Camp Mondawmin, Schroon Lake, N.Y. October 15, 1920.
View from lookout, New Lake View Hotel, Highgate Springs, Vt.
Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts
Thursday, October 15, 2020
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
October 6, 1920. East Coast Scenes
Clayton, New Jersey Fire Department. October 6, 1920.
Game two of the World Series went to Brooklyn, 3 to 0.
Ebbets Field, October 6, 1920.
Outside Ebbets Field, October 6, 1920.
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
September 16, 1920. The Wall Street Bombing.
On this day, at 12:01 p.m., terrorist widely believed to be Galleanist anarchists, set off a bomb in New York's Wall Street district which killed thirty-eight people and injured hundreds more.
The bomb, designed to deploy shrapnel, killed mostly young workers in the district at a time at which young workers were very young. It was left in a horse drawn wagon, with horse still attached, and went off at the busy noon hour.
The direct perpetrators of the act were never discovered.
On the same day, a Polish artillery regiment was destroyed, with some prisoners and wounded, by a Red Army cavalry unit that outnumbered it after it expended all of its ammunition during the Battle of Dytiatyn. The Red Army unit was itself destroyed by Polish forces a few days latter.
The battle became a famous one for the Poles who established a military cemetery there. That was later destroyed by the Soviets following World War Two and the location is now inside of Ukraine.
Thursday, September 3, 2020
Gee. . . that would almost seem to suggest that New York City isn't the Benighted Shangri La that its politicians and press suggests. . .
Suburban Home Sales Boom as People Move Out of N.Y.C.
Headline from the New York Times.
Wednesday, September 2, 2020
September 2, 1920. Changing views.
Most of the time when I put a newspaper up here, it's to mark some big or at least interesting century old event. Every now and then, however it's to comment on something and how it was perceived, which by extension comments on how we perceive things now.
I see around here fairly frequently stickers that say "Welcome to Wyoming--Consider everyone armed". It's an amusing joke based on the fact that firearms are really common here. That's been the case as long as I can personally recall, but it also refers to the fact that over the past two decades there's been a real boom in the concealed carry movement. I've taken a look at that and its history in this old post here:
Now, by mentioning this here, I don't mean to suggest that I'm opposed to these state laws allowing for concealed carry. I'm not. But I do want to point out how carrying hasn't always been perceived the way it is now.
In 2020 we can take it for granted that the press is universally liberal, and indeed "progressive", unless we specifically know otherwise about a particular outlet. In 1920, however, its a little more difficult to tell. Papers were Democratic or Republican and generally weren't shy about noting it, but they were also pretty slavish followers of social trends, unless they were absolutely bucking them. All of which makes the headline about Gerald Stack engaging in an act of "Slander" against Wyoming men interesting.
Under the same circumstances today, there aren't very many Wyoming men who would regard his comment as slanderous. Some would find it childish and inaccurate, and some on the political fringes would hold it up as a positive or negative example. But quite a few people would take some secret pride in the thought that everyone in the state was packing.
In 1920, however, Wyoming was seeking to overcome its frontier image even while preserving it. The Cheyenne newspaper knew that his comment wasn't true and pointed it out. Beyond that, they pointed it out as being slanderous. An insult, as it was, to the men of Wyoming.
Apparently it wasn't an insult to women, presumably because women weren't thought to be packing.
In actuality, quite a few people at the time, including quite a few people were packing and the ownership of pocket pistols was common. Chicago, for its part, didn't have a gun control law addressing handguns until 1981, much later than most people would suppose, and it hasn't been a huge success by any measure. Having said that, Illinois restricted the carrying of concealed handguns in 1949, following World War Two, at which time, contrary to our general myth, there was widespread national support for banning handguns. New York City, in contrast, passed a firearms licensing act for concealable handguns in 1911, making the carrying of them without a license a felony.
Again, this isn't an argument for anything. It's just an interesting look at how we often inaccurately imagine what the past was like.
Monday, August 10, 2020
Stupid legal moves. New York Sues The NRA
I've been really critical of the Ivy League law schools here from time to time, with a lot of that criticism being that graduating from these schools has become the right of passage into non work in the legal field in a way that makes their utility to the actual field of law doubtful.
Indeed, it's become uniquely destructive in some ways, but only as a focused part of what a recent critic of law and the baby boom generation has otherwise noted. The overproduction of lawyers starting in the 1970s and the liberalization of legal education in the same period has created an anti democratic class of lawyers more or less imbued with the Napoleonic concept of creating a liberal society through force, although in their case the field of battle is the courts rather than some poor farmer's wheat field.
A good example of this is the recent lawsuit against the National Rifle Association by New York's Attorney General Letitia James.
James is a Harvard law graduate who is the elected Attorney General of New York. A member of the Working Families Party and the Democratic Party, James is a left wing activist who has never worked in private practice, but rather has served in her state's AG's office and for her state's legislature for years.
The lawsuit is political.
I haven't looked at the details, but it would appear doubtful that there's a good grounds for standing for New York to sue the NRA. If its court's uphold the bringing of the suit, it would say something disturbing about them and the state of the law in New York. The most probable result of the suit is to flood the coffers of the NRA with donations, demonstrate to American firearms owners that the Democrats really are out to take their guns, and to be an expensive embarrassment to New York. In some real ways, the suit couldn't have come at a better time for the NRA no matter what happens. It's going to survive and profit from this.
It won't impact James in any fashion as she'll gain liberal credit, no matter what happens.
All of this is not to say that there aren't some obvious problems with the organization of the National Rifle Association. The last few years its internal organization has been disarray with long time firms that have worked for it having severed their connections for one reason or another, and with significant staffers departing under odd circumstances. Last year there was rumor of an attempted coup in the leadership of the NRA, and frankly it's due for a change. Under Wayne LaPierre the organization has become increasingly hardcore in its views which in recent years is hurting it and which has somewhat alienated firearms owners who are not on the AR15 end of ownership. It's been successful in holding the line on litigation, and very successful in the courts, but there's a real sense that things are likely to change soon.
Part of the reason that's the case is that the NRA, in 2016, completely aligned itself with Donald Trump in a way that was extremely unwise. By doing that, it abandoned a policy it was abandoning anyhow of supporting politicians of either party who were pro gun. That direction became apparent during President Obama's administration as President Obama took no action in this area at all and yet was still criticized. That Trump was likely to be a heavily polarizing President was obvious from the onset and now, four years later, it looks almost inevitable that he will be defeated and possible that the Senate will change hands. If this is the case, the NRA will have no Democratic allies in Congress whatsoever.
Another part of the reason for this is that at this point the NRA, in the form of LaPierre, is like politics itself and has become dominated by Baby Boomers who should have left some time ago. LaPierre is 70 years old and really past the point where he should be leading the organization. A change in leadership really should have come at least a decade ago, which is likewise true of the political leadership of both parties. The leadership of the NRA, like the leadership of the political parties, has ossified in a way that is now hurting it.
The lawsuit won't change that. But the upcoming election may. Firearms owners in the US really have nowhere else to go to as all competing organizations are much more to the right of the NRA and they therefore don't attract the loyalty of firearms owners at large.
But, fwiw, the NRA has more or less been through this before. In the 1960s and 1970s the organization struggled with how to deal with new gun control provisions that had just come in, with the existing leadership being willing to accomodate them at the time That lead to a type of coup in the organization then, which put in the more or less current leadership. Chances are good that there will be a changing of the guard soon.
Something that shows no sign of chaning, however, is the vast overproduction of law school graduates by American law schools. It was thought that a depression in the industry would address that, but it hasn't. Indeed, the ABA has been lobbying to suspend in person bar exams this year, when the sane approach, which we'll deal with later, is just to place a hiatus on new bar memberships in general for the remainder of the pandemic, and then tighten up admission standards in general. That's not going to happen, however.
Indeed, it's become uniquely destructive in some ways, but only as a focused part of what a recent critic of law and the baby boom generation has otherwise noted. The overproduction of lawyers starting in the 1970s and the liberalization of legal education in the same period has created an anti democratic class of lawyers more or less imbued with the Napoleonic concept of creating a liberal society through force, although in their case the field of battle is the courts rather than some poor farmer's wheat field.
A good example of this is the recent lawsuit against the National Rifle Association by New York's Attorney General Letitia James.
James is a Harvard law graduate who is the elected Attorney General of New York. A member of the Working Families Party and the Democratic Party, James is a left wing activist who has never worked in private practice, but rather has served in her state's AG's office and for her state's legislature for years.
The lawsuit is political.
I haven't looked at the details, but it would appear doubtful that there's a good grounds for standing for New York to sue the NRA. If its court's uphold the bringing of the suit, it would say something disturbing about them and the state of the law in New York. The most probable result of the suit is to flood the coffers of the NRA with donations, demonstrate to American firearms owners that the Democrats really are out to take their guns, and to be an expensive embarrassment to New York. In some real ways, the suit couldn't have come at a better time for the NRA no matter what happens. It's going to survive and profit from this.
It won't impact James in any fashion as she'll gain liberal credit, no matter what happens.
All of this is not to say that there aren't some obvious problems with the organization of the National Rifle Association. The last few years its internal organization has been disarray with long time firms that have worked for it having severed their connections for one reason or another, and with significant staffers departing under odd circumstances. Last year there was rumor of an attempted coup in the leadership of the NRA, and frankly it's due for a change. Under Wayne LaPierre the organization has become increasingly hardcore in its views which in recent years is hurting it and which has somewhat alienated firearms owners who are not on the AR15 end of ownership. It's been successful in holding the line on litigation, and very successful in the courts, but there's a real sense that things are likely to change soon.
Part of the reason that's the case is that the NRA, in 2016, completely aligned itself with Donald Trump in a way that was extremely unwise. By doing that, it abandoned a policy it was abandoning anyhow of supporting politicians of either party who were pro gun. That direction became apparent during President Obama's administration as President Obama took no action in this area at all and yet was still criticized. That Trump was likely to be a heavily polarizing President was obvious from the onset and now, four years later, it looks almost inevitable that he will be defeated and possible that the Senate will change hands. If this is the case, the NRA will have no Democratic allies in Congress whatsoever.
