This is a post I started, actually, some years ago, but I never finished it for a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, as I am an ABA member, and as I get disgusted with the ABA from time to time, I haven't "trashed" the old draft, and I'm finally completing it.
Anyhow, this, no doubt, is something that only matters to lawyers, and quite frankly only to a tiny number of lawyers at that, but the ABA needs to get over its obsession with "Big Law." At the same time, "Big Law" needs to get over itself, and so does the ABA.
Now, no doubt many non lawyers, upon hearing that term, would wonder what "Big Law" even is.
Well, Big Law is a term that legal commentators, within the legal community, have tagged on Super Sized East Coast law firms. Like many Super Sized East Coast things, they're irrelevant to people in the country otherwise, but those who are located there are seemingly so fascinated with them, that they can't grasp the irrelevance. Think of it like New York City. . . a vast metropolis that has passed its importance long ago, but doesn't realize it. And think of the ABA, in these regards, as a The New York Times, a once great public organ which is now a local newspaper, but which still believes that it speaks to the world, rather than wrap fish in Queens.
The ABA is constantly obsessed with what's going on in Big Law. Members of the ABA can subscribe to some email lists which supposedly will inform you in on this or that, and one of the things you are going to see constant commentary on is Big Law. Some big partnership back east will be laying people off, or the starting salaries of Big Law associates will be lower this year than last.
Well, so what? It doesn't matter to most lawyer, or most clients. Indeed, it doesn't matter to most "big time" lawyers.
But the commentary on it is so constant that other legal venues have picked it up. The legal Blawgs are full of "Big Law."
A dirty little secret of all of this is that a lot of Big Law commentary isn't about Big Law at all, but just regular old firms. If all the people who claim Big Law angst really worked for law firms employing the same number of people who lived in the Ottoman Empire, there would be no lawyers left employed by anyone else. I suspect that people who Blawg have, in their minds, converted their former occupation in a mid sized Mid Western firm to Big Law.
And maybe they should have, because much of the commentary and angst expressed about Big Law is really just stuff about general law. Big Law seems mostly distinguished from regular old law by its size, salary, locations, and probably the deluded corporate desire of big corporations to make sure that they they hire big.
For the most part, Big Law doesn't matter. Even the really big firms in big cities that handle lots and lots of important stuff in most places seemingly don't qualify as Big Law. So lawyers in a the Denver firm of Big, Huge, Giant and Titanic, which might have an office up in Casper and down in Albuquerque, don't count. And certainly that century old firm downtown employing ten or twenty lawyers doesn't count either.
Frankly, except to the ABA, for most of us, Big Law doesn't count. I don't care what some white shoe firm in New York does. It doesn't matter to me. Shoot, chances are good that I'll have a higher career total number of trials than most of them do, if I don't already. I'll never make the money their lawyers do, but I've never paid New York rent nor have I had to live in a place so undesirable as New York. I win.
But the ABA looses. It should just ignore the Big Law firms this year and focus on what most real lawyers do.
And while the ABA is at it, it can dump social activism for the year. I don't care, and nobody else does, on what the shining lights at the ABA think about gun control, or any such thing. Frankly, just because we're lawyers doesn't make us experts on social issues of any kind, and lawyers have been on both sides of every issue that ever was. The fact that the ABA feels itself compelled to bother with issues is one of the reasons that its becoming increasingly irrelevant to real lawyers.
Indeed, if the ABA wants to make itself relevant, it ought to go back to its century old roots and focus on practice standards. It could do that by working towards making legal education more rigorous and less frequent. As shocking as it may sound, it would be doing the law a favor if it advocated for fewer people to go to, and get through, law school. And it should do something about the fact that in an increasing number of American states bar applicants aren't tested on their state's own laws. If they want to be really bold, they could argue that judges should never be elected to office and ought to go off the bench when they hit 70, even if their Federal judges. I don't see the ABA making any of those arguments soon, however.
At the same time, we'll we're at it, perhaps everyone can just get over the Ivy League law schools. Yawn.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...:
Postscript III
For the first time, I've heard a really good explanation, but a noted religion writer, on the topic of this type of violence and Islam.
Of note, according to this author, who seemed very well informed indeed, such violence is in fact not sanctioned by Islam, even if Islam's history and texts have some violent aspects. A partial reason is that there's no authority that has authorized it, which can authorize it. Indeed, there would appear to be no authority which can in fact authorize it.
Additionally, it appears that the violence has in fact turned off a large segment of the Islamic population everywhere, to such an extent in fact that the religion is loosing a significant number of adherents in some areas, including Iran, where those abandoning the faith are either completely abandoning any faith, or are converting to Christianity.
Postscript III
For the first time, I've heard a really good explanation, but a noted religion writer, on the topic of this type of violence and Islam.
Of note, according to this author, who seemed very well informed indeed, such violence is in fact not sanctioned by Islam, even if Islam's history and texts have some violent aspects. A partial reason is that there's no authority that has authorized it, which can authorize it. Indeed, there would appear to be no authority which can in fact authorize it.
Additionally, it appears that the violence has in fact turned off a large segment of the Islamic population everywhere, to such an extent in fact that the religion is loosing a significant number of adherents in some areas, including Iran, where those abandoning the faith are either completely abandoning any faith, or are converting to Christianity.
Why Downton "Abbey"? The destroyed British abbeys
I've only watched a single episode, so perhaps its explained in it somewhere, but I've wondered how many people who watch Downton Abbey wonder why the estate is bears the name abbey? Maybe that's explained in the series. If it is, I'd appreciate somebody coming in and letting us know. The name, given that it is a drama, would be a bit of a mystery otherwise, however. Abbeys, after all, are religious institutions, being monasteries headed by an abbot.
Well, that's because King Henry VIII ruined centuries of English religious culture in his increasingly nasty efforts to separate the church in England from Rome, brought about by the fact that Rome wouldn't recognize his attempt at an annulment.
Furness Abbey. Founded in 1123, disestablished in 1537 by King Henry VIII.
England was a religious nation, indeed one recent historian has claimed that England's identity was that it was so strongly Catholic prior to Henry VIII. In his dispute with Rome, he listened to those who would have, and did, destroy much of that culture, including destroying the centuries old monastic culture of England which was so strong. The monasteries and convents were closed. After that, they fell into picturesque ruins, and often into private hands, with their place names retained by later owners.
Bolton Abbey, now part of a 33,000 acre estate.
Many of these ruins remain today, making for spectacular examples of ruined church architecture. They are sometimes massive, and very often very well built, explaining how they've lasted the centuries after falling into disuse.
Tintern Abbey, Wales. This abbey passed from the Church into private hands in 1540 and the lead was immediately stripped from the roof.
They are, however, also frightening examples of how ruin, turmoil and decay can come in almost overnight. Prior to Henry VIII there was no thought in England of turning monks and nuns out of their monasteries. And the act came, at the end of the day, because the King's head turned from his bride Catherine of Aragon. Catherin was the "true Queen" and held that position without question until 1533. Few doubt today that her position was legitimate, and few would dispute that Henry's desire to be rid of her, in the hopes that he could bear children, lead to his break with Rome and in turn, the destruction of a monastic history in England that had gone back centuries. Nobody would have seen that coming.
Ruins of Cistercian Abbey in Wales. It had been operating 400 years when King Henry VIII closed the monasteries. It's now protected by the Welsh government.
Valle Crucis Abbey, Wales. It was closed by King Henry VII in 1537 and leased to a private owner. It's now protected by the Welsh government
Lincluden Abbey, Scotland. Still a ruin today.
Sweetheart Abbey, Scotland.
Iona Abbey, Scotland. This site has been partially rebuilt in recent years by the Church of Scotland.
Glastonbury Abbey, England.
Netley Abbey, founded in 1239, disestablished in 1536.
Nor would anyone have seen it coming that those desiring land would take advantage of this situation in this fashion, when only a few years prior the same men would have proclaimed loyalty to the same institutions.
That some would even stoop to stripping lead from roofs is amazing, and not admirable. So, while these ruins are picturesque, they also serve as monuments to the worst instincts of man, and that man will turn from even declared loyalties almost over night under some circumstances.
And it was, moreover, a disaster for the English. The monasteries held land that was used to feed the monks, and the poor. The transfer of the monasteries suddenly put the poor into jeopardy and the English crown was faced for the first time with dealing with a landless poor population. It also resulted in the destruction of what were effectively institutions of learning, as the monasteries had also taken on that role for centuries.
All of which goes to make for a cautionary tale. And not a pleasant one. The results of Henry VIII's actions were destructive, cruel and permanent.
They should give us pause for any such proposed radical change, let alone the changes proposed by wreckers of one kind or another today.
And in remembering that, it should be remembered that movements that start off claiming adherence to one idea or another can surrender to human greed and self interest amazingly fast. Henry claimed to be advancing a point of theology, although the weakness of it was fairly clear. In the end, those who supported him turned to self interest pretty quickly in some instances.
And such things can result in misery for the many quickly too. Monastic lands that supported poor farmers and fed the poor went to landed interest who didn't do that, and their descendants held on to the land for centuries. Movements that claim to be for the good of all, can turn out to be for the good of few, almost instantly.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein...
Small rig, in mine, 1972. A type that's change a lot.
Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein...: I've been bumping up this thread from time to time: Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: $40/barrel? : A couple of we...
After weeks of running "we don't see it here" articles about how the slow down in the oil fields wasn't being felt in Wyoming, Schlumberger's decision to lay off 9,000 employees made it impossible to deny, so the Tribune ran a series of articles about how things are, indeed, slowing way down in the oil field, and even asking "is the bust here?"
For those who are close to a story, it's interesting to see how far behind a trend the press really is. Yes, the bust is here. It's been here for weeks.
The Schumberger story, which of course is a national layoff (or maybe a global one) makes ignoring things, or putting a rosy face on them, impossible, but it actually isn't a symptom that the slow down has begun, that's been going on for weeks. Layoffs have been occurring, the press just hasn't noticed. Rig counts are declining, and so on. For those who work in the oilfield or in industries closely associated with it, it's impossible at this point not to be aware of it. Moreover, everyone in the collection of related industries is in fact preparing for it. The state government is now trying to prepare for it as well.
