Showing posts with label Protestant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protestant. Show all posts

Monday, March 18, 2024

Tuesday, March 18, 1924. The high water mark of the Irish Mutiny.

Forty armed Irish soldiers assembled at a hotel in Dublin to plan the next move in the Irish Army Mutiny.  A possible coup d'état against the Irish government was on the table.  

Loyal Irish troops surrounded the hotel and there was a standoff.  The result was that the young Irish government responded by securing the resignation of Irish Army Council members, along with that of Defense Minister Richard Mulcahy.


The mutiny was of the oldest type, an army rebelling for itself.  Mulcahy would go on to a long career in Irish government, including as Minister of Education.

A soldier bonus bill was passed in the US.


St. Mark's is a major downtown church in Casper today.

St. Mark's Episcopal Church, Casper Wyoming


This traditionally styled Episcopal Church includes the office buildings for the church a meeting room, kitchen and a day school, so the interior space used for services is smaller than the large exterior might suggest.

The view featured on the bottom photograph could not be seen until recently, as a large house once stood in what is now an open area. The church is across the street from the former St. Anthony's Catholic School, which has moved to a new location across town. The church was built in 1924.

It's stunning to think it was built for $120,000.

The Douglas Fairbanks film, The Thief of Baghdad, was released.


Alice Longworth, the daughter of Theodore Roosevelt, was caught by the paparazzi on the streets of Washington D.C.



Friday, February 9, 2024

Wednesday, February 9, 1944. Vice in Casper Wyoming. Questioning the conduct of the War in Parliament.

Fifty Five slot machines were seized by law enforcement in Casper.

Gambling is theoretically illegal in Wyoming, but old time Wyomingites know that at one time the law was really just winked at. The Wonder Bar, a Casper institution for decades, kept a blackboard up behind the bar with sports teams listed on it and betting information in the 40s and 50s.  The legendary bar finally seems to have escaped its name and somewhat misplaced nostalgia, but in those days that was a major feature of a major Casper bar.

The Wonder Bar



These photographs are of the "World Famous" Wonder Bar. The Wonder Bar has operated on Center Street for decades, although it has had short periods of time in recent years in which it operated under a different name (Tommy Knockers, Dillingers, and very briefly, "Sludge and Eddies"). Still, the bar has been around so long that even efforts to operate it under a different name do not deter the locals from continuing to refer to it as the Wonder Bar.

Downtown Casper once had a vast number of bars. This are of downtown had multiple bars on a single block. Only the Wonder Bar survives as a bar.

At some point in time, decades ago, Lee Riders paid to paint an advertisement on the side of the bar. The sign is still there, although an effort to paint over it was made at some point. This reflects the stockman heritage of central Wyoming, and indeed at one time quite a few cowboys and sheepherders spent time in the Wonder Bar.

Gambling downtown was a major deal in the bars in general.  My father was once a witness to a sheepherder pawning his cowboy boots so he could go back to a game.  This may have been at the Trail Bar, a long gone bar on Second Street at a time when Casper had bars literally everywhere downtown . . . something its oddly returning to actually.

That would also have been in the 40s.

The caption above is now inaccurate. The store has been recreated as a malt shop/soda fountain.  The theater is being converted into an events venue.

The Rialto Cigar Store, also a major Casper institution for decades, operated as a bookmaker at one time.  That was in addition to other illegal activities, which included selling sex related materials and pornographic magazines.  Even in the 1990s it sold a lot of pornography, in addition to cigars and newspapers.  It was also a malt shop.

That was Casper.

Casper, my hometown, was really rough from at least the onset of World War One through the end of World War Two.  Just as the war had a major impact on towns and cities that bordered reservations in the southwest, as returning Native veterans wanted to be near their homes, but not return to the reservations, returning veterans ran for local office in Natrona County as they wanted to rebuild their lives in a town that wasn't wide open, and Casper was.

The process actually started during the war.  Not only gambling, but prostitution was widely accepted in Casper until the 1940s.  It was loosely confined to The Sand Bar district of the city, but it was very open.  During the war, the commander of the Army Air Force base that became the Natrona County International Airport after the war asked the city to restrain it as the expanded business opportunities for the "working girls" caused by the war caused a law enforcement problem for the military, as well as a major health problem. The Army threatened to confine soldiers to base unless the city did something about it, and with money to be made, the city started to act.  Following the war, the efforts continued until the 1970s when the Sand Bar was taken down as part of an urban renewal project.

Aprilia, 1944.

The Germans captured Aprilia from the British 1st Infantry Division, which held out at "The Factory".

