Showing posts with label Query. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Query. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 25, 2023

Packed cattle in high heat?

Yesterday I drove home from a remote location.  It was a really hot day. All the cattle that I drove past were packed up in dense groups, crowded for the most part near fences, but at least all packed up. What was up with that? 

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Watching the mule auction this past Sunday brought me to a possible explanation as to why so many Western legal organizations like to feature cowboys in their propoganda.

And that's because it's honest, and manly, work.

Cowboy, 1888.   This is, for some reason, how lawyers often tend to see themselves.

It was Bates v. State Bar of Arizona in which the United States Supreme Court destroyed the professionalism of the legal profession.  In that 5 to 4 decision, the Court found that a rule of the Arizona State Bar preventing advertising violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It further held that allowing attorneys to advertise would not harm the legal profession or the administration of justice.

They were wrong.

As was often the case in that era, the majority had its head up its butt.  In reality, advertising destroyed decades of work by the early 20th Century American Bar Association and drug the occupation of being a lawyer from that of a learned profession down to a carnival barker.

Recently I watched the Netflix uploaded episodes of the Korean television series The Extraordinary Attorney Woo (이상한 변호사 우영우). In it, every one addressed attorneys by their patronymic and the title "Attorney", even if they were personally familiar with them.  So, for example, every time somebody addressed the central protagonist, they did so as "Attorney Woo".   That struck me as odd, so I looked it up to see if that was correct, and found a Korean language site entry that stated off with a comment that was something like "unlike the United States, attorneys in Korea are a respected profession".

That struck me, as I hadn't really thought about it like that.  When I started off in this line of work, we were still somewhat regarded as respected professionals and its hard to forget that's now in the past.

The decline was in, however, already by that time.  When we were admitted to the bar, Federal Judge Court Brimmer gave a speech about civility in litigation.  I've heard versions of it many times since. When I first started practicing, advertising was just starting here, and it was the domain of plaintiff's lawyers for the most part.  It still is.

Bates got us rolling in this direction, but the flood of 60s and 70s vintage law school graduates did as well.  Too many lawyers with too little to do, expanded what could be done in court.  Lawyers have backed every bad cause imaginable in the name of social justice. That's drug the profession down.

How we imagine ourselves.

I think we know that, which is why I think we also go out of our way to associate ourselves with occupations that have real worth.  We like conventions featuring the West, both for defense and plaintiffs, rather than sitting in front of our computers in office buildings in Denver and Salt Lake City.

Nobody, that is, wants to go to the "2023 Sitting On Your Ass Asking Insurance Carriers For Money" conference.  No, we do not.  We want to go instead to the "2023 Blazing Saddles and High Noon Conference".  

But what are we really?

How everyone else sees us.

It's a real red meat question, but it needs to be asked.  To some extent, civil litigation started off as a substitute for private warfare.  But now?  Many people have asked if this is a virtuous profession, but beyond that is it, well, manly?

Many lawyers aren't men, of course.  But if there are occupations that exhibit male virtues and natures, is this one?

Our constant association of ourselves with occupations that do, and the use of language borrowed from fields that are, suggests we don't think so.

As we really are.

Friday, February 24, 2023

PFC Foley's boots.

This is a well known photograph of PFC Edward J. Foley, 143rd Infantry Regiment of the 36th  Infantry Division near Valletri, Italy, 29 May 1944.  It's an interesting photograph for a variety of reasons, including the number of M1903 Springfields it depicts.

In looking at it, I noticed something odd about Pvt. Foley's boots.  Note that everyone around him is wearing service shoes and leggings.  I figured he'd acquired a pair of paratrooper boots, but that's not what these are.



It looks like the top 3" or so of the boot are a separate leather piece, and they have speed lace hooks, rather than eyelets, in that portion.  They also don't have tapered heels, like paratrooper boots do.

Altered service shoes?


Thursday, September 29, 2022

Nord Stream Sabotage

So this occurred:1

Danish defense video of gas venting to the atmosphere from severed Nord Stream pipeline.




But why?

This assumes, of course, that the Russians did it, in which case, they sabotaged their own pipeline.