None of this means, of course, that the price can't rebound and be back up in six months. But those taking a continued rosy view of this have to realize that oil exploration and production is like a military campaign. You can't just decide to go out and get to work overnight. All of the equipment is heavy duty, and a lot of it is specially built and often one of a kind, including the rigs themselves. You can stack them for a few months, but after that, you really can't just plug them in and go.
The crews are the same way. Most men, and it mostly is men, who work in the oilfield are young men, or if they're older, that's because they've moved up the chain. The young men who get laid off during a bust don't come back to the oilfield, ever. They go on to other work, as indeed they tend to do so as they age anyhow. So if things last more than a few months, those crews are lost to the industry. So even if things rebound this time next year (which they won't, as they don't rebound in the winter), there'd be a gap before things got rolling again.
If they ever do, and that's the big unknown. Right now, the state is predicting that the price will remain low through the year. And if the price is low, exploration will be low. But will it remain low, basically, forever? That's a real possibility. If we're just in another boom/bust cycle, they won't. But if we've entered a new petroleum economic era, and there's some evidence that we have, they might never rebound. With ever increasing environmental concerns, growing acceptance of regulation on fossil fuels, and the like the depressed price might have no real influence on demand, and in that case, higher prices won't return.
For Wyoming, that's a triple whammy. Coal is already falling through the floor price wise and so subject to increased regulatory attention that the Governor, in his State of the State speech, promised to "fight for coal". But there's really very little he can do. Gas prices have fallen and can't get back up, making the gas boom that preceded the oil boom a gas bubble. Now oil is declining.
And Now the U.S. Supreme Court: Lex Anteinternet: Today In Wyoming's History: Federal Court rules on same gender marriage
As I was sure would occur, when I wrote this some months ago, this issue is headed for the United States Supreme Court.
Lex Anteinternet: Today In Wyoming's History: Judge Skavdahl rules o...: A few days ago I wrote a post here about the history of marriage . Last Friday, one of the three Federal judges in Wyoming struck down Wyomi.
I knew that his would occur, it was inevitable. And while predicting a result now is hazardous, I strongly feel that we're very likely to get a four to five decision in this, but which four, and which five, is the question. Hazarding a guess is indeed a hazard here, but I'll go ahead and do one.
The court, on marriage, has a very long history of regarding it as the exclusive domain of the States. Exclusive. It feels different about interpersonal conduct, but in the regulation of marriage, the court has always viewed that, or nearly always, as a matter for the states.
And the court has traditionally been very concerned about the image of the Federal Courts. Indeed, while little appreciated, the Court has been aware of the degree to which Roe v. Wade tarnished its image because the legal reasoning and methodology in it was so poorly done, and the results were so widely unaccepted. The Court tries not to go down that road, therefore, if it can.
For those reasons, I think the result will be that the Supreme Court will reverse the Circuit Courts that have found that same gender marriage is Constitutionally mandated. It will have to do that for a variety of reasons.
First of all, the decisions simply fly in the face of prior Supreme Court decision, and its up to the Court to reverse itself, not the Circuits. Beyond that, however, if the Court accepts the Circuit's decision, it knows that it is overthrowing the long held system under which the states, not the Federal government, regulate marriage, and the Court is unlikely to want to assume the role as the largest domestic relations court in the world. The Circuit courts seemingly fail to grasp that stepping into this role does this, and soon Federal Courts will be addressing issues on plural marriage, divorce and any other number of domestic decisions it has heretofore been content to allow the states to handle.
Additionally, the various Circuit court decisions are poorly reasoned to a degree, and they smack of "me tooism". That doesn't mean that a person has to disagree with the decisions to feel that. The entire concept of there suddenly being a Constitutional right to something that nobody would have previously conceived of in our history is really suspect, and the Court in recent years has tried to avoid going in that direction.
It has done that in part as the Court's reputation did indeed suffer so much following the Roe era, and the Court knows that things that it foist on the nation tend to bring it into disrespect. It also well knows that if a social movement is going to eventually convince the majority of Americans that a change in long held social views has arrived, it will arrive without the help of the Court. The Court's safest major social decisions come when a majority of the population already feels the way the Court rules, making revolutionary decisions much less revolutionary than they really appear.
Of interest on this topic, the Wyoming Legislature is in session and there are presently two bills in the legislature seeking to afford protection to those who have moral objections to same gender marriage.So the topic is on the legislature's mind. After the decision by Governor Mead to not appeal Judge Skavdahl's ruling in the Federal District Court for Wyoming he, that is Governor Mead, took quite a bit of heat from some of his fellow Republicans for that decision. Indeed, some of the criticism was very pointed, causing Mead to actually have to defend his decision. Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court having indicated it will take this issue up, and with the legislature in session, it's going to be inevitable, in my view, that Mead will receive pressure to submit an amicus brief in the Supreme Court action, or he'll really see revived heat about his failure to appeal, which in turn means that we have no real standing to get into this suit if we wish to. My guess is that the Supreme Court would take amicus briefs (why not?) and that the State will take that action.
Of interest on this topic, the Wyoming Legislature is in session and there are presently two bills in the legislature seeking to afford protection to those who have moral objections to same gender marriage.So the topic is on the legislature's mind. After the decision by Governor Mead to not appeal Judge Skavdahl's ruling in the Federal District Court for Wyoming he, that is Governor Mead, took quite a bit of heat from some of his fellow Republicans for that decision. Indeed, some of the criticism was very pointed, causing Mead to actually have to defend his decision. Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court having indicated it will take this issue up, and with the legislature in session, it's going to be inevitable, in my view, that Mead will receive pressure to submit an amicus brief in the Supreme Court action, or he'll really see revived heat about his failure to appeal, which in turn means that we have no real standing to get into this suit if we wish to. My guess is that the Supreme Court would take amicus briefs (why not?) and that the State will take that action.
Be prepared for tons of really bad Court analysis. One thing about the Court is that a lot of the Press seems to think that it operates like a state legislature and a lot of the public seems to think that it operates like a city council. It doesn't. All the press about the public and the court, and politics and the court, etc, we can expect to see from now till July is largely way off the mark. The Court does a better job in its role than people imagine, which means that it doesn't really worry that much about voting the popular way on any one thing.
As a final prediction on this, I think there's probably close to 0% chance that the utlimate ruling will be accurately reported on or grasped by the public, although some group will have a huge reaction no matter what.
For people who support same gender marriage, if they win (again, I doubt they will) the result will legally achieve what they're seeking, but that won't equate with social acceptance, at least not immediately. The results of Roe v. Wade are less accepted now than they were in 1973. The nature of the debate just changes at that point, which is what will become apparently pretty quickly.
But if that same group looses, and I think it will, it won't be for the reason that most opponents of same gender marriage would argue for. That is, the Court is extraordinary unlikely to rule that as a matter of natural law, marriage must be between different genders, which is what the real argument there amounts to. That isn't going to happen.
Rather, the far more likely result will simply be that definition of marriage should be a matter of state law, and that the Court doesn't want to get into an argument about who can marry, how many people you can marry, what marriages a state must recognize as valid, what age you can marry, or any of that. That's the court's traditional position, and I suspect it'll be its position here.
As a final prediction on this, I think there's probably close to 0% chance that the utlimate ruling will be accurately reported on or grasped by the public, although some group will have a huge reaction no matter what.
For people who support same gender marriage, if they win (again, I doubt they will) the result will legally achieve what they're seeking, but that won't equate with social acceptance, at least not immediately. The results of Roe v. Wade are less accepted now than they were in 1973. The nature of the debate just changes at that point, which is what will become apparently pretty quickly.
But if that same group looses, and I think it will, it won't be for the reason that most opponents of same gender marriage would argue for. That is, the Court is extraordinary unlikely to rule that as a matter of natural law, marriage must be between different genders, which is what the real argument there amounts to. That isn't going to happen.
Rather, the far more likely result will simply be that definition of marriage should be a matter of state law, and that the Court doesn't want to get into an argument about who can marry, how many people you can marry, what marriages a state must recognize as valid, what age you can marry, or any of that. That's the court's traditional position, and I suspect it'll be its position here.
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...: This past week the world has been witness to another outrage committed by those who claim devotion to Islam. If this event were unique, a ...Of note, on this matter, in the past week protests, some pretty heated, have broken out in Pakistan, Algeria and Jordon.
Protesting violence in the name of Islam? No.
Protesting Charlie Hedbo's post assault cover showing a crying Mohammed.
Most would think this a pretty innocuous cartoon, perhaps even slightly reverent, but Muslim crowds have not in those locations, demonstrating the nature of the problem here.
Even more demonstrative, the paper, which in my view is not at all admirable in general, as I made clear in my Je ne suis pas Charlie post, attacked Christianity and the Catholic church viciously in the same issue, and proclaimed itself to be atheist. Taking pride in that status, it took vicarious credit for the large crowds that came out in Paris, perhaps failing to understand that sympathy for victims, which in this case is perceived as the French Republic as much as anything else, does not really equate to sympathy with the papers crude cartoons and sometimes crude text.
But was there a violent Christian or Catholic reaction? No, not at all.
There was a reaction, with even the Pope commenting, but of note it tended to once again find sympathy with the victims and also plead for all Faiths to be treated with respect. This too highlights the nature of the problem the West faces here. In the West, most agree with the Christian view of turning the other cheek. In Islam, it seems that a large percentage of the faithful do not agree with that view at all. As that's the case, this problem can't be regarded as minor, or isolated.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
And while we were watching Paris. . .
The Boko Haram, the Islamist terrorist group in Nigeria whose name means "Western education is forbidden" killed 2,000 villagers and displaced 30,000 in an assault on that that town. They also sent explosives into a target area strapped on the back of a girl believed to be about ten years old.