Bishop of Chichester George Bell started a debate in the House of Lords over the morality of the bombing of European cities.  He openly questioned the practice, which says a lot for him.  In doing so, he stated:

My Lords, the question which I have to ask is beset with difficulties. It deals with an issue which must have [its] own anxieties for the Government, and certainly causes great searchings of heart amongst large numbers of people who are as resolute champions of the Allied cause as any member of your Lordships' House. If long-sustained and public opposition to Hitler and the Nazis since 1933 is any credential, I would humbly claim to be one of the most convinced and consistent Anti-Nazis in Great Britain. But I desire to challenge the Government on the policy which directs the bombing of enemy towns on the present scale, especially with reference to civilians, non-combatants, and non-military and non-industrial objectives. I also desire to make it plain that, in anything I say on this issue of policy, no criticism is intended of the pilots, the gunners, and the air crews who, in circumstances of tremendous danger, with supreme courage and skill, carry out the simple duty of obeying their superiors' orders.

§ Few will deny that there is a distinction in principle between attacks on military and industrial objectives and attacks on objectives which do not possess that character. At the outbreak of the war, in response to an appeal by President Roosevelt, the Governments of the United Kingdom and France issued a joint declaration of their intention to conduct hostilities with a firm desire to spare the civilian population and to preserve in every way possible those monuments of human achievement which are treasured in all civilized countries. At the same time explicit instructions were issued to the Commanders of the Armed Forces prohibiting the bombardment, whether from the air or from the sea or by artillery on land, of any except strictly military objectives in the narrowest sense of the word. Both sides accepted this agreement. It is true that the Government added that, ‘In the event of the enemy not observing any of the restrictions which the Governments of the United Kingdom and France have thus imposed on the operation of their Armed Forces, these Governments reserve the right to take all such action as they may consider appropriate.’ It is true that on May 10, 1940, the Government publicly proclaimed their intention to exercise this right in the event of bombing by the enemy of civilian populations. But the point which I wish to establish at this moment is that in entering the war there was no doubt in the Government's mind that the distinction between military and non-military objectives was real.

§ Further, that this distinction is based on fundamental principles accepted by civilized nations is clear from the authorities in International Law. I give one instance the weight of which will hardly be denied. The Washington Conference on Limitation of Armaments in 1922 appointed a Commission of Jurists to draw up a code of rules about aerial warfare. It did not become an international convention, yet great weight should be attached to that code on account of its authors. Article 22 reads: ‘Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited.’ Article 24 says: ‘ Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective—that is to say, an objective of which the destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent.’ Professor A. L. Goodhart, of Oxford, states: ‘Both these Articles are based on the fundamental assumption that direct attack on non-combatants is an unjustifiable act of war.’

§ The noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, at the beginning of this war, in reference to this very thing, described war as bloody and brutal. It is idle to suppose that it can be carried on without fearful injury and violence from which non-combatants as well as combatants suffer. It is still true, nevertheless, that there are recognized limits to what is permissible. The Hague Regulations of 1907 are explicit. "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited." M. Bonfils, a famous French jurist, says: ‘If it is permissible to drive inhabitants to desire peace by making them suffer, why not admit pillage, burning, torture, murder, violation? ’ I have recalled the joint declaration and these pronouncements because it is so easy in the process of a long and exhausting war to forget what they were once held without question to imply, and because it is a common experience in the history of warfare that not only war but actions taken in war as military necessities are often supported at the time by a class of arguments which, after the war is over, people find are arguments to which they never should have listened.

§ I turn to the situation in February, 1944, and the terrific devastation by Bomber Command of German towns. I do not forget the Luftwaffe, or its tremendous bombing of Belgrade, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Portsmouth, Coventry, Canterbury and many other places of military, industrial and cultural importance. Hitler is a barbarian. There is no decent person on the Allied side who is likely to suggest that we should make him our pattern or attempt to be competitors in that market. It is clear enough that large-scale bombing of enemy towns was begun by the Nazis. I am not arguing that point at all. The question with which I am concerned is this. Do the Government understand the full force of what area bombardment is doing and is destroying now? Are they alive not only to the vastness of the material damage, much of which is irreparable, but also to the harvest they are laying up for the future relationships of the peoples of Europe as well as to its moral implications? The aim of Allied bombing from the air, said the Secretary of State for Air at Plymouth on January 22, is to paralyze German war industry and transport. I recognize the legitimacy of concentrated attack on industrial and military objectives, on airfields and air bases, in view especially of the coming of the Second Front. I fully realize that in attacks on centres of war industry and transport the killing of civilians when it is the result of bona-fide military activity is inevitable. But there must be a fair balance between the means employed and the purpose achieved. To obliterate a whole town because certain portions contain military and industrial establishments is to reject the balance.

