It's the only thing holding the country together.
Wednesday, September 30, 2020
In Memoriam, Mac Davis and Helen Reddy
I can't say that I was a fan of either, but they were part of the background music of my early late childhood and early teen years. AM radio on local stations featured both, indeed the same channel here played both, in the early 1970s when they were in their prime.
Both died yesterday at age 78.
Davis I remember as a popular singer who had a popular television variety show when there were such things. My parents liked the show. I also recall him from North Dallas Forty, the rather unvarnished and critical movie about professional football with Nick Nolte as a broken up football player reaching the end of his career, although I thought Davis looked like an unlikely football player.
He died from complications of heart surgery.
Helen Reddy was part of the era in particular for her anthem, I Am Woman, which was played absolutely everywhere for awhile and which was the standard of the "Women's Liberation" movement. I didn't realize that she was Australian born until today. Her health had suffered enormously in recent years.
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
September 29, 1920. The American Legion expresses its (1920) view on Japanese immigration . .
and it wasn't welcoming.
The degree to which really strong anti Japanese immigrant views were once not only common, but probably the majority view of the country, is well known but still not always appreciated. We wouldn't think, for example, that the American Legion would have made a statement about it in 1920. Indeed, it's not even clear why this was a topic for the brand new veterans' organization at the time.
FWIW, a "picture bride"
was a mail order bride arranged through a matchmaker, who paired photographs of
the prospective bride and groom. In this case, that was done in Japan and then
the bride went to be with their husbands. The "gentleman's agreement"
referred to here allowed for the immigration of spouses after the Federal
Government quit issuing visas to Japanese immigrants and the exception for
picture brides had been made illegal in March, 1920. The elimination of the exception left about 24,000 male Japanese in the United States batchelors.
Japanese picture brides arriving at Angel Island, California. 1919.
For those who may wonder why that was the case, immigration by the Japanese was heavily male. Before World War Two, Japanese in the United States (or Japan) almost never intermarried with other cultures, although World War Two would change that forever in the United States and briefly in Japan. The role of women in Japanese marriages, moreover, placed a very heavy emphasis on women being dominant in the households and it would really take acculturation of the Japanese in the United States, which World War Two accelerated for a variety of reasons, to alter that in the US. So the nest result was lonely lives for a lot of Japanese men, and not a few Japanese women, who were willing to take the risks of marrying somebody they didn't know over a lifelong single status.
It should be noted that not all of the brides were Japanese. Some were Korean, at a time at which Korea was an unwilling Japanese colony. That also says something about how the male Japanese diaspora was viewed in Japan. Generally intermarriages with Koreans in Japan, or Korea, was frowned upon, but not in the case of women being shipped across the sea.
The male motivation isn't hard to figure out, but the female one is more so. Many of the marriages were arranged by the parents of the couple back in Japan and therefore they knew each other a bit. Some did it as it was regarded as adventuresome in Japan at a time when women's ability to travel abroad in that country was very limited. Some took it up simply as a means of immigrating to a new country where social restrictions on women were known to be much less restrictive. Most were apparently shocked by the conditions they lived in at first, and disappointed with their prearranged male matches who were ten to fifteen years older than they were, but they came to adjust to them.
It's really odd to think of the American Legion, which was brand new at the time, even having an opinion on this topic, let alone an anti-Japanese immigrant one in light of Japan having been an Allied power in World War One.
It's also a bit odd to think of Natrona County having less than 15,000 people. Indeed, I'm envious of that.
Monday, September 28, 2020
It is almost impossible for people to pose as reenactors for a photograph. . .
and for it to look right.
They almost never do. It's really hard to pull off.
All the time, if I hit certain sites, I'll get ads like "surprising historic photos of the West . . ." or something like that. I don't hit on them, and you can tell even from the ad that the photos are modern photos just by the way the subjects appear.
Likewise, if you go to pinterest you'll get real historic photos, but you'll also get pins that are reeanactors. It's not really hard to tell which are which.
Some of this is obvious. If you hit on a photo of "World War Two infantrymen", black and white and photographed with 100 ASA or not, it still isn't going to look right if the GIs are all about 6' tall, 30 lbs overweight, and middle aged. Nope. That wasn't the average GI.
Likewise, if the "true photographs of the Old West" ad shows a clean, long haired pouty lipped young woman with her blouse partially unbuttoned, and probably holding a Winchester lever action rifle, that's not depicting how any period woman would be photographed. . . even a young woman who knew how to shoot a lever action and owned one.
But in other instances, it's just something. Something hard to define. But you can almost always tell.
You know?
September 28, 1920. Indicted.
On this day in 1920 the Black Sox scandal hit the Courts.
In Korea, Ryu Gwansun, a female Korean protester, died from abuse and torture at the hands of the Japanese.
Ryu Gwansun (Yu Gwan-sun)
She remains a hero in Korea for her role in Korean independence.
Sunday, September 27, 2020
September 27, 1920. Last Game for the Black Sox.
Chicago White Sox players "Shoeless Joe Jackson", Charles "Swede" Risberg and Buck Weaver played in their final professional major league baseball game of their career.
Joe Jackson.
The next day they were to be indicted due to the Black Sox Scandal.
Risburg, left and Weaver, right, during their trial.
Risburg, a shortstop, had received $15,000 for his role in fixing the World Series. He played semi pro baseball for a decade and ended up owning a bar in his later years. During his career he'd been spiked during a game and the injury never healed, resulting in the eventual amputation of his leg. He remained a baseball fan throughout his life and died in California at age 81 in 1975.
Buck Weaver.
Weaver wasn't part of the scandal and fought, unsuccessfully, to be reinstated. He was bitter about receiving the same penalty as the players who were guilty. He successfully sued to receive his 1921 pay, but he never got back into professional baseball even though he tried for years to do so. Often missed in his story, however, is that he knew that the fix was going on and, while not part of it, he didn't report it.
1919 White Sox.
Like other Black Sox team members, Weaver did play semi pro ball for years. He remained in Chicago and also worked odd jobs to support a large extended family. At one point he owned a series of six drug stores with his brother in law in Chicago and both men were offered partnerships in Walgreens, which they declined. All the stores were lost in the Great Depression. Weaver died at age 65 in 1956 in Chicago.
Joe Jackson in 1919.
Often portrayed as a simple man, and he was indeed illiterate, Jackson twice refused the bribe money before another player threw the money on his hotel floor, after which he attempted to do what Weaver did not, get an audience with Cominsky, the team owner. Cominsky refused to see him. He was never present at any of the conspirators meetings and he played a good World Series. Because of his illiteracy its difficult to tell what his view was of what was occuring, but it does seem to be likely that he knew the conspiracy was going on, and tried to do something about it, after which he may have refused to participate by playing a good Series.
Jackson and his wife Katie on their wedding day in 1908.
Jackson would manage and play in semi pro baseball for some time before moving to South Carolina where he and his wife ran a number of small businesses, including a dry cleaning shop, a barbecue restaurant and a liquor store. He died of a heart attack at age 64 in 1951, making him the first of the Black Sox players to pass away.
On the same day some dignitaries from the French Army arrived in New York.
Major General Robert Lee Bullard and Marshal Marie Émile Fayolle at Fayolle's arrival at Governors Island, New York, September 27, 1920.
Confessional Supreme Court Firsts
For most of its history, the majority of the Supreme Court has been made up, predictably, of the founding demographic of the country and reflected that. Most Supreme Court Justices have been Protestant and the most frequently represented Protestant denomination has been the Episcopal Church. Today, however, only one member of the court is Episcopalian and one member, Justice Thomas, is a former Episcopalian. Indeed, oddly, Justice Gorsuch was raised a Catholic and became an Episcopalian and Justice Thomas was raised Catholic, became an Episcopalian and then reverted to his Catholicism. There is, in fact, some speculation that Gorsuch may in fact regard himself as a Catholic, which some highly traditional Episcopalians do.
No other Protestant denominations are represented on the Court today at all.
The majority of those on the bench today are Catholics or a near majority, depending upon the degree of affiliation with the Church they actually have. Some are known to be quite observant, such as Justice Thomas. Others, like Justice Sotomayor, appear to be nominal Catholics.
The first Catholic justice was Roger B. Taney, who was appointed in 1837 at a time with anti Catholicism was rampant in the country, making his appointment accordingly quite surprising. That he was Chief Justice is all the more surprising. His wife was an Episcopalian and his children raised in that faith, making him, at least to that extent, a non observant Catholic to some degree.
Fifteen member of the court have been Protestants without declared confessions.
Louis Brandeis was the first Supreme Court Justice who was Jewish. He was appointed to the bench in 1916. Interestingly, however, Judah P. Benjamin would have had that honor in 1853 but declined it. He want on to be the Secretary of State for the Confederacy, a much less honorable role. There have been a total of eight Jewish justices to date.