This is in the news, but not like Paris, no doubt because it's activities are principally in Africa, rather than somewhere else.
Just thought you'd want to know.
This is in the news, but not like Paris, no doubt because it's activities are principally in Africa, rather than somewhere else.
Just thought you'd want to know.
Today In Wyoming's History: Update: Today In Wyoming's History: January 14
Today In Wyoming's History: Update: Today In Wyoming's History: January 14: Today In Wyoming's History: January 14 : 2015: Governor Mead delivers his State of the State address to the Legislature .
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Protection is sometimes not needed until it is. A bill to protect the clergy
Yesterday I commented on one of Wyoming's, indeed the entire West's, perennial bad ideas, that being that the Federal government should give (not sell) its land holdings in the West to the state's where they're located. My suspicion is that this makes us look foolish in the extreme in the East, where the citizenry wishes that they had what we had, and also knows that they are included in the putative landowners whose property we seek to expropriate gratis from the Federal government.
Today, however, I'm commenting on something that goes the other way, that being a bill that's in the legislature which would protect a person from suit who will not preside over a same gender marriage. The Tribune editorialized in opposition to this bill the other day.
That editorial was extremely telling, really, as it shows the mindset of those who just don't grasp this issue. Starting off with the claim that there are no worries, as the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects anyone in that position, it then goes on to express the view that the bill is just sour grapes as a Federal judge forced this on the state, and that same gender unions are good for marriage overall. So, in one fell swoop the editorial actually states the fears that this bill seeks to address, those being that: 1) the Federal courts can make something that was never conceived of as being legal the law overnight, and 2) if you don't agree with this change you ought to, so you have no legitimate complaint anyhow.
Beyond that, this is the first inkling of a concern by those who backed this change (as the Tribune did) that its likely be extremely temporary. The elephant in the room on this issue is that that U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it yet, but is likely to do so in the next two terms, and when it does, it's probable that the ruling will either uphold prior state laws or the Court will hold that the entire issue doesn't belong in Federal court at all, and remand all of it to the states. In that case, the local ruling would basically evaporate overnight and it would become a state issue. Nobody really knows what the Wyoming Supreme Court would do with this issue, but its pretty certain that the legislature would not be in favor of any changes in the reading of the law.
So what about the first point in the editorial. Is the Tribune right?
Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. We need to also keep in mind that there's a bill also pending in the legislature which would prohibit discrimination based upon a person's orientation. People everywhere in the US tend to already think that this is the law, and most people aren't in favor of any kind of real discrimination, but that actually isn't the law. Chances are that it will be, either legislatively our through court action in the foreseeable future.
For most people, that actually won't matter, but there are a collection of people for whom this creates a moral crisis. And its one that isn't often understood and is unfairly dismissed by those who don't look at it.
To start with, its very clearly a problem for ministers of most monotheistic religions that hold the long established theology of their faiths. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all regard the conduct that this surrounds as sinful, and none of them regard marriages between same gender couples as valid. Now, before somebody seeks to correct me, I do concede of course that there are present examples of individuals in Judaism and Christianity, including their ministers, who hold the opposite view, but they are all reformist in some manner. That is, in order to take that view, they have to qualify or reinterpret part of what was very long held doctrine.
Now this post isn't intended to be a theology treatise, which I'm not qualified to attempt to do in depth anyhow, but rather to note the next item, which is that Conservative and Orthodox Jewish Rabbis, Muslim mullahs, and ministers in the Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant denominations hold the view that same gender unions cannot be regarded as marriages and that they cannot perform them. Indeed, they'd regard preforming them as an immoral act with enormous personal consequences.
Beyond that, members of these various faiths, at least in some cases, also hold the views that cooperating in such unions is itself a species of religious fraud, as it gives evidence that they, as loyal members of their faiths, disagree with the faith. Frankly, the average person in most faiths seems able to ignore big chunks of it if they're average members, but for those who are serious about their faiths, this can present a very real problem if they're asked to participate in some fashion, which can include everything from simply attending to being asked to provide some sort of service, like photographs or a cake.
Because so many people have very casual views about everything in this area, the fact that this can in fact create a moral crisis is lost to many people. Indeed, many people are pretty comfortable with a judge ordering a priest or rabbi to do something, as they feel "well, he doesn't have to believe. . but what's the harm. . .". And a larger group yet is very comfortable with the idea, for example, that a Jewish bakery can be ordered to provide a cake, as to not do so would be "mean", or that a Catholic flower shop can be ordered to provide flowers, as to not do so is hateful.
But if any of those individuals feel otherwise, and they stick to their guns, the full sanction of the law could impact them, as it already has in some states where the law has changed, in so far as laymen are concerned.
And, as touched on earlier, this is already a present problem, at least on a theoretical basis, for those who hold clerk positions. If a young Muslim woman is working in a county clerk's office and is asked to issue a marriage license, can she get canned if she refuses and it has to go to another clerk? What if a Greek Orthodox judge decides that he doesn't want to preside over civil unions in his courthouse? Is that the end for him?
It could be.
The Tribune, which has sued more than once when it feels its Constitutional rights are being trampled upon, feels that the 1st Amendment neatly solves all of this. The 1st Amendment states:
The First Amendment has been interpreted, of course, to allow "the free exercise" of any faith, and the Tribune's thought is that as this is the case, everyone is protected. And the Tribune might be 100% correct. Having said that, the states in fact do already restrict the free exercise of religion and always have. While I'm not advocating for a change in this particular aspect of state law (although that's coming about through court action anyhow) one such example is in that marriages are limited to one spouse a piece. What are sometimes referred to as "fundamentalist Mormons" believe that one man should be able to have multiple wives. Muslims believe that one man can have up to seven wives, although their faith doesn't mandate that they do so. Other examples could be found.
It's safe to say, in any event, that sooner or later some priest, rabbi or mullah would get sued for refusing to preside over a same gender union. And some flower shop, bakery, caterer, or banquet hall would as well. It'd be inevitable. Maybe the First Amendment would operate to protect them, it probably would, but to be concerned that it might not, or to feel that added protection might be in order, isn't unreasonable.
The truth of the matter is that Americans have sort of a dual religiosity and the United States is a fairly religious nation. But part of that is that there's sort of a widely held civil religion that's relativistic and which holds tolerance of everything and being nice to everyone as a primary virtue, without looking at any one topic too deeply. For the thousands, and maybe millions, who also take the tenants of their faiths seriously, however, there are lines they cannot cross. For most Americans, up until now, that's mattered little, although again there are tens of thousands and maybe millions who have actually do face trials of one kind or another of this type everyday, where things that they'd reject have crept into civil life over the decades. But what we've seen recently has come as a court made, in part, revolution and has placed these conflicts squarely in issue. The early history, indeed over half of our history, was marked by extremely deep religious bigotry in which certainly Catholicism and Judaism were deeply despised, and even Puritans could find themselves facing the death penalty for passing over a colonial boundary (giving us a rare early example of women being executed in what would become the United States). Without some protection for those who hold deeply held believes that do not square with civil trends, we face returning, to some degree, to that era in a more minor way, with the enforces of the civil religion oppressing the holders of other religious views.
Now, of course, the bill might not actually be effective. But some protection is at least worth affording.
Today, however, I'm commenting on something that goes the other way, that being a bill that's in the legislature which would protect a person from suit who will not preside over a same gender marriage. The Tribune editorialized in opposition to this bill the other day.
That editorial was extremely telling, really, as it shows the mindset of those who just don't grasp this issue. Starting off with the claim that there are no worries, as the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects anyone in that position, it then goes on to express the view that the bill is just sour grapes as a Federal judge forced this on the state, and that same gender unions are good for marriage overall. So, in one fell swoop the editorial actually states the fears that this bill seeks to address, those being that: 1) the Federal courts can make something that was never conceived of as being legal the law overnight, and 2) if you don't agree with this change you ought to, so you have no legitimate complaint anyhow.
Beyond that, this is the first inkling of a concern by those who backed this change (as the Tribune did) that its likely be extremely temporary. The elephant in the room on this issue is that that U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it yet, but is likely to do so in the next two terms, and when it does, it's probable that the ruling will either uphold prior state laws or the Court will hold that the entire issue doesn't belong in Federal court at all, and remand all of it to the states. In that case, the local ruling would basically evaporate overnight and it would become a state issue. Nobody really knows what the Wyoming Supreme Court would do with this issue, but its pretty certain that the legislature would not be in favor of any changes in the reading of the law.
So what about the first point in the editorial. Is the Tribune right?
Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. We need to also keep in mind that there's a bill also pending in the legislature which would prohibit discrimination based upon a person's orientation. People everywhere in the US tend to already think that this is the law, and most people aren't in favor of any kind of real discrimination, but that actually isn't the law. Chances are that it will be, either legislatively our through court action in the foreseeable future.
For most people, that actually won't matter, but there are a collection of people for whom this creates a moral crisis. And its one that isn't often understood and is unfairly dismissed by those who don't look at it.
To start with, its very clearly a problem for ministers of most monotheistic religions that hold the long established theology of their faiths. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all regard the conduct that this surrounds as sinful, and none of them regard marriages between same gender couples as valid. Now, before somebody seeks to correct me, I do concede of course that there are present examples of individuals in Judaism and Christianity, including their ministers, who hold the opposite view, but they are all reformist in some manner. That is, in order to take that view, they have to qualify or reinterpret part of what was very long held doctrine.
Now this post isn't intended to be a theology treatise, which I'm not qualified to attempt to do in depth anyhow, but rather to note the next item, which is that Conservative and Orthodox Jewish Rabbis, Muslim mullahs, and ministers in the Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant denominations hold the view that same gender unions cannot be regarded as marriages and that they cannot perform them. Indeed, they'd regard preforming them as an immoral act with enormous personal consequences.
Beyond that, members of these various faiths, at least in some cases, also hold the views that cooperating in such unions is itself a species of religious fraud, as it gives evidence that they, as loyal members of their faiths, disagree with the faith. Frankly, the average person in most faiths seems able to ignore big chunks of it if they're average members, but for those who are serious about their faiths, this can present a very real problem if they're asked to participate in some fashion, which can include everything from simply attending to being asked to provide some sort of service, like photographs or a cake.