§ Let me take two crucial instances, Hamburg and Berlin. Hamburg has a population of between one and two million people. It contains targets of immense military and industrial importance. It also happens to be the most democratic town in Germany where the Anti-Nazi opposition was strongest. Injuries to civilians resulting from bona-fide attacks on particular objectives are legitimate according to International Law. But owing to the methods used the whole town is now a ruin. Unutterable destruction and devastation were wrought last autumn. On a very conservative estimate, according to the early German statistics, 28,000 persons were killed. Never before in the history of air warfare was an attack of such weight and persistence carried out against a single industrial concentration. Practically all the buildings, cultural, military, residential, industrial, religious—including the famous University Library with its 800,000 volumes, of which three-quarters have perished—were razed to the ground.

§ Berlin, the capital of the Reich, is four times the size of Hamburg. The offices of the Government, the military, industrial, war-making establishments in Berlin are a fair target. Injuries to civilians are inevitable. But up to date half Berlin has been destroyed, area by area, the residential and the industrial portions alike. Through the dropping of thousands of tons of bombs, including fire-phosphorus bombs, of extraordinary power, men and women have been lost, overwhelmed in the colossal tornado of smoke, blast and flame. It is said that 74,000 persons have been killed and that 3,000,000 are already homeless. The policy is obliteration, openly acknowledged. That is not a justifiable act of war. Again, Berlin is one of the great centres of art collections in the world. It has a large collection of Oriental and classical sculpture. It has one of the best picture galleries in Europe, comparable to the National Gallery. It has a gallery of modern art better than the Tate, a museum of ethnology without parallel in this country, one of the biggest and best organized libraries—State and university, containing two and a half million books—in the world. Almost all these non-industrial, non-military buildings are grouped together near the old Palace and in the Street of the Linden. The whole of that street, which has been constantly mentioned in the accounts of the raids, has been demolished. It is possible to replace flat houses by mass production. It is not possible so quickly to rebuild libraries or galleries or churches or museums. It is not very easy to rehouse those works of art which have been spared. Those works of art and those libraries will be wanted for the re-education of the Germans after the war. I wonder whether your Lordships realize the loss involved in that.

§ How is it, then, that this wholesale destruction has come about? The answer is that it is the method used, the method of area bombing. The first outstanding raid of area bombing was, I believe, in the spring of 1942, directed against Lubeck, then against Rostock, followed by the thousand-bomber raid against Cologne at the end of May, 1942. The point I want to bring home, because I doubt whether it is sufficiently realized, is that it is no longer definite military and industrial objectives which are the aim of the bombers, but the whole town, area by area, is plotted carefully out. This area is singled out and plastered on one night; that area is singled out and plastered on another night; a third, a fourth, a fifth area is similarly singled out and plastered night after night, till, to use the language of the Chief of Bomber Command with regard to Berlin, the heart of Nazi Germany ceases to beat. How can there be discrimination in such matters when civilians, monuments, military objectives and industrial objectives all together form the target? How can the bombers aim at anything more than a great space when they see nothing and the bombing is blind?

§ When the Nazis bombed France and Britain in 1940 it was denounced as "indiscriminate bombing." I recall this passage from a leader in The Times after the bombing of Paris on June 4, 1940: ‘No doubt in the case of raids on large cities the targets are always avowedly military or industrial establishments; but, when delivered from the great height which the raiders seem to have been forced to keep by the anti-aircraft defences, the bombing in fact is bound to be indiscriminate.’ And I recall two other more recent articles in The Times on our own policy. On January 10, 1944, the following was published: ‘It is the proclaimed intention of Bomber Command to proceed with the systematic obliteration one by one of the centres of German war production until the enemy's capacity to continue the fight is broken down.’ On January 31 the Aeronautical Correspondent wrote: ‘Some of the most successful attacks of recent times have been made when every inch of the target area was obscured by unbroken cloud, thousands of feet thick, and when the crews have hardly seen the ground from which they took off until they were back at their bases again.’ If your Lordships will weigh the implication, and observe not only the destruction of the war-production factories but the obliteration of the places in which they are and the complete invisibility of the target area, it must surely be admitted that the bombing is comprehensive and what would ordinarily be called indiscriminate.

§ The Government have announced their determination to continue this policy city by city. I give quotations. The Prime Minister, after the thousand-bomber raid on Cologne in 1942, said: ‘Proof of the growing power of the British bomber force is also the herald of what Germany will receive city by city from now on.’ Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris, on July 28, 1942, said: ‘We are going to scourge the Third Reich from end to end. We are bombing Germany city by city and ever more terribly in order to make it impossible for her to go on with the war. That is our object; we shall pursue it relentlessly.’ A few days ago, as reported in the Sunday Express of January 23, an Air Marshal said: "One by one we shall pull out every town in Germany like teeth."