Another part of the reason for this is that at this point the NRA, in the form of LaPierre, is like politics itself and has become dominated by Baby Boomers who should have left some time ago. LaPierre is 70 years old and really past the point where he should be leading the organization. A change in leadership really should have come at least a decade ago, which is likewise true of the political leadership of both parties. The leadership of the NRA, like the leadership of the political parties, has ossified in a way that is now hurting it.
The lawsuit won't change that. But the upcoming election may. Firearms owners in the US really have nowhere else to go to as all competing organizations are much more to the right of the NRA and they therefore don't attract the loyalty of firearms owners at large.
But, fwiw, the NRA has more or less been through this before. In the 1960s and 1970s the organization struggled with how to deal with new gun control provisions that had just come in, with the existing leadership being willing to accomodate them at the time That lead to a type of coup in the organization then, which put in the more or less current leadership. Chances are good that there will be a changing of the guard soon.
Something that shows no sign of chaning, however, is the vast overproduction of law school graduates by American law schools. It was thought that a depression in the industry would address that, but it hasn't. Indeed, the ABA has been lobbying to suspend in person bar exams this year, when the sane approach, which we'll deal with later, is just to place a hiatus on new bar memberships in general for the remainder of the pandemic, and then tighten up admission standards in general. That's not going to happen, however.
Monday, July 20, 2020
Of note, Sweden. . .
population 10.23M, had more COVID 19 infections than New York State, population 19.45M, but far fewer deaths from the disease.
There's some sort of lesson in there, but probably not one that people are drawing.
There's some sort of lesson in there, but probably not one that people are drawing.
Sunday, May 24, 2020
May 24, 1920. Gatherings.
On this day in 1920 the Mexican Congress was ordered to assemble on the question of who would be the country's provisional president. After three rounds of voting, Aldolfo de la Huerta was chosen for the role.
De la Huerta
On the same day the body of the assassinated Carranza was taken to Mexico City. When his train arrived there fourteen aids of his who accompanied the body were arrested and put in a military prison for holding.
As the contest in Mexico concluded one round, a law was signed in New York that brought about a limit to the number of rounds in prize fighting and which further established weight classifications. Named after its sponsor, the Walker Law is regarded as having revolutionized boxing.
Jimmy Walker, then a New York state senator. He'd later be Governor of New York from 1926 to 1932, before resigning in a patronage scandal.
And in Brightwood Maine, an Old Maids Club met at a church.
What exactly such a gathering met in this context isn't clear.
Friday, February 28, 2020
Michael Bloomberg on farming
The agrarian society lasted 3,000 years and we could teach processes. I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It's a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that. Then we had 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow and you can have a job. And we created a lot of jobs. At one point, 98 percent of the world worked in agriculture, now it's 2 percent in the United States.
Michael BloombergI'm not weighing in on the Democratic field by posting this. Frankly, I don't see any evidence, at least so far, that a single candidate in the race this year of any party knows anything whatsoever about agricutlure. Indeed, it's depressing as everyone of them is an urbanite. Four of this years candidates alone, Sanders, Trump, Steyer and Bloomberg, are New Yorkers from the city, and its been a really long time since New York has given us a candidate that had a personal knowledge of things rural. None of those guys is Theodore Roosevelt.
But this comment is notably insulting. The problem is, it's probably a lot more common of view in the economic elite than we might wish to suppose.
Thursday, December 26, 2019
December 26, 1919. The Red Sox trade Babe Ruth.
A look at the news in Albany Count, New York, December 26, 1919.
Elsewhere in New York, on this day in 1919 Babe Ruth was sold by the Boston Rod Sox to the New York Yankees. The price was $125,000, the largest every paid to that date, and an enormous sum in context.
The Red Sox had one five of the first sixteen World Series. They would not win another one until 1946.
Elsewhere in New York, on this day in 1919 Babe Ruth was sold by the Boston Rod Sox to the New York Yankees. The price was $125,000, the largest every paid to that date, and an enormous sum in context.
The Red Sox had one five of the first sixteen World Series. They would not win another one until 1946.
Monday, December 16, 2019
The 2020 Election, Part 4
"The election is only one year from today".
"Only"?
That's the comment I heard on the news this morning, and my reaction, and that's why we've started a new thread here even though the last one wasn't at that stage where we'd normally go to the next installment.
The campaign has being going on for months and there's still a year to go. Frankly, that's patently absurd.
Canada recently had a national election that featured a campaign of about sixty days. That's just about right. An election process that takes over a year to complete is monumentally messed up. No regular person is paying that much attention at this stage and that means that the only ones who are, are political aficionados who likely don't reflect the views of average voters at all.
This isn't all of it of course. But it doesn't help. By this time we will have had an election, but we will also have had endless primaries, caucuses, and conventions. Congress will go in and out of session as will the Supreme Court. The House will have voted to impeach the President and the Senate will vote to keep him in office. Quite a few voters who voted in the early primary seasons will be dead by the election itself, and new voters who vote in the general election will not have been old enough to have voted in the primary. Pundits are fond of saying that tradition is the vote of the dead, but in this system, the vote of the dead actually is the vote of the dead.
November 4, 2020.
________________________________________________________________________________
Yesterday came the news that Michael Bloomberg is filing to run as a Democratic candidate for the Presidency in Alabama.
This is more in the nature of preserving his options than anything else. Alabama has an absurdly early deadline to file to run for the office. As I've noted before, the entire country would be better off if this entire process only had a 90 day lead into the General Election, rather than a year long one. Anyhow, Bloomberg has to file there if he intends to run anywhere. It doesn't mean he will run.
It also doesn't mean he won't and he's obviously thinking about it.
If he does, it'll be a real symbol of what's currently wrong with American politics. Bloomberg is 77 years old and yet another East Coast candidate.
Just a week or so ago a 25 year old New Zealand politician noting the average age of House of Commons members there in a speech was heckled by an older politician and suddenly became famous when she dismissed the heckling seamlessly with a "OK Boomer" retort. That action has shocked members of the Baby Boom generation, and no wonder given that they have such a death grip on American politics. The average age of the U.S. House of Representatives is 58 years of age, and the Senate 62 years of age. The average age of the top contenders for the Presidency right now has to be in the 70s. The last thing the Democrats need is another candidate whose political concepts were cast in the 1960s.
Indeed, my prediction is that if Bloomberg runs, the temptation for Hilary Clinton to run will become overwhelming. Bloomberg's candidacy only makes sense in any fashion if Biden is crashing towards a failure, assuming that Bloomberg isn't wholly delusional about his chances of success and assuming that he's not willing to drag the entire party down in order to make whatever point he's seeking to make. Assuming that those items are not the case, a Clinton run actually makes more sense than a Bloomberg one, and she'll know that.
November 8, 2019
_________________________________________________________________________________
Americans today will experience something they haven't since the early 1990s, that being live televised impeachment proceedings. Indeed, they'll actually experience something they've never experienced to the extent these will, which is live electronic media impeachment proceedings.
As noted above, there's now less than one year before the General Election and its difficult to imagine Congress really doing anything rapidly. How long these will go on isn't clear to the author, but we're in the tail end of 2019 now, and even if Congress moves with blistering speed, nothing is really going to get done prior to the end of the year. Assuming that Congress moves forward really quickly, and assuming that there's a party line vote, that would mean that the Senate might have an Impeachment Trial on its plate in very early 2020.
Whether the Senate moves quickly is another matter. Both sets of proceedings risk being turned into circuses of a sort, and the length of them might end up depending upon how long any one body feels that they obtain an advantage by doing that. Any way its looked at, however, it seems the results are basically clear right now. The House will vote to impeach and the Senate will vote not to.
What isn't clear is how this will impact the overall election. If there are real bombshells that come out during the proceedings, it might. Having said that, so far nothing has really changed all that much in basic support in committed camps to date. A real risk for the Democrats may be that the focus on this sort of thing has now run for a full three years and they're exposed to claims of having done nothing else. Irrespective of how a person feels on that sort of claim, it's already starting to circulate and it makes a bad basis for anyone's Presidential campaign.
Those old enough to remember the Nixon impeachment in the 1970s will recall that there was an overall air of collapse at the time. This was less true during the Clinton proceedings, but at that time there was a real feeling of political cynicism. Both atmospheres stand to be much amplified this time. That the country could go for a century between the first and second impeachment efforts, and then end up doing it three times in less than fifty years isn't a good development.
November 13, 2019
_________________________________________________________________________________
Deval Patrick, formerly the Governor of Massachusetts, has entered the race as a Democratic candidate.
Patrick, age 63, is taking the late entry approach. It'll be interesting to see if this works for him. Coming in now, he will receive attention at this late stage whereas many earlier former stars in the campaign have faded. At age 63, while not young by normal calculations, he is in this race. He's generally a liberal candidate.
It's now strongly rumored that Hilary Clinton is in fact pondering running. I think at this point she's likely decided to in fact run. My guess is that a full Bloomberg announcement and a Clinton one will come shortly.
Clinton is unlikely to be any more successful in 2020 than previously, and I don't believe that she'll secure the nomination. Her mere presence in the race, however, will hurt the Democrats overall. Bloomberg's will do the same.
November 14, 2019
_________________________________________________________________________________
Not surprisingly, the weekend shows focused on the impeachment hearings.
One did have Deval Patrick on it, however, and the two I listed to both discussed him. He's seen as a middle of the road, centrist, Democrat. In that context, it was noted that the reelection of Louisiana's governor saw the reelection of a Democrat of the nearly extinct social conservative variety. There was quite a bit of speculation that the rank and file is searching for somebody in the middle.
Buttigeg has been rising in the polls in Iowa and there's lots of speculation that may be for the same reason.
Indeed, on the one news show that Patrick was interviewed on he came very close to being examined in a bit of a hostile way on Buttigeg. The suggestion from the while interviewer was, or at least seemed to be, if Patrick was trying to take that position as he realized that he was he was 1) black, and 2) not homosexual, and therefore more electable. Patrick who probably understood that this was the point, nicely sidestepped it, and frankly the question shouldn't have been asked.