Because so many people have very casual views about everything in this area, the fact that this can in fact create a moral crisis is lost to many people. Indeed, many people are pretty comfortable with a judge ordering a priest or rabbi to do something, as they feel "well, he doesn't have to believe. . but what's the harm. . .". And a larger group yet is very comfortable with the idea, for example, that a Jewish bakery can be ordered to provide a cake, as to not do so would be "mean", or that a Catholic flower shop can be ordered to provide flowers, as to not do so is hateful.
But if any of those individuals feel otherwise, and they stick to their guns, the full sanction of the law could impact them, as it already has in some states where the law has changed, in so far as laymen are concerned.
And, as touched on earlier, this is already a present problem, at least on a theoretical basis, for those who hold clerk positions. If a young Muslim woman is working in a county clerk's office and is asked to issue a marriage license, can she get canned if she refuses and it has to go to another clerk? What if a Greek Orthodox judge decides that he doesn't want to preside over civil unions in his courthouse? Is that the end for him?
It could be.
The Tribune, which has sued more than once when it feels its Constitutional rights are being trampled upon, feels that the 1st Amendment neatly solves all of this. The 1st Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.All the 1st Amendment really says, of course, regarding religions is that no U.S. state was to go down the same road that England, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, or Denmark had, and make a certain religion the state religion. Indeed, of significance to this discussion, in each of those instances the establishment of a state religion came about when the state acted to overthrow the religions establishment of the country and get it to do something it wasn't going to do voluntarily, so in essence the state acted to tell the established church what to do.
The First Amendment has been interpreted, of course, to allow "the free exercise" of any faith, and the Tribune's thought is that as this is the case, everyone is protected. And the Tribune might be 100% correct. Having said that, the states in fact do already restrict the free exercise of religion and always have. While I'm not advocating for a change in this particular aspect of state law (although that's coming about through court action anyhow) one such example is in that marriages are limited to one spouse a piece. What are sometimes referred to as "fundamentalist Mormons" believe that one man should be able to have multiple wives. Muslims believe that one man can have up to seven wives, although their faith doesn't mandate that they do so. Other examples could be found.
It's safe to say, in any event, that sooner or later some priest, rabbi or mullah would get sued for refusing to preside over a same gender union. And some flower shop, bakery, caterer, or banquet hall would as well. It'd be inevitable. Maybe the First Amendment would operate to protect them, it probably would, but to be concerned that it might not, or to feel that added protection might be in order, isn't unreasonable.
The truth of the matter is that Americans have sort of a dual religiosity and the United States is a fairly religious nation. But part of that is that there's sort of a widely held civil religion that's relativistic and which holds tolerance of everything and being nice to everyone as a primary virtue, without looking at any one topic too deeply. For the thousands, and maybe millions, who also take the tenants of their faiths seriously, however, there are lines they cannot cross. For most Americans, up until now, that's mattered little, although again there are tens of thousands and maybe millions who have actually do face trials of one kind or another of this type everyday, where things that they'd reject have crept into civil life over the decades. But what we've seen recently has come as a court made, in part, revolution and has placed these conflicts squarely in issue. The early history, indeed over half of our history, was marked by extremely deep religious bigotry in which certainly Catholicism and Judaism were deeply despised, and even Puritans could find themselves facing the death penalty for passing over a colonial boundary (giving us a rare early example of women being executed in what would become the United States). Without some protection for those who hold deeply held believes that do not square with civil trends, we face returning, to some degree, to that era in a more minor way, with the enforces of the civil religion oppressing the holders of other religious views.
Now, of course, the bill might not actually be effective. But some protection is at least worth affording.
Today In Wyoming's History: January 13 Updated
Today In Wyoming's History: January 13: 2015 Legislature commences general session.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Movies In History: Monuments Men
This has been an unusual year for me (by that meaning 2014 and 2015) as I've seen more movies than I usually do, including this one.
I should have added this one here some time ago, but I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't know that much about this particular unit or series of events, other than that there was an American unit, at least, that was dedicated to trying to preserve European cultural works. We have the book, but I haven't read it yet. I'll come back and update this after I do. Most of what I know about this unit is from reading an article on this topic in The New Republic. I read that article some time ago, and don't recall the details of it really well other than that I think I recall that at least some of the details of the film depart from the actual history of the unit. At least some of the story depicted in the film almost certainly departs from the actual history and was added for dramatic and storyline effect.
For the meantime, what I'll do is restrict my comments to just the material details of the film and not try to post on any larger historical items. I will note, of course, as is well known that the Germans looted vast amounts of European art, quite a bit of which is still missing (apparently one major item noted in the film is actually strongly suspected of being in certain private hands, which has yet to return it but which there is anticipation that they will at some point). Some is lost to history, no doubt, for all time, having been destroyed at one point or another during the war.
That the Germans went to such extent to loot art is truly amazing. The removal of significant artifacts by invading armies isn't a wholly new thing, but to engage in it to this extent is in the modern world. This reflected the sick and debased nature of the Nazi regime, which viewed itself as the pinnacle of everything, and therefore entitled to own everything. In reaction, the U.S. did form a unit of specialist who attempted to preserve and track down works of art. Whether that unit had an international composition, I don't know.
I also don't know if the unit was generally made up of middle aged men, as depicted in this film, but the use of middle aged men for various roles during World War Two actually was fairly common, contrary to the opposing supposition that's quite common. So, whether accurate to this endeavor or not, it's accurate to the war.
In material details, the uniforms and equipment are largely correct. About the only departure I could see was the odd use of British sidearms, which would have been very unlikely. Troops being equipped, in this unit, with M1 Carbines is correct for their use. Use of a captured German Kübelwagen is shown, which wouldn't have been surprising for a unit of this type. Other Allied vehicles depicted are correct. Amazingly, Red Army vehicles depicted are also correct, a pretty surprising thing for an American movie and demonstrative of the increased effort we've seen in recent years to be accurate in material details.
All in all the movie is worth seeing in part because it's a "small story", which World War Two offers quite a few of, but which have generally not been touched by film makers in the context of World War Two for quite some time. They're worth doing, and when done well, as this film is, they add to our overall understanding of the war.
Monday, January 12, 2015
LLB, LLM, JD, oh my!
The other day, I was reading the biography of a long practicing lawyer which noted that when he'd graduated from law school (from another state) in the early 1950s, he'd received a LLB degree, which is a Bachelor of Legal Letters, a now extinct degree. When the US uniformly went to JD's, i.e., Juris Doctorates, his school allowed that holders of LLBs could exchange them for JDs, which he did. I probably wouldn't have, but that's just me. Still, that there were other degrees, and now are not, is an interesting fact and it actually says something about the history of the practice of law, and maybe something about where we are today.
Law degrees, as a professional degree, date back to the 11th Century in Europe, which is stunningly early, and they were actually doctorate degrees at the time. This certainly doesn't mean that every practitioner of the law held one, but such degrees did exist. Indeed, as sort of an interesting and peculiar aside, you can find quite a few references in the lives of various Saints to their having studied or obtained a law degree. St. Francis de Sales provides such an example (and you can read about him here, in the They Were Lawyers page on this site).
We in the United States, save for Louisiana, use a Common Law system, so we're heirs to the 1292 decree of King Edward I that lawyers actually be trained for their professions, but that didn't mean that they had to be university trained by any means. Indeed, that gave rise to the "reading the law" system which predominated for most lawyers in the Common Law countries for eons. However, even as early as the 1700s in both England and the American Colonies there were those advocating for university education for lawyers, with such a significant figure as William Blackstone taking that position.
In both England, and the United States, the first law degrees were bachelor's, not doctorate, degrees, something that set us apart, for good or ill, from continental Europe. In England, the LLB became the common degree, while the first degree offered in the United States was the Bachelor of Law, which soon became a LLB, but without the training in classical liberal arts that the degree included in England.
J.Ds started to appear around the turn of the previous century, and they reflected the fact that law school had already become a post graduate degree. Therefore, people in the US graduating with LLBs already normally had one bachelor's degree, and it was felt that medical degrees, such as the MD and DDS degrees were sort of unfairly elevated by title, when all the post graduate degrees of that type were in fact doctorate degrees. And the fact that Germany at that time (but no longer) had a practice that required a doctorate in law influenced American academic thinking. However, not every school changed, and so it was still the case in the mid 20th Century that there were LLBs, LLMs, and JDs, all of which were basically more of lest the same, even if they bore "bachelors", "masters" and "doctorate" titles respectively.
Meanwhile, in England, things went the other direction and things evolved to where law was a bachelor's level course of study, but one of a more traditional nature mixed with other disciplines. A more academic degree than that in the US, it's none the less one that a person can simply go to university and major in. Canada and Australia, on the other hand, have followed the US post graduate model.
JDs became the US norm, indeed absolute, at some point in the late 1950s, as the bodies that concerned themselves with law, such as the ABA, pressed for that to be the universal degree. While already mentioned, there was a certain pitiful aspect to this in that the profession's bodies felt cheated that physicians had doctorates and lawyers didn't, which is a rather odd concern. At the same time, the same bodies pressed for the elimination of "reading the law" or admission to the bar by people without JDs, which of course raised their importance. At some point by the 1970s the old practice of allowing people to simply take the bar had died off, and in most, but not all states, a person is required to have a JD from an ABA approved law school before being admitted to the bar.
JDs became the US norm, indeed absolute, at some point in the late 1950s, as the bodies that concerned themselves with law, such as the ABA, pressed for that to be the universal degree. While already mentioned, there was a certain pitiful aspect to this in that the profession's bodies felt cheated that physicians had doctorates and lawyers didn't, which is a rather odd concern. At the same time, the same bodies pressed for the elimination of "reading the law" or admission to the bar by people without JDs, which of course raised their importance. At some point by the 1970s the old practice of allowing people to simply take the bar had died off, and in most, but not all states, a person is required to have a JD from an ABA approved law school before being admitted to the bar.