The religious makeup of the Court is a significant matter as the Court tends to be weighted heavily towards intellectuals who are often deeply informed by their faiths. The significant number of Catholic members and Jewish members in recent years says something about the demographics of the Court and it reflects back on the world view, albeit not perfectly, of those on the bench. It tends to also show the degree to which the law reflects itself as a profession toward enduringly immigrant populations. Law is often imagined as a career of the wealthy, but in reality it tends to be a profession of minorities, who always have need of it.
Churches of the West: And let the rampaging Anti-Catholicism begin. . .
Churches of the West: And let the rampaging Anti-Catholicism begin. . .:
Anti Catholicism has been termed the last acceptable prejudice in the United States and there's a great deal of merit to that claim. In certain quarters, anymore, there's a subtle to not so subtle anti Christian prejudice in general that people express more or less openly, however, so to at least some degree that statement isn't fully true. And its certainly the case that people will openly express disdain to some religions in some regions. The LDS faith, for example, is often a topic of some disdain on the margins of its territories. Islam is definitely subject to widespread public disdain in the United States.***
The thing that's really different about anti Catholicism, however, is the degree to which its visceral and blisteringly open.**** Additionally, it's rooted in falsehoods of the Reformation even as its advanced by those who reject all strong tenants of Christianity in general, even if it's in their ancestral background. Descendants of Puritans and near Puritans, whose ancestors hated Catholic based on lies that were told by the founders of their faiths in order to justify separation from the only body of Christianity that had existed continually since the First Century, still hate Catholics or disdain them in spite of the fact that they've often completely shed the religions that gave rise to their beliefs.
The United States is really a Protestant country in culture, although that culture has weakened massively in urban areas. The retained belief, however, is that Catholics are a dangerous "other" to be feared, believing in strange dangerous beliefs. That's about to come out in public in spades.
Observant Apostolic Christians continue to believe in a religion that's Christ centric in the way that Christianity was from its onset. A significant aspect of that is a belief that God's laws are immutable and his Church hierarchical in aid of that. All Apostolic Christians, including the Orthodox of every branch and all types of Catholics, if they are observant, hold that. The essence of the Reformation rejected that, although even the first rebels against the Church in the Reformation actually didn't, or didn't at first. Even today, five centuries after the Reformation, some Protestant churches worry about Apostolic succession, still viewing it as necessary to their authority.
Because Catholics, as Apostolic Christians, hold that, it has always been used against them in those European cultural regions where the churches of the Reformation were strong. In English speaking countries, even though the Church of England and the Anglican Communion claim Apostolic succession, it's always been a way to vilify Catholics. In part this was because of the English Established Church's strong animosity towards Catholicism and in part it was because dissenting Protestant English churches took an even more extreme position than the Church of England did. Those latter churches were also heavily invested in concepts of individuality and, moreover, they were very strong in early American history. Some have claimed, although the claim suffers on analysis, that the individualism of those churches helped give rise to American democracy.
While that claim is strained at best, it has become the American Civil Religion that there's no inconsistency in holding your religion close to your heart but not acting upon it in public. American Catholic politicians, always held back by prejudice against their faith at the ballot box (but interestingly not so much at the Supreme Court, where they'd been a presence since the middle of the 19th Century), adopted that view with John F. Kennedy's declaration that:
A similar view was incorporated into the American Civil Religion after a time which at first came to hold that there general Judeo Christian values that we all agreed on, and what a person did beyond that was their own business, with everything else being co-equal. This position is of course absurd on its faith. Religious convictions are an individual's deepest convictions and should inform everything they do.
It's that knowledge that, in some ways, forms the basis for the societal hatred of Catholicism and the spreading disdain for Christianity in general. It isn't that Christians in general or Catholics in particular "want[] the rest of American women to be stuck with [an] extreme lifestyle". Rather its that they acknowledge that there's something greater than the individual and that Christians have to pick up their cross and carry it.
Moreover, the real fear isn't that a single Catholic judge is going to somehow impose her values on American society. Liberals of all stripes, including non observant liberal Catholics, know, or at least should know if they stop to think about it, that not a single conservative judge on the Supreme Court proposed to impose any religious belief on society. What liberals really fear, and won't acknowledge, is that for jurisprudential reasons, not religious ones, those justices will hold that there's a lot of things the United States Constitution doesn't address and therefore its up to the states to address them.
Nearly all of the recent and old hot button issues in front of the Supreme Court fit into this category. Indeed, as we've stated elsewhere, there really aren't any jurisprudentially conservative justices on the bench or proposed for it. That really shows in their approach to these issues. Abortion is one such issue that is cited all the time, although most typically with the term "a woman's right to choose", by which is meant a person's individual right to choose on a matter of life or death for another person. A jurisprudentially conservative jurist would hold that life was a matter of natural law, and that no person had the right to decide on matters of life or death for a third person except for individual self defense, a natural law paramount. That would truly make abortion illegal, irrespective of the Constitution. That's not what a conservative justice of the type who will be on the bench, or who already is, will hold.
That sort of conservative, of which Barrett is part, would instead hold that its just not in the text, and therefore its up to the states. In terms of supposed deep philosophical statements, that's really weak tea. Its just being politically and textually conservative. That's it. Likewise, on the issue of same sex marriage, the conservative justices simply dissented that it wasn't in the text. They didn't opine on the nature of marriage in an existential or metaphysical or even biological sense.
Given that, the real fear on the part of liberals like Parsa and the thousands like him is that his fellow Americans of all stripes might hold the same conservative views. It isn't that the court is going to make something illegal, it's that the American people will. That's democracy. That doesn't fit into a secular world view, however, of radical self definition and a "progressive" world, which most of the world actually rejects, which is even more radical than the anarchist "No Gods, No Master" ideology, as it takes the view of "I'm my own god and own master and nothing else matters".
The knowledge that something else does matter, and we know it, is inside of all of us however. And that makes most people feel that they have a right to voice an opinion on really important matters rather than have nine elderly men and women of high but limited legal education and liberal values decide those matters for us.^ It isn't really the Catholic hierarchy or dogma that's feared here. The language of the Reformation remains, but it's the spirit of radical individualism in the tone. What Parsa really meant was he wants American men and women to be stuck with no ability to put their beliefs into practice, both in their own lives and at the ballot. If Americans, or even American women, the latter of which is the majority of the population, share his views, this presents no threats to those views at all.
One thing we can be assured of, as this matter progresses, is that Senators who previously were openly hostile to Catholicism at the time that Barrett was nominated to assume her current role on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will struggle not to come across so openly that way again. Diane Feinstein's blisteringly hostile comment will not be repeated by her, and she's even stated that at least to her, Barrett's religion is off limits. Kamala Harris, who likewise felt free to make anti Catholic comments during Barrett's prior hearing, will have to be careful lest she damage the campaign she's currently in. Durbin's petty comments, perhaps inspired by the fact that his Bishop has denied him Communion rights due to his stated positions, may well come back. But the hostility is going to be there just under the surface. Out in the public and through pundits, it'll be on the surface.
*Parsa is a documentary film maker, but I can't say that he's a well known one, at least to me. I picked up his quote from an article by C. E. Cupp.
**An interesting aspect of Parsa's bigotry is that he associates large families with conservatism and by extension small or no families with progressivism, although I'll be that in the case of families born out of the United States but which have immigrated into the US, his view is the reverse. At any rate, the question of whether or not an employer can be mandated to pay for health care raises moral questions for Catholics, to be sure, but beyond that it raises other philosophical and fiscal considerations that are completely outside of religion. Whether or not society at large, for example, through mandated health care, should be required to subsidize individual acts and when they should is the larger issue. When a society has strongly divergent beliefs regarding this, it raises further questions pertaining to participatory democracy and such choices.
***Islam presents a challenge to liberals in that the religion can demand strict adherence to its tenants and always demand public observation of them by the faithful. Indeed it shares that characteristic with the Apostolic Churches and conservative Judaism, in that some of those tenants cannot be ignored by their members. Muslims may not ignore the daily calls and periods to prayer nor the season of fasting, at a bare minimum, must as members of the Apostolic Churches may not ignore periods of fasting or the obligation to attend Sunday Mass. Mormons, mentioned in this paragraph, likewise have a series of tenants that they can't ignore or shouldn't ignore.
****In fairness, this is also true of Islam.
Antipathy towards Islam to date has been strongly concentrated in conservative circles, but as the Muslim population increases this is almost certain to present very strong challenges to liberals. Already strongly observant Muslim women are relatively frequent callers into Catholic radio on the topic of abortion, where they'll routinely note that Muslims are opposed to abortion and they seem befuddled that people don't realize that.