Indeed, Patrick interviewed extremely well in general. He's clearly more personable than Buttigeg and frankly, if this interview is any guide, more personable than any other running Democrat. He did miss the ball a bit when asked what the difference was between he and Buttigeg and while he did not that he had a variety of experiences that made him qualified for the Oval Office, he didn't contrast himself directly. If he had, it would have to be noted that he's been the Governor of a major state, where as Buittigeg has only been the mayor of a mid sized city.
On the same general topic, over the weekend President Obama came out in a speech noting that Americans like improvement but they don't like radical overhaul. That's an arrow shot at the hard left of the Democratic Party. It did hit home with at least one weekend show pundit who claimed, basically, that Obama was betraying his own past as he had been the radical candidate. The evidence doesn't support that.
On candidates who don't have a uniformly radical past, Bloomberg, who has been in both parties (like Trump) in his past, disavowed his "stop and frisk" policy from his days as the Mayor of New York. That was controversial, but it was also quite successful, giving us an interesting example of a politician disavowing his own successful actions in the past when they don't fit his current political aims.
November 18, 2019
________________________________________________________________________________
I happened to listen (not view) a Democratic debate this season for the first time.
The reason is that Meet The Press had it on their podcast feed and I heard it there while driving somewhere.
It was quite interesting, in part because listening to it gives you a prospective on the prospective of the pundits. Not too surprisingly, my takeaway was different from theirs.
I'll note that listening to a debate is different than viewing it, and that too can have an impact. But the Press also tends to go into these debates with a preconceived narrative to a degree, so they're not that inclined to alter it no matter what's said, except around the margins.
Listening to it, it was frankly Andrew Yang who won the debate. A person doesn't have to agree with everything he believes in order to say that. He's the only one who had fresh views and didn't have difficulty explaining them. His answer on national defense was brilliant. So much so that a later "major" candidate co-opted it for his own later answer.
Compared to Yang, everyone looked pretty anemic. Having said that Buttigieg came across fairly well. An effort to go after his experience by Amy Klobuchar ended up simply embarrassing Klobuchar as Buttigieg dismantled her on that topic and then used his answer to dismantle everyone else. Buttigieg also manged to really disrupt a statement by Kamala Harris on none of the white candidates really being able to understand the position of black voters, even though Harris clearly had a point on that demographic being used repeatedly by the Democratic party. Again, a person doesn't have to agree with Buttigieg on anything in order to see that his debating skills were superior to nearly every other candidate.
Harris came across as a snot and surprisingly relied on her courtroom history as a California district attorney in her closing, noting for most of her professional time she's done that and started off her public addresses with "the people of. . ." That'd be true, but in a debate in which Corey Booker had just complained about how the government has incarcerated a lot of minorities on drug charges, Harris' former role in putting people in jail seems like an odd thing to emphasize.
Harris was big on "recreating the Obama coalition" without explaining it. Indeed, the "Obama coalition" may not have really ever existed in the first place. That emphasizes, however, that the Democratic base isn't anywhere near as left wing as candidates are and that caused hemorrhaging towards Trump in the last election. It's already known that black voters are uncomfortable with Buttigieg and that the "black church" retains a significant role in that demographic which is likely grater than any other religious demographic in the Democratic party.
Indeed, Warren basically stated that there's no room whatsoever for Democrats like recently re-elected John Bel Edwards in the Democratic Party. Edwards is pro life and and Warren made support for abortion a litmus test on the basis that its a human rights matter, an extremely weak argument for supporting a policy that ends human life. Harris leaped on this and indicated that she'd codify Roe v Wade as a matter of Federal law, which isn't a position that many who hold the freedom of state's to craft their own laws will find popular.
While she was able to hardly get a word in, after the debate got rolling, Tulsi Gabbard may have been next to Yang in being clear and blunt. Her post election role as a commentator and her strong animosity towards the Clintons resulted in a debate with Harris and she pretty much took Harris apart. Indeed, Harris may have come across the worst in the debate as her answer for everything seems limited to snark.
In terms of ideas, again, like them or not, Yang's were the freshest and well thought out. Buttigieg's seem thought out. Klobuchar should have done well, as she does in other venues, but she just came across as angry. Warren came across as a person whose ideas are limited to the concept that no matter what the problem is, large or small, she'd sick the Federal government on it with a super expensive program of dubious utility. Indeed, she makes Lyndon Johnson's backing of the Great Society look minor in comparison to what she'd try.
In other news Bloomberg launched a gigantic ad campaign. The This Week pundits made the interesting observation that he's not really a Democrat, and he's been in both parties. His presence in the race this late is likely because Warren and Sanders are sinking and people are losing faith in Biden. It's doubtful that Bloomberg will make a real difference in the race, however, no matter how much money he spends on it.
Bloomberg's entry means that, if we include both parties, there are now no less than three candidates who are old New Yorkers, Bloomberg (who was born in Massachusetts), Sanders (who grew up in New York and retains an extremely thick New York accent) and Trump. It's hard to grasp, for those who live outside of New York how the state and city retain such a grasp on the nation's politics.
November 25, 2019
I've noted here before that a lot of the demographic assumptions that the Democratic Party has made for quite some time are likely based on a set of false assumptions. The past week the degree to which that is true and becoming more true started to play out in the primary, all the detriment of Pete Buttigieg.
I noted above that Buttigieg had taken criticism from Kamala Harris and seemingly effectively parried it during the debate. That perception, however, may not have been shared by black voters at all.
Indeed a poll on Buttigieg's position in the upcoming Iowa primary not only showed him last among black voters, but actually at 0%. That's a stunningly low figure and shows that there's definitely going on in a demographic that the Democrats absolutely depend on. Not only is Buttigieg dead in the water in the campaign if he can't fix that, and that will be hard to fix, but it shows that the party as a whole, may be in really deep trouble in regard to black voters.
We'll get back to that in a moment, but continuing this story on, early in the week a prior statement by Buttigieg surfaced in which he attributed a lack of black economic advancement basically to a lack of role models (I'm really condensing this down). This resulted in an explosive op ed being published in which a black author not only went after him but in no uncertain terms. That op ed was in turn rapidly circulated on the Internet and received widespread black voter applause. Buttigieg reacted by calling the author who credited him with listening, which he said was he could expect a white person to do, showing a real lack of any hope for anyone paying attention to the issues raised.
All that's telling, but a poll that was released coincident with all of this finds that black Democrats are much more conservative, indeed on some issues outright conservative, than their white counterparts. They're also older, showing that the Democrats aren't attracting younger black voters. That no doubt will stun the Democrats and my prediction is that they'll ignore it. In the minds of party leadership black voters are in the hardcore left, and that's a view that tends to have been supported by the fact that black politicians who have risen up in the party have seemed to be of the left.
In reality, however, black voters are largely in the Democratic Party due to events that occurred in the 50s through the 80s. Since that time the GOP has made nearly no effort to recruit black voters even though it knows it needs too. Irrespective of that, what turns out to be the case is that the black demographic in the Democratic party tends to be conservative on social issues and liberal on economic ones. This is the classic position that pertains to immigrants, and in this sense they're effectively internal immigrants in their own country.
Not yet addressed, this same problem exists for the country's growing Hispanic demographic. They're highly socially conservative and are only in the Democratic Party because of economic issues and the party's seeming position on immigration.
Up until now none of this has had an impact in a national election, but now for the first time it is. And this shows a trend that's played out with other voting blocks over time. Once economic conditions are no longer paramount for a voting block, social ones tend to take over. In the case of the black demographic economic conditions are still an extremely large concern, but social issues are now actually playing out. And in addition to that Buttigieg, who is the son of an academic and lead what amounts to a very upper middle class, left wing, sheltered life, is showing a lack of understanding on the situation for American blacks that they are really reacting to.
My guess is that he won't be over to overcome this problem. But beyond that, a person has to wonder if this is a tipping point and the Democratic Party will start to lose black voters. If it does, at least right now they'll end up independents by and large, which is what actually seems to be happening with younger black voters. In some rural regions, the Democrats are losing black voters to the GOP, although they seemingly haven't noticed this. The Democratic Party has three candidates this year who are African Americans, with one being in much too soon to have really been heard from, but those candidates don't seem to be gaining much headway. All of this may suggest that a voting block that the Democrats have depending on since at least the 1970s is being lost to them seemingly without their having noticed it.
November 28, 2019
________________________________________________________________________________
Kamala Harris, whose campaign never really took off, in spite of pundit expectation that it would, bowed out of the race yesterday.
Harris never seemed to really get rolling and instead came across as a younger candidate, in the American sense (age 55) who had promise but somehow never delivered. Her most notable moments came when 1) she proposed clearly unconstitutional actions in regards to firearms and was debated down on the topic by Joe Biden; and 2) when she took Buttigieg to task in regard to his statements about his support of the black community. Those latter statements may very well have impacted him as the following week he was the subject of an op ed that was blistering on the topic.
Harris was a prosecutor prior to becoming a politician and frankly, to some degree, that may have hurt her in the Democratic field. She came across as snarky, something that lawyers can easily do if they've spent much time in the courtroom, and its hard to take a candidate very seriously about their support of the downtrodden if they've spent a career in that branch of the law. She was from the hardcore left and her departure leaves the field somewhat more level.
Also departing the race is Montana's governor Steve Bullock (age 53). Bullock was a moderate who should have done well as a candidate from a state where he has to pull from all political spectrum. His campaign, however never took off and he acknowledged that and withdrew in the face of the inevitable.
The Harris departure brought another politician into the Twitter spectrum when Washington Post reporter Matt Viser noted that now the only candidates who have qualified to appear in the next debate are Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, Steyer and Warren. Qualification is based on funds raised and therefore this doesn't reflect every Democrat running. Yang and Booker, for example, are running.
Anyhow, Viser noted that this meant that while the field was "historically large and diverse" it is now all white.
