Years of reading

Dan Pelzer, who died in 2025 at age 92, left behind a 109‑page handwritten record of 3,599 books he read between 1962 and 2023.

Wow.

I started keeping count in 2013, but I also had a blog before that, and some journals. Digging though all that, I came up with 863 books. I'm currently averaging 60-70 books a year. He averaged about 60 a year.

If I'd kept a tally for 61 years like him and read at the rate that I am currently, I might have been able to come close to his total. Alas, late start. And while I was working, I read fewer books - in part because as a teacher I was reading the same books over and over each year. How many times did I reread To Kill a Mockingbird, Jane Eyre, The Scarlet Letter, Romeo and Juliet, and so on as I was teaching them? If I counted each rereading that could easily add 40-50 to my tally. But I don't count them, and even if I did, it would not be enough. 

If I keep up my current rate, I'll have more than 2,000 books read by the time I reach his age.

Not even close to his remarkable total.

Pax et bonum

And Ancestry Again

I just got the latest DNA update from Ancestry:

Celtic and Gaelic

Ulster 24%
Donegal – 14%
Scottish Lowlands and Central Belt – 6%
Connacht, Ireland – 3%
Isle of Man – 2%
Leinster, Ireland 2%

England

Southeastern England – 15%
East Midlands and Yorkshire – 10 %
West Midlands – 8%
Devon and Somerset – 8%
Northern England – 2 %

Western Europe

Belgium – 4%

Italy

Southern Italy – 1

French Canada

Quebec – 1%

These were the results from 2025:

Celtic and Gaelic

Donegal – 29%
Central Scotland and Northern Ireland – 23%
Northern Wales and Northwest England – 3%
Munster, Ireland - 2%

England

Southeaster England and Northwestern Europe – 28%
West Midlands – 9%

Nordic

Iceland – 3 %

Western Europe.

The Netherlands – 3%s

As they refine at Ancestry based on more people taking part they create new regional breakdowns, so it's hard to compare results exactly. But the pattern that has existed for a while remains true - I'm more Irish/Scottish (i.e. Celtic/Gaelic) than anything else. This year, 51% combined. That comes from both sides of the family, but with a mother who was a Scottish immigrant it comes more from her.

Meanwhile, the second largest grouping is English. That adds up to 43% this time, compared with 37% last year. But again, that change may be due to grouping. That part of me that comes from my Dad, who traces his ancestry to an English Puritan immigrant, Elder John Strong, who came over about 1635.

I seem to have lost the Nordic and Iceland. I thought that ties to Vikings and Iceland was cool, so I'm disappointed. And there's a shift from The Netherlands to Belgium. Hmm, neighbors, so maybe shifting borders over the years?

But Italy? How did that sneak in? Maybe the Vikings visited there?

And Quebec? "Que diable?? I have no knowledge of anyone in my family who even visited there. Maybe from earlier results someone related to one of my Norman ancestors settled there?

I wonder what the next results will show! 

Pax et bonum

Following Last Week's Run-In with the Police

20-664-cv

Decided: August 04, 2023

Havens v. James In the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT AUGUST TERM 2020 No. 20-664-cv JIM HAVENS, INDIVIDUALLY AND O/B/O ROC LOVE WILL END ABORTION, AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LETITIA A. JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CITY OF ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, Defendants-Appellees.

…

CONCLUSION A person who is not a named party to an injunction is bound by the injunction only when legally identified with an enjoined party or when aiding and abetting an enjoined party’s violation of the injunction. The allegations in Havens’s complaint do not establish that he meets this standard. For that reason, the complaint states a claim for declaratory relief that the defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Arcara Injunction against Havens and ROC lacked a legal basis. We reverse the judgment of the district court insofar as it dismissed Havens’s complaint and vacate the judgment insofar as it denied Havens’s motion for a preliminary injunction. We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

 

 

 

 

Havens v. James (Thomas More Society Summary)

In 2017, Jim Havens began sidewalk counseling near the Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester, New York and formed the organization ROC Love Will End Abortion (“ROC”). Between 2017 and 2018, security guards at the Rochester Planned Parenthood told Jim he was required to observe a 15-foot buffer zone on the public sidewalk outside the facility. This buffer zone was created in 2005 by the “Arcara Injunction,” a court order only pertaining to a completely separate and unrelated group of pro-life advocates. 

Jim rightly believed this injunction did not apply to him or ROC. So, too, did Rochester Police— initially—but soon reversed and verbally informed Jim and ROC that they must comply with the buffer zone while sidewalk counseling. Thomas More Society came to Jim’s defense and communicated to the City of Rochester that the “Arcara Injunction” buffer zone did not apply to Jim and ROC—and the City of Rochester agreed. 

But soon after, the New York State Attorney General entered the fray—targeting Jim and ROC to unjustly enforce the buffer zone against them. In April 2019, Rochester Police circulated a letter to Jim and his group of sidewalk counselors, threatening arrest if they were to violate the buffer zone. To protect Jim’s rights from unjust threats of prosecution by the NY Attorney General and the City of Rochester, Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit in July 2019 on Jim and ROC’s behalf. The lawsuit sought an injunction against the NY Attorney General and Rochester’s threats, and to clarify that Jim and ROC were not, in fact, bound by the “Arcara Injunction.”