The Nord Stream pipeline refers to two natural gas pipelines, now both severed, that run under the Baltic from Russia to Germany, supplying gas to the latter.  Nord Stream 1 is owned by Nord Stream AG, whose majority interest owner is the Russian state gas company Gazprom.  Nord Stream two is planned to be operated by Nord Stream 2 AG, which would be wholly owned by Gazprom.  If the Russians damaged it, they severed what amounted to a stream of revenue. . . save for it being shut down right now due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Wars don't last forever, and logic would presume that the Russians would want to open the spigots back up after the fighting is over.  Now, they can't.  Or they can't until it's repaired.  And now it might never be.  Liking burning the boats, right now they can't go back, and neither can Germany.  The Germans are going to have to get gas somewhere else.

Well, they've already started to, but they'll have to further look for it. They actually have to do it.

So why?

Well, right now, it's pretty darned hard to figure out why the Russians actually do anything whatsoever.  They seem to be on a rampaging ride of ineptitude and incompetence.  Their army, once presumed to be one of the best in the world, has been proven inept, with thin depth, in Ukraine.  They have been outfought and outmaneuvered right and left by a smaller power.  They're calling on reserves that they must not really have, as they're sending men who have only a year of service right into combat.  They're actually bringing back blocking units to keep their army from retreating.  Their equipment, which I was never impressed with, has been proven to be junk.

And rather than attempt to declare victory and go home, or negotiate a sane face-saving peace, they're doubling down and annexing territory they may very well have no ability to hold on it, while at home men are voting with their feet.  

Nothing they've done has worked, and everything that Russian military pundits have called for has failed or is failing.

What good could blowing up your own pipeline serve?

Is it a warning to Germany that they could make things worse, that's supposed to cow the BDR into a greater level of neutrality?  Is it a signal to Europe that they'd better take Russia seriously or Russia will take its ball and go home?  

If so, that isn't working.

Is it a false flag operation designed to provide an excuse for harsher actions against Ukraine?  If so, it's not believable that Ukraine could have severed an undersea pipeline in the Baltic, and it doesn't seem like Russia can be any harsher on Ukraine than it already is trying to be.

Is it to provide an excuse for expanding the war west, under the pretext that the Poles or the Germans did it?  If so, there's no reason to believe that the Russians can do any better against the Poles than they already are against Ukraine, and they definitely can't do better against Germany, let alone NATO at large.

Or is it just for interior consumption in a country that's sending men into combat without training for a cause that rank and file Russians aren't seemingly that keen on?

Footnotes:

1. This entry was started before Donald J. Trump posted his absolutely incredibly hubristic comment that he would serve as negotiator due to this event.

Trump will be lucky if he doesn't end up serving time.  That he's suggest acting as a mediator is, well, simply beyond belief.

Monday, September 19, 2022

Is this Blog Slow To Load?


Please let me know if you stop in here, if this blog is unusually slow to load.

If so, I may need to make some features adjustments.

Friday, August 26, 2022

A Hundred Years Ago: 1922 Directions for Cooking Hot Breakfast Cereals

My goodness, check out these times:

1922 Directions for Cooking Hot Breakfast Cereals

Thirty minutes for rolled oats?

And I frankly don't know what the preparation methods for some of these cereals are.  Cornmeal?  Is that boiled cornmeal?  Cracked wheat, is that boiled?

Wednesday, July 27, 2022

The Post Insurrection. The investigation goes live. The Tragic Part III.

2022  Wyoming Congressman Liz Cheney delivered a major address on the occasion of the first of the open hearings of the January 6 Committee.  Her address was effectively an opening statement in the presentation of the events of the January 6, 2021 Insurrection.





June 9, 2022

Today promises to be a huge day in the story of the January 6, 2021, insurrection. The Committee investigating it will go live, tonight, with its findings and evidence.

Every major network, except for Fox (which is just pathetic on their part) will run it live. So will C-SPAN.  The committee is set to go on the air at 8:00 p.m. Eastern time, 6:00 Mountain Standard.

How many Wyomingites, however, will tune in to see it, and to see a story that many simply do not wish to?

June 10, 2022

The first hearing was held, featuring the chairman and the co-chairman, Liz Cheney, delivering powerful opening statements.