In Europe distinct Muslim dietary practices that are shared with Judaism have made Muslims and conservative Jews unlikely allies against laws pertaining to slaughter in some countries. Moreover, while so far Americans are mostly familiar with Muslim women who have taken the opposite view, conservative Muslims have a strict dichotomy of roles and behavior as to men and women. This has also presented itself in Europe where various nations have attempted to ban Muslim female veiling and headdress. The challenge in the United States will be to see if American society can accommodate to itself to conservative Islamic practices which fall outside the American norm.
^One of the refreshing things about a Barrett confirmation would be that she's not a graduate of Harvard or Yale, which have had a lock on the Supreme Court for some time.
And let the rampaging Anti-Catholicism begin. . .
From, Klansman, Guardian of Liberty, by Alma Birdwell White.
It was only a matter of time.Trump’s likely RBG replacement, Amy Coney Barrett, is a Catholic extremist with 7 children who does not believe employers should be required to provide healthcare coverage for birth control. She wants the rest of American women to be stuck with her extreme lifestyle.Documentarian Arlen Parsa.* **
Anti Catholicism has been termed the last acceptable prejudice in the United States and there's a great deal of merit to that claim. In certain quarters, anymore, there's a subtle to not so subtle anti Christian prejudice in general that people express more or less openly, however, so to at least some degree that statement isn't fully true. And its certainly the case that people will openly express disdain to some religions in some regions. The LDS faith, for example, is often a topic of some disdain on the margins of its territories. Islam is definitely subject to widespread public disdain in the United States.***
The thing that's really different about anti Catholicism, however, is the degree to which its visceral and blisteringly open.**** Additionally, it's rooted in falsehoods of the Reformation even as its advanced by those who reject all strong tenants of Christianity in general, even if it's in their ancestral background. Descendants of Puritans and near Puritans, whose ancestors hated Catholic based on lies that were told by the founders of their faiths in order to justify separation from the only body of Christianity that had existed continually since the First Century, still hate Catholics or disdain them in spite of the fact that they've often completely shed the religions that gave rise to their beliefs.
The United States is really a Protestant country in culture, although that culture has weakened massively in urban areas. The retained belief, however, is that Catholics are a dangerous "other" to be feared, believing in strange dangerous beliefs. That's about to come out in public in spades.
Observant Apostolic Christians continue to believe in a religion that's Christ centric in the way that Christianity was from its onset. A significant aspect of that is a belief that God's laws are immutable and his Church hierarchical in aid of that. All Apostolic Christians, including the Orthodox of every branch and all types of Catholics, if they are observant, hold that. The essence of the Reformation rejected that, although even the first rebels against the Church in the Reformation actually didn't, or didn't at first. Even today, five centuries after the Reformation, some Protestant churches worry about Apostolic succession, still viewing it as necessary to their authority.
Because Catholics, as Apostolic Christians, hold that, it has always been used against them in those European cultural regions where the churches of the Reformation were strong. In English speaking countries, even though the Church of England and the Anglican Communion claim Apostolic succession, it's always been a way to vilify Catholics. In part this was because of the English Established Church's strong animosity towards Catholicism and in part it was because dissenting Protestant English churches took an even more extreme position than the Church of England did. Those latter churches were also heavily invested in concepts of individuality and, moreover, they were very strong in early American history. Some have claimed, although the claim suffers on analysis, that the individualism of those churches helped give rise to American democracy.
While that claim is strained at best, it has become the American Civil Religion that there's no inconsistency in holding your religion close to your heart but not acting upon it in public. American Catholic politicians, always held back by prejudice against their faith at the ballot box (but interestingly not so much at the Supreme Court, where they'd been a presence since the middle of the 19th Century), adopted that view with John F. Kennedy's declaration that:
I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but a candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters — and the church does not speak for me.In retrospect, Kennedy was a pretty bad Catholic in general, but his position was embraced by American Catholics in a way that brought about sweeping changes.Catholic politicians, rapidly followed in Kenney's wake and adopted his formula, rejecting prior Presidential nominee Al Smith's position that:
I do not want any Catholic to vote for me . . . because I am a Catholic. . . . But, on the other hand, I have the right to say that any citizen of this country . . . [who] votes against me because of my religion, he is not a real, pure, genuine American.Smith didn't walk away from his faith the way that Kennedy did, but thousands of Catholic politicians did to be followed by thousands of rank and file Catholics. In essence, Kennedy advanced the position that a person's religion only really mattered as to what he did on Sundays. Smith didn't state that.
A similar view was incorporated into the American Civil Religion after a time which at first came to hold that there general Judeo Christian values that we all agreed on, and what a person did beyond that was their own business, with everything else being co-equal. This position is of course absurd on its faith. Religious convictions are an individual's deepest convictions and should inform everything they do.
It's that knowledge that, in some ways, forms the basis for the societal hatred of Catholicism and the spreading disdain for Christianity in general. It isn't that Christians in general or Catholics in particular "want[] the rest of American women to be stuck with [an] extreme lifestyle". Rather its that they acknowledge that there's something greater than the individual and that Christians have to pick up their cross and carry it.
Moreover, the real fear isn't that a single Catholic judge is going to somehow impose her values on American society. Liberals of all stripes, including non observant liberal Catholics, know, or at least should know if they stop to think about it, that not a single conservative judge on the Supreme Court proposed to impose any religious belief on society. What liberals really fear, and won't acknowledge, is that for jurisprudential reasons, not religious ones, those justices will hold that there's a lot of things the United States Constitution doesn't address and therefore its up to the states to address them.
Nearly all of the recent and old hot button issues in front of the Supreme Court fit into this category. Indeed, as we've stated elsewhere, there really aren't any jurisprudentially conservative justices on the bench or proposed for it. That really shows in their approach to these issues. Abortion is one such issue that is cited all the time, although most typically with the term "a woman's right to choose", by which is meant a person's individual right to choose on a matter of life or death for another person. A jurisprudentially conservative jurist would hold that life was a matter of natural law, and that no person had the right to decide on matters of life or death for a third person except for individual self defense, a natural law paramount. That would truly make abortion illegal, irrespective of the Constitution. That's not what a conservative justice of the type who will be on the bench, or who already is, will hold.
That sort of conservative, of which Barrett is part, would instead hold that its just not in the text, and therefore its up to the states. In terms of supposed deep philosophical statements, that's really weak tea. Its just being politically and textually conservative. That's it. Likewise, on the issue of same sex marriage, the conservative justices simply dissented that it wasn't in the text. They didn't opine on the nature of marriage in an existential or metaphysical or even biological sense.
Given that, the real fear on the part of liberals like Parsa and the thousands like him is that his fellow Americans of all stripes might hold the same conservative views. It isn't that the court is going to make something illegal, it's that the American people will. That's democracy. That doesn't fit into a secular world view, however, of radical self definition and a "progressive" world, which most of the world actually rejects, which is even more radical than the anarchist "No Gods, No Master" ideology, as it takes the view of "I'm my own god and own master and nothing else matters".
The knowledge that something else does matter, and we know it, is inside of all of us however. And that makes most people feel that they have a right to voice an opinion on really important matters rather than have nine elderly men and women of high but limited legal education and liberal values decide those matters for us.^ It isn't really the Catholic hierarchy or dogma that's feared here. The language of the Reformation remains, but it's the spirit of radical individualism in the tone. What Parsa really meant was he wants American men and women to be stuck with no ability to put their beliefs into practice, both in their own lives and at the ballot. If Americans, or even American women, the latter of which is the majority of the population, share his views, this presents no threats to those views at all.
*Parsa is a documentary film maker, but I can't say that he's a well known one, at least to me. I picked up his quote from an article by C. E. Cupp.
**An interesting aspect of Parsa's bigotry is that he associates large families with conservatism and by extension small or no families with progressivism, although I'll be that in the case of families born out of the United States but which have immigrated into the US, his view is the reverse. At any rate, the question of whether or not an employer can be mandated to pay for health care raises moral questions for Catholics, to be sure, but beyond that it raises other philosophical and fiscal considerations that are completely outside of religion. Whether or not society at large, for example, through mandated health care, should be required to subsidize individual acts and when they should is the larger issue. When a society has strongly divergent beliefs regarding this, it raises further questions pertaining to participatory democracy and such choices.
***Islam presents a challenge to liberals in that the religion can demand strict adherence to its tenants and always demand public observation of them by the faithful. Indeed it shares that characteristic with the Apostolic Churches and conservative Judaism, in that some of those tenants cannot be ignored by their members. Muslims may not ignore the daily calls and periods to prayer nor the season of fasting, at a bare minimum, must as members of the Apostolic Churches may not ignore periods of fasting or the obligation to attend Sunday Mass. Mormons, mentioned in this paragraph, likewise have a series of tenants that they can't ignore or shouldn't ignore.
****In fairness, this is also true of Islam.
Antipathy towards Islam to date has been strongly concentrated in conservative circles, but as the Muslim population increases this is almost certain to present very strong challenges to liberals. Already strongly observant Muslim women are relatively frequent callers into Catholic radio on the topic of abortion, where they'll routinely note that Muslims are opposed to abortion and they seem befuddled that people don't realize that.