It is long-standing precedent—and common sense—that a court cannot make a decree which will bind any person even when they are not a party to it. Yet, the district court sided with the NY Attorney General and Rochester by erroneously determining that Jim was bound by the terms of the “Arcara Injunction.” The district court then denied Jim’s request for an injunction and dismissed the case with prejudice. 

Jim was not a party to the “Arcara Injunction” or legally identified with any of the parties named on the court order—nor were any of his fellow ROC Love Will End Abortion sidewalk advocates. NY Attorney General Letitia James attempted to stretch and reinterpret the law beyond any semblance of reason in order to shut down pro-life speech—violating the constitutional rights of pro-life sidewalk counselors in the process. 

Thomas More Society appealed the district court’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After years of waiting for a decision, the 2nd Circuit vindicated Jim’s rights in August 2023. The Court reversed the district court and stated: “We hold that a person who is not a named party to an injunction and who is not legally identified with a named party is bound by the injunction only from acting for the benefit of, or to assist, a named party in violating the injunction.” Jim did not act for the benefit or assist any of those named parties, and the Court agreed—finding that, “[a]ccording to the allegations in his complaint, Havens did not so act.” The case has now been sent back to the district court, to be reconsidered in light of the 2nd Circuit’s opinion

Pax et bonum

A Run-In With the Police

Saturday, October 3, at 9 a.m. I arrived outside Rochester's Planned Parenthood headquarters for a 40 Days for Life shift. Since other people would not be coming for half an hour to pray for our regular weekly Rosary and Divine Mercy Chaplet, I went over directly in front of Planned Parenthood holding a sign declaring: Love Will End Abortion.

Note that I was standing there quietly praying. I didn't yell at anyone. I didn't block entrance into Planned Parenthood. My only interaction with people when I am there is to smile and wave as they drive past me, or to say "Good morning" if they walked past me.

Rev. Mike Warren came over and warned me that the two police officers there were enforcing a 15-foot buffer zone on the public sidewalk outside the facility. This buffer zone was created in 2005 by the “Arcara Injunction,” a court order only pertaining to a completely separate and unrelated group of pro-life advocates.

Sure enough, the police came over and told me I had to obey the buffer zone. I pointed out that in a subsequent appeals court ruling - Havens vs. James (2023) - the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the Acura ruling did not apply to individuals and members of groups not specifically named. (Alas, I did not have the text of the ruling with me, but it says: “A person who is not a named party to an injunction is bound by the injunction only when legally identified with an enjoined party or when aiding and abetting an enjoined party’s violation of the injunction. The allegations in Havens’s complaint do not establish that he meets this standard. For that reason, the complaint states a claim for declaratory relief that the defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Arcara Injunction against Havens and ROC lacked a legal basis.") 

I noted that I was not named in the original ruling, nor was I a member of any of the groups named (I could have added, I was helping no one named in the injunction to violate it as no one named in it was violating it.). I was there just to pray and witness totally separate from that case. One officer checked and saw that indeed I was not named.

BUT THEN they said I was there in support of the named individuals and groups. I asked how. They said because of my sign: Love Will End Abortion.

I asked how that message was supporting them, and one officer said I was "aiding and abetting." He said to look up what that entails. (I did later, plus dug up the Appeals Court Ruling. The ruling said that the injunction applies only to the named individuals, and to those helping them to violate the injunction. I was standing there alone; none of the named individuals were violating the injunction, therefore I was not aiding and abetting. You can't aid and abet something that is not happening.)

I said as they were police officers I would obey them and stand outside the buffer zone, but noted that they were violating what the appeals court had ruled.

I later asked one officer as the sign seemed to be the offending item if I simply stood inside the buffer zone praying without the sign would that be okay. He said yes.

Now I had stood in the same spot carrying that same sign for years, and when officers did approach in the past, they relented when apprised of the appeals court ruling. These two did not.

I believe the officers clearly were misinterpreting the ruling, and this was a case of harassment, and infringed on my First Amendment rights.

Pax et bonum

St. Francis poems

Assisi sunset

Assisi sunset -
an exaltation of larks
welcome Francis home


San Damiano

"'One day in the church of St.
Damian, he (St. Francis) hears
words spoken from the Crucifix:
'Go, Francis, and repair my
house; as you can see, it is
falling into ruin.'''

Fr. Stanislaus Majarelli, OFM

The roses are in bloom at San Damiano.
Their scent bleeds into the air,
flows down from the hills,
floods the streets of Assisi
like the beggars who cry,
``Bread and stones,
bread and stones.''

In the shadowy cafe,
men sit
hearing to the calls.
One man spits and mutters a curse.
Another man begins a bawdy song
that pours out
into the darkening air.

At midnight: silence.
Fog shrouds the streets
and snakes into the hills.

The hills rise above the fog
like islands in a dead sea.
And taller still
rises
San Damiano's half-built steeple
reaching toward
heaven.

Pax et bonum