§ I shall offer reasons for questioning this policy as a whole, but what I wish immediately to urge is this. There are old German towns, away from the great centres, which may be subjected—which almost certainly will be subjected—to the raids of Bomber Command. Almost certainly they are on the long list. Dresden, Augsburg, Munich are among the larger towns, Regensburg, Hildesheim and Marburg are a few among the smaller beautiful cities. In all these towns the old centres, the historic and beautiful things, are well preserved, and the industrial establishments are on the outskirts. After the destruction of the ancient town centres of Cologne, with its unique Romanesque churches, and Lubeck, with its brick cathedral, and Mainz, with one of the most famous German cathedrals, and of the old Gothic towns, the inner towns, Nuremburg, Hamburg and others, it would seem to be indicated that an effort, a great effort should be made to try to save the remaining inner towns. In the fifth year of the war it must surely be apparent to any but the most complacent and reckless how far the destruction of European culture has already gone. We ought to think once, twice, and three times before destroying the rest. Something can still be saved if it is realized by the authorities that the industrial centres, generally speaking, lie outside the old inner parts where are the historical monuments.

§ I would especially stress the danger—outside Germany—to Rome. The principle is the same, but the destruction of the main Roman monuments would create such hatred that the misery would survive when all the military and political advantages that may have accrued may have long worn off. The history of Rome is our own history. Rome taught us, through the example of Christ, to abolish human sacrifice and taught us the Christian faith. The destruction would rankle in the memory of every good European as Rome's destruction by the Goths or the sack of Rome rankled. The blame simply must not fall on those who are professing to create a better world. The resentment which would, inevitably, follow would be too deep-seated to be forgotten. It would be the sort of crime which one day, even in the political field, would turn against the perpetrators.

§ I wish to offer a few concluding remarks on the policy as a whole. It will be said that this area bombing—for it is this area bombing which is the issue to-day—is definitely designed to diminish the sacrifice of British lives and to shorten the war. We all wish with all our hearts that these two objects could be achieved, but to justify methods inhumane in themselves by arguments of expediency smacks of the Nazi philosophy that Might is Right. In any case the idea that it will reduce the sacrifice is speculation. The Prime Minister, as far back as August, 1940, before either Russia or America entered the war, justified the continued bombardment of German industries and communications as one of the surest, if not the shortest, of all the roads to victory. We are still fighting. It is generally admitted that German aircraft and military production, though it has slowed down, is going forward; and your Lordships may have noticed signs in certain military quarters of a tendency to question the value of this area bombing policy on military grounds. The cost in sacrifice of human life when the Second Front begins has never been disguised either from the American or from the British public by our leaders.

§ It is also urged that area bombing will break down morale and the will to fight. On November 5, in a speech at Cheltenham, the Secretary of State for Air said that bombing in this way would continue until we had paralysed German war industries, disrupted their transport system and broken their will to war. Again leaving the ethical issue aside, it is pure speculation. Up to now the evidence received from neutral countries is to the opposite effect. It is said that the Berliners are taking it well. Let me quote from two Swedish papers. On November 30 last, the Svenska Dagbladet—this was during the first stage of our raids on Berlin—said: ‘Through their gigantic air raids the British have achieved what Hitler failed to achieve by means of decrees and regulations; they have put the majority of the German people on a war footing.’ On January 9 of this year, the Sydsvenska Dagbladet said: ‘The relative German strength on the home front is undoubtedly based on desperation, which increases and gets worse the longer the mass bombing lasts. It is understandable that the fewer the survivors and the more they lose the more the idea spreads 'We have everything to gain and nothing to lose, and we can only regain what is ours if Germany wins the final victory, so let us do everything in our power.'’ If there is one thing absolutely sure, it is that a combination of the policy of obliteration with a policy of complete negation as to the future of a Germany which has got free from Hitler is bound to prolong the war and make the period after the war more miserable.

§ I am not extenuating the crimes of the Nazis or the responsibility of Germany as a whole in tolerating them for so long, but I should like to add this. I do not believe that His Majesty's Government desire the annihilation of Germany. They have accepted the distinction between Germany and the Hitlerite State.

[Bell is interrupted here by shouts of "no" from several members.]

On March 10 of last year the Lord Chancellor, speaking officially for the Government, accepted that distinction quite clearly and precisely. Is it a matter for wonder that Anti-Nazis who long for help to overthrow Hitler are driven to despair? I have here a telegram, which I have communicated to the Foreign Office, sent to me on December 27 last by a well-known Anti-Nazi Christian leader who had to flee from Germany for his life long before the war. It was sent from Zurich, and puts what millions inside Germany must feel. He says: ‘Is it understood that present situation gives us no sincere opportunity for appeal to people because one cannot but suspect effect of promising words on practically powerless population convinced by bombs and phosphor that their annihilation is resolved?’ If we wish to shorten the war, as we must, then let the Government speak a word of hope and encouragement both to the tortured millions of Europe and to those enemies of Hitler to whom in 1939 Mr. Churchill referred as "millions who stand aloof from the seething mass of criminality and corruption constituted by the Nazi Party machine."