This is interesting for a number of reasons. For one thing, there's been a press obsession with the ethnicity of candidates that has actually operated to make it less diverse than it actually is. Harris was regarded as black by the press, but that definition really hearkens back to the old Slave States definition of black as "one drop of blood". In reality, her mother was of Tamil heritage and was born in Indian and who had Canadian and American citizenship. Her father was from Jamaica. Both parents had strong careers in academics. Harris regarded herself, quite naturally, as black and Indian, but her ethnic heritage gives her a different ethnic heritage than most African Americans. The press never really looked at this and simply regarded her as African American. Corey Booker, on the other hand, has a more conventional African American heritage.
This none the less brings up a point which pundits seem to dance around. While Harris expressly noted that she was "the only black candidate on the stage" last debate, her support among black voters was just slightly better than Buttigieg's, which is at a stunning 0%. Harris may in fact have suffered i this area by claiming to be "black" when that status doesn't reflect the same sort of experience that the average African American would have. White voters certainly aren't going to bring this up but African American voters have been highly savvy about things in the past. They tend to very strong identify with candidates that they believe appreciate their circumstances and often don't worry about ethnicity when they vote as a result, preferring results over ethnicity. Indeed, even in the segregation era black communities in the South would sometimes vote for white candidates that appeared to support segregation in a race, as they knew that their actual efforts in office would aid them.
This may have played into rock bottom black support for Harris in the race. She was claiming to be black and does have Jamaican black heritage, but she's also half Tamil as well and her personal history diverges significantly from most African Americans. As a former prosecutor, moreover, she has a history that most African Americans would have associated a lot more with problems in the system than with efforts to address them.
Booker's campaign is also faltering and signs exist that he'll be out of the race quite soon. Earlier in the week he was begging for donations so that he could qualify for the next debate and that appears to have failed. So far he is still in. For some reason his campaign also has rock bottom support in his own ethnicity. The reason for that is hard to grasp, but it may simply be because black voters don't regard him as somebody who will likely be effective. It might also be, however, because his credentials haven't really impressed them so far.
An added aspect of this, however, ties into Buttigieg. All three of these candidates, Buttigieg, Book and Harris lacked support not only from black Democrats, but from Hispanic candidates as well. Again, this may simply be because minority voters identify with effectiveness over ethnicity, to their credit, but it may also be because the old reasons for these communities identifying with the Democratic Party are wearing off. Combined with that, these communities contain social views that are much more conservative than the Democrats have been espousing in recent years. This has been wholly ignored by the Democratic Party as a whole and minority Democratic candidates have very carefully aligned themselves with the seeming party platform in order to note loose white Democratic support. But a winnowing process seems to be going on, hardly noticed, in which, in spite of its claims to the contrary, the Democratic Party is becoming the WASP party. It's presently hemorrhaging young black members as a result.
The remaining African American candidate, Deval Patrick, can't qualify for a debate yet as he just started running and hasn't obtained sufficient donations. Of course, another new candidate who is extremely well self funded, Michael Bloomberg, can't qualify either.
Anyhow, Viser noted that while the field started large and diverse, only white candidates will be debating next go around, which isn't implicitly diverse. Perhaps that's true, but it can't be said that Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, Steyer and Warren are all stamped out of the same mold either in numerous ways. Be that as it may, Liz Cheney took Viser's comments as the opportunity to comment on Twitter, about Warren; "What about Pocahontas"
What exactly would motivate a person to say a thing like we'd have to leave unanswered, but it wasn't a smart thing to do. It drew floods of Twitter protests and it make Cheney look incentive. Her point, no doubt, was to thrown stones at Warren for claiming to be a Native American, something Warren was being patently absurd in doing in the first place, but extreme claims from Warren seem to be her thing. Being as its a storm on Twitter, it probably has already faded, but she should think twice before saying something like that again.
According to the Chicago Tribune Klobuchar is rising in the polls in Iowa. The Democratic field is clearly shifting, if not actually getting smaller given that two have gotten out and two have gotten in, but it seems almost certain that Booker is out of the running and that Patrick and Bloomberg won't be successful in getting into it. Given that, the candidates who will debate next time, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, Steyer and Warren, with perhaps also Yang, are those who are going to keep on keeping on until mid race. Steyer's campaign has a lot of money but is not likely to go anywhere, and Yang has a lot of enthusiasm and originality but is not likely to go anywhere. So the really serious contenders appear to be Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren. The field has suddenly narrowed.
December 4, 2019
_________________________________________________________________________________
Since typing the above out a couple of days ago I've now heard analysis on the element of race and the Democratic Party on multiple platforms, one that was recorded before I set out the above, but others after that. It's interesting in part because I'm hearing my own analysis repeated back to me by pundits.
On that, I'm surprised that some pundits are surprised that black voters don't necessarily vote for a black candidate simply because the candidate is black. I'm also surprised that some pundits are surprised that Hispanic voters don't vote for a black candidate on the basis that Hispanics are minorities (although my prediction is that their category as such will cease to be recognized within a generation as they go through the same process that the Italian and Irish "racial" minorities have in the past), and minorities "of color" will of course vote for a candidate of color, even if their ethnicity is considerably different in terms of heritage.
Some Democrats who were backing or running seem to have made those assumptions as well, and Corey Booker, who is of course still in the race, was loud in the press regarding Kamala Harris' departure on the issue, nearly claiming that black voters owed their votes to him or to Harris because they were black. Of interest on Harris, I've since seen one post by an Indian American about how proud Harris made her, which brings up once again that while Harris campaigned as a black candidate, her claim to that status is a bit mixed as none of her ethnic heritage comported with the African American norm. That shouldn't matter, but to some it seems to, and candidates themselves will seem to claim votes based on those claims.
Anyhow, most of the analysis is really close to what I already set out, with pundits rediscovering the really long held truths that: 1) African Americans place their votes with the candidate that they feel best realistically serves their interests, irrespective of that person's race; and 2) African American voters aren't necessarily as loyal to any political party as Democrats have tended to assume in recent years.
On the latter, one commentator, a liberal African American figure who appeared on Meet The Press went further and noted something that I've hinted at, but which he was much more blunt about. Perhaps his status as an African American allowed him to take on a topic that others don't want to address as they don't want to tread the risky waters that accompany it, and I don't blame them. That had to deal with Buttigieg's almost total lack of support among black and Hispanic voters.
That commentator flat out brought up that Buttigieg has trouble with black voters, and Hispanic voters, as they are "conservative morally", by which he meant that the two demographics do not share the WASP acceptance of homosexual conduct as a moral nullity. That fact has been a somewhat loudly whispered truth for awhile, but it probably does take a black liberal to openly state it. He did, and then went on to state that the Republicans are missing a bet as they don't exploit the social conservatism of African Americans and Hispanics.
In stating that he's correct. The GOP has not known how to address this in recent years and has basically done nothing much more than to note that the Democratic Party simply depends upon black voters without actually assisting them much. The recent departure of Harris from the race may be a good example of that as Harris was really pronounced on traditional Democratic hard left issues, but none of those directly address black and Hispanic concerns and one of her open positions, her position in regards to abortion, runs directly contrary to a view held by large numbers of Hispanic voters and isn't really all that popular with black voters. This tends to show that, as previously noted, black and Hispanic support of the Democrats has been for economic reasons and, in regards to Hispanics, because the GOP has been perceived as hostile to Hispanics.
In spite of all of that, the fact that things were beginning to change in this are should have been evident in the 2016 race. During that race the GOP had two Hispanic contenders who remained in the running for a very long time and one black candidate who did fairly well early on. Comparing that to the 2020 race, none of the Democratic minority candidates have done well at all. The one who is likely to remain in the race the longest, Yang, is able to do so due to his unique positions and self funding, but whether fairly or not Asian Americans are regarded as having been more fully assimilated into the nation as a whole than other minorities.
At any rate, the fact that the Republicans did have serious minority candidates who didn't campaign on their ethnicity should be worrying to the Democrats as it signals something going on at the street level. The GOP is beginning to have conservative black candidates at the state level, which means that the Democrats are now hemorrhaging some voters who had been in the GOP over social issues. And the GOP has picked up one entire Hispanic demographic, Cuban Americans, and there are starting to be inroads into other Hispanic demographics. As the Hispanic economic situation improves the social issues will start to rise, and even such notable left wing Hispanic figures of the past have voiced some very conservative social views openly. As Hispanics, moreover, begin to assimilate into Middle America, and they are doing so now, this will accelerate.
The irony this presents is that in this cycle the Democrats are leaping leftward, and they can probably at least safely do so as President Trump has the pretty united opposition of both African Americans and Hispanics. But at the same time Democrats who for years and years have pointed out with glee that the GOP has a demographic problem are now pointing out that the Democratic Party also has a demographic problem.
December 6, 2019
________________________________________________________________________________
Yesterday Finland sat a new Prime Minister.
What, you may legitimately ask, does this have to do with the United States and its election?
Well, perhaps this.
All three of the contenders from Finland's major political parties for this position were under 35. The government, formed by Social Democrat Sanna Marin, has five women at its head, as a coalition government, four of whom are under 35 years of age. Marin is 34. She replaces outgoing Social Democrat Anitti Rinne who is 55.
The point?
Well the point isn't that I'm endorsing the Finnish Social Democrats, with whom I have a lot of disagreement. The point isn't even that I'm endorsing any Finnish political party, all of whom I probably have a lot of disagreement with. Indeed, Finland shares the Nordic peculiarity, even though the Finns aren't actually a Scandinavian people (save for the minority Swedish population) of seeming political goofiness in recent years.
Rather, I'm noting the stark contrast in ages that the leaders of some other democracies exhibit in contrast to ours.
Indeed, in the current election, as noted before, we're actually fielding potentially the absolute oldest field of candidates of all time. Donald Trump is the oldest President in his first term ever. If reelected he'll be the oldest President to be reelected and if he's defeated there's an outstanding chance that whoever replaces him, in the current slate, will then become the oldest President to have been elected to the office.
Prior to Donald Trump, no American President was elected to a first term who was in his 70s. Now, three of the Democratic top contenders are in their 70s. Bernie Sanders will actually be 79 years old by the election next year. Trump will be 74. Elizabeth Warren will be 71.