Ironically, perhaps, the US JD is the least difficult of any of these degrees to obtain, contrary to what American lawyers imagine. Indeed, law school has increasingly become a sort of trade school in the United States, but not in the other Common Law nations. Given the origin of the law as a "profession" in the Common Law, this is truly ironic, and probably not good. On the other hand, its no surprise that JDs are not as "broad" as English LLBs, as American law school students already have a BA or BS, and therefore (hopefully) obtained that broad education there. Indeed, looked at that way, American lawyers, by the time they graduate with their professional degrees, probably have a broader education than English lawyers do.
And they'll be a bit older as well, rather obviously, as they're in school longer than their English counterparts. Indeed, as I've often wondered how well suited any person is to find a career just out of law school, I've wondered how many English lawyers really knew that this was their career aim, accurately, when they started off and then later completed their degrees. It would seem to be the case that American lawyers, maybe, would have accessed their career goals somewhat more accurately by being older when they entered a post graduate program.
Or maybe not, based upon what little I've read about it, as it shows up in bar journals and legal websites, career questioning is pretty high in both the UK and the US in regards to the law, so perhaps being 22 instead of (presumably) 18 when a person enters law school isn't that big of difference, although it would be hard to see how it wouldn't be. Or perhaps that says something about a legal education in both countries. I'm not that familiar with it in other countries, but at least here in the US law schools have been criticized for being divorced from real practice to some degree, and therefore poorly preparing their charges for the practice. Of course, if they did focus on that more, and they are indeed working on it, they risk become more of a trade school than they already are, which would not seem to be a good thing.
Added into this odd mix the various bodies that so concerned themselves with raising the standards of practice have seemingly passed their prime and their relevance declines. The ABA still certified law schools, and is still a power, but not like it once was and membership is not nearly as universal as it once was. A quick look at the organization is telling, as its clearly a left coast liberal entity that many lawyers do not really subscribe to in terms of views and its taken up bothering itself with social concerns that lawyers are really no more qualified to spout off about than anyone else. JDs, that doctorate degree, became increasingly easy to get over the years and more lawyers were produced in recent years than there was work for. Bar exams, which didn't even exist in some state's mid 20th Century, are now universal but they've gone from featuring a nationwide Multistate exam combined with a state exam to, in at least ten or so states, including mine, to a "Universal Bar Exam" which removed examination on the state's own law completely. One state, Iowa, has returned to no bar exam for local law school graduates.
Not that much of this matters to the average person. In the end, people in the UK, US, Australia, Canada, etc., all have a common law system that works pretty much in the same way, and in all those locations practitioners schooled in that system have little concept of changing it to any other, which of course would seemingly raise the question of whether competing systems, and there are others, deliver justice more, or less, efficiently. Or maybe it does matter, or at least in the US perhaps it matters. With a general perception that the quality of a college education isn't what it once was, which may or may not be accurate, and law schools that are perceived as not being as rigorous as they once were, combined with a trend towards bar admission without even a state test being administered, the "doctorate" and "professional" quality claimed by lawyers will start to mean less than it currently does, and already doesn't mean what it once did.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Patrick's Presbyterian Church, Greeley Colorado
Churches of the West: St. Patrick's Presbyterian Church, Greeley Colorado...
This is St. Patrick's Presbyterian Church in downtown Greeley Colorado.
This is St. Patrick's Presbyterian Church in downtown Greeley Colorado.
Saturday, January 10, 2015
Europe 1 on Twitter: "À 87 ans, Uderzo reprend la plume pour #CharlieHebdo #JeSuisCharlie. Interview à 8h30 http://t.co/2HBhhbdqJr #E1matin http://t.co/8GwH9cPMaQ"
Europe 1 on Twitter: "À 87 ans, Uderzo reprend la plume pour #CharlieHebdo #JeSuisCharlie. Interview à 8h30 http://t.co/2HBhhbdqJr #E1matin http://t.co/8GwH9cPMaQ"
One of the cartoonist from the famed Asterix and Obelix cartoon has come out of retirement to pent a comment on the recent assassination of Charlie Henbo cartoonist.
This cartoon is largely unknown to Americans, but it's a very well known French cartoon set in ancient Gaul.
One of the cartoonist from the famed Asterix and Obelix cartoon has come out of retirement to pent a comment on the recent assassination of Charlie Henbo cartoonist.
This cartoon is largely unknown to Americans, but it's a very well known French cartoon set in ancient Gaul.
Friday, January 9, 2015
And in other odd news. . .
ISIL in Syria set up a police force to administer its view of Islamic religious laws.
Which includes not smoking. I don't know that this is actually a tenant of Islam. I'm ignorant on that, but at least the Turks are pretty strongly associated with tobacco, so it strikes me as odd.
And smoking is really popular in the region.
Well, in the last few days a deputy ISIL police commander was assassinated and his severed head left with a cigarette in his mouth. ISIL policemen are getting kidnapped.
I'm not sure what this means, and I don't condone killing or kidnapping anyone. But one recent interview I heard of the Sunni Awakening in Iraq noted that Al Queda banning cigarettes is one thing that really upset the locals. There's some sort of lesson in this, although I am not certain what it actually is.
Which includes not smoking. I don't know that this is actually a tenant of Islam. I'm ignorant on that, but at least the Turks are pretty strongly associated with tobacco, so it strikes me as odd.
And smoking is really popular in the region.
Well, in the last few days a deputy ISIL police commander was assassinated and his severed head left with a cigarette in his mouth. ISIL policemen are getting kidnapped.
I'm not sure what this means, and I don't condone killing or kidnapping anyone. But one recent interview I heard of the Sunni Awakening in Iraq noted that Al Queda banning cigarettes is one thing that really upset the locals. There's some sort of lesson in this, although I am not certain what it actually is.
Je ne suis pas Charlie
Earlier today, I posted about Islam and the problem it has in convincing people that its non violent. Indeed, it's an open question if the truly devoted in Islam can take that position without straying into heresy, or perhaps being regarded as heretical. I think they can, but then I'm not Moslem, which is the added problem addressed in my earlier post, ie., if the voices we mostly hear saying Islam isn't violent, aren't Moslem, that sends some sort of different message.
This came about, as noted, in part because of the assassinations at Charlie Hedbo by Islamic terrorists. But let's be clear, this taps into, a bit, my other message. And let's start off with a couple of basic propositions.
First of all, killing journalist isn't warfare. Its murder. Its murder in any religion, or if it isn't, it should be. And its murder for the non religions as well.
But, being the victim of murder, even if you are killed for your statements or beliefs, doesn't convert you into a hero.
And Charlie Hedbo's cartoons weren't heroic, they were vile.
They truly were insulting. They insulted Islam, and they insulted Christianity. Christians, of course, can't murder those they disagree with, and indeed to be insulted for your faith is regarded in Christian tenants as a symbol of your praiseworthiness. Christ promised his followers that they'd get exactly that sort of treatment.
But even if Christians are required to forgive their tormentors, and hopefully Moslems will somebody get around to that position, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take note of the offense. Hedbo's cartoons were vulgar and insulting, and fit into a long French leftist tradition in that regards. They were not artful, sophisticated satire.
And for that reason, in part, I'm not joining the "Je suis Charlie" campaign. Indeed, Je ne suis pas Charlie.
On this front, I'll stick with an earlier identification offered by this symbol:
This came about, as noted, in part because of the assassinations at Charlie Hedbo by Islamic terrorists. But let's be clear, this taps into, a bit, my other message. And let's start off with a couple of basic propositions.
First of all, killing journalist isn't warfare. Its murder. Its murder in any religion, or if it isn't, it should be. And its murder for the non religions as well.
But, being the victim of murder, even if you are killed for your statements or beliefs, doesn't convert you into a hero.
And Charlie Hedbo's cartoons weren't heroic, they were vile.
They truly were insulting. They insulted Islam, and they insulted Christianity. Christians, of course, can't murder those they disagree with, and indeed to be insulted for your faith is regarded in Christian tenants as a symbol of your praiseworthiness. Christ promised his followers that they'd get exactly that sort of treatment.
But even if Christians are required to forgive their tormentors, and hopefully Moslems will somebody get around to that position, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take note of the offense. Hedbo's cartoons were vulgar and insulting, and fit into a long French leftist tradition in that regards. They were not artful, sophisticated satire.
And for that reason, in part, I'm not joining the "Je suis Charlie" campaign. Indeed, Je ne suis pas Charlie.
On this front, I'll stick with an earlier identification offered by this symbol:
The Arabic equivalent of the letter "N", standing for Nazarene, or Christian, which has come to symbolize those Middle Easter Christians under assault by ISIL.
I'd offer that, like identifying with European Jews of the 1930s and 1940s, this serves a higher purpose, no matter what a person's belief, rather than associating cartoonists whose cartoons were insulting and vulgar, unless of course we make it clear that we're standing for Freedom of the Press everywhere. But aren't we really standing for more than that, and not only Freedom of Expression, but Freedom of Belief, for all? For everyone of every belief, including Moslems and to include the Moslem policeman killed by the Parisian terrorist? If we aren't, I suggest that we should be.
Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Relativism
This past week the world has been witness to another outrage committed by those who claim devotion to Islam. If this event were unique, a person could discount it as not really having a basis in Islam in some fashion, but as its far from unique, a person can't and shouldn't.
Over the past couple of years alone we've seen Moslems blow up a bomb during the Boston Marathon, kill French cartoonist and magazine staffers, murder a British soldier in his home country in the street, attack the Canadian parliament, and wage a war combined with barbarity in Iraq and Syria. Each time this occurs, people in the west, indeed people in much of the world, are told that we are not to assume that this means such actions accurately reflect any tenants of Islam. Indeed, a White House spokesman was quoted in The Weekly Standard as saying this past Thursday:
There are some individuals that are using a peaceful religion and grossly distorting it, and trying to use its tenets to inspire people around the globe to carry out acts of violence. And we have enjoyed significant success in enlisting leaders in the Muslim community, like I said, both in the United States and around the world to condemn that kind of messaging, to condemn those efforts to radicalize individuals, and to be clear about what the tenets of Islamactually [sic] are. And we’re going to redouble those efforts in the days and weeks ahead.