Why is there this blindness to the psychological side? Why is there this inability to reckon with the moral and spiritual facts? Why is there this forget-fulness of the ideals by which our cause is inspired? How can the War Cabinet fail to see that this progressive devastation of cities is threatening the roots of civilization? How can they be blind to the harvest of even fiercer warring and desolation, even in this country, to which the present destruction will inevitably lead when the members of the War Cabinet have long passed to their rest? How can they fail to realize that this is not the way to curb military aggression and end war? This is an extraordinarily solemn moment. What we do in war—which, after all, lasts a comparatively short time—affects the whole character of peace, which covers a much longer period. The sufferings of Europe, brought about by the demoniac cruelty of Hitler and his Nazis, and hardly imaginable to those in this country who for the last five years have not been out of this island or had intimate association with Hitler's victims, are not to be healed by the use of power only, power exclusive and unlimited. The Allies stand for something greater than power. The chief name inscribed on our banner is "Law." It is of supreme importance that we who, with our Allies, are the liberators of Europe should so use power that it is always under the control of law. It is because the bombing of enemy towns—this area bombing—raises this issue of power unlimited and exclusive that such immense importance is bound to attach to the policy and action of His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.

[Three more speakers, including Cosmo Lang, former Archbishop of Canterbury, and Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, intervene before Bell, exercising his right of reply, makes a concluding statement.]

My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude for the courtesy of the noble Viscount's reply.[2] I will not disguise the fact that the end of his speech was not exactly unexpected but was nevertheless a disappointment. I, of course, wish—no one more—for the liberation of the unfortunate peoples of Europe, and I know it is only by the conquest of Hitler and his associates that that can be achieved. I would very strongly press the noble Viscount to take great pains about the definition of legitimate objectives of a military and industrial kind and to avoid to the utmost extent possible any confusion of them with non-military and non-industrial objectives. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships further, but we have to think of the future as well as the present. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

"I recognize the legitimacy of concentrated attack on industrial and military objectives, on airfields and air bases, in view especially of the coming of the Second Front "I fully realize that in attacks on centres of war industry and transport the killing of civilians when it is the result of bona-fide military activity is inevitable. But there must be a fair balance between the means employed and the purpose achieved. To obliterate a whole town because certain portions contain military and industrial establishments is to reject the balance ... How can there be discrimination in such matters when civilians, monuments, military objectives and industrial objectives all together form the target? How can the bombers aim at anything more than a great space when they see nothing and the bombing is blind?"

Bishop Bell, an Anglican (of course) had been considered to be in the running for Archbishop of Canterbury and some feel that the speech cost him is chance.  Bell did not have the support of his superiors in making the speech, one of whom questioned it during it, stating; it is a lesser evil to bomb the war-loving Germans than to sacrifice the lives of our fellow countrymen..., or to delay the delivery of many now held in slavery"?

Bishop Bell is considered by some to be a Saint.

Bishop Bell was absolutely correct, in my view, which is something those in the West have never faced.  Much of the bombing of Axis targets evolved to a species of mass civilian killing, which was never moral.

Bishop Bell opposed the war crime trials after the war on nuanced grounds, which likely also didn't help those wanting him to become the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury.  He opposed nuclear arms following the war.  He died in 1958.  In 1995, long after his death, he was accused of having a sexual relationship with a minor in the 1940s and the Anglican Church paid a settlement which it later found embarrassing as it was concluded that there had been a rush to judgement, and that in fact the evidence was not credible.  It apologized to his relatives.

The Luftwaffe made renewed efforst to supply the Korsun Pocket from the air, and also evacuated some of the wounded after delivirng large quantities of materials.

Water carrying detail, February 9, 1944.  Bougainville.

Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple, was born in Georgia.

Saturday, January 27, 2024

Thursday, January 27, 1944. Siege of Leningrad declared over.

On this day, the Soviets announced the end of the Siege of Leningrad.

Tenuous ground communication with the city had happened prior, but now the relief was solid, and the two year, four months, and five day siege was broken.

The battle was one of the most horrific in human history.

The 34th Infantry Division captured Monte Maiola and Caira.

The Marines expanded the Cape Gloucester beachhead on New Britain.

US defensive position on Bougainville, January 27, 1944.

The governments of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States protested Japan's treatment of POW's setting the ground for war crime prosecution.

Anglican Peter Jasper Akinola was born in Nigeria.  He would rise to the position of Anglican Primate for Nigeria, and while he was a Low Church Anglican, he was staunch in his opposition to Anglican accommodations to homosexuality.  He is retired.

Wednesday, January 24, 2024

Choosing to lose.

Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic candidate for President.  He was honest, and Catholic, which made him unelectable.
Kamala Harris says when she talks to parents on the campaign trail, one of their top concerns is that their daughters won't have access to abortion in college

Charlie Spiering, summarizing a recent Kamal Harris interview.

I come from a sufficiently well-educated family such that my grandmother, Agnes, on my mother's side, had attended and graduated from university.

If you consider that she was born in 1891, that's quite the feat.

Now, I'll admit that my father was the first one to attend university on his side of the family, but his father, and his grandfather, and his great-grandfather, had all been successful businessmen at a time at which you didn't need a college education to be one, or even a high school education for that matter.  My father's father, who I never met, was universally regarded by those who knew him as extremely smart.

Indeed, I once was stopped on the sidewalk by an elderly lawyer who knew my father and his father, who asked about the family.  My son must have been in high school at the time, and the odd question "is he extremely smart. . . " like all of the members of the family.

I often, frankly, feel that I'm on the bottom end of the family intelligence pool compared to my own father and my kids.

No real college parents anywhere have, as one of their top concerns, that their daughters won't be able to commit infanticide, unless they've drunk so deeply of the left wing Kool-Aid they're perusing brochures from The Young Pioneers.

Democratic campaigns for the Oval Office, or Democratic campaigns in general, are not smart.  

They're about as dumb as can be.

From 1914 until 1980 the Democrats were masters at coalition building.  The party kept hardhat workers, urban Irish Catholics, Hispanics, and the entire South together, which was frankly quite a feat.  It supported unions and working class families, and generally was pretty pro farmer.  It had a left wing, but it also had a conservative one as well.  Starting in 1968, when it embraced American battlefield defeat to a degree, and then in 1973, when it took the bloody abortionist hand, it took a turn toward the left, and as it did that, it dumped democracy like a hot rock in favor of an imagined Platonic body of robed elders who would tell the people what to do, and they'd like it.

Absolutely everything about the current Democratic message is wrong, including some things that shouldn't be regarded as wrong, but which are in the current political atmosphere.  One thing that's definitely wrong is the concept that infanticide is a winning ticket.  It isn't. The Democrats have read single issue matters on ballots here incorrectly.  Maybe in that'st the only thing on a ballot, you get the voters only concerned about that to come out.  Otherwise, people aren't going to vote that way.

Moreover, if Harris is really being told this by the parents of college women, it's because she's talking to the most liberal parents imaginable, and they're going to say crap like that no matter what.  Moreover, the college educated are largely voting for Biden already.  Biden/Harris need to get votes that they don't already have.  The college educated have largely already left the GOP.

What's left of the electorate that is in the GOP is made up of the working class, small business owners (some college educated), and residents of rural regions (including quite a few well-educated ones in those areas).  They don't believe "diversity is strength", they aren't interested in tolerating non "Judeo-Christian" religions, or gender mutilation, and they feel that their lives and livelihoods are threatened by out of control illegal immigration.  They love their regions, but they're largely incapable of believing in climate change in spite of the evidence.  They quit listening to scientist and social scientist of all types because they were lied to about some things, and therefore don't believe any of it.  They listen to Evangelical pastors who tell them what they want to hear, and who make their massive departures from Christian doctrine irrelevant by not mentioning them (ever hear any of them criticize Trump for living in an adulterous relationship, which by conventional Christianity he is?  Or of an Evangelical Church refusing to marry two people who have been married before?)

When I first started practicing law, a firm partner, a true Christian gentleman, told me about litigation that "this isn't a nice game".  It isn't.  Politics is even less so, and you have to be smart about it.

There's 0 reason that the Biden/Harris ticket needs to mention abortion at all.  Where that's been an issue, they had no role in it. And they're driving Democrats away right now who are Catholic, which includes the Hispanic voters they imagine they'll be gaining.  And their absolute incompetence on the border is in fact a good reason to vote against them.  A competent ticket would shut up on abortion and would make a very serious effort on the border.  

Obama, it might be noted, had a very controlled border.  And while he was President before Dobbs, he didn't say much about abortion either.

He won twice.

Pointing out that more IRS agents punishes the wealthy, not the middle class, would help too.  Pointing out that Trump has been a personally immoral man, might as well.  Pointing out that he was the one who surrendered to the Taliban would as well. 

And parking Harris somewhere would be a good idea, if not dumping her entirely.

And that's where you have to say thing that re uncomfortable.

Al Smith was the Democratic nominee for President in 1928.  He would have won, but he was Catholic.  Yes, that meant a lot of the electorate was bigoted, but it also meant that the Democrats weren't smart in running him.

They would be now, but Smith wouldn't be a Democrat any longer.  He'd likely be an independent.  He wasn't willing to compromise on his Catholicism, like Joe Biden has, and he wasn't a liar of any kind either.