What does this argue or indicate? Probably nothing much more than the first grasp of the Baby Boomer generation on the nation's politics and culture. Of the nation's 45 presidents, only 11 have been over their 50s when they assumed the office. Granted, that's roughly 1/4, but it's also the case that some who assumed the office in real times of crisis were much younger. Franklin Roosevelt was 51. Abraham Lincoln was 52. George Washington was 57.
Is this significant? At least in some senses, it must be.
December 10, 2019
________________________________________________________________________________
Bernie Sanders has reacted with outrage to Major League Baseball's proposal to cut 42 minor league teams. Indeed, he wrote the commissioner of baseball about it and posted as much on his twitter feed. On the latter, he took an economic, and social justice, point of view, stating:
_________________________________________________________________________________
"Only"?
That's the comment I heard on the news this morning, and my reaction, and that's why we've started a new thread here even though the last one wasn't at that stage where we'd normally go to the next installment.
The campaign has being going on for months and there's still a year to go. Frankly, that's patently absurd.
Canada recently had a national election that featured a campaign of about sixty days. That's just about right. An election process that takes over a year to complete is monumentally messed up. No regular person is paying that much attention at this stage and that means that the only ones who are, are political aficionados who likely don't reflect the views of average voters at all.
This isn't all of it of course. But it doesn't help. By this time we will have had an election, but we will also have had endless primaries, caucuses, and conventions. Congress will go in and out of session as will the Supreme Court. The House will have voted to impeach the President and the Senate will vote to keep him in office. Quite a few voters who voted in the early primary seasons will be dead by the election itself, and new voters who vote in the general election will not have been old enough to have voted in the primary. Pundits are fond of saying that tradition is the vote of the dead, but in this system, the vote of the dead actually is the vote of the dead.
November 4, 2020.
________________________________________________________________________________
Yesterday came the news that Michael Bloomberg is filing to run as a Democratic candidate for the Presidency in Alabama.
This is more in the nature of preserving his options than anything else. Alabama has an absurdly early deadline to file to run for the office. As I've noted before, the entire country would be better off if this entire process only had a 90 day lead into the General Election, rather than a year long one. Anyhow, Bloomberg has to file there if he intends to run anywhere. It doesn't mean he will run.
It also doesn't mean he won't and he's obviously thinking about it.
If he does, it'll be a real symbol of what's currently wrong with American politics. Bloomberg is 77 years old and yet another East Coast candidate.
Just a week or so ago a 25 year old New Zealand politician noting the average age of House of Commons members there in a speech was heckled by an older politician and suddenly became famous when she dismissed the heckling seamlessly with a "OK Boomer" retort. That action has shocked members of the Baby Boom generation, and no wonder given that they have such a death grip on American politics. The average age of the U.S. House of Representatives is 58 years of age, and the Senate 62 years of age. The average age of the top contenders for the Presidency right now has to be in the 70s. The last thing the Democrats need is another candidate whose political concepts were cast in the 1960s.
Indeed, my prediction is that if Bloomberg runs, the temptation for Hilary Clinton to run will become overwhelming. Bloomberg's candidacy only makes sense in any fashion if Biden is crashing towards a failure, assuming that Bloomberg isn't wholly delusional about his chances of success and assuming that he's not willing to drag the entire party down in order to make whatever point he's seeking to make. Assuming that those items are not the case, a Clinton run actually makes more sense than a Bloomberg one, and she'll know that.
November 8, 2019
_________________________________________________________________________________
Americans today will experience something they haven't since the early 1990s, that being live televised impeachment proceedings. Indeed, they'll actually experience something they've never experienced to the extent these will, which is live electronic media impeachment proceedings.
As noted above, there's now less than one year before the General Election and its difficult to imagine Congress really doing anything rapidly. How long these will go on isn't clear to the author, but we're in the tail end of 2019 now, and even if Congress moves with blistering speed, nothing is really going to get done prior to the end of the year. Assuming that Congress moves forward really quickly, and assuming that there's a party line vote, that would mean that the Senate might have an Impeachment Trial on its plate in very early 2020.
Whether the Senate moves quickly is another matter. Both sets of proceedings risk being turned into circuses of a sort, and the length of them might end up depending upon how long any one body feels that they obtain an advantage by doing that. Any way its looked at, however, it seems the results are basically clear right now. The House will vote to impeach and the Senate will vote not to.
What isn't clear is how this will impact the overall election. If there are real bombshells that come out during the proceedings, it might. Having said that, so far nothing has really changed all that much in basic support in committed camps to date. A real risk for the Democrats may be that the focus on this sort of thing has now run for a full three years and they're exposed to claims of having done nothing else. Irrespective of how a person feels on that sort of claim, it's already starting to circulate and it makes a bad basis for anyone's Presidential campaign.
Those old enough to remember the Nixon impeachment in the 1970s will recall that there was an overall air of collapse at the time. This was less true during the Clinton proceedings, but at that time there was a real feeling of political cynicism. Both atmospheres stand to be much amplified this time. That the country could go for a century between the first and second impeachment efforts, and then end up doing it three times in less than fifty years isn't a good development.
November 13, 2019
_________________________________________________________________________________
Deval Patrick, formerly the Governor of Massachusetts, has entered the race as a Democratic candidate.
Patrick, age 63, is taking the late entry approach. It'll be interesting to see if this works for him. Coming in now, he will receive attention at this late stage whereas many earlier former stars in the campaign have faded. At age 63, while not young by normal calculations, he is in this race. He's generally a liberal candidate.
It's now strongly rumored that Hilary Clinton is in fact pondering running. I think at this point she's likely decided to in fact run. My guess is that a full Bloomberg announcement and a Clinton one will come shortly.
Clinton is unlikely to be any more successful in 2020 than previously, and I don't believe that she'll secure the nomination. Her mere presence in the race, however, will hurt the Democrats overall. Bloomberg's will do the same.
November 14, 2019
_________________________________________________________________________________
Not surprisingly, the weekend shows focused on the impeachment hearings.
One did have Deval Patrick on it, however, and the two I listed to both discussed him. He's seen as a middle of the road, centrist, Democrat. In that context, it was noted that the reelection of Louisiana's governor saw the reelection of a Democrat of the nearly extinct social conservative variety. There was quite a bit of speculation that the rank and file is searching for somebody in the middle.
Buttigeg has been rising in the polls in Iowa and there's lots of speculation that may be for the same reason.
Indeed, on the one news show that Patrick was interviewed on he came very close to being examined in a bit of a hostile way on Buttigeg. The suggestion from the while interviewer was, or at least seemed to be, if Patrick was trying to take that position as he realized that he was he was 1) black, and 2) not homosexual, and therefore more electable. Patrick who probably understood that this was the point, nicely sidestepped it, and frankly the question shouldn't have been asked.
Indeed, Patrick interviewed extremely well in general. He's clearly more personable than Buttigeg and frankly, if this interview is any guide, more personable than any other running Democrat. He did miss the ball a bit when asked what the difference was between he and Buttigeg and while he did not that he had a variety of experiences that made him qualified for the Oval Office, he didn't contrast himself directly. If he had, it would have to be noted that he's been the Governor of a major state, where as Buittigeg has only been the mayor of a mid sized city.
On the same general topic, over the weekend President Obama came out in a speech noting that Americans like improvement but they don't like radical overhaul. That's an arrow shot at the hard left of the Democratic Party. It did hit home with at least one weekend show pundit who claimed, basically, that Obama was betraying his own past as he had been the radical candidate. The evidence doesn't support that.
On candidates who don't have a uniformly radical past, Bloomberg, who has been in both parties (like Trump) in his past, disavowed his "stop and frisk" policy from his days as the Mayor of New York. That was controversial, but it was also quite successful, giving us an interesting example of a politician disavowing his own successful actions in the past when they don't fit his current political aims.
November 18, 2019
________________________________________________________________________________
I happened to listen (not view) a Democratic debate this season for the first time.
The reason is that Meet The Press had it on their podcast feed and I heard it there while driving somewhere.
It was quite interesting, in part because listening to it gives you a prospective on the prospective of the pundits. Not too surprisingly, my takeaway was different from theirs.
I'll note that listening to a debate is different than viewing it, and that too can have an impact. But the Press also tends to go into these debates with a preconceived narrative to a degree, so they're not that inclined to alter it no matter what's said, except around the margins.
Listening to it, it was frankly Andrew Yang who won the debate. A person doesn't have to agree with everything he believes in order to say that. He's the only one who had fresh views and didn't have difficulty explaining them. His answer on national defense was brilliant. So much so that a later "major" candidate co-opted it for his own later answer.
Compared to Yang, everyone looked pretty anemic. Having said that Buttigieg came across fairly well. An effort to go after his experience by Amy Klobuchar ended up simply embarrassing Klobuchar as Buttigieg dismantled her on that topic and then used his answer to dismantle everyone else. Buttigieg also manged to really disrupt a statement by Kamala Harris on none of the white candidates really being able to understand the position of black voters, even though Harris clearly had a point on that demographic being used repeatedly by the Democratic party. Again, a person doesn't have to agree with Buttigieg on anything in order to see that his debating skills were superior to nearly every other candidate.
Harris came across as a snot and surprisingly relied on her courtroom history as a California district attorney in her closing, noting for most of her professional time she's done that and started off her public addresses with "the people of. . ." That'd be true, but in a debate in which Corey Booker had just complained about how the government has incarcerated a lot of minorities on drug charges, Harris' former role in putting people in jail seems like an odd thing to emphasize.
Harris was big on "recreating the Obama coalition" without explaining it. Indeed, the "Obama coalition" may not have really ever existed in the first place. That emphasizes, however, that the Democratic base isn't anywhere near as left wing as candidates are and that caused hemorrhaging towards Trump in the last election. It's already known that black voters are uncomfortable with Buttigieg and that the "black church" retains a significant role in that demographic which is likely grater than any other religious demographic in the Democratic party.
