural, the answer to the emergence of the United States and the survival and thriving of the United States also ought never to have happened. And you're both books lay it out. You could just start with when you write about the Battle of Long Island, the Battle of Brooklyn, Washington should not have prevailed. No, he should have been captured and hanged, according to the logic of history. They had just lost the most bloody battle of the revolution. And it was in the eight years of the revolutionary conflict, 1775 to 1783. The most costly battle was the Battle of Brooklyn. Three American generals were captured. Washington's troop was surrounded and literally with no escape because the British Navy and there was no American Navy at the time. The British Navy was occupying the the river between Manhattan and Brooklyn. I know I just know enough about this because I've I've written about this. And it is unbelievable. I mean, when we're talking about, yeah, the British Navy was mass there. It was the greatest assembly of military craft, a sea craft in the history of the world up to that time. Absolutely sitting next to Staten Island, waiting to crush, to crush the Continental Army and to capture the George Washington and the Continental Army right after they had committed treason by authorizing the Declaration of Independence, because we're talking about the summer, August of 1776. Now, how many people here are New Yorkers at any time? Do we have some New Yorkers? OK, people who know New York know that in August it very rarely has thick fog so thick that you can't see.
Asian America: The Ken Fong Podcast
"frederick william" Discussed on Asian America: The Ken Fong Podcast
"He kind of comes up with this, well, maybe the Catholics and purgatory was kind of onto something that death doesn't get the last word Jesus gets the last word. And I've often used this at gravesites and I was still actively pastoring because you're standing there were all these people and they're paying attention for at least 5 minutes and you just go, you know what? It's not up to me. It's up to Jesus. And I think his desire is regardless of even how you lived your life on earth. Now that you're away from earth and you're in my presence and you know that my desire is to be with you forever. It's up to you. Right. And then some tenant goes, who's gonna say no to that? And he goes, well, some might, I don't know if Hitler would say yes, you know, but he said, why do you think it would bother God if almost everybody said yes? So anyway, that has forever stayed with me and I actually got to meet with pinnick, he was up in Canada, and I thanked him for writing that book. He was blind by then, and he just goes, wow, I remember you wrote me this letter. My wife read me, and I cried because I knew I was gonna get slammed, but I didn't hear from other people. That many who said that it helped. And I just go, well, it was an Asian cultured person whose most of my ancestors were not Christians. You know, there's a lot here. Anyway, I would say that I have certainly changed a lot. I certainly don't claim to know hardly anything. You know, I have scripture that makes me lean in a certain direction, but when I stand at someone's grave, I just go, you know what? The names on these headstones, the people that they represent, if there is something, they know better than any of us. And I just want to live in such a way that it looks like this God loves me and knows me. Yeah. That's lovely. The title of that book actually comes from a hymn by Frederick William Faber, who's first lines of the him goes. There's a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea. There you go. Back to the sea. But it's a later reverse that I really love. He writes for the love of God is broader than the measures of the mind and the heart of the eternal is most wonderfully kind. And I think it's wonderful that someone, you know, a 150 years ago, was taking this, right? This is not innovative. No. Yeah, I mean, it's practically Victorian. Yeah. Again, if we take the scripture seriously, scripture is really about trying to struggle with the totality of human experience, not just the human experience that feels good at the moment. The scripture is about wrestling with what do we do when we presume that everyone's on well? Right. Well, that's another thing that's gonna stick with me now, Jim. I appreciate you. I appreciate your work. I hope that we crossed paths in actual reality when they are new churches right across the street from all saints. First baptist. Yeah, and it's now fully affirming. So we have enough possible intersections that it's going to happen sooner than later. Let's make it happen. Yeah. I need to get out to the SGB. It's been too long for me to go and eat the food over at the SG. Oh, it's fine. It's an amazing banquet. Yes. Yes. We will be well fed and we will not speak of fatty acids while we eat it. No, not at all. Thank you again so much for being so generous with your time and your thoughts. I know that this episode is going to be so provocative for so many of my listeners and hopefully comforting too.