That's all well and good, but a statement by the U.S. Presidency to this effect has exactly zero effect as a statement on behalf of Islam, influencing Moslems, or really doing anything at all. Something like this would mean something if it came from a really influential Moslem cleric, but it does not, at least in so far as this statement is concerned. So, does this accurately reflect real Islam, or not, or can these acts be squared with Islam, or not?
Well, maybe they do not, maybe these people are nutty outliers (I suspect at least some of them clearly are, if not outright mentally disturbed) but unfortunately maybe they do, at least to some Moslems. Indeed, a recent poll of Saudis found that over 90% view ISIL's actions as consistent with Islamic tenants. Now, a person has to be careful about that, as consistent with, and mandated by, are two completely different things. Indeed, its completely possible for a person to abhor something in a faith, while being a loyal member of it, but while also regarding that thing as "consistent with" the faith. So, I don't take that to mean that Saudis all are supporting ISIL by any means.
But all of these things together, combined with a poll figure like that, should tell us something. And the general, or at least apparent, silence up until quite recently of Islamic leaders who count when these things occur means even more.
Generally, the people who are quick to assert that "Islam is a religion of peace" aren't Moslem, and in fact, Islam really isn't a religion of peace consistently in regards to non Moslems. The founding document of Islam, the Koran, isn't consistently peaceful by any means. Nor does it recognize a separation between religious and civil government. As Christians well know, Christ instructed his followers to "render until Caesar things which are Caesar's" but Mohamed, who of course rejected Christ's divinity (although in actuality may have been more of a Gnostic in reality, rather than as he was later remembered and quoted), left no such instruction. For that reason, early Islam featured a unified government for its adherents, and that government waged war against its neighbors.
This early history, and the foundation of the religion, is extremely important in this context. From the outside, when observed in a historical context, the origins of Islam can be and are debated, but a long held school of thought which still holds much historical weight would place very early Islam in the category of Gnosticism but advanced by a very charismatic leader. That early Islam probably didn't really hold all of the same tenants of the current one, but it did fight its neighbors, sometimes with Christian allies even in Mohammed's time (which again would tend to suggest that early on it was actually a species of Gnosticism, rather than a new religion). The Koran itself, to non Moslem students, seems to have been written in an evolutionary fashion, with earlier portions being less aggressive than later, perhaps reflecting the evolution in conditions on the ground that Mohamed and his followers were facing.
Of course, to almost all Moslems, and certainly to any adherent Moslem, this view is all wrong and they would argue that the Koran is the word of God, and that's the way it is. And for Moslems, therefore, the violent portions of the Koran cannot be ignored as Moslems have to deal with them in some fashion.
But they can be interpreted differently, and there are those who have argued that they should be. Particularly recently. Indeed, a major Egyptian figure is arguing that this be done right now, and there have been Moslem clerics also arguing the same, recently.
That modern conditions aren't exactly the same ones that Mohamed faced in his lifetime are pretty obvious, and that humans have largely evolved past the point where every national difference must be solved by violence or warfare, if that was ever really the case, are gone. Indeed, the world is becoming more peaceful, not less, so this violence stands out more and more as an aberration. But it doesn't seem to be an aberration in Islamic terms.
And it won't seem to be until that point at which most Moslems make it clear that they not only aren't resorting to the gun, but that they don't approve of it being done. And so far, that really hasn't been the case. Much like peaceful Communists, or the hard right, in the 1920s and 30s in Europe, people tend to wink or be silent in the face of violence committed by those they agree with on other issues, and that truly ended badly. The time has really come for Moslems in Europe and the United States to take a stand, one way or the other, and hopefully against violence. Not until they take that brave act will this trend abate. Of course, doing that is made doubly difficult now, as for anyone to do it in this climate they risk being branded a traitor or heretic by those who support a violent view, and beyond that there's no recognized central authority in Islam and hasn't been since the original Caliphate fell apart many centuries ago. Indeed, the only body really claiming the the title of central authority is ISIL, and even thought the overwhelming majority of Moslems don't recognize that claim, at the same time there's no other central authority and there doesn't appear to be any way for one to be recognized in the present age. And so, almost by its very nature, its really difficult for any Moslem leader to have a voice, unless he's very much in the global news, and that only tends to be nobody at all. So even when Moslem clerics do decry violence, and they sometimes do, it's almost never heard by anyone, even when they do occupy a position of respected authority.
That is particularly problematic, as with no central authority, there's no vehicle for reformation or interpretation that is really controlling. Indeed, the complete lack of a central authority really makes Islam unique, as almost every other faith has one. Even highly fractionated Christianity has that in that the various denominations do, and even though some would be reluctant to admit it, the ancient structure of the Catholic and Orthodox world is looked on for guidance by everyone.
So we face a crisis of collision of cultures in a way that we have not for some time, with an absolute need for a group now highly associated with violence to declare against it, with no easy way in which for them to accomplish that. But they really need to.
That is particularly problematic, as with no central authority, there's no vehicle for reformation or interpretation that is really controlling. Indeed, the complete lack of a central authority really makes Islam unique, as almost every other faith has one. Even highly fractionated Christianity has that in that the various denominations do, and even though some would be reluctant to admit it, the ancient structure of the Catholic and Orthodox world is looked on for guidance by everyone.
So we face a crisis of collision of cultures in a way that we have not for some time, with an absolute need for a group now highly associated with violence to declare against it, with no easy way in which for them to accomplish that. But they really need to.
Assuming we aren't too late now. We've been near a tipping point in Europe for awhile, and now that we've seen this in France, a nation that has a long and complicated, and not always peaceful history, with Islamic residents, things are going to get much worse in terms of the political climate in Europe, or at least they could. The time, therefore, for a large and effective Moslem declaration that this isn't what they support is here now. Assuming, of course, that they really truly do, as a group, abhor such actions. If they do, they should make that loudly plain now.
But at the same time, we should also take note, contrary to the claims of some, that the story of Islam in the West isn't really one solely of immigration, but also one of conversion. There's a lesson to be learned here as well. Islam is filling a void in the west left by something, and that something may be the demise of clear religious and philosophical sets of purposes.
What exactly has occurred here remains unclear, and is still an evolving story, but as late as World War Two it was still the case that a large majority of Europeans adhered to at least some world view based on Christianity or, if not, social justice in a concrete sense. Not all of the political movements were admirable by any means, but most people did have a sense of the greater and lesser, and the founding central focuses of those views was pretty concrete. This has tended towards collapse in recent years leading towards an increasing view of absolute relativism on everything. As a result, Europeans have been shocked with cultures that have not taken this path collide with them, as they increasingly are, and not just in regards to Islam, but also to Europe's giant eastern neighbor.
And relativism turns out not to be a satisfying philosophical concept for anyone. As the "everything is equal" and "all conduct is okay as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" ethos has crept in, human desire to find meaning in something, anything, other than money, has likewise increased. Ironically, at the same time, central institutions of all type have increasingly adopted relativism as their more or less official positions. As traditional European institutions or institutions that were traditionally strong in the west have weakened, many have been aimless and others have turned towards those institutions that have their base in distant lands, but which seem more absolute.
As official positions, relativistic institutions don't work, particularly on anything founded on a strong thesis. This doesn't mean that a person must agree with one particular thing or another, but it does mean that institutions shouldn't hide their basic concepts or dilute them to the point that they're nearly meaningless.
For when they do, there is always something left to fill that vacuum. And in an age when many of the Christian religions in Europe have diluted their faith to the point that it isn't very recognizable, and when many social and political institutions seem mainly focused on what the best way for an economy to make money is, those who are looking for something to give their lives meaning have to look pretty far. And for some of them, that will be Islam, as whether a person agrees with it or not, Islam seems to know what it believes. Countering a strong belief with the ethos of "it's nice to be nice to the nice and everyone is nice" isn't going to cut it with people who are searching. Indeed, it really doesn't cut it with anyone.
So we've reached this point. And its a bad one. Maybe its time for those who have a foundation in something to declare what it is, and for those who have a foundation in something that others feel licenses violence, when they feel otherwise, to state that.
Postscript
Of note here, and of interest, a fair number of newspapers in the Middle East have, in fact, run cartoons from their cartoonist decrying the terrorists' acts.
That's a brave thing to do, given where they are from, and its exactly the type of reaction from that quarter that's needed here.
Postscript II
And there was indeed a good turn out for the March in Paris, which did indeed include some significant Moslem figures, including clerics and King Abdullah of Jordan.
So, perhaps things have turned a corner.
Postscript III
For the first time, I've heard a really good explanation, but a noted religion writer, on the topic of this type of violence and Islam.
Of note, according to this author, who seemed very well informed indeed, such violence is in fact not sanctioned by Islam, even if Islam's history and texts have some violent aspects. A partial reason is that there's no authority that has authorized it, which can authorize it. Indeed, there would appear to be no authority which can in fact authorize it.
Additionally, it appears that the violence has in fact turned off a large segment of the Islamic population everywhere, to such an extent in fact that the religion is loosing a significant number of adherents in some areas, including Iran, where those abandoning the faith are either completely abandoning any faith, or are converting to Christianity.
Postscript
Of note here, and of interest, a fair number of newspapers in the Middle East have, in fact, run cartoons from their cartoonist decrying the terrorists' acts.
That's a brave thing to do, given where they are from, and its exactly the type of reaction from that quarter that's needed here.
Postscript II
And there was indeed a good turn out for the March in Paris, which did indeed include some significant Moslem figures, including clerics and King Abdullah of Jordan.
So, perhaps things have turned a corner.
Postscript III
For the first time, I've heard a really good explanation, but a noted religion writer, on the topic of this type of violence and Islam.