Indeed, Warren basically stated that there's no room whatsoever for Democrats like recently re-elected John Bel Edwards in the Democratic Party. Edwards is pro life and and Warren made support for abortion a litmus test on the basis that its a human rights matter, an extremely weak argument for supporting a policy that ends human life. Harris leaped on this and indicated that she'd codify Roe v Wade as a matter of Federal law, which isn't a position that many who hold the freedom of state's to craft their own laws will find popular.
While she was able to hardly get a word in, after the debate got rolling, Tulsi Gabbard may have been next to Yang in being clear and blunt. Her post election role as a commentator and her strong animosity towards the Clintons resulted in a debate with Harris and she pretty much took Harris apart. Indeed, Harris may have come across the worst in the debate as her answer for everything seems limited to snark.
In terms of ideas, again, like them or not, Yang's were the freshest and well thought out. Buttigieg's seem thought out. Klobuchar should have done well, as she does in other venues, but she just came across as angry. Warren came across as a person whose ideas are limited to the concept that no matter what the problem is, large or small, she'd sick the Federal government on it with a super expensive program of dubious utility. Indeed, she makes Lyndon Johnson's backing of the Great Society look minor in comparison to what she'd try.
In other news Bloomberg launched a gigantic ad campaign. The This Week pundits made the interesting observation that he's not really a Democrat, and he's been in both parties. His presence in the race this late is likely because Warren and Sanders are sinking and people are losing faith in Biden. It's doubtful that Bloomberg will make a real difference in the race, however, no matter how much money he spends on it.
Bloomberg's entry means that, if we include both parties, there are now no less than three candidates who are old New Yorkers, Bloomberg (who was born in Massachusetts), Sanders (who grew up in New York and retains an extremely thick New York accent) and Trump. It's hard to grasp, for those who live outside of New York how the state and city retain such a grasp on the nation's politics.
November 25, 2019
I've noted here before that a lot of the demographic assumptions that the Democratic Party has made for quite some time are likely based on a set of false assumptions. The past week the degree to which that is true and becoming more true started to play out in the primary, all the detriment of Pete Buttigieg.
I noted above that Buttigieg had taken criticism from Kamala Harris and seemingly effectively parried it during the debate. That perception, however, may not have been shared by black voters at all.
Indeed a poll on Buttigieg's position in the upcoming Iowa primary not only showed him last among black voters, but actually at 0%. That's a stunningly low figure and shows that there's definitely going on in a demographic that the Democrats absolutely depend on. Not only is Buttigieg dead in the water in the campaign if he can't fix that, and that will be hard to fix, but it shows that the party as a whole, may be in really deep trouble in regard to black voters.
We'll get back to that in a moment, but continuing this story on, early in the week a prior statement by Buttigieg surfaced in which he attributed a lack of black economic advancement basically to a lack of role models (I'm really condensing this down). This resulted in an explosive op ed being published in which a black author not only went after him but in no uncertain terms. That op ed was in turn rapidly circulated on the Internet and received widespread black voter applause. Buttigieg reacted by calling the author who credited him with listening, which he said was he could expect a white person to do, showing a real lack of any hope for anyone paying attention to the issues raised.
All that's telling, but a poll that was released coincident with all of this finds that black Democrats are much more conservative, indeed on some issues outright conservative, than their white counterparts. They're also older, showing that the Democrats aren't attracting younger black voters. That no doubt will stun the Democrats and my prediction is that they'll ignore it. In the minds of party leadership black voters are in the hardcore left, and that's a view that tends to have been supported by the fact that black politicians who have risen up in the party have seemed to be of the left.
In reality, however, black voters are largely in the Democratic Party due to events that occurred in the 50s through the 80s. Since that time the GOP has made nearly no effort to recruit black voters even though it knows it needs too. Irrespective of that, what turns out to be the case is that the black demographic in the Democratic party tends to be conservative on social issues and liberal on economic ones. This is the classic position that pertains to immigrants, and in this sense they're effectively internal immigrants in their own country.
Not yet addressed, this same problem exists for the country's growing Hispanic demographic. They're highly socially conservative and are only in the Democratic Party because of economic issues and the party's seeming position on immigration.
Up until now none of this has had an impact in a national election, but now for the first time it is. And this shows a trend that's played out with other voting blocks over time. Once economic conditions are no longer paramount for a voting block, social ones tend to take over. In the case of the black demographic economic conditions are still an extremely large concern, but social issues are now actually playing out. And in addition to that Buttigieg, who is the son of an academic and lead what amounts to a very upper middle class, left wing, sheltered life, is showing a lack of understanding on the situation for American blacks that they are really reacting to.
My guess is that he won't be over to overcome this problem. But beyond that, a person has to wonder if this is a tipping point and the Democratic Party will start to lose black voters. If it does, at least right now they'll end up independents by and large, which is what actually seems to be happening with younger black voters. In some rural regions, the Democrats are losing black voters to the GOP, although they seemingly haven't noticed this. The Democratic Party has three candidates this year who are African Americans, with one being in much too soon to have really been heard from, but those candidates don't seem to be gaining much headway. All of this may suggest that a voting block that the Democrats have depending on since at least the 1970s is being lost to them seemingly without their having noticed it.
November 28, 2019
________________________________________________________________________________
Kamala Harris, whose campaign never really took off, in spite of pundit expectation that it would, bowed out of the race yesterday.
Harris never seemed to really get rolling and instead came across as a younger candidate, in the American sense (age 55) who had promise but somehow never delivered. Her most notable moments came when 1) she proposed clearly unconstitutional actions in regards to firearms and was debated down on the topic by Joe Biden; and 2) when she took Buttigieg to task in regard to his statements about his support of the black community. Those latter statements may very well have impacted him as the following week he was the subject of an op ed that was blistering on the topic.
Harris was a prosecutor prior to becoming a politician and frankly, to some degree, that may have hurt her in the Democratic field. She came across as snarky, something that lawyers can easily do if they've spent much time in the courtroom, and its hard to take a candidate very seriously about their support of the downtrodden if they've spent a career in that branch of the law. She was from the hardcore left and her departure leaves the field somewhat more level.
Also departing the race is Montana's governor Steve Bullock (age 53). Bullock was a moderate who should have done well as a candidate from a state where he has to pull from all political spectrum. His campaign, however never took off and he acknowledged that and withdrew in the face of the inevitable.
The Harris departure brought another politician into the Twitter spectrum when Washington Post reporter Matt Viser noted that now the only candidates who have qualified to appear in the next debate are Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, Steyer and Warren. Qualification is based on funds raised and therefore this doesn't reflect every Democrat running. Yang and Booker, for example, are running.
Anyhow, Viser noted that this meant that while the field was "historically large and diverse" it is now all white.
This is interesting for a number of reasons. For one thing, there's been a press obsession with the ethnicity of candidates that has actually operated to make it less diverse than it actually is. Harris was regarded as black by the press, but that definition really hearkens back to the old Slave States definition of black as "one drop of blood". In reality, her mother was of Tamil heritage and was born in Indian and who had Canadian and American citizenship. Her father was from Jamaica. Both parents had strong careers in academics. Harris regarded herself, quite naturally, as black and Indian, but her ethnic heritage gives her a different ethnic heritage than most African Americans. The press never really looked at this and simply regarded her as African American. Corey Booker, on the other hand, has a more conventional African American heritage.
This none the less brings up a point which pundits seem to dance around. While Harris expressly noted that she was "the only black candidate on the stage" last debate, her support among black voters was just slightly better than Buttigieg's, which is at a stunning 0%. Harris may in fact have suffered i this area by claiming to be "black" when that status doesn't reflect the same sort of experience that the average African American would have. White voters certainly aren't going to bring this up but African American voters have been highly savvy about things in the past. They tend to very strong identify with candidates that they believe appreciate their circumstances and often don't worry about ethnicity when they vote as a result, preferring results over ethnicity. Indeed, even in the segregation era black communities in the South would sometimes vote for white candidates that appeared to support segregation in a race, as they knew that their actual efforts in office would aid them.
This may have played into rock bottom black support for Harris in the race. She was claiming to be black and does have Jamaican black heritage, but she's also half Tamil as well and her personal history diverges significantly from most African Americans. As a former prosecutor, moreover, she has a history that most African Americans would have associated a lot more with problems in the system than with efforts to address them.
Booker's campaign is also faltering and signs exist that he'll be out of the race quite soon. Earlier in the week he was begging for donations so that he could qualify for the next debate and that appears to have failed. So far he is still in. For some reason his campaign also has rock bottom support in his own ethnicity. The reason for that is hard to grasp, but it may simply be because black voters don't regard him as somebody who will likely be effective. It might also be, however, because his credentials haven't really impressed them so far.
An added aspect of this, however, ties into Buttigieg. All three of these candidates, Buttigieg, Book and Harris lacked support not only from black Democrats, but from Hispanic candidates as well. Again, this may simply be because minority voters identify with effectiveness over ethnicity, to their credit, but it may also be because the old reasons for these communities identifying with the Democratic Party are wearing off. Combined with that, these communities contain social views that are much more conservative than the Democrats have been espousing in recent years. This has been wholly ignored by the Democratic Party as a whole and minority Democratic candidates have very carefully aligned themselves with the seeming party platform in order to note loose white Democratic support. But a winnowing process seems to be going on, hardly noticed, in which, in spite of its claims to the contrary, the Democratic Party is becoming the WASP party. It's presently hemorrhaging young black members as a result.
The remaining African American candidate, Deval Patrick, can't qualify for a debate yet as he just started running and hasn't obtained sufficient donations. Of course, another new candidate who is extremely well self funded, Michael Bloomberg, can't qualify either.
Anyhow, Viser noted that while the field started large and diverse, only white candidates will be debating next go around, which isn't implicitly diverse. Perhaps that's true, but it can't be said that Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, Steyer and Warren are all stamped out of the same mold either in numerous ways. Be that as it may, Liz Cheney took Viser's comments as the opportunity to comment on Twitter, about Warren; "What about Pocahontas"
What exactly would motivate a person to say a thing like we'd have to leave unanswered, but it wasn't a smart thing to do. It drew floods of Twitter protests and it make Cheney look incentive. Her point, no doubt, was to thrown stones at Warren for claiming to be a Native American, something Warren was being patently absurd in doing in the first place, but extreme claims from Warren seem to be her thing. Being as its a storm on Twitter, it probably has already faded, but she should think twice before saying something like that again.