Stuff You Should Know
"frederick william" Discussed on Stuff You Should Know
"For sure. Stashing some great work in here with just a bunch of other stuff. And I mean, war is a really great mechanism for art and treasure to move from place to place. No kidding. And in fact, Germany had been looking for Heinrich Schliemann's trove of Troy gold, Trojan gold when he discovered the lost city of Troy in the 19th century, Schliemann was as German as it gets. I mean, just listen to his name. Yet that trove had been plundered by the Soviets probably in World War II because it was discovered sitting in boxes in the basement of the pushkin museum. Like years later, I think not that many years ago, actually. So it's entirely possible the Soviets have it maybe don't even know it of some other ally has it doesn't even know it, or the Germans have it, and maybe they don't know it. It's just sitting on Mark crates in a museum somewhere, like you said, all of Raiders of the Lost Ark. We should ruby that, finally, the other day. Raiders of the Lost Ark. Yeah, I was like, she's ready, and she loved it. Man, that's awesome. I mean, that really says a lot about her, I think. Yeah, she likes adventure movies and stuff like that, so she was she was in from the drop. Was weigh in and it was great. And I told her, I was like, a few more of these and a couple of them are pretty good. We'll watch them all. Are you going to follow the MPAA suggestion and wait until she's 13 to show a raiders temple of doom? Nah, she's fine. She knows that stuff is a movie. She didn't get scared. Okay, cool. I told her from the very early age that movies is all make believe. And you don't need to worry about any of this stuff. People don't actually eat huge snakes that they cut the baby snakes out of. That's right. Should we talk about the Weimar theory? Yes, let's. This was another, you know, kind of like the rest of these. It's like, no, this thing was on a train this time. And there were a bunch of valuables shipped to Weimar in February 1945. It was basically anything that happened in the first 6 months of 1945. It seemed like whether it was a ship or a train or a tunnel, they were like it could be at any of these places because this train was carrying very valuable things. Very valuable art, the collection was in there. The coffin for the Prussian king Frederick William the first even was in there, ironically, and it was going to the land museum in Weimar and the director there apparently swore to investigators from Russia that the day after it got there that everything was shipped off to an undisclosed location and some people are saying like now he was lying. The amber room was there and it's hidden in these bunkers near the museum. So I think there are bunkers, but when they check them out in the 90s, there was no amber room in there, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't there at one point. Who knows? Yeah, and the coffin of king Frederick William the first was like moved around. It was discovered in a salt mine in Germany by the allies in 1945, so it's entirely possible. They pack the amber room up once, they could have packed it up. Oh, they picked it up twice as a matter of fact. They could have packed it up a third time and sent it off with this stuff. Again, though, if you find the coffin of Prussian king Frederick William the first, why would you also not say we also found the amber room? Can you believe it? Why would it have been separated out? Who knows? But at the same time, why would they have moved Frederick Williams coffin and not the amber room? Yeah. Dude, I just dropped my microphone. I would have if it wasn't, wasn't attached to this Mike boom arm. Dave included some stuff here about an amber room curse. I don't really subscribe to this stuff. No, but George Stein's death is strange. Yeah, there were a few people connected to the amber room that died. But I didn't find typhoid fever is not mysterious. No. A car wreck is not mysterious. No. But George Stein, he was an amber room hunter. And in 87, he died of what was ruled ritual suicide from his stomach being cut open by a scalpel. Yes. Which is very strange way to take your own life and even stranger he was naked at the time because he was found naked. And this forest that he was found in was a few hundred miles from his home. He was supposedly going to meet another amber room hunter. And if you were going to do this, why would you travel so far? And do it in such a bizarre, painful manner. So it is at the very least a very strange little footnote to the whole thing. Yeah, it's not a curse. Maybe he was snuffed out because he knew too much or something who knows. Maybe. I mean, we're not promoting conspiracy, of course. I was just, let's just conjecture. No. But if you are into this kind of stuff, we should direct everybody check to the new stuff they don't want you to know book, don't you think? Yeah, but our colleagues Ben and Matt and nowell have a book. Just like we did, stuff they