In Europe distinct Muslim dietary practices that are shared with Judaism have made Muslims and conservative Jews unlikely allies against laws pertaining to slaughter in some countries. Moreover, while so far Americans are mostly familiar with Muslim women who have taken the opposite view, conservative Muslims have a strict dichotomy of roles and behavior as to men and women. This has also presented itself in Europe where various nations have attempted to ban Muslim female veiling and headdress. The challenge in the United States will be to see if American society can accommodate to itself to conservative Islamic practices which fall outside the American norm.
^One of the refreshing things about a Barrett confirmation would be that she's not a graduate of Harvard or Yale, which have had a lock on the Supreme Court for some time.
Saturday, September 26, 2020
The Best Post of the Week of September 20, 2020
The best posts of the week of September 20, 2020.
Monday Morning Repeat from the week of April 26, 2009.
September 22, 1920. The St. Vrain Glacier.
Mount St. Vrain's glacier, Colorado. September 22, 1920.
The 2021 Wyoming Legislature, Part 1
Notes On Nominations. Replacing Justice Ginsburg
Casualties of the COVID Recession
The 2020 Election, Part 9
The unwelcome guests. . .
Pendley Ousted
On Saturday's, among other things, I try to post stuff outdoorsy.
Ideally, try to go do something outdoorsy, but due to one thing or another, I don't always manage that. Anyhow, given that it is a Saturday, this story, which is just breaking, is sort of fitting.
Followers of the Trump Administration who really look at it, not just the superficial top of the news cycle stuff, tend to find that its difficult to reconcile the headlines with actions in any one area, and indeed, the Administration is quite balkanized in regard to anyone topic. Followers of the Supreme Court, for example, have to be impressed by the line of judges appointed by the Trump Administration even if they're in the camp that's shrill about the the appointments for ideological reasons. Indeed, overall the Administration has been amazingly efficient at appointing judges, and quality judges at that.
Businessmen I know have tended to be impressed by the roll back in regulations, something perhaps no other administration has been able to do to the same degree. Followers of Middle East diplomacy have been impressed by matters involving Israel while simultaneously baffled by the US's relationship with Russia and Turkey. Those following the pandemic have tended to be angered by the lack of a seeming theme to the national approach to that, something that the President is likely to pay for in November.
All this stands aside and apart from simply reacting to Trump and his statements, in any form, themselves.
One area in which conservationist could generally take heart is that his appointments in regard to public lands have been good. They've kept the lands in Federal hands, which means keeping them open to the public, something that has gone in opposition to the expressed desires of regional politicians even though it matters enormously to the region's residents.
And then there was the appointment of William Perry Pendley.
William Perry Pendley
Pendley is a University of Wyoming College of Law graduate who has made a career that's been, in at least some instances, hostile to public lands agencies and who has associated with wanting them to be transferred to the states, something strongly opposed by the region's residents. When he was appointed regional residents concerned with this issue gasped.* Pendley insisted that as head of the agency he would represent the views of the Administration, which have not supported such a transfer, but area residents never felt easy about his appointment.
Apparently the Senate didn't either, probably reflecting the views of area residents as well as national views, as they didn't confirm Pendley. He remained in as a temporary head but this lead to a suit by Montana's Governor, Steve Bullock, a Democrat who is currently running for the Senate. Bullock is challenging incumbent Steve Daines. Even though outsiders frequently confuse Montana and Wyoming, their politics are radically different and the Democratic Party has remained viable in Montana, whereas its on life support in Wyoming.
Steve Daines
Pendley's appointment was in fact hurting Daines who is struggling to retain his seat against Bullock, who started off the election season attempting to run for the Oval Office. Bullock's effort there fell flat, but it hasn't against Daines.
Montana's politics remain much more centrist than Wyoming's and may be described as center left, something that's been attributed to immigration into the state but which in fact has always characterized its politics. Montana sent Jeanette Ranking to the Senate twice, giving Montana the unique status of having the nation's only Senator to vote "No" to entering World War One and World War Two. Montana's rank and file out in the sticks voters tend to have the same "I don't care what you do as long as you leave me alone" view that Wyoming's native voters do as well, which actually favors the center left if the parties are listening, as long as those candidates are opposed to gun control. They also need to be strongly in favor of public lands. Outsiders describe Montana as "deep Red", but they're wrong.
Daines is in real trouble and has recently been attempting to boost his outdoor creds in legislation, but more than one Montana news outlet isn't buying it. Pendley's presence wasn't helping and back in August President Trump withdrew his nomination in an effort to help Daines get reelected.
And Cory Gardner.
Cory Gardner.
Gardner is a Senator from Colorado who is in huge trouble. The one term Senator is behind former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper in the polls. Colorado hasn't been reliably Republican, in spite of what the press says, for a long time, and while there's a ways to go and the race is close, Gardner is likely to go down in defeat.
The Federal Court ruling last week that Pendley had to go, ousting him, gives Bullock a victory. So the irony is that while Trump moved to replace Pendley to help Gardner and Daines, it likely places Bullock a bit up in a race in which he very well might be part of a Democratic wave that flips the Senate and which Gardner appears likely to lose. Holding on to the public lands, in Federal hands, is a big deal in Montana, like Wyoming, and while Bullock holds center left views on many things, on the regional core issues, like gun control, he's right of center.
The Department of the Interior expressed "outrage" and promised to appeal immediately. Be that as it may, it appears Pendley's days are up and there's no earthly way that an appeals court will handle this by the election. Chances are it'll stay the order, but that can't be guaranteed.
And there's a lesson here even in Wyoming, where there's been no reversal of opinions on the administration. Pendley's appointment caused stress here among public lands users and it can't be said that the nomination was popular. The GOP has been slipping into internecine conflict in a way that's breaking open in the public, and the Democratic Party is fielding, for the first time in years, candidates for the Senate and House which, while they won't win, can't be simply dismissed. The Trump administration dropped the ball on this one by nominating Pendley in the first place as he could only engender animosity and those whose views he championed didn't need a champion in the first place. Indeed, their keeping views a bit quiet would have been a better approach. Failing to pick up that fumbled ball left it in play, and now the Democrats have successfully picked it up.
Not that the Administration can be fully blamed. Wyoming's senior political leadership at the national level has taken a position that's the opposite of the public's wishes here and an active element of the local GOP has as well. When this breaks out in the legislature it provokes massive reaction from locals, but at a national level, that probably wasn't obvious. It probably won't become obvious until local politicians start to pay the price. They already are, in fact, but it's not apparent for some reason. Hard right GOP candidates didn't win the state house in the 2018 Gubernatorial election here and concern over issues like this is part of the reason why. Now Daines and Gardner appear set to pay the price in November. Jason Chaffetz already paid the price in Utah, leaving office without running for election in 2018.
__________________________________________________________________________________
*Pendley's also another strange example of the Boomers retention of power. He's currently 75 years old
September 26, 1920. The first NFL game played, sort of.
The first football game played by a member team of the AFPA, the precursor today's NFL, the Rock Island Independents was played against non AFPA St. Paul Ideas. It was counted in the associations season in spite of a non AFPA professional team being the competitor.
The first games between member teams would occur on October 3, 1920 when their were seven matches, but even then two of those seven were against non member teams. Non member teams would figure as a minority of teams that played in the season, but they played nonetheless. The season ran into December.
It's interesting that even in 1920 Sunday games were their norm.
Of the original fourteen teams, only the Chicago Bears remains. Most folded in the 1920s. The Bears were originally the Decatur Staleys.
The unwelcome guests. . .
For some reason, the Democratic party is uniquely plagued by people who just won't go away.
Now, for this to make sense, it's not just like the Minnesota Long Goodbye. No, these are more like people who showed up an hour into a private party, noted that they weren't invited, and loudly declare that you must have forgotten not to invite them. How could you not, they're they life of the party?
After looking over, and complaining about, the cheese tray, the pick up four or five bottles of beer from the iced sink of beer, proclaim them all pedestrian, and then open your refrigerator to look for the bottles of Domaine de la Romanée-Conti Romanée-Conti Grand Cru they're sure you have as a good host. You don't, so they settle for opening the bottle of pedestrian Chianti you were saving for a Sunday Italian dinner, opening it without asking. After that, they spend the rest of the evening loudly dominating the conversation on topics that nobody else wants to talk about, until all the guests go home and they fall asleep on the couch after spilling garlic cheese dip all over their clothes. . . and the couch.
Hillary Clinton is one such person.
She's showing up on all the news shows. The Biden/Harris campaign must cringe every time she does.
And she's starting a podcast. . . just the focus on a Democrat that Biden and Harris really need.