Kamala Harris is like Al Smith in one fashion.  She reminds bigoted voters who they hate.  She's a lawyer (regular people hate lawyers), she's the child of two immigrants (MAGA people don't like immigrants), one of whom was Indian and the other Jamaican, making her a "person of color" (a lot of MAGA people really don't like people of color, let alone immigrant people of color), she's married to an entertainment lawyer (oh, oh) who is Jewish (again, MAGA people like Israel, but Jews. . . ) and the children of the couple are from his first marriage, meaning she has low parent street cred.

Are any of those items a reason not to vote for Harris?  Absolutely not.  Her policies are a reason not to vote for Harris.  But will some MAGA people vote for Trump for these reasons? You bet they will, and in a race this close, in a handful of states that matter, that's a problem.

I don't know who would be a better VP candidate.  Amy Klobuchar strikes me as one who would be better in every fashion.  If you could find an American Christian Levantine politician (and there definitely are some) they'd be absolutely perfect, particularly if the choice was a woman.  But what I am saying is that in a race with democracy itself on the ticket, choosing to go with a candidate this old for President, and a VP who is so disliked, is just dumb.  And emphasizing the aspects of your campaign that the populist right hates, even if they do so wrongly on some of them, and the nervous middle aren't comfortable with, isn't very smart either.  Having the disliked person, even if the dislike is immoral, who people fear might end up President isn't very smart, either.

This isn't a nice game.  Sometimes choices have to be made in the candidates and the strategy that aren't very palatable.  A lot of Republicans will do what Cynthia Lummis admitted to doing in 2016 as to Trump, and "hold her nose and vote".  The Democrats should hold their noses and make some smart choices.

But they will not.

Sunday, December 24, 2023

The Reformation as unmixed evil.

I am firmly convinced that the Reformation of the sixteenth century was as near as any mortal thing can come to unmixed evil. Even the parts of it that might appear plausible and enlightened from a purely secular standpoint have turned out rotten and reactionary, also from a purely secular standpoint. 

By substituting the Bible for the sacrament, it created a pedantic caste of those who could read, superstitiously identified with those who could think. By destroying the monks, it took social work from the poor philanthropists who chose to deny themselves, and gave it to the rich philanthropists who chose to assert themselves. By preaching individualism while preserving inequality, it produced modern capitalism. It destroyed the only league of nations that ever had a chance. It produced the worst wars of nations that ever existed. It produced the most efficient form of Protestantism, which is Prussia. And it is producing the worst part of paganism, which is slavery.

G. K. Chesterton

Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Sunday, Saturday, December 19, 1943. The Hopeville Martyrs.

Corsair damaged over Bougainville, December 19, 1943.

On Panay Island, in the Philippines, ten American Baptist missionaries, along with a handful of other Americans, were captured by the Japanese Army after having been in hiding for two years.

They offered to be executed in exchange for the release of Filipino's captured with them and were in fact killed by the Japanese, adults by beheading and children by bayoneting.

American forces captured the Japanese airstrip at Arawe, New Guinea.

Liberty Ship SS James Withycombe which went aground off Fort Randolph, Canal Zone, December 19, 1943.


Sunday, December 17, 2023

Calling Oliver Cromwell.

Lex Anteinternet: A Protestant Country. It's history, and what it me...: Puritans on their way to church. One of the blogs that's linked into the right on this site recently had this item: The Declaration of I...

Recently I wrote about the New Apostolic Reformation, twice. Once in the post above, and once here:

Mike Johnson and the Sinai?

And now Donald Trump has stated this at a campaign rally:

I’ll implement strong ideological screening of all immigrants…If you don’t like our religion…then we don’t want you in our country.

Pretty clear who he's pitching to here.

Thursday, December 14, 2023

The 118th Congress. Part II

October 25, 2023

Mike Johnson, who supported Trump's bogus claim to have won the election, has been elected Speaker of the House of Representatives


Other than that he's a Republican from Louisiana, and some kind of lawyer (he claims to be the mysterious category of "Constitutional Lawyer", whatever that is, about all I know about him is that he's very conservative, and an evangelical Christian (of the young earth variety).

A "Constitutional Lawyer" (whatever that is) ought to know that the claims Trump won the election were devoid of legal merit.  A couple of other lawyers involved in such claims have recently plead guilty to crimes associated with that.  Presumably Johnson is immune from such charges, but the fact that he supported sedition under cover of law is distressing.

Harriet Hageman posted his agenda for Congress a couple of days ago.



October 26, 2023

More is becoming known about Johnson.

He's a hardcore conservative, very much of the Republican right.  Any issue that you can think of, on which he's expressed an opinion, is uniformly extremely conservative.