It's clear that the committee, over a series of hearings, intends to demonstrate that:

  • A conspiracy to steal the election was developed by Trump and his inner circle prior to the November 2020 election.
  • Numerous members of his immediate staff and cabinet were not in on it and informed him repeatedly that he'd lost the election and that there was no evidence to the contrary.
  • The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers independently developed a plan to seize control of the government for Trump, believing the fable that he'd lost the election.
  • At some level, Trump was cognizant of the likelihood that the Oath Keepers and Proud boys would act and egged them on, believing that this would operate to keep him in power.
In short, the Committee intends to demonstrate what happened on January 6 was part of an attempted coup, and they'll ask for a criminal referral for Trump for sedition when they conclude.

This will go on weekly, once a week, for weeks, which in my view is a mistake. They'd be better off doing this in a series of hearings over a week.  

Cheney's speech was very effectively delivered. 

Some highlights were: 1) the dramatic testimony of a Metropolitan Police Force officer who was knocked unconscious and returned to duty that evening; 2) Bill Barr's taped testimony that he had informed Trump that there was no evidence Trump had lost the election; 3) Ivanka Trump's testimony that Barr's views did operate to impact her own, as she respects Barr; 4) a documentarian's testimony about how the Proud Boys started on their March prior to Trump's call to the crowed; 5) a statement  that when Trump was informed that the crowed was threatening to "hang Mike Pence" that his reply was "maybe he deserves it"; 6) after the insurrection there were discussions inside the inner circle about invoking the 25th Amendment.  Outside the White House, this occurred as well, with Sean Hannity and Kayleigh McEnany texting about invoking the 25th Amendment.

Some of the very early GOP reaction was to focus on inflation.

June 13, 2022

Testimony from June 13.

Frankly, the information today is so shocking that it raises genuine questions as to former President Trump's sanity.  Keep in mind, a person doesn't have to be a raving lunatic in order to be insane.  

It's extremely clear that numerous people around Trump told him that he lost the election, and he would have had no reasonable basis to keep on arguing that he didn't.  He very much would have no reasonable basis to do so now.  Given that, he's either 1) delusional, or 2) intentionally lying and doesn't care about the implications, both of which raise questions on his sanity.

That doesn't mean that all of those who have adopted his lies are crazy, by any means.  Indeed, as most people wouldn't assume a sitting President to be insane, believing the lies is at least somewhat excusable, up to a point, on that basis.  But to willfully reject the plain evidence isn't excusable, and that would include not only regular people, but also candidates who truly know better.

June 16, 2022

Today's January 6 hearing shall be at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, or 11:00 Western.

The last one certainly proved to be interesting, with Bill Stephien making it clear that he didn't think the election was stolen.  He's now Harriet Hageman's campaign advisor, with Hageman still maintaining she "does know" who won the election.  Stephien feels he knows, and the winner was Joe Biden.

It isn't clear, at this time, who today's witnesses will be, although it seems to be the case that one will be a retired Republican appointed Federal Judge.

June 17, 2022

From news accounts, it's clear that Mike Pence was put under tremendous pressure to refuse to certify the vote by President Trump and that law professor John Eastman's theory that this could be done was adopted by Trump.  Others in the inside loop warned Trump that this was "crazy".   Trump had been advised what Eastman was advocating was illegal.

Retired Federal Judge J. Michael Eastman, who was a Pence advisor, and who once employed Eastman as a clear (as had Clarence Thomas) stated that; "Trump and his supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy”.  This emphasizes a view that Trump is continuing to conspire against Constitutional democracy in the United States.

On this, a conservative columnist wrote a column the other day posing the question of whether the committee is urging the Justice Department to bring charges for sedition against Trump.  He goes no to suppose no jury in the land would convict him, and that such a thing would be divisive.

It would be divisive, but frankly a jury in many places, with the evidence being revealed, would convict the former President.  He doesn't seem to have much of a defense, and the in fact the GOP isn't presenting one.  Instead, confronted with all of this evidence, its reply is "but look at inflation".

This is the anniversary of the Watergate breaking, which lead to President Nixon's downfall, as he knew impeachment was coming.  President Ford pardoned him, and I've long thought that one of the two great failure to try instances in the nation's history.  Pardoning Nixon for a crime that was considerably less severe than the one that it appears Trump committed set up the concept that trying a President or former President just isn't done. That in fact makes them above the law, and that's a huge part of the problem we're facing right now.