According to the Chicago Tribune Klobuchar is rising in the polls in Iowa. The Democratic field is clearly shifting, if not actually getting smaller given that two have gotten out and two have gotten in, but it seems almost certain that Booker is out of the running and that Patrick and Bloomberg won't be successful in getting into it. Given that, the candidates who will debate next time, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, Steyer and Warren, with perhaps also Yang, are those who are going to keep on keeping on until mid race. Steyer's campaign has a lot of money but is not likely to go anywhere, and Yang has a lot of enthusiasm and originality but is not likely to go anywhere. So the really serious contenders appear to be Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren. The field has suddenly narrowed.
December 4, 2019
_________________________________________________________________________________
Since typing the above out a couple of days ago I've now heard analysis on the element of race and the Democratic Party on multiple platforms, one that was recorded before I set out the above, but others after that. It's interesting in part because I'm hearing my own analysis repeated back to me by pundits.
On that, I'm surprised that some pundits are surprised that black voters don't necessarily vote for a black candidate simply because the candidate is black. I'm also surprised that some pundits are surprised that Hispanic voters don't vote for a black candidate on the basis that Hispanics are minorities (although my prediction is that their category as such will cease to be recognized within a generation as they go through the same process that the Italian and Irish "racial" minorities have in the past), and minorities "of color" will of course vote for a candidate of color, even if their ethnicity is considerably different in terms of heritage.
Some Democrats who were backing or running seem to have made those assumptions as well, and Corey Booker, who is of course still in the race, was loud in the press regarding Kamala Harris' departure on the issue, nearly claiming that black voters owed their votes to him or to Harris because they were black. Of interest on Harris, I've since seen one post by an Indian American about how proud Harris made her, which brings up once again that while Harris campaigned as a black candidate, her claim to that status is a bit mixed as none of her ethnic heritage comported with the African American norm. That shouldn't matter, but to some it seems to, and candidates themselves will seem to claim votes based on those claims.
Anyhow, most of the analysis is really close to what I already set out, with pundits rediscovering the really long held truths that: 1) African Americans place their votes with the candidate that they feel best realistically serves their interests, irrespective of that person's race; and 2) African American voters aren't necessarily as loyal to any political party as Democrats have tended to assume in recent years.
On the latter, one commentator, a liberal African American figure who appeared on Meet The Press went further and noted something that I've hinted at, but which he was much more blunt about. Perhaps his status as an African American allowed him to take on a topic that others don't want to address as they don't want to tread the risky waters that accompany it, and I don't blame them. That had to deal with Buttigieg's almost total lack of support among black and Hispanic voters.
That commentator flat out brought up that Buttigieg has trouble with black voters, and Hispanic voters, as they are "conservative morally", by which he meant that the two demographics do not share the WASP acceptance of homosexual conduct as a moral nullity. That fact has been a somewhat loudly whispered truth for awhile, but it probably does take a black liberal to openly state it. He did, and then went on to state that the Republicans are missing a bet as they don't exploit the social conservatism of African Americans and Hispanics.
In stating that he's correct. The GOP has not known how to address this in recent years and has basically done nothing much more than to note that the Democratic Party simply depends upon black voters without actually assisting them much. The recent departure of Harris from the race may be a good example of that as Harris was really pronounced on traditional Democratic hard left issues, but none of those directly address black and Hispanic concerns and one of her open positions, her position in regards to abortion, runs directly contrary to a view held by large numbers of Hispanic voters and isn't really all that popular with black voters. This tends to show that, as previously noted, black and Hispanic support of the Democrats has been for economic reasons and, in regards to Hispanics, because the GOP has been perceived as hostile to Hispanics.
In spite of all of that, the fact that things were beginning to change in this are should have been evident in the 2016 race. During that race the GOP had two Hispanic contenders who remained in the running for a very long time and one black candidate who did fairly well early on. Comparing that to the 2020 race, none of the Democratic minority candidates have done well at all. The one who is likely to remain in the race the longest, Yang, is able to do so due to his unique positions and self funding, but whether fairly or not Asian Americans are regarded as having been more fully assimilated into the nation as a whole than other minorities.
At any rate, the fact that the Republicans did have serious minority candidates who didn't campaign on their ethnicity should be worrying to the Democrats as it signals something going on at the street level. The GOP is beginning to have conservative black candidates at the state level, which means that the Democrats are now hemorrhaging some voters who had been in the GOP over social issues. And the GOP has picked up one entire Hispanic demographic, Cuban Americans, and there are starting to be inroads into other Hispanic demographics. As the Hispanic economic situation improves the social issues will start to rise, and even such notable left wing Hispanic figures of the past have voiced some very conservative social views openly. As Hispanics, moreover, begin to assimilate into Middle America, and they are doing so now, this will accelerate.
The irony this presents is that in this cycle the Democrats are leaping leftward, and they can probably at least safely do so as President Trump has the pretty united opposition of both African Americans and Hispanics. But at the same time Democrats who for years and years have pointed out with glee that the GOP has a demographic problem are now pointing out that the Democratic Party also has a demographic problem.
December 6, 2019
________________________________________________________________________________
Yesterday Finland sat a new Prime Minister.
What, you may legitimately ask, does this have to do with the United States and its election?
Well, perhaps this.
All three of the contenders from Finland's major political parties for this position were under 35. The government, formed by Social Democrat Sanna Marin, has five women at its head, as a coalition government, four of whom are under 35 years of age. Marin is 34. She replaces outgoing Social Democrat Anitti Rinne who is 55.
The point?
Well the point isn't that I'm endorsing the Finnish Social Democrats, with whom I have a lot of disagreement. The point isn't even that I'm endorsing any Finnish political party, all of whom I probably have a lot of disagreement with. Indeed, Finland shares the Nordic peculiarity, even though the Finns aren't actually a Scandinavian people (save for the minority Swedish population) of seeming political goofiness in recent years.
Rather, I'm noting the stark contrast in ages that the leaders of some other democracies exhibit in contrast to ours.
Indeed, in the current election, as noted before, we're actually fielding potentially the absolute oldest field of candidates of all time. Donald Trump is the oldest President in his first term ever. If reelected he'll be the oldest President to be reelected and if he's defeated there's an outstanding chance that whoever replaces him, in the current slate, will then become the oldest President to have been elected to the office.
Prior to Donald Trump, no American President was elected to a first term who was in his 70s. Now, three of the Democratic top contenders are in their 70s. Bernie Sanders will actually be 79 years old by the election next year. Trump will be 74. Elizabeth Warren will be 71.
What does this argue or indicate? Probably nothing much more than the first grasp of the Baby Boomer generation on the nation's politics and culture. Of the nation's 45 presidents, only 11 have been over their 50s when they assumed the office. Granted, that's roughly 1/4, but it's also the case that some who assumed the office in real times of crisis were much younger. Franklin Roosevelt was 51. Abraham Lincoln was 52. George Washington was 57.
Is this significant? At least in some senses, it must be.
December 10, 2019
________________________________________________________________________________
Bernie Sanders has reacted with outrage to Major League Baseball's proposal to cut 42 minor league teams. Indeed, he wrote the commissioner of baseball about it and posted as much on his twitter feed. On the latter, he took an economic, and social justice, point of view, stating:
This has nothing to do with what's good for baseball and everything to do with greed.One of the teams slated for the axe, we'd note, is the Vermont Lake Monsters.
It would destroy thousands of jobs and devastate local economies.
Champs, mascot of the Vermont Lake Monsters, a minor league team slated for removal by MLB. From wikipedia commons and listed as public domain.
December 16, 2019
_________________________________________________________________________________
The 2020 Election, Part 3
Monday, November 18, 2019
November 18, 1919. Bill Carlisle. He's everywhere.
The newspapers in southern Wyoming were now fully on the story, if not very accurately, about escaped train robber Bill Carlyle.
In reality, he wasn't surrounded.
He was wounded, however, as he tried to rob a train on this day but couldn't bring himself to rob the passengers, soldiers returning from World War One. In the course of that, a young man pointed a pistol at him and he knocked it away. It discharged in the process and wounded his hand.
Elsewhere, the Prince of Wales was back in uniform and touring the United States. Today he was in New York City.
In reality, he wasn't surrounded.
He was wounded, however, as he tried to rob a train on this day but couldn't bring himself to rob the passengers, soldiers returning from World War One. In the course of that, a young man pointed a pistol at him and he knocked it away. It discharged in the process and wounded his hand.
Elsewhere, the Prince of Wales was back in uniform and touring the United States. Today he was in New York City.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
Private Joseph De Freitas.
Private Joseph De Freitas of Yonkers, New York, 41st Armored Infantry Regiment, 2nd US Armored Division. France.
Pvt De Freitas is heating food on a portable stove and is wearing the World War Two U.S. camouflage uniform which is rarely seen in photos from the ETO as it was found to confuse American solders with German troops, who more frequently wore camouflage. Usually when it is seen, it is worn by snipers, but no sniping rifle is depicted in this July 1944 photograph. De Freitos is carrying binoculars or perhaps a monocular, so he may have had a spotting role of some sort, or perhaps his rifle just isn't in the photograph. However, he was assigned to an anti tank section, so its probable that his role at the time had something to do with spotting.
De Freitas was Portuguese by birth and had only come to the United States in 1937. He entered the Army in March, 1941 and served until October, 1945. He saw action in North Africa, Sicily, France, Holland and Germany, and therefore was an exceptionally experienced soldier. After the war he married Beatrice Cabral de Mellow in the Church of the Ascension in New York City. He became a carpenter for the U.S. Postal Service and worked for it until his retirement in 1973. He died in 2005 at age 89.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
1st Division Parade, New York City, September 10, 1919.
John J. Pershing leading a victory parade, September 10, 1919. New York City.