Not only that, but wherever Hillary goes, Monica Lewinsky isn't far behind. Lewinsky's moment in the sun came for being involved in an icky tryst with Bill Clinton. But that's over. We don't bother Bill about that anymore, and we don't want to hear from Monica about it either. Indeed, following the wake of the times, she's' gone from dimwit paramour to abused victim of the patriarchy in her presentation, when in reality the whole thing was two people of dubious personal morality meeting up in the wrong place and time. At least it's not as bad as the stuff Kennedy was up to.
Hillary. Go home.
Monica, don't get out of your car.
The 2020 Election, Part 9
August 18, 2020.
Today is primary election day in Wyoming.
August 19, 2020
And the results of yesterday's primary, which are most significant on the Republican side as those results will almost certainly produce November's winners, were not a surprise in the statewide races.
Cynthia Lummis is the GOP Senatorial candidate and will be the new Senator from Wyoming starting in 2021. She took fives times the votes of second place finisher Robert Short, who ran as an outsider to her right. The most interesting thing about the results may be that Bryan Miller, who was a tea party favorite who received pac funding in the race finished behind Short, showing that the concept that the rank and file GOP was now heading in that direction isn't a sure one.
She'll face Marev Ben David, a University of Wyoming professor who took nearly twice the votes of Yana Ludwig, the second place finisher, who barely bested Nathan Wendt.
Liz Cheney took the race for house in a contest that had a challenger, but one that was nearly absent from the campaign. She'll face Lynette Grey Bull who demolished her competitors in the Democratic field.
The Democratic results produced the two noted candidates who will lose, but who are formidable presences in their own right. Their campaigns will be interesting and the Democrats, in spite of their low representation in Wyoming, managed to field two extremely interesting candidates who will not allow themselves to be ignored.
In other news, Kanye West's backers have a signature gathering effort going on in an effort to have the eclectic figure appear as a Presidential candidate on Wyoming's ballot.
August 20, 2020
In additional election results, the Tribune notes that House majority leader Tyler Lindholm lost in the primary election and therefore will not be returning to the legislature, at least as a Republican.
The Tribune put this in the context of a far right insurgency in the state's GOP, which has been going on for some time, and specifically noted the funding of right wing GOP candidates by wealthy Conservatives who have been backing such candidates for a number of years. However it might be more notable that eleven incumbent Republicans fended off challenges from such candidates in this year's GOP legislative contest. If a person expands that out to the Senatorial race, the favorite of the far right, Miller, not only failed by failed by an enormous margin.
And Lindholm had quixotically made opposition to foreign wars a major part of his platform over the last year, which is something that Wyoming's legislature has no role in. I would have actually thought he was part of the far right in the GOP up until this event.
August 21, 2020
Joe Biden formally accepted the Democratic nomination last night at the electronic Democratic Convention.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mvN6zrjBs5I" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Kanye West failed to gain enough signatures to appear on Montana's ballot in November. Wisconsin has rejected his big for failing to file his signatures on time.
Nancy Pelosi has endorsed Joe Kennedy over incumbent Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ed Markey. The move has generated controversy for a number of reasons, one being that a Speaker endorsing a party candidate over an incumbent is unusual. Additionally, Markey has aligned himself strongly with the left wing "progressive" branch of the party, which has caused figures in that branch, including AOC, to react with dismay.
While little noted, perhaps the most distressing aspect of the endorsement is the retained strange monarchical presence of the Kennedy family when there's little reason to support it. John F. Kennedy was a poor President and Sen. Edward Kennedy wasn't a great Senator. In spite of that, and over 50 years passing on the real Kennedy era, Kennedy's seem to get a free pass into Democratic politics in a way that no other American family ever has.
August 25, 2020
Donald Trump was officially nominated by the GOP as its candidate for the 2020 Presidential election last night.
Kanye West failed to submit signatures to appear on Wyoming's ballot by yesterday's deadline.
August 26, 2020
I haven't been listening or watching the conventions, but I have heard some commentary on speeches from NPR's Politics. Those have analyzed the speeches.
I was really struck by the snippets from Vice President Pence's on "law and order". Strong shades of the 1970s there.
August 29, 2020
Kanye West has brought suit against Wisconsin in an effort to appear on its ballot.
September 4, 2020
Judges have ruled that West's petitions were defective for Arizona and Virginia and he will not appear on those state's ballots.
According to the Atlantic, when President Trump was in France to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the End of World War One:
In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.
According to the Washington Post:
In one account, the president told senior advisers that he didn’t understand why the U.S. government placed such value on finding soldiers missing in action because they had performed poorly and gotten caught and deserved what they got.
It'll be interesting to see what the results of this will be. In almost any prior era this would result in a massive loss of support if it proved to be true. Right now, the veracity of the claims seems well established and it would be incumbent upon the accusee to support a denial. I can't think of any prior instance in American history when anyone has said anything remotely similar to this and indeed American politicians have been so careful regarding the nation's war dead that even Confederate troops, who were in open rebellion against the United States, have generally not been criticized at high levels.
September 4, 2020, part two.
Perhaps not surprisingly, President Trump has denied claims that he called U.S. troops who died at Belleau Woods losers and suckers, accordingly to press stories breaking even after I posted the first item this morning.
Again, we'll see where this goes, but the Atlantic is a respected journal and in normal times this would be almost impossible to live down. Americans may not remember World War One well, but honoring veterans is nearly a universal American norm and deeply ingrained in the culture. It's difficult to see how Trump's most ardent supporters will be able to excuse what he said and frankly an outright denial and acceptance that denial is sincere and correct would seem to be their only options.
September 9, 2020
Kanye West will appear on the Mississippi ballot.
September 11, 2020
President Trump, for reasons that can hardly be imagined, allowed himself to be interviewed by Bob Woodward for a book on Trump. What sort of hubris goes into a decision like this can hardly be imagined.
Since the Biden nomination Trump supporters have claimed, not without reason, that Biden appears to do well in campaigning as long as he stays home and says nothing. Recently, however, he's been giving speeches and they've been remarkable for their clarity. In contrast, things Trump said or is alleged to have said are breaking out in ways that can only be regarded as damaging.
The first item, of course, was the one addressed above regarding American war dead. The Trump administration and some of his supporters are denying the statements were said and are using the fact that they're attributed to anonymous sources as support for their claims Here, however, no denials can be made as the Woodward interviews were taped.
As Woodward has a book to sell, they're coming out piecemeal, with the first one to be released being Trump's statement that he downplayed the Coronavirus as he didn't want to create panic. That an administration might downplay such an event while trying to react to it frankly isn't surprising at all, but to admit to it on tape while, at the same time, there are plenty of early administration pronouncements about the disease to play in contrast is doing something so bewildering the logic behind it simply can't be imagined.
Normally, of course, this would hurt a candidate, but at this point it appears that voter positions going into the fall are largely fixed. That's not a good thing for Trump, however, as support in the middle has swayed against him and it seems very unlikely that he can recover from that at this point. This recent series of events only serve to cement what appears to have been a significant loss of Trump support in the electorate. Biden would have to have a really dramatic failure of some sort to change that now.
In some slight evidence of a reemergence of a Catholic vote, something that's been more imaginary than real since Kennedy's 1960 election, there's some discussion going on regarding Pamela Harris' grilling of a judicial candidate some time ago for being a Knight of Columbus. There's really no way to play the story down in that it was pretty clear that Harris' questions took the position that a dedicated Catholic was unfit for the judiciary as that would mean, and in fact it would mean, that the person was opposed to abortion. Trump supporters are attempting to exploit this, and they may have grounds to do so in that for the last several election cycles Catholic lay organizations, followed by some clerics, have taken the position that support for abortion crosses a line such that voting for a person who supports it is a mortal sin.
This came to a head recently when a Wisconsin Priest criticized Ft. James Martin, a controversial Jesuit cleric who is known for his support of LGBTQ issues, for speaking at the Democratic Convention. The Wisconsin Priest stated that a Catholic couldn't be a Democrat and that those Catholics who are in it are in danger of losing their salvation. This was followed up by an endorsement by Bishop Joseph J. Strickland of Texas, who endorsed what had been said. Of note, a Catholic nun spoke at the Republican Convention on the issue of abortion, calling the unborn "the largest marginalized group".
Locally, i.e., in the state, a surprising minor story has developed in that Democratic candidates emerged in several races during the primary due to write in campaigns. Given that this is so unusual a person has to suspect that there was a bit of an organized effort behind it. This has left Republican candidates who emerged from the general election feeling that they'd won their races now facing a contested race in the fall.
___________________________________________________________________________________
September 14, 2020
The State's GOP has decided to withhold funding from candidates who do not agree with 80% of the party's platform.
