Moby Hick writes: I think I've mentioned the Royal Zoo before, but I didn't know the whole story until I came across this book review while on a Wikipedia journey triggered by a random comment here. I was there sometime around 1991 and I was with my brother, my uncle, my cousin, and my other cousin's son. We had a tour of the zoo given by a (very well informed) kid of about twelve or so. Maybe the son of the zookeeper? My uncle was trying not to laugh out of respect for the kid's professionalism and doing a very poor job of it. The life of a corporate executive doesn't prepare you for everything.

I remember that the cages were corn cribs, that most of the animals were locally available species, and that the chimpanzee was visibly sad. Johnny Carson's chimpanzee shelter was very nice, the only new building in town, but at the time there was just the one chimpanzee and that's probably not good. He (the chimpanzee) threw dirt at us. I'm much less willing to ever go back to Royal now that I know how quick they are to shoot primates.

Heebie's take: Short and harrowing!!

This is not the emotional center of the story, but it's a specific sort of nightmare that particularly haunts me:

The Midwest Primate Center became an eccentric farmyard menagerie, and soon, the very thing he hated: a full-fledged zoo.

It almost destroyed him. Haskin had few reliable employees or volunteers. He worked insane hours, lived on Diet Dr. Pepper, and never made a cent. "I was one of the caged animals there," Haskin recounted later. "I just went through hell." He believed the zoo's board nearly worked him to death, in full knowledge of how overwhelmed he was. But he loved Reuben and the other chimpanzees, and he hung on as the zoo slowly began gaining popularity.

Haskin's dream had obviously grown beyond his grasp. He was no administrator: His attempts to promote the zoo--mostly involving showing off Reuben in church basements and town halls--didn't reach far beyond Royal residents, whose pockets had already been shaken out time and again for the zoo. His appeals to the broader scientific community fell on deaf ears, since higher-ups thought Haskin's proposals for the Primate Center unlikely at best and dangerous at worst (celebrity appeals were marginally more successful: Johnny Carson donated money for a primate enclosure in 1990). And certain Royalites, as invested as they were in the zoo, were at times as much a hindrance as a help.

Having a deeply committed responsibility for something which is spinning out of control or disintegrating is one of my biggest fears. (Like plunging into poverty/homelessness while trying to raise kids, or this cryogenics episode of This American Life.)

I'm so angry about politics. I need a best case scenario to root for. For most of my adult life - say between 1996-2024 - I could paint a best case scenario that gets us to a better place. I didn't totally expect it to come true - and it never did! - but the worst case scenario also generally doesn't come true. The key is that the best case scenario has to be basically plausible.

Someone paint me a best case scenario (mostly regarding US politics, although if Trump is the price to get the rest of the world sufficiently progressive to solve the climate crisis or something, you could sell me on that.)

Minivet writes: In which Thomas Keller freaks out an SF Chronicle critic dining there and, in her telling, thinks there was a time critics and chefs were "on the same team".

Heebie's take: Holy moly. That is not what Dale Carnegie recommends you do.

Mossy sends in without comment In India, Controversial Law Threatens Muslim Property.

The Indian Parliament--led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies--passed a controversial bill last month that allows the government to determine how Muslim land endowments are governed. Though India's president ratified it into law a day later, it is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court.

The law could affect thousands of religious or charitable properties across the country, known as waqfs, including mosques, seminaries, and shrines donated by Indian Muslims over centuries. The properties were previously governed by the 1995 Waqf Act.

The new law, which amends the 1995 act, grants New Delhi the power to add non-Muslims to the boards that manage the endowments. It also gives the BJP government a greater role in specifying the ownership status of the land holdings. Though the original Waqf Act recognized properties, including those that lacked formal documentation, the new law opens pathways to dispute the ownership of such properties.

I was pretty sure that the US was the only country with big problems, but if Mossy keeps sending me these complicated issues, I may have to reconsider that stance.