Of note, according to this author, who seemed very well informed indeed, such violence is in fact not sanctioned by Islam, even if Islam's history and texts have some violent aspects. A partial reason is that there's no authority that has authorized it, which can authorize it. Indeed, there would appear to be no authority which can in fact authorize it.
Additionally, it appears that the violence has in fact turned off a large segment of the Islamic population everywhere, to such an extent in fact that the religion is loosing a significant number of adherents in some areas, including Iran, where those abandoning the faith are either completely abandoning any faith, or are converting to Christianity.
Matters of preception. "Rancher"
This past Sunday, the local paper ran an article on Frank Robbins.
Robbins is a Thermopolis area landowner who ranches around that area. Often the articles about him repeat his often stated desire, at age 59, to protect his way of life from the Federal government. He's been involved in a variety of spats with the government since he showed up there.
Yes, I said showed up. Robbins bought three or so ranches in that area and combined them into one, after selling a ranch in Montana. He did that about a decade or more ago. And he came into Montana from Alabama.
In Alabama, apparently, he was in the lumber and flooring business, and did very well at it. So well that he amassed a fortune of this type, or so I've read, seeing as I only know about him what I've read.
Now, out of staters coming in to ranch isn't new, it's indeed the original story of ranching in the region. Homesteaders were not, after all, from here. But in terms of "way of life", do you have a good claim to that in an area you aren't native too, particularly as the modern story of ranching is that the vast amount of money required to buy a ranch now effectively means that locals, including many families and individuals with strong connections, are priced out of owning their own places. In a way, Robbins is preventing other people, purely accidentally, from engaging in their way of life, as we're from here and don't have that kind for fortune. Under those circumstances the "way of life" claims rings pretty hollow to natives.
Robbins is a Thermopolis area landowner who ranches around that area. Often the articles about him repeat his often stated desire, at age 59, to protect his way of life from the Federal government. He's been involved in a variety of spats with the government since he showed up there.
Yes, I said showed up. Robbins bought three or so ranches in that area and combined them into one, after selling a ranch in Montana. He did that about a decade or more ago. And he came into Montana from Alabama.
In Alabama, apparently, he was in the lumber and flooring business, and did very well at it. So well that he amassed a fortune of this type, or so I've read, seeing as I only know about him what I've read.
Now, out of staters coming in to ranch isn't new, it's indeed the original story of ranching in the region. Homesteaders were not, after all, from here. But in terms of "way of life", do you have a good claim to that in an area you aren't native too, particularly as the modern story of ranching is that the vast amount of money required to buy a ranch now effectively means that locals, including many families and individuals with strong connections, are priced out of owning their own places. In a way, Robbins is preventing other people, purely accidentally, from engaging in their way of life, as we're from here and don't have that kind for fortune. Under those circumstances the "way of life" claims rings pretty hollow to natives.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
WHEELS THAT WON THE WEST®: An Overview Of The Star Wagon Company
WHEELS THAT WON THE WEST®: An Overview Of The Star Wagon Company: Living in an age where visual arts have enjoyed so much progress can make it tempting to take the work of graphic design for granted. Mode...
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an...
Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an...: Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein... : I've been bumping up this thread from time to time: ...And now, today I've read a prediction that the price may go under $20 bbl, which would be truly astounding with huge economic consequences in the region. That figure is truly hard to imagine.
Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein...
Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein...: I've been bumping up this thread from time to time: Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: $40/barrel? : A couple of we...And now the local price is $42/bbl.
We're clearly going to go below $40/bbl. Amazing.
Home - BLM GLO Records
Home - BLM GLO Records
Neat site with access, in a somewhat complicated fashion, to Department of the Interior records, including land patents.
Neat site with access, in a somewhat complicated fashion, to Department of the Interior records, including land patents.
Wyoming Railroad Map, 1915
The Wyoming State Library has published a series of historic maps of the state, including railroad maps. I'd been hoping to find one for 1915 (book research, which I've been turning to again, which probably makes this blog a bit more like it originally was, and a bit more dull for the few people who actually stop in here), and low and behold, they had one.
1915 Wyoming Railroad Map.
Interesting map, it shows some things that I'd wondered about.
It shows, for one thing, that Casper was served by the Burlington Northern, which I new, and the Chicago and North Western, which I sort of knew, but it was celled the Great North Western in its later years. It served Casper up until probably about 25 years ago or so. There's hardly any remnant of it here now, and its old rail line here was converted to a trail through the town. The old depot is a nice looking office building, but I don't know if that building dates back to 1915. I doubt it. I don't think that the Burlington Northern one isn't that old either.
A really interesting aspect of this is that it shows two parallel lines actually running from where the railroads met in Douglas. I knew that there were two depots in Douglas, and I knew there were remnants of the North West line east of town, but I didn't realize that the two lines actually ran astride each other, more or less (within a few miles of each other), from Douglas to Powder River, where they joined. The depot at Powder River is no longer there.
1915 Wyoming Railroad Map.
Interesting map, it shows some things that I'd wondered about.
It shows, for one thing, that Casper was served by the Burlington Northern, which I new, and the Chicago and North Western, which I sort of knew, but it was celled the Great North Western in its later years. It served Casper up until probably about 25 years ago or so. There's hardly any remnant of it here now, and its old rail line here was converted to a trail through the town. The old depot is a nice looking office building, but I don't know if that building dates back to 1915. I doubt it. I don't think that the Burlington Northern one isn't that old either.
Former Chicago and North Western depot in Casper.
Burlington Northern Depot in Casper.
A really interesting aspect of this is that it shows two parallel lines actually running from where the railroads met in Douglas. I knew that there were two depots in Douglas, and I knew there were remnants of the North West line east of town, but I didn't realize that the two lines actually ran astride each other, more or less (within a few miles of each other), from Douglas to Powder River, where they joined. The depot at Powder River is no longer there.
Former depot for one of the railroads in Douglas, now used as a railroad interpretive center.
The other depot in Douglas, now a restaurant called "The Depot".
After that, interestingly, the Chicago and North Western ran to Shoshoni, while the Burlington Northern did not. Now, a local short line runs to Shoshoni and links in somewhere with the BN, but I don't know where. Not in Powder River, that's for sure. The BN still runs north through the Wind River Canyon, however, taking a turn at Shoshoni, which did not at that time, still passing through Lysite as it then did. No rail line runs from Shoshoni to Riverton, and on to Hudson and Lander like this map shows. And as with one of the Douglas depots, the old Riverton line is now a restaurant, although I've apparently failed to photograph that one (note to self, I suppose). It's pretty amazing to think, really, that Fremont County's rail service has really declined pretty significantly in the past century, with Lander no longer being a terminus.
Rail facilties in Lysite, which are probably nearly as old as the map being discussed here.
Going the other way, the results are even more surprising. Orin Junction is still there, and is still a railroad junction, but just for the Burlington Northern. The railroad still runs east to Lusk, but that's a Burlington Northern line today, apparently running on the old path of the Chicago and North Western. Going south east, that line is still there up to Harville, but from the there what's indicated as a Colorado & "South 'N" line is now a Union Pacific line.
I honestly don't know, and really should, how far south that UP line runs, which shows that this is one of those areas of my state's history and present that I don't know that much about. It's funny how something like this can really surprise you, and make you realize that you don't know aas much as you think. I know that the BN runs as far south as Chugwater today, and further south than that, but I don't know if it runs into Cheyenne like it once did (or rather the Colorado did). The main line of the UP runs through southern Wyoming and there's a huge yard in Cheyenne, so presumably there's a junction there somewhere.
The former Union Pacific depot in Cheyenne, now, of course, a restaurant and a museum.
This map in fact answered a question for me which I had, which is that if you wanted to travel from Casper to Cheyenne on a timely basis, what route would the train take. Well, now I know. In 1915, you'd take either of the railroads serving Casper east to Orin Junction, and then take the BN south to Hartville. From there, you'd take the Colorado south to Cheyenne. From there, the extensive UP lines opened up the path west, south and east.
It's also interesting to see some lines that I knew once existed, but which are now defunct, shown here on the map. The Saratoga & Encampment, for example, is shown. I didn't know it was that told, but I should have. The Colorado & Eastern running from Laramie up to the Snowies is also shown. I knew that some railroad had done that, and that the lines are still there (a shortline serving skiers was attempted a few years ago, but no longer runs), but I didn't know what line that was.
Very interesting stuff.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Postscript
Out of curiosity, I took a look at the map for 1930, the last one they had up. The rail lines were the same in 1930 as they were in 1915.
That shouldn't, I suppose, surprise me really. For one thing, all the basic service lines appear to have been in by 1915 (or earlier, I'll have to see if there's an earlier rail map). And the last 1930 map was a "travel" map, not specifically a rail line map, like the 1915 one was, so perhaps it may have omitted any newer lines, although I doubt it. Of interest, that travel map for 1930 only showed rail lines, not roads, so the presumption was obvious that if you were going to be doing much traveling, it was going to be by rail.
Postscript II
Another thing that occurs to me from looking at this map is the extent of rail service, particularly passenger service, but all rail service in general, at a time when the state's population was less than half of what it present is. Very extensive. Quite a remarkable change, compared to now, when some of these lines and many of the smaller railroads no longer exist here at all.
Of course, that no doubt reflects the massive changes in transportation we've seen, the improvement of roads, and of course the huge improvement in automobiles over this period.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Postscript
Out of curiosity, I took a look at the map for 1930, the last one they had up. The rail lines were the same in 1930 as they were in 1915.
That shouldn't, I suppose, surprise me really. For one thing, all the basic service lines appear to have been in by 1915 (or earlier, I'll have to see if there's an earlier rail map). And the last 1930 map was a "travel" map, not specifically a rail line map, like the 1915 one was, so perhaps it may have omitted any newer lines, although I doubt it. Of interest, that travel map for 1930 only showed rail lines, not roads, so the presumption was obvious that if you were going to be doing much traveling, it was going to be by rail.