The Party's platform is actually fairly brief, and would not really seem to be a source of the recent fights within the party on this matter. It states:
Platform of the Wyoming Republican Party
Unanimously adopted June 27, 2020 Wyoming Republican Party State Convention
WE believe there are Timeless Truths that will always inform and direct our party and our country regardless of current events and circumstances, changing strategies, goals, and leadership. These Truths, put into action, maintain, protect, and defend our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Life
1. All individuals are endowed by their Creator from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death with the rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The only purpose of government is to protect these rights for all.
Equality
2. Every citizen is equal before, equally protected by, and equally subject to, the law.
Second Amendment
3. The right of individuals to keep and bear Arms and ammunition shall not be infringed, restricted, or denied. Individuals must never be prevented from defending life, liberty, or property.
Private Property Rights
4. The pursuit by an individual to rightfully acquire, keep and enjoy his own property is foundational. Every individual has the right to develop his own potential, to use and enjoy his own property, tangible or intellectual, and pursue his own interests, free from the restrictions of arbitrary force. Individuals are always presumed to be the best stewards of their property.
5. The Wyoming Republican Party supports the protection of private property from the use of eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, amortization or inverse condemnation.
Religious Freedom
6. The freedom to practice one’s faith is a fundamental natural right secured by our Constitution. The First Amendment does not require the expulsion of religion from public life. We must keep in mind the Judeo-Christian principles of the Founding Fathers when they wrote it; the practice of faith under this tradition encourages good moral behavior and the development of character that helps secure the other fundamental bases of our national citizenship. Freedom of religion includes the right to abstain from actions contrary to one’s religious beliefs.
Family Values
7. The Wyoming Republican Party believes that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
8. The traditional family, based on the foundation of marriage between one man and one woman, is the best institution and is the authority on how to provide children with the education and training to develop their potential and prepare them to participate in society and in our government.
Liberty
9. Liberty is indivisible from economic freedom. The free market economy is the economic system most compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government. Government’s undue interference in the market, as well as the fiscal irresponsibility of government, results in economic inequity. There exists no fundamental right to the fruits of another person’s labor.
Citizenry Government By the Constitution
10. The citizens of the United States are the ultimate authority. Governments possess powers derived only from the consent of the governed.
11. Our constitutional representative republic remains the best political system, derived from history and knowledge of human nature, to prohibit tyranny, assure equality of opportunity and protect our individual rights.
12. The Constitution of the United States establishes a more perfect union of sovereign states, not a group of subordinate subsidiaries. Neither the judiciary nor the executive may effectively change the document via decisions, judicial opinions, or executive actions. The Constitution of the United States may only be altered by the processes of amendment as provided therein. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. Under the Tenth Amendment, powers not enumerated in it are reserved to the States and the People. The most effective, responsible, and responsive government is the government that is closest to the People. Government that governs least governs best.
American Exceptionalism
13. The United States must maintain its national sovereignty free from foreign influence that would infringe on the rights of the American People guaranteed by the Constitution. Foreign policy must serve the just interests of the United States.
Military
14. It is incumbent on the federal government to maintain a strong military defense for the protection of our people, our interests, and our way of life. Those who serve our country honorably deserve our deepest gratitude, highest respect and unwavering support.
Taxes
15. All taxes collected must be used for the constitutional purposes of government. It is irresponsible to run up debts that are passed on to our children and grandchildren. Taxes should never be more than necessary to meet the government’s constitutional obligations.
Education
16. The Wyoming Republican Party supports the teaching of the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Wyoming, the Declaration of Independence, and other United States founding documents as well as the factual history and heritage of the United States in Wyoming schools and the historical evidence of the role of faith and biblical principles in the founding of our nation.
Water Rights
17. The Wyoming Republican Party believes in the state’s primacy over water, wildlife, minerals and natural resources; supports any actions which assures Wyoming’s primacy over its water; i.e. the doctrine of prior appropriations.
Right to Work
18. The Wyoming Republican Party opposes the unionization of public employees and supports the Right to Work Law.
Civic Duty
19. Our liberty and the continued success of our republican form of federal government demands continuous vigilance by “We the People.
Free Speech
20. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right secured by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Wyoming. Freedom of speech includes the freedom of the individual to express his or her beliefs, ideas and opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal sanction by government.
As I've put the one up, I'll put the Democratic platform up here as well for contrast:
WYOMING DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM
Adopted June 6, 2020
The Wyoming Democratic Party seeks to ensure that all people enjoy the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution. We are dedicated to ensuring that every person—regardless of race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and political affiliation—has a voice in how we are governed. We work for equality, domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare, and liberty.
We envision a Wyoming in which all people are treated with respect and dignity. A state in which every person has access to justice, housing, healthcare, well-paying jobs, quality public education, public lands, a healthy environment, and the ballot.
As Democrats—and more importantly, as citizens of this state, nation, and world—we are dedicated to working together to make this vision a reality now and in years to come.SECTION 1: FAIRNESS & EQUALITY
Wyoming Democrats embrace the charge of our state and national constitutions: that all humans are equal and that this principle should be reflected in our local, state, and national laws, business, and societal practices.
• We oppose discrimination and racism in any form and demand equal access to justice, protection under our statutes, services, resources, and economic opportunities for every person in this country.
• We support the enactment of laws in Wyoming that provide equal protection to LGBTQIA+ people in access to quality health care and education, accommodations, employment, and housing.
• We support endeavors to close the wage gap that exists between women and men and we recognize the contributions that women make to every facet of our society.
• We recognize, respect, and support the sovereignty of Native American tribes, which has not been fulfilled in the history of the United States of America.
• We support the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment as it pertains to religion and an individual's right to worship or not worship as they see fit, the separation of church and state, freedom from religion, and the rights of all individuals to choose whether or how they worship.
• We support marriage equality.
• We support the rights of people with disabilities, and promote accessibility for their community to all public spaces, living wages, and civil rights.
• We support the reproductive rights of all Wyomingites.
SECTION 2: GOVERNMENT PRACTICES
Wyoming Democrats know that our government works best when it is transparent, accessible, and promotes public involvement.
• We support applying open meeting laws to every level and branch of government.
• We support the enforcement of ethics and conduct standards for all elected officials, public employees, and government contractors.
• We support the availability to citizens of all physical and digital public records of deliberations, votes, and decisions made at every level of government.
• We support electronic voting in the Wyoming State Legislature and that the votes be recorded and preserved for public review.
SECTION 3: VOTING AND ELECTIONS
Wyoming Democrats are dedicated to ensuring that election processes and voting are fair, transparent, and accessible to all citizens, and we believe that unaccounted-for money and influence in politics is detrimental to the integrity of electoral systems.
• We support the elimination of corporate money in politics and the overturning of Citizens United.
• We oppose foreign interference in U.S. elections.
• We oppose the gerrymandering of federal and state legislative districts.
• We support efforts and legislation designed to ensure that all political donations are transparent and traceable to their origin.
• We support laws prohibiting former lawmakers from becoming lobbyists within five years of leaving office.
• We support equal and fair access to media for all candidates.
• We support legislation requiring any federal or statewide candidate appearing on the Wyoming ballot to provide personal and business tax returns for the previous five years.
• We support automatic voter registration and the Universal Right to Vote By Mail Act.
• We support ranked-choice voting for local and statewide elections in Wyoming.
• We support the right to vote of convicted felons as a means of maintaining their connection to their responsibilities of citizenship in the spirit of restorative justice, and if they so choose, to run for and hold state and local office.
• We support the transition of county offices to becoming non-partisan positions.
• We support the end of the Electoral College.
• We support censuses and encourage all to participate to ensure a rightful and fair count for the state of Wyoming.
SECTION 4: HEALTHCARE
Wyoming Democrats understand that access to health care—both physical and mental—should be considered a right and not a privilege, from birth to the end of life, including reproductive health care according to personal choice.
• We support the adoption of a universal public health care system in the United States.
• We support the expansion of Medicaid in Wyoming.
• We support protecting and preserving Medicare.
• We support funding for research in critical health areas, including: gun violence, force used by law enforcement officers, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, depression, infectious disease, and prevention and rehabilitation programs.
• We support efforts to strengthen, fund, and foster innovation in rural health care.
• We support the legalization and use of medical marijuana.
• We support family planning, Planned Parenthood, all reproductive health care services, and the right of women to make their own choices regarding their reproductive health, including the right to choose an abortion.
• We support responsible oversight of pharmaceutical companies and prescription drugs by passing common sense release of available data that does not violate individual patient privacy.
• We support increased funding and awareness for mental health and counseling services in Wyoming.
• We support adding emergency medical services as an essential service.
SECTION 5: EDUCATION
Wyoming Democrats believe in supporting robust investments in public education and agree with the state constitutional mandate that higher education be “as nearly free” as possible.
• We support equal access to fully funded public education from Pre-K through college.
• We support robust funding of public education at the state and national levels.
• We support the inclusion of vocational training in our public education system.
• We support the inclusion of early childhood education as a fundamental educational right and moving it's oversight and funding from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Wyoming Department of Education, thereby ensuring adequate funding and recognizing its educational importance.