don't want you to know. Go check it out. Pick it up. Yeah, it's good stuff. They're good guys. Yeah, and I think we should finish here on this rebuilt amber room that we've kind of teased out in 1979. Soviet authorities commissioned a full scale replica in the Catherine palace, which is like we said, a state museum, and you sent me an article on the process of this. I think they took three plus years before they even started on it because it was so there was so much pre planning into figuring out how to do this as an exact replica. They were working off of their so few actual photo documents or descriptions or sketches of the original amber room, but they had a pile of about 80 of them that had been photographed or 80 photographs that had been done in I think the 1930s of the original amber room, but they're black and white together. They did. But they were black and white. So before they even did that part, they had to blow up these black and white photos, and then deduce from the different gray scales of the different mosaics, what piece was what color or what shade and what around it was a different shade with the different shades where that's how faithfully they've recreated the original amber room. Yeah, and it's right here, I don't know how I missed it. But that fourth mosaic, the touch and smell that was recovered, I guess, in 1997, through illegal sale, is in there. So I'm not sure how I missed that, but that's one of the original pieces is part of this recreation. Yeah. So it's amazing. And you can go see it. It was open to the public in 2003 after 25 years of construction, 25 years, man. That's correct. It's incredible. Yeah, because I'll tell you another amazing thing they did. They took one of the original pieces because there were pieces surviving pieces of the amber room that had been like, this is actually from the original amber. We know it. Like it broke off during transit or like those conservators from the palace. When they tried to remove one of the panels in its shattered, those things were kept. So they actually had one of the local crime labs analyzed the adhesive that had been used, and that's how they came up with that. They used the same adhesive. One did. But that's the level of detail they went into recreating it. It's just my hat's off to him. And today, that amber room, the recreation alone is valued at 500 million, which kind of gives you an idea of what the original would be would be worth today. Although I've seen also, it would be in such bad shape that you would just be like, this is it. This isn't really amazing at all. Interesting. Wow. 500 million. So yeah, I would recommend going and reading the gemological institute of America's website article on the amber room. It's got a lot
Stuff You Should Know
"frederick william" Discussed on Stuff You Should Know
"Really incredible. Right. So schluter was the one who designed the room and said, more nymphs, more angels, you know? But gottfried Wolfram was the one who actually made this happen who made this vision happen. And he was like, okay, how are we going to make an entire room out of amber? And he came up with a paneling method, a mosaic method, where he would take a panel of wood in this case, I believe the original were all oak. Of course. And these were huge, like many meters wide, many meters tall. And imperial that's many feet and wide many feet tall. Oak panels. And then they would put a bronze foil between the panel and the amber. Yeah. And then they would take pieces of amber cut them, slice them in like 5 millimeter thick slices, and add them, just stick them together, almost like a jigsaw puzzle, but really a mosaic of different amber. And remember amber comes in different shades and colors. So each panel had like just this riot of different shades of amber, but they were also done by artists who knew what they were doing with amber and pairing different shades of amber. So the whole overall effect was incredibly pleasing. Yeah, and that bronze foil, it had a couple of uses. One is it helped protect it that would. It was a moisture barrier. Between the wood and the amber and its bronze foil, so if it's lined with that and then the stuff is put onto it, the most tiny miniscule little gaps in little things are going to have bronze foil behind it. So it's just going to make everything pop. Right. They also used, they came up with a special kind of adhesive just to make this room just adhere the amber to the foil, right? Yeah. I think I saw ship caulk and beeswax. And a lot of other stuff they tried would not work because it would either turn a certain color and ruin the whole effect, so they came up with a special adhesive for it too, right? So you can imagine this like really took a very long time to do. Yes. It was very slow. And any project like this is going to be slow, much less when this intricate. And in this time that it was being done, both of these guys got fired, I think schluter just sort of, it sounds like he just sort of fell out of