Friday, September 6, 2019
September 6, 1919. End of the Trail for the Motor Transport Convoy
Fort Winfield Scott; Presidio and Fort Mason overlooking San Francisco Bay, September, 1919.
On this day in 1919, the Motor Transport crossed San Francisco Bay on two ferries, and then paraded at Lincoln Park.
They did only 8 miles that day, but then they also crossed the bay, as noted, by ferry.
And so it was over.
Except for analyzing what had occurred.
On the same day, New York was celebrating Lafayette Day.
On the same day, New York was celebrating Lafayette Day.
Myron T. Herrick (1854-1932), American ambassador to France from 1912-1914 and 1921-1929; Jean Jules Jusserand (1855-1932), French author and diplomat and French ambassador to the United States during World War I and Elise Richards Jusserand. They are attending the Lafayette Day celebration in front of City Hall, New York City on September 6, 1919
And the Gasoline Alley gang was getting ready to head out fishing.
Gasoline Alley cartoon for this day in 1919. Note that they're altering their car, something that does in fact seem to be fairly common for that era. Cars of the day had as much clearance as early pickup trucks and roads were fairly primitive. Vehicles of the day, therefore, bore more of a resemblance to early Jeeps than cars of today do, and indeed more of a resemblance to them than some modern SUVs do.
Sunday, August 18, 2019
Woodstock, Day 4. August 18, 1969
By the early morning hours of the forth day of Woodstock, the crowd was tiring of the event and began to leave at first light. Still, some remarkable acts played as the crowed dwindled.
Oddly enough, Roy Rogers was originally thought of to play the final number, which was to be Happy Trails, but he declined.
Johnny Winter. I don't think very many remember the young Winter as performing at Woodstock, but he did, along with his brother Edgar.
Blood Sweat & Tears, who went on at 1:30 a.m.
Crosby Still, Nash & Young. I've never cared for this band in any sense, and their Woodstock performance is no exception.
Paul Butterfield Blues Band. This band had been a blues band at one time but no longer was. Still, they opened with the blues number Born Under A Bad Sign which was most famously performed by Eric Clapton, who did not play at Woodstock.
Sha Na Na. This 50s revival band went on at 7:30 a.m. It's odd to think of them even playing at Woodstock and its particularly odd if its considered that their hyped up nostalgic performance was revising music that was only a decade old. Almost nothing about their performance seems to fit the era in which they were performing. They preformed twelve songs in 30 fast minutes.
Jimi Hendrix. Hendrix was the closing act as he insisted on the position, which unfortunately put his epic performance at the point at which the crowd had very much dispersed. He played for two hours, playing nineteen songs, much longer than the few songs that are generally shown when Woodstock is recalled, and started off with his rendition of The Star Spangled Banner, one of fifty times he was recorded playing the national anthem. A lot of his songs were played back to back with no interruption between them whatsoever. His last song, Hey Joe, was played as an encore.
Hendrix had sought this position as it was the position of honor in a performance, the best band gong last. He may well have deserved that honor in spite of the diminished crowd. His rendition of
The Star Spangled Banner ended one of the newscasts nightly news that day, as I can recall watching it and asking my father what the event was. The performance was genuinely epic, which is all the more amazing as Hendrix had been at Woodstock the entire time up until his performance and had not slept at all.
Oddly enough, Roy Rogers was originally thought of to play the final number, which was to be Happy Trails, but he declined.
Johnny Winter. I don't think very many remember the young Winter as performing at Woodstock, but he did, along with his brother Edgar.
Blood Sweat & Tears, who went on at 1:30 a.m.
Crosby Still, Nash & Young. I've never cared for this band in any sense, and their Woodstock performance is no exception.
Paul Butterfield Blues Band. This band had been a blues band at one time but no longer was. Still, they opened with the blues number Born Under A Bad Sign which was most famously performed by Eric Clapton, who did not play at Woodstock.
Sha Na Na. This 50s revival band went on at 7:30 a.m. It's odd to think of them even playing at Woodstock and its particularly odd if its considered that their hyped up nostalgic performance was revising music that was only a decade old. Almost nothing about their performance seems to fit the era in which they were performing. They preformed twelve songs in 30 fast minutes.
Jimi Hendrix. Hendrix was the closing act as he insisted on the position, which unfortunately put his epic performance at the point at which the crowd had very much dispersed. He played for two hours, playing nineteen songs, much longer than the few songs that are generally shown when Woodstock is recalled, and started off with his rendition of The Star Spangled Banner, one of fifty times he was recorded playing the national anthem. A lot of his songs were played back to back with no interruption between them whatsoever. His last song, Hey Joe, was played as an encore.
Hendrix had sought this position as it was the position of honor in a performance, the best band gong last. He may well have deserved that honor in spite of the diminished crowd. His rendition of
The Star Spangled Banner ended one of the newscasts nightly news that day, as I can recall watching it and asking my father what the event was. The performance was genuinely epic, which is all the more amazing as Hendrix had been at Woodstock the entire time up until his performance and had not slept at all.
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Woodstock, day three
On day three of Woodstock, the following bands played:
Joe Cocker, whose With A Little Help From My Friends cover, is one of the best remembered numbers from the concert. He went on at 2:00 p.m.
Country Joe and the Fish, who uniquely played twice during the concert. Their first performance was not scheduled.
Ten Years After. Ten Years After was one of the most notable of the British blues bands and some regard its performance at Woodstock as the best performance of the concert.
The Band
Joe Cocker, whose With A Little Help From My Friends cover, is one of the best remembered numbers from the concert. He went on at 2:00 p.m.
Country Joe and the Fish, who uniquely played twice during the concert. Their first performance was not scheduled.
Ten Years After. Ten Years After was one of the most notable of the British blues bands and some regard its performance at Woodstock as the best performance of the concert.
The Band
Friday, August 16, 2019
Woodstock, day two.
We've already noted the commencement of the giant Woodstock music festival in 1969. This day was day two.
On this day the music opened at 12:15, and the following acts played:
Quill
Country Joe and the Fish, whose performance is well known for the Vietnam Rag.
Santana, whose performance was one of the best and whose drummer, 20 year old Michael Shrieve, was the youngest musician to preform by some accounts.
John Sebastian, who was not on the bill but actually in attendance but who was asked to play to make up for dead space by the promoters.
Keef Hartley Band
The Incredible String Band, who had refused to play due to the rain the prior day.
Canned Heat
Mountain
The Grateful Dead
Creedance Clearwater Revival CCR later wrote Who Stopped the Rain concerning the concert.
Janis Joplin
Sly and the Family Stone, who also had one of the best performances of the event.
The Who
Jefferson Airplane, who concluded at 9:40.
On this day the music opened at 12:15, and the following acts played:
Quill
Country Joe and the Fish, whose performance is well known for the Vietnam Rag.
Santana, whose performance was one of the best and whose drummer, 20 year old Michael Shrieve, was the youngest musician to preform by some accounts.
John Sebastian, who was not on the bill but actually in attendance but who was asked to play to make up for dead space by the promoters.
Keef Hartley Band
The Incredible String Band, who had refused to play due to the rain the prior day.
Canned Heat
Mountain
The Grateful Dead
Creedance Clearwater Revival CCR later wrote Who Stopped the Rain concerning the concert.
Janis Joplin
Sly and the Family Stone, who also had one of the best performances of the event.
The Who
Jefferson Airplane, who concluded at 9:40.
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Woodstock. August 15 through 18, 1969
If, as we've defined it, the 1960s as a decade began on March 8, 1965, when the Marines waded ashore at Danang, Republic of Vietnam, and ended on August 9, 1974, with the resignation of President Richard Nixon, then the mid point, and the high point, in more than one way occurred on August 15 through 17, at Woodstock, New York.
Original anticipated Woodstock lineup, which proved to be somewhat inaccurate.
Woodstock was a giant undertaking, and one for which nothing whatsoever went right, by any measure. It's both justifiably celebrated and somewhat inaccurately remembered, as any giant event of this sort would be.
Intended from the onset to be a very large music festival, of which the 1960s featured several, it grew totally out of control and the producers soon lost control of the event, making it a free concert in the end. It became more than that, and in some ways came to define the 1960s counter culture movement.
It may very well also mark the high point in Rock and Roll music. At this point in time, Rock and Roll still very much showed its blues roots and the music, while not as serious as a rule as the blues, reached its high point in being serious music. Outlandish clothing had already come in, but after this point Rock and Roll would start to be highly gimmicky, something it has never recovered from. Within a few years it would no longer be as serious, or be taken as seriously, as it was at this point.
It may very well also mark the high point in Rock and Roll music. At this point in time, Rock and Roll still very much showed its blues roots and the music, while not as serious as a rule as the blues, reached its high point in being serious music. Outlandish clothing had already come in, but after this point Rock and Roll would start to be highly gimmicky, something it has never recovered from. Within a few years it would no longer be as serious, or be taken as seriously, as it was at this point.
On this day, the following acts played:
Richie Havens, who went on at 5:07 p.m and played for nearly two hours, and who was early on stage as Sweetwater, the opening act, had been stopped and delayed by the police. Havens was a folk musician.
Sweetwater. This band was a large ensemble, which some Rock bands of this period were, and is little remembered today. Being omitted from the Woodstock movie and the band's sort career no doubt contributed to that.
Bert Sommer. Sommer isn't well known today, but he received the first standing ovation at Woodstock for his cover of Simon and Garfunkel's America.
Tim Hardin
Ravi Shankar, who played through the rain.
Melanie, was 22 years old at the time and who went on after the Incredible String Band declined to play in the rain. She was invited as Woodstock's producers had an office in the same building which she did and was better known in Europe than the United States at this time. One of three female acts at Woodstock, she later wrote her first hit song, Lay Down, Candles In The Rain, based on the concert. Her career would later be virtually defined by her 1972 song Brand New Key, which was a song that came to her when she broke a vegetarian fast to have a hamburger at McDonald's after a twenty seven day fast.
Arlo Guthrie
Joan Baez, who was six months pregnant at the time and who concluded the first day's acts at 12:25.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)