• We support the right of educators to negotiate collectively and participate in the certification process to ensure a high standard of quality in teaching and learning.
• We support funding for the University of Wyoming and the seven community colleges in our state, as well as cultivating a rich diversity of academic programs and opportunities.
• We support the promotion of the humanities, creative arts, social sciences, civic and government studies, natural sciences, technology, mathematics, and formal sciences at all educational levels and institutions.
• We oppose teaching “alternative science” that lacks a scientific base of fact or theory.
• We support the cultivation of a safe environment for students, faculty, and staff and oppose the arming of any school employees.
• We support academic programs at all levels that promote and cultivate the acceptance of diversity.
SECTION 6: ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT, & TAXES
To achieve prosperity, Wyoming Democrats promote policies and practices that protect workers’ safety and rights, cultivate economic diversity, and consider important tax reforms.
• We support the right of employees to organize and enter into collective bargaining, including the legalization and formation of worker-owned cooperatives in Wyoming.
• We recognize that “right to work” is a manipulative phrase and oppose any legislation that leads to that purpose.
• We support equal pay for equal work.
• We support efforts and programs designed to study and promote economic diversity in our state and region.
• We support programs to support displaced workers through economic means and job education and training.
• We support a minimum living wage of $15/hour for all workers, including "Tip Workers."
• We believe that retirement income and pensions should be preserved even in cases of companies and firms becoming insolvent.
• We believe public safety is not a negotiable item between a corporation and its employees, and we support the adoption of policies and statutes that require a two-person crew for trains bringing freight through Wyoming.
• We support affirmative action policies to create diverse work environments and offer more opportunities to traditionally underemployed and disadvantaged populations.
• We support a system where the benefits of economic growth are distributed to workers who helped to drive that growth.
• We support effective and enhanced efforts to maintain and improve safe working conditions and standards for workers in Wyoming.
• We support the preservation of the U.S. Social Security System.
• We support the continuation of the U.S. Postal Service.
• We support progressive forms of taxation and establishing a progressive income tax in Wyoming as part of reducing our state's dependence on mineral severance funds.
• We hold that income from investments should not be taxed lower than those from earnings by workers.
• We support public banking and postal banking.
• We support the legalization of marijuana as an economic revenue source for the state, and we support marijuana tax dollars to be used for infrastructure that supports clean water and clean air, education, prison reform, and twenty-first century transportation technologies.
SECTION 7: PUBLIC LANDS, CONSERVATION, AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Wyoming is home to and known for the beauty of our diverse and dramatic natural environments. The access we have to public lands and spaces is unique and worth preserving. Wyoming Democrats recognize the importance of conserving wildlife, wildlands, and our rich legacy of connecting with the environment.
• We recognize that federal lands belong to all Americans and oppose any efforts to transfer the management of public lands to the state or any other entity.
• We believe that Wyoming’s travel, wildlife, and outdoor recreation sector is vital to our way of life and economy.
• We believe that any lands acquired by the State of Wyoming should be managed for the long-term benefit of all people, wildlife, and the environment.
• Recognizing the scientific research that climate change is driven by human activity, we support a Green New Deal that explicitly cares for fossil fuel states and workers.
• We believe that providing quality jobs and protecting the environment are not mutually exclusive goals.
• We support maintaining a diverse energy portfolio and emphasizing the importance of renewable energy and energy efficiency in economic growth, sustainability, and diversification.
• We support small farming and ranching operations in Wyoming and sustainable, responsible agricultural practices.
• We support the U.S. rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015.
• We support a common-sense option that is good for ranchers who willingly choose to retire their grazing permits, benefits American taxpayers, and the long-term health of our public lands.
• We support the enforcement of environmental protection laws that reduce pollution and ensure the clean air and water across Wyoming and the nation.
• We support actions that will lead to the participation of the United States in global initiatives to combat climate change and the spread of emerging diseases.
• We oppose any effort to curtail net metering and we support the right to participate in residential renewable energy.
• We support the formation of public-private partnerships to expand electric vehicle charging infrastructure across Wyoming and the United States.
SECTION 8: IMMIGRATION
Our country was built on immigration. Today, it continues to weave a rich tapestry of diversity that improves our communities. Wyoming Democrats appreciate and welcome those who choose to come to this country.
• We support immigration and advocate for an immigration system that provides a clear and consistent path to citizenship.
• We oppose the construction of a wall on the U.S. Southern border.
• We support keeping immigrant families together and strongly oppose the separation of children from parents and incarceration in cages at the hands of our government.
• We support a path to citizenship for individuals referred to as DACA or Dreamers.
• We oppose the building of private prisons and Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in Wyoming.
• We support exposing and eliminating human trafficking.
• We oppose any efforts to deny immigrants health care and human services, education, or access to justice.
SECTION 9: CIVIL RIGHTS, LAWS, AND JUSTICE
Wyoming Democrats recognize the need to protect the well-being of all people in our state and nation through our services, justice system, and laws.
• We support and defend freedom of speech for every person in this nation.
• We support the Second Amendment by attempting to balance the "right to bear arms" with the requirement to be "well regulated" to maintain this right.
• We support the U.S. Bill of Rights as written in the U.S. Constitution.
• We support the legalization of marijuana and ending the war on drugs.
• We oppose private and for-profit prisons, including Adult Community Corrections facilities.
• We support more effective laws addressing domestic violence and violence against all peoples, and we support the Violence Against Women Act.
• We support efforts, programs, funding, and legislation to address poverty in our state and nation.
• We support minimizing incarceration and promoting rehabilitation.
• We support public safety nets to help protect the vulnerable among our population.
• We acknowledge the toxic effects of white privilege and recognize the persisting damage done from this nation's history of slavery and discrimination; as a Party, we stand in solidarity in affirming Black Lives Matter.
• We support a systemic change in the policing of people, including: the reallocation of law enforcement funding to social wellness and prevention programs, nonviolent crisis de-escalation training for law enforcement, education for law enforcement in mental health and racial justice, trauma screening and intervention for law enforcement, and a transparent process for improper use of force.
• We condemn violence against, and support protections for, indigenous women and girls.
SECTION 10: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Wyoming Democrats recognize that we are global citizens and have a role to play in promoting peace and prosperity across the globe.
• We support diplomacy as the priority in international relations and we support the restoration of collaborative relationships with other nations that promote the principles of freedom, human rights, and compassion without the use of force.
• We support humanitarian aid to other nations and peoples and we support a pledge for the U.S. to rejoin the World Health Organization as a contributing member.
• We believe in restoring the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war and authorize policing or defensive military actions against other nations and peoples.
• We support a reduction of resources expended on militarism.
• We support the U.S. once again taking an active role in nuclear disarmament.
COMMENDATIONS
The Wyoming Democratic Party would like to recognize the work, contributions, and accomplishments of the following individuals, groups, and organizations:
• The nurses, doctors, and health care workers of this nation who are fighting on the front lines of the COVID-19 Pandemic.
• All emergency responders, firefighters, and police officers who serve our communities.
• The members of the armed forces—both current and foreign—for their willingness to serve our nation.
• Democrats holding office at every level of government who are advocating for the principles of our party, fighting for the least among us, and continuing to represent the interests of their constituents with integrity and statesmanship—especially those in Wyoming.
We'll comment on
the platforms themselves some other time.
Joe Biden formally introduced gun control into the race
following the shooting of two LA County Sheriff's deputies, stating that
"weapons of war" had no place in civilian hands. Weapons of
that type, loosely defined, are already heavily regulated in California.
September 15, 2020
For the first time in its 175 year history, Scientific
American has endorsed a Presidential candidate, with that candidate
being Joe Biden. Calling the election one that involved a choice between
"life and death", the magazine went on to criticize the Trump administrations
response to the Coronavirus pandemic.
September 16, 2020
JoAnn True, a member of one of the state's premier
Republican families, was censured by the GOP for giving money to the Cowboy Run
Fund, which helps sponsor and fund female candidates. The organization has
given to female candidates. True is the Natrona County GOP's state
delegate.
It's hard not to imagine this having long term implications
in the party and by extension the state's politics. The GOP earlier took
a run at Pat Sweeney but the censure effort failed. That this one
succeeded is remarkable in that it practically amounts to a declaration of war
against one of the Republican party's oldest, most established, and Wyoming GOP
establishment, political families. It'd be roughly equivalent to the
current GOP censuring Jenna Bush. True's supporters are tying this to the
fact that the organization supports women candidates, and are portraying it as
a gender based action. The GOP leadership denied the charge.
The effort was apparently started by a candidate who failed
in a primary race.
September 17, 2020
Michael Bloomberg has committed $100,000,000 to the Biden
campaign in Florida.
September 20, 2020
The death
of Ruth Bader Ginsburg brought a sharp new focus to the election and
what all is at stake in the contest. Indeed, so much so that I considered
starting a part 10 of this series, and still may, as it almost seems to be a
new race at this point.