favor with the royal family. And then you know why? Oh, really? Yeah, he was an architect, but apparently he wasn't a great architect. And he designed a water tower for the Prussian royal family that collapsed and so he lived in disgrace on the court for a few years. Tell that to Frank Lloyd Wright. Move the desk. That was his quote. Wolfram was fired as well. You know when he was fired? I don't know why he was fired, but I do know that he was barred from his workshop for life. They came in and said, you're not allowed to work here anymore, and they stiffed him. Oh, really? All right, I read that he was just grumpy, and they hated his guts. Is that right? No, I'm just kidding. Okay. So basically the two people that were leading this project designer and builder both got fired and then king Frederick died about 12 ish years after it was commissioned. So along comes Frederick William the first to succeed the first Frederick and said, this thing is stupid. It's ridiculous. I don't want it. I don't want it. But it's a beautiful and they've been working hard. He's like, I don't want to see this thing. Pack it up, get it out of here. And take it to Berlin. And that's what they did. Until well, I'll tell you what, let's take a break and that's a great cliffhanger. Yeah. There's an ellipse. So we'll get
Bloomberg Radio New York
"frederick william" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Is Bloomberg law with June gros from Bloomberg radio. Frank Sinatra was a man. No. He was the man. And he loved Jack. Jack has a Daniels. I'm stage every night. Three rocks, two fingers, and a splash of water. So Frank. This one's for you. That's the neck of the guards, baby Frank Sinatra would often hold up a glass of Jack Daniels on stage, contributing to the popularity of the country's bestselling whisky with its iconic shouldered bottle and its 150 year history as a Tennessee whisky. Any wonder that Jack Daniel's properties would take offense at a chewable dog toy mimicking its signature whisky bottle and bearing the label bad spaniels, the old number two on your Tennessee carpet. Jack Daniel says its trademarks are being infringed, but the 9th circuit rule that the toy maker VIP products was entitled to First Amendment protection because the dog toy was an expressive work. The Supreme Court has agreed to review that decision in a case that will test the reach of trademark rights in the face of First Amendment claims. My guest is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner at cat and nutrient Rosamund. So Terry, tell us about the basic legal fight here and the history of litigation. June number of years ago, a company called VIP products, which puts out novelty toys, especially for dogs, came out with a dog toy called bad spaniels that mimicked the classic Jack Daniel's whisky bottle for its old number 7, Jack Daniels, parent company Brown foreman, not surprisingly sent out cease and desist letters to VIP products. And VIP products brought a declaratory judgment action in Arizona seeking to obtain from the court a ruling that what they were doing was not a violation. The trademark clause. The district court had a bench trial, which is a trial without a jury. And ruled that it was trademark infringement. VIP products took that case up to the 9th circuit and the 9th circuit reversed, saying that the dog toy is a quote expressive work. And it's protected by the First Amendment. Jack Daniels took that decision from the circuit up to the Supreme Court in 2021, which refused to accept the case. So the case was sent back to the district court, which entered a judgment on behalf of the dog toy maker VIP products Brown forman's Jack Daniels company appealed that decision in the 9th circuit, which affirmed it without even writing anything. And in sort of a Hail Mary company took the case back to the Supreme Court. Second time and to everybody's surprise, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the case and has accepted it for reveal. This involves the Rogers test named after Ginger Rogers, explain a little bit about that test for us. The Rogers test is judge created rule that comes from 1989 case. It involved a frederico fellini film called Ginger and Fred. That was about two Italian cabaret dancers. And the reference in the title to Ginger and Fred was to Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, obviously. Everybody understood it to be that. And that's what Frederick William intended it to mean. So Ginger Rogers brought a lawsuit against the producer of the movie alleging that they weren't allowed to market the movie using her name in the case when up on appeal to the second circuit and the court said, no, this was okay here. It was okay to use a celebrity's name in an expressive work if it's artistically relevant to the work and not explicitly misleading. And that rule became the Rogers test. So is that the test that the 9th circuit used in ruling for the toy company here? It is. And it represents one of the very first