That doesn't mean he's a populist per se, but he did work on a brief that sought to support one of President Trump's Squirrel Ball efforts to overturn the last election. That puts him squarely in league with the those who attempted to use the courts to support sedition, quite a few of whom in the main of that are now pleading guilty to crimes.

He's been an opponent to aid to Ukraine.

He's a serious Evangelical Protestant (which being from Louisiana, he might not have been) who believes in the young earth theory.

He's a denier of man made climate change.

What this will ultimately mean isn't known, but at least it's reasonable to suppose that at this point the GOP in the House is being lead, and is, far right and Protestant Christian Nationalist in view.

Gaetz really won in this, as did Trump.  Gaetz took McCarthy down, and now the very hard right has installed one of their own.  It's really remarkable, to say the least.

October 28, 2023

The House of Representatives is going to pass a bill which funds aid to Israel alone, omitting Ukraine, and which funds the $14B by slashing the same amount from the entity that finds money for the government, the IRS.

That latter part is just plain stupid.

And so the dysfunction shall return. This will go nowhere.


The irrational hatred of the IRS in populist circles is flat out bizarre.  It's almost as if they're encouraging people to cheat on their taxes and preventing that from being discovered, or the rich completely control them.  Neither are true, so what it seems to amount to is the whole scale adoption of a really stupid set of beliefs about taxation.

November 3, 2023

Under new Republican leadership, we are voting late at night on … stupid stuff. We are about to vote on: -Reducing salary of EPA Administrator to $1 -Reducing salary of Director of Bureau of Land Management to $1 -Reducing salary of Secretary of the Interior to $1

I just had to explain to my Republican colleague from Georgia that Robert E. Lee was not a founding father. It’s been a very long day on the House floor.

November 8, 2023

November 8, 2023

Hamas v. Israel War

U.S. Rep Rashida Tlaib was censured for her "river to the sea" comment.  Tlaib is of Palestinian extraction and has a vocal critic of Israel.

U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman claimed n a television interview that Palestinian protests in the US were due to Palestinian infiltration of the U.S. government.

November 14, 2023

Eight Republicans voted with Democrats against a resolution to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over the border crisis.  The vote was 209 to 201, showing how extreme the GOP is, but also that the far right lacks complete control over the Republican members.

November 15, 2023

The House passed a stop gap spending resolution yesterday to avoid a government shutdown, but the GOP was forced to rely upon Democratic votes in order to pass it.  That should be normal, of course, but with the current Republican makeup it is not.

Johnson is proving not to be a slave to his far right, which in turn will either result in his being removed liked McCarthy or perhaps start off a return to more normal behavior.

November 16, 2023

The Senate also passed the spending bill.

December 1, 2023

George Santos has been expelled from Congress.

December 2, 2023

Following up on this, the expulsion of Santos is real progress as by doing in the GOP is potentially cutting into its three vote margin in the House, and did it anyway.  It shows, at long last, that there are some standards which cannot be breached.

December 6, 2023

Getting a jump on behaving like a Soviet court in the early USSR, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and a subcommittee chairman on the House Administration Committee announced Tuesday that they would be investigating any "cooperation" between Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis and the former House Jan. 6 committee.  

Because, after all, it would be awful if the Dear Leader's behavior were to have come fully to light, as that would demonstrate independence of thought and loyalty to the truth.  We can't have that.

Cont:

Kevin McCarthy, who was complicit in Trump's recovery from his brief fall from Republican grace, and who rode Trump's favor into a brief Speakership, shall resign from Congress at the end of this month.  In so doing, he stated: “I have decided to depart the House at the end of this year to serve America in new ways". This will reduce the GOP majority in the House down to a single seat, at least temporarily.

December 14, 2023

The House is going to have a totally pointless impeachment inquiry regarding Joe Biden based on his son Hunter's conduct and baseless allegations that Hunter's business dealings involve his father.

Some assert that this is revenge dictated by "one day dictator" hopeful Donald Trump, whose own children certainly were active under his name during his presidency. Trading on a famous parent's name certainly isn't illegal, and is frankly nearly inevitable.  Congressional Medal of Honor Winner Theodore Roosevelt Jr certainly didn't become well known independently.  Of course, the baseless allegations here are that Biden was somehow involved in Hunter Biden's activities.

Whether Donald Trump ordered this or not, the level of delusion in the GOP side of the House of Representatives is sufficient to have likely brought this about independently.  Ironically, it's now come to light that the individual who will head this sorry affair, James Comer, has a complicated set of financial arrangements not unlike that of Hunter Biden, although he's not being accused of illegal activities.

At any rate, there are not enough votes right now to impeach Biden, and this is yet another example of the House of Representatives, under GOP control, doing something political that will do nothing whatsoever other than to distract.

All the Republicans voted for the measure, all the Democrats voted against it.

The long ago days under Kevin McCarthy already look better.

Last edition:

The 118th Congress.