Of course, it actually isn't at all.
The death of Justice Ginsburg was followed by a record
donation amount for the Democrats in this fall's campaign, bringing in
$31,000,000 immediately following the news.
An oped in the Tribune termed the recent censure of a Natrona County GOP member by the state's party as "idiotic". It was written by a prominent local Republican. A second Republican also wrote in opposition to the move, while the person responsible for filing for the censure wrote to defend it.
September 21, 2020
In the first 28 hours after the death of Justice Ginsburg the Democrats have taken in over $90,000,000 in campaign donations.
September 24, 2020
An odd choice by Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle to record in a Time interview a message emploring Americans to vote is resulting in an odd controversy.
Markle is of course American born, but the younger royal couple has made a lot of news recently for essentially acting more or less like spoiled brats. Markle wasn't ready, apparently, for the intense British media focus on the royals and didn't react well to it. Tensions apparently also developed between the couple and the remaining royals. Ultimately Prince Harry resigned from his royal duties and the couple was in turn surprised by the Crown stripping them of them of most of their benefits.
In order to marry Prince Harry Markle had to become a British citizen and she's still part of the royal household. Prince Harry is of course a British citizen and by descent a member of the sovereign family, as she is by marriage. Neither had any business commenting in any fashion on an American election.
This has in turn caused President Trump to comment, for which he received a little flak, but in the UK it's caused some in the British press, which already has a strained relationship with the couple, to suggest they ought to be stripped of their royal status.
All this is press the royals don't need. Just last week Prince Andrew was back in the news as it appears that the family will take additional steps against him due to his association with Jeffrey Epstein. Now Harry and Meghan are in the news again. All in all, they come across looking poorly through actions like this, and just after the Queen had elevated the status of her office by her widely acclaimed speech to the British nation on the pandemic.
September 25, 2020
Earlier in the week President Trump, at a Press conference, made comments that suggested he might not be willing to smoothly transfer power by the date of the inauguration.
Trump's off the cuff remarks are often difficult to understand as he's a remarkably poor speaker and has the habit of simply speaking what occurs to him, a dangerous practice for anyone but a really adopt speaker and quick thinker. At least one CNN reporter who really doesn't like Trump stated that his remarks were misunderstood, and what Trump meant is that if mail in ballots were done away with, which it is entirely too late to do, Trump would win, as the mail in ballots will be subject to fraudulent voting. There's no evidence that they will be subject to fraudulent votes, but Trump has consistently maintained that.
His comments, however, appeared to suggest that if the mail in ballots were gotten rid of the transition would be smooth as there wouldn't be one, which sounded alarmingly like an anticipated refusal to leave if there's any doubt in the results When combined with earlier comments, those assuming that's what he meant were not unjustified in their assumptions.
Added to that, the Atlantic wrote a deeply researched article in which it set out a possible way to basically have Trump ignore the ballots if the election is close. The scenario would involve litigation in states with high mail in ballots, which there is very little time to accomplish, combined with a request for the states to appoint electors if there is no decision in time.
That approach would be legal, but it would be shattering to the country and, while it may be in some minds, I'll predict it won't occur. Already, following his statements, senior Republicans are rejecting any possibility that something like this will occur. At the same time the Press is now fully speculating on it, a speculation that's largely follows along the same lines as the Atlantic article.
The speculation is based on the fact that the President won't indicate that he'll concede the election if he loses and lacks the usually conciliatory skills most Presidents have. And as he's been casting doubt on the validity of the upcoming election there's real reason to believe that this will end up immediately in the courts. It's important to remember, however that Trump's popularity has never increased during his Presidency and he has always been an unpopular President who received a minority of the popular vote. The surprising thing about his election has been the degree to which Republicans cooperated with him, but that was because of things they wanted, many of which they received. Hitching the Grand Old Party to an extreme effort to retain the Presidency would end the GOP and do permanent damage to the country. It's unlikely that the Republicans will go along with that at the national level, and frankly if it were to occur, which is unlikely, it would result in violence without a doubt in a country that's having a problem with violence right now.
While we're playing out extreme scenarios, one thing that the Atlantic article mentions that other commentators have not is the Atlantic's authors view, which has been run in the Atlantic before, that Trump is psychotic. Indeed, that's a necessary aspect of their scenario. I note that as I suspect, if Trump actually were to attempt a move towards state appointed electors in the fashion that the article sets out, there will be a back door move, and deal with Pence, to remove him as suffering from what will be termed a post election psychosis. This would also be a disaster for the country, but at that point we'd be in disaster mode anyhow.
All of these scenarios are, in my view, quite unlikely. More likely, in my view, is that the vote comes in a lot smoother than anticipated. These late comments on the election by Trump, combined with the drama that will be upcoming about the Supreme Court, will mean that undecideds are more likely than other to go with the Democrats, that Republicans who were reluctant but voted for Trump last time will go with Biden, and that Trump will largely only retain his base. I suspect that the results are going to be much more quickly known that surprised and that these comments and those actions will cement a Biden election which seems inevitable at this point anyhow.
On ballots, I picked up my Wyoming ballot, and it had a surprise in the Presidential category.
The GOP, Democratic, and Libertarian candidates were all there. The Greens don't ever seem to make the Wyoming ballot. On top of it, however were an independant slate. That slate featured Brock Pierce as the Presidential candidate and Karla Ballard as the Vice Presidential candidate. Ballard was a child actor who has gone on to be an entrepreneur and a philanthropist.
Looking them up, Pierce actually is attempting to create a major third party, but it's hard to understand what it stands for. It mainly wants to bust up the two party system, and it cites the example of 1824 as its model for this election.
Having not even heard of it until now isn't a good sign, but overall, the evidence is that third parties are going to get nowhere this year. While it would seem likely that the number of people disgusted with both parties would be at a record high this year, what seems to actually be the case is that the two major parties have sucked all the air out of the room and therefore third parties aren't going to figure in this election at all.
September 26, 2020
Fractures in the Republican Party in the state widened with the news that several prominent Fremont County Republicans have endorsed Libertarian candidate Bethany Baldes over the Republican nominee Ember Oakley, although Oakley is still taking the lion's share of prominent GOP endorsements, in the a House race in that county.
The differences between the two candidates actually aren't all that great. About the only notable one is some reservations about a provision that was removed from the original "Stand Your Ground" law regarding immunity that some featured would prevent prosecutions even in the event of confessions to a homicide. Oakley, a Republican, expressed some reservations which isn't surprising given her occupation of being a prosecutor. That was enough, however for her to become a target in the eyes of some on the 2nd Amendment.
It's been noted that this presents an interesting challenge to a Republican Party that just sanctioned a prominent Natrona County Republican for donating to a group that supports women in politics irrespective of party Now the GOP has several Fremont County Republicans directly supporting a Libertarian candidate against a Republican who had no opposition in the primary and the question is whether the GOP will take action in a case in which those individuals are supporting a non party candidate whose views more or less align with the current right wing of the state's GOP.
On other news, a frequent topic the past several weeks has been that of exploring the "Catholic Vote". With Amy Coney Barrett the probable Supreme Court nominee, this is getting a lot of press, and it's about to get a lot more.
We've taken the position herein the past that there's really no "Catholic Vote" in the United States anymore, and there really hasn't been since the 1960 election. That's obviously not entirely true, however, and an interesting aspect of this may be the resurgence of Catholic orthodoxy in the Internet age, something going on within the church right now. Following Kennedy's Catholic only on Sunday speech to the Southern Baptists in 1960, there's was a widely held view in Catholic circles that it was okay to be fully part of American life and politics more or less without deep religious conviction. This was followed in the 1970s by the influence of "the Spirit of Vatican II" which, as commentators have noted, was a misinterpretation of Vatican II but one which lead to a lot of liberalization in the Church, often against a lot of the Parishioners desires.
A backlash in the pews has been building to this for a very long time, but the scandals associated with events of the 1970s, which fairly have to go back really to the post World War Two era, combined with the self education efforts the Internet has brought about, and added to by the new force of Catholic media, has in fact built a new, strong and young Catholic orthodoxy. As part of that some members of this movement have strongly maintained that certain moral issues are "non negotiables".
The bigotry that's about to break out over the nomination of a Catholic jurist to the Supreme Court, which will go far beyond simply her judicial and political views but also sink to flat out insulting Catholicism in general is bringing this into focus for Catholics who hold a unique mix of political views. Traditionally neither right nor left, a sense that left wing politicians basically disdain Catholics is aiding in really creating a Catholic vote in 2020 which may in fact have a significant role, for the first time in decades, in the election.
This is the closing edition, we might note, for Part 9. It's now too long to easily accept updates. On to Part 10.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Related threads:
The 2020 Election, Part 3
The 2020 Election, Part 7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)