times that an appellate court has ever applied the Rogers test to commercial product, the Rogers test was expressly directed at. So called expressive works and was not intended to apply to commercial products such as the dog Chewy toy here at issue. And so that was a bit of a surprise in and of itself. And now we have to assume that the Supreme Court has accepted this case in order to consider whether the 9th circuit was right in applying the Rogers test. Because if the Rogers test is applied, that sort of a low bar, it's a threshold issue. You don't have to then go into whether there's consumer confusion in the marketplace. That's correct. The Rogers test is intended to protect the legitimate First Amendment interests that creators have expressive works have. And indeed, you think about this in terms of something as simple as a film review. If you need to do a review for the newspaper magazine, television of a new film that's been released, you have to mention the name of the film. So there has to be some realm of protection emanating out in the First Amendment. Even though you're using trademarked names, the question is, how far does that expand? So this is the very first time that the Supreme Court will consider in the trademark context as opposed to copyright context. What sort of First Amendment protection is there are that limit the applicability of trademark law. The toy company here also sells parodies of other popular alcoholic bottles, including Stella arpa, which mimics designs from beer maker, Stella artois, and Heinz sniffin, which resembles Heineken, so are there any other suits like this one? Indeed, this same company put out a chew toy for dogs that was in the shape of a beer bottle that had the title on it. But wiser. And looked very much like a bud wiser, beer bottle, and Budweiser did not want its beer being associated with people's bottoms and went to court sued and won. And that product is no longer on the market. Similarly, there's a case in the fourth circuit that's so similar to the case here that it's almost shocking. It was a lawsuit in 2007. It was a caption was Louis Vuitton versus haute diggity dog and it was about a Chewy Vuitton dog toy that was put out as a parody of Louis Vuitton's trademarks. And the fourth circuit in that case did not even Dane to consider the Rogers test. It simply said, look, the way you approach a case like this is to consider whether or not consumers are likely to be confused. That somehow this Chewy vatan dog toy is put out by Louis Vuitton, the fashion house. And that's the way you approach this indeed. The Rogers tested not even mentioned by the fourth circuit. So in a very real sense, the 9th circuit is the first federal palette court to consider and to apply the Rogers test in the context of a commercial product such as a dog toy as opposed to applying it only with respect to expressive works like songs movies and books. So do you have any idea why the court decided to take this case the second time around? This is exactly the problem that many of my friends in academia have discussed with me. We don't really know why all of a sudden the Supreme Court wants to look at this and that raises fears. The only difference in the law between 2021 when the court rejected this case the first time and November 2022 when the court decided to accept it. Second go round is that the composition of the Supreme Court has changed. And it only takes four votes amongst the justices to hear case and we've had at least my account if I've got it right. Two new justices see that since then. So one can't help but wonder if that is the driving force here, is that the new justice is having a different view of how trademark Washington applied. But the fear amongst academics and practitioners who follow this very closely is that the Supreme Court might start with a much bigger picture and ask, does the Rogers test even exist? The important thing to remember here is that there is no Rogers test in the lanham act, the trademark law. It was created by judge Newman at a whole cloth in 1989 in Rogers V grimaldi. It's judge made law and there's also this fear that there's a number of justices on the court now who are antithetical to judicial lawmaking who believe that that's the province of Congress. So one fear is that the Rogers test may not
Bloomberg Radio New York