June 24, 2022

I haven't seen this week's hearings, but it's clear that they've detailed the pressure put on state officials, and more dramatically, the Trump Administration's efforts to pressure the Justice Department to go along with his stolen election fable.

Additionally, the names of Republican Congressmen who asked for preemptive pardons were named.  Mo Brooks asked for a pardon for all of the Congressmen who voted not to certify the election. Brooks, it might be noted, just went down in defeat in his state's Republican primary for the Senate.

Whether this is changing anyone's minds is another question, but what the Committee has done is a good job of showing that a criminal indictment would be warranted and put things in the place that those who aren't seeing the Trump Administration's efforts to seize power and remain in office simply don't wish to, no matter what else they may otherwise believe about the election.

June 28, 2022.

Absolutely shocking.




And frankly horrifying.

Will anything be done?

Will those who have refused to accept that there was an insurrection change their minds now?

Will those campaigning solely on their loyalty to Trump modify their positions at all, or adopt, by refusing to do so, ongoing insurrection?

July 22, 2022

On January 6 the Pentagon attempted to call President Trump.  He didn't want to take the call so his lawyer took it.

Yikes.

July 27, 2022

News has officially broken that the Department of Justice is investigating Donald Trump regarding the January 6 insurrection.

And with that, we will close out this installment.  The January 6 Committee is in a hiatus of public hearings, and the DOJ is looking at charges.  We don't really know how far along they are on that, but at this point my prediction is that charges for seditious conspiracy will in fact be levied.

Last prior edition

The Post Insurrection. The Tragic Part II

Wednesday, August 4, 2021

"Do you personally know anyone who has had COVID 19?"

So reads an item that's constantly popping up on my Facebook feed right now.

I don't know the original source, but I suspect, without knowing for sure, that this started off as one of those Covid denial things you see around.  I.e., not that many people "really get it" or "it's not that bad".

I replied the first time, as I know the person who was circulating it.  I haven't to the several ones I've seen since then.

But yes, I know a lot of people who have had COVID 19.  I started counting it up in my mind and then simply stopped when I could think of twenty people I know who've had the infection.

Indeed, I know people who had it the very first month that it became a news story and hardly a month has gone by where I haven't learned of somebody else who has had it or, has it.

Offhand, I can think of two people I know who died of it, and one of them definitely didn't die a good death.  That, moreover, was brought about due to a situation in which one person insisted the other come to his office, which was the one time the person broke a self-imposed quarantine.  He died on a ventilator.

I know another whom I suspect had COVID 19 playing a role in his untimely death, due to the impacts it has one some people who get it. And I know another whom I suspect has been severely physically impaired by the disease. 

I got vaccinated as soon as I was able to and all of my family did as well.  But I know people who haven't.  They all have their own reasons for that.  But we're entering a very new phase of this.  The Delta variant is as infections as the chicken pox and the Lambda variant, which just broke out in South America, appears to be more able to break through.  

This virus isn't following the normal path.  Normally, virus evolve towards being less lethal.  We're not seeing that.

Does anyone really know somebody who hasn't had the disease?  I doubt it.

The bigger question may be does anyone out there not know somebody who died?

Saturday, May 15, 2021

May 15, 1941. The Belgian Counsel General (presumably in Jerusalem) and others gathering for the King of Belgium's birthday, surely. . .

this was the last time in human history, i.e., the 1940s, when people could gather in these costumes ant not feel patently ridiculous.

I exempt, for this question, the couple of religious depicted in the photo.

Friday, April 30, 2021

A question for writers of fiction.

If you are a fiction writer, by which I mean novels, how many significant, or central, characters do you feel is the limit for a novel, assuming you feel there is a limit?


To Kill A Mockingbird, by my recollection, has basically five.  The Killer Angels, on the other hand, has at least seven and probably more like ten, if I recall correctly.  War And Peace has enough of such characters such that keeping them all in mind is a bit difficult, even though it is, in my view, the greatest work of fiction ever written.  The small Irish classic Durango has seven or eight.  McMurtry's magnum opus Lonesome Dove is centered on two, but they interact with a bare minimum of eleven other significant characters, and at least that many minor ones.

Thoughs?