Postscript II
Another thing that occurs to me from looking at this map is the extent of rail service, particularly passenger service, but all rail service in general, at a time when the state's population was less than half of what it present is. Very extensive. Quite a remarkable change, compared to now, when some of these lines and many of the smaller railroads no longer exist here at all.
Of course, that no doubt reflects the massive changes in transportation we've seen, the improvement of roads, and of course the huge improvement in automobiles over this period.
Monday, January 5, 2015
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Movies In History: Unbroken
This has been an unusual year for me, movie wise, as I've actually been to three, at the theatre, within a year. I'll often go years without seeing one actually at the theater. It occurs to me that I still need to add one here that I have not, that being The Monuments Men.
Last night we saw Unbroken.
This film is making the rounds right now and has been well received. I can see why, the film is simply excellent. The story is now fairly familiar to everyone, it follows the story of Louis Silvie "Louie" Zamperini, who was a B-24 bombardier in the Pacific during World War Two and whom went down in the Pacific in the course of his service. The movie is about the ordeal that follows, both on the sea, and as a Prisoner of War.
I won't try to detail that here, but I will note instead that to the extent that I know that story (I have yet to read the book), the film follows it pretty closely and does a good job of it.
In terms of material and cultural details, the film also does a superb job. The CGI generated aircraft are done excellently, and appear very real indeed. The bombing run early in the film stands in my mind as the single most frightening example of that in film, because it appears so accurate in every fashion. The film'ss one material error that I caught appeared in regards to a Japanese Zero fighter plane, which is shown rolling over with its drop tank on, which is unlikely unless the tank stuck (which is a possibility). Otherwise, all the details, uniforms, etc., are absolutely correct.
In cultural details, the film actually diminishes slightly the extreme cruelty of the Japanese as guards and general and fairly significantly diminishes the actual cruelty of Japanese guard Mutsuhiro Watanabe, but the reason for that are probably justifiable as that would have caused that to be such a feature of the film as to be absolutely overwhelming.
All in all, this is an excellent film.
Last night we saw Unbroken.
This film is making the rounds right now and has been well received. I can see why, the film is simply excellent. The story is now fairly familiar to everyone, it follows the story of Louis Silvie "Louie" Zamperini, who was a B-24 bombardier in the Pacific during World War Two and whom went down in the Pacific in the course of his service. The movie is about the ordeal that follows, both on the sea, and as a Prisoner of War.
I won't try to detail that here, but I will note instead that to the extent that I know that story (I have yet to read the book), the film follows it pretty closely and does a good job of it.
In terms of material and cultural details, the film also does a superb job. The CGI generated aircraft are done excellently, and appear very real indeed. The bombing run early in the film stands in my mind as the single most frightening example of that in film, because it appears so accurate in every fashion. The film'ss one material error that I caught appeared in regards to a Japanese Zero fighter plane, which is shown rolling over with its drop tank on, which is unlikely unless the tank stuck (which is a possibility). Otherwise, all the details, uniforms, etc., are absolutely correct.
In cultural details, the film actually diminishes slightly the extreme cruelty of the Japanese as guards and general and fairly significantly diminishes the actual cruelty of Japanese guard Mutsuhiro Watanabe, but the reason for that are probably justifiable as that would have caused that to be such a feature of the film as to be absolutely overwhelming.
All in all, this is an excellent film.
){kind=link}
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Friday, January 2, 2015
100 Years of Law
100 Years of Law
The ABA Journal looks back on 100 years of publication.
Quite a long time, a distinction it shares, although its a year younger, with The New Republic, which turned 100 last year.
The ABA Journal looks back on 100 years of publication.
Quite a long time, a distinction it shares, although its a year younger, with The New Republic, which turned 100 last year.
Old Picture of the Day: Prospectors
Old Picture of the Day: Prospectors: Today's picture shows a couple of prospectors with their donkeys all packed up, ready for the gold rush. The picture was taken in ...
New Year's Resolutions for Other People
Yeah, I know its rude. But if you are in the public eye, I guess you are open for public content. So here's some resolutions for folks who might miss these obvious ones.
So, here goes:
Congress. Let's just assume that your audience is intelligent and can follow an intelligent argument. I bet it can. And after assuming that, whether you are in the left or the right, conduct your public debates that way. If you can't do that, you ought to not be there.
Congressional Judiciary Committees: Avoid appointments to the bench from Harvard or Yale for the entire year. Not a single one. Don't we have enough of them already? There are lawyers from other places.
For that matter, how about not appointing any sitting or retired judges to appellate benches. Branch out. You'll be glad you did.
And put a retirement age on the Federal Bench. These are public jobs for the American public, not jobs for life for one single benighted generation. Appointments for life no longer make any sense.
Country Music. If you aren't actually from the country, please sit this one out or admit you are a "pop artist". It's different.
And cut out the sap, too, will you?
ISIL Open your minds up, at least a bit. And get a calendar and see what century this is.
Kim Jong-un. Kim, you are on your way to being remembered as a complete clown. You could be remembered as a hero. Take the bold move, open the borders, and announce that you intend to peacefully reunite North Korea with the South by letting the Republic of Korea take over.
You could go into comfortable retirement in Switzerland within a year, and be a hero for life. The way you are going, you are going to be remembered as one of the all time biggest doofuses ever.
People with the last name Bush or Clinton. Enough already, the country can function fine without you as President. Sit this one out, and the next several as well, and surprise people by not running for President.
Barack Obama. Go outside and see where you live. You are not a law school professor anymore. Yapping at people doesn't equate with action, and getting mad and assigning things to the class you can't deal with isn't going to work either. Quit studying Wilson. Study Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton and see how to get some things done.
New York: Hello New York and things New Yorkish. We still love you, but you aren't "Number One" anymore, and you haven't been for a really long time. Just because you pass a bill or collectively think something doesn't make it the up and coming thing, it probably is viewed by the rest of us as stale and a little moldy, which is how we also view New York. You are going to have to get over yourself. Your resolution is to have a little humility this year. Think of yourself as, oh. . . Labrador.
The People's Republic of China. You can only pretend to be a "people's republic" while ignoring democracy so long. Read the history of your own country, and realize that China's always only a second away from a revolution, and take the next step to open the politics of the country up. Your excuse for not doing so is long gone. And stop acting like a 19th Century colonial power too.
Pop-Tarts You know who you are, you collection of women famous only for being famous, or for your appearance alone. Stop acting like your for sale on the street and have a little big of dignity. Spend their year dressing modestly and really shock people. Read a book. Go outdoors with some outdoorsy close on. Just be something, for goodness sake.
Television. Hello television, you are stupid. Get an education and quit broadcasting crap.
This is particularly the case regarding anything billed "Entertainment", or that appears on "TLC". Enough already. But it applies to the rests of television as well. Time for some remedial classes.
So, here goes:
Congress. Let's just assume that your audience is intelligent and can follow an intelligent argument. I bet it can. And after assuming that, whether you are in the left or the right, conduct your public debates that way. If you can't do that, you ought to not be there.
Congressional Judiciary Committees: Avoid appointments to the bench from Harvard or Yale for the entire year. Not a single one. Don't we have enough of them already? There are lawyers from other places.
For that matter, how about not appointing any sitting or retired judges to appellate benches. Branch out. You'll be glad you did.
And put a retirement age on the Federal Bench. These are public jobs for the American public, not jobs for life for one single benighted generation. Appointments for life no longer make any sense.
Country Music. If you aren't actually from the country, please sit this one out or admit you are a "pop artist". It's different.
And cut out the sap, too, will you?
ISIL Open your minds up, at least a bit. And get a calendar and see what century this is.
Kim Jong-un. Kim, you are on your way to being remembered as a complete clown. You could be remembered as a hero. Take the bold move, open the borders, and announce that you intend to peacefully reunite North Korea with the South by letting the Republic of Korea take over.
You could go into comfortable retirement in Switzerland within a year, and be a hero for life. The way you are going, you are going to be remembered as one of the all time biggest doofuses ever.
People with the last name Bush or Clinton. Enough already, the country can function fine without you as President. Sit this one out, and the next several as well, and surprise people by not running for President.
Barack Obama. Go outside and see where you live. You are not a law school professor anymore. Yapping at people doesn't equate with action, and getting mad and assigning things to the class you can't deal with isn't going to work either. Quit studying Wilson. Study Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton and see how to get some things done.
New York: Hello New York and things New Yorkish. We still love you, but you aren't "Number One" anymore, and you haven't been for a really long time. Just because you pass a bill or collectively think something doesn't make it the up and coming thing, it probably is viewed by the rest of us as stale and a little moldy, which is how we also view New York. You are going to have to get over yourself. Your resolution is to have a little humility this year. Think of yourself as, oh. . . Labrador.
The People's Republic of China. You can only pretend to be a "people's republic" while ignoring democracy so long. Read the history of your own country, and realize that China's always only a second away from a revolution, and take the next step to open the politics of the country up. Your excuse for not doing so is long gone. And stop acting like a 19th Century colonial power too.
Pop-Tarts You know who you are, you collection of women famous only for being famous, or for your appearance alone. Stop acting like your for sale on the street and have a little big of dignity. Spend their year dressing modestly and really shock people. Read a book. Go outdoors with some outdoorsy close on. Just be something, for goodness sake.
Television. Hello television, you are stupid. Get an education and quit broadcasting crap.
This is particularly the case regarding anything billed "Entertainment", or that appears on "TLC". Enough already. But it applies to the rests of television as well. Time for some remedial classes.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
The Wyoming Tribune: January 1, 1915
ArchivalWare
And some grim news from the Wyoming Tribune.
I had yesterday's up, in 1914, for the Tribune, but seem to have wiped it out somehow. It had the interesting headline that the Japanese were not going to "invade" Europe, which strikes me as an odd concern for the era.
And some grim news from the Wyoming Tribune.
I had yesterday's up, in 1914, for the Tribune, but seem to have wiped it out somehow. It had the interesting headline that the Japanese were not going to "invade" Europe, which strikes me as an odd concern for the era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)