"frederick william" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Court has agreed to consider reviving a trademark lawsuit over a chewable dog toy designed to mimic the iconic Jack Daniel whisky bottle, the company says its trademarks are being infringed by a bottle shaped toy that bears the label, bad spaniels, and includes jokes about dogs, pooping on the carpet. Joining me is intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at cat and mutch and Rosamund. So Terry, tell us about the basic legal fight here and the history of litigation. June, number of years ago, a company called VIP products, which puts out novelty toys, especially for dogs, came out with a dog toy called bad spaniels that mimicked the classic Jack Daniel's whisky bottle for its old number 7, Jack Daniels, parent company Brown forman, not surprisingly sent out cease and desist letters to VIP products. And VIP products brought a declaratory judgment action in Arizona seeking to obtain from the court a ruling that what they were doing was not a violation of the trademark laws. The district court had a bench trial, which is a trial without a jury. And ruled that it was trademark infringement. VIP products took that case up to the 9th circuit, which is the appellate court out on the West Coast. And the 9th circuit reversed saying that the dog toy is a quote expressive work. And it's protected by the First Amendment. Jack Daniels took that decision from the circuit up to the Supreme Court in 2021, which refused to accept the case. So the case was sent back to the district court, which entered a judgment on behalf of the dog toy maker VIP products Brown forman's Jack Daniels company appealed that decision in the 9th circuit, which affirmed it without even writing anything. And in sort of a Hail Mary company took the case back to the Supreme Court. Second time, and to everybody's surprise on November 21st of this year, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the case and has accepted it for reveal, which was quite surprised in the trademark law field. Does this revolve around the Rogers test which was named after movie star Ginger Rogers? So we have to assume so the questions presented to the Supreme Court are pretty broad and do not specifically mention the Rogers test. But I think that's the conclusion we have to draw. And maybe by way background, we should just explain. Rogers test is judge created rule that comes from 1989 case called Rogers versus grimaldi. It involved a frederico fellini film called Ginger and Fred. That was about two Italian cap rate dancers. And the reference in the title to Ginger and Fred was to Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, obviously. Everybody understood it to be that. And that's what Frederick William intended it to mean. So Ginger Rogers brought a lawsuit against the producer of the movie, alleging that they weren't allowed to market the movie using her name in the case went up on appeal to the second circuit, which is the federal appellate court for the New York area. And the court said, no, this was okay here. And they said, specifically, it was okay to use a celebrity's name in an expressive work if it's artistically relevant to the work and not explicitly misleading. And that rule became the Rogers test and expanded beyond merely the use of celebrity names, which was the narrow holding in the case to more broadly to the use of trademarks in expressive works, such as movies, books, songs, that sort of thing. So is that the test that the 9th circuit used in ruling for the toy company here? It is. And it represents one of the very first times that an appellate court has ever applied the Rogers test to commercial product, the Rogers test was expressly directed at so called expressive works and was not intended to apply to commercial products such as the dog Chewy toy here. It is. And so that was a bit of a surprise in and of itself. And now we have to assume that the Supreme Court has accepted this case in order to consider whether the 9th circuit was right in applying the Rogers test. Because if the Rogers test is applied, that sort of a low bar, it's a threshold issue you don't have to then go into whether there's consumer confusion in the marketplace. That's correct. The Rogers test is intended to protect the legitimate First Amendment interests that creators have expressive works have. And indeed, you think about this in terms of something as simple as a film review. If you need to do a review for the newspaper magazine, television of a new film that's been released, you have to mention the name of the film. And so there has to be some realm of protection emanating out in the First Amendment, even though you're using trademarked names. The question is, how far does that expand? So this is the very first time that the Supreme Court will consider in the trademark context as opposed to copyright context. What sort of First Amendment protections there are that limit the applicability of trademark law? Coming up next in the Bloomberg law show, I'll continue this conversation with intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, of cat and yuchen Rosamund. We'll talk about why the court might have taken this case after once rejecting it, and later in the show, what does the mixed verdict in the oath keepers case tell prosecutors about another case starting on Monday, and after that verdict will the federal government go after Trump allies mentioned at trial, and what about Trump himself? You're listening to Bloomberg. Even in a time when almost nothing is easy, one thing has been effortless. And now our most important stories of