The nation's first Kawana's Club was founded in Detroit as the Supreme Lodge Benevolent Order Brothers.
French troops on the Hartmannswillerkopf summit surrendered after running out of ammunition and supplies.
Last edition:
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: $40/barrel? The layoffs continue
Lex Anteinternet: $40/barrel?: Driven by Saudi Arabian efforts, the price of petroleum oil is falling through the floor. When I last checked, it was down under $70...Just recently it was announced that Schlumberger was engaging in substantial layoffs. Now the news comes that Halliburton is laying off 1,000 employees, and Baker Hughes, which Halliburton is buying, is laying off an additional 7,000.
Layoffs of this level are pretty hard to ignore, and at some point the slowdown becomes more than that, due to its own inertia.
Today In Wyoming's History: Joel Hurt – Sheepman - Mayor- Senator – Murderer
Today In Wyoming's History: Joel Hurt – Sheepman - Mayor- Senator – Murderer:
Joel Hurt – Sheepman - Mayor- Senator – Murderer
Note that the amount of the initial investment in the sheep ranch, $200,000, was truly a huge sum, if the effects of inflation areconsidered. Well into the millions in today's money.
This is telling in that we often get the idea that homestead was "free", which it wasn't. Even quite a few modest homesteads reflected years and years of savings being invested in a very small start up enterprise. But beyond that, there were large outfits like this, that absolutely enormous initial investments.
Joel Hurt – Sheepman - Mayor- Senator – Murderer
Note that the amount of the initial investment in the sheep ranch, $200,000, was truly a huge sum, if the effects of inflation areconsidered. Well into the millions in today's money.
This is telling in that we often get the idea that homestead was "free", which it wasn't. Even quite a few modest homesteads reflected years and years of savings being invested in a very small start up enterprise. But beyond that, there were large outfits like this, that absolutely enormous initial investments.
Wednesday, January 20, 1915. Coast Guard and Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge established.
Congress passed the Coast Guard Act, which established the United States Coast Guard by merging United States Life-Saving Service and the United States Revenue Cutter Service. Overall, the Coast Guard would come to absorb a large number of small maritime services.
It was modeled on the Navy, but part of the Department of the Treasury. The 1790 date in its seal is the date the United States Revenue Marine Service had been established.
For years it was part of the Department of the Treasury during peacetime, but as wars have become smaller its oddly been the case that the country thought it needed more than than the two original armed services. There are now a total of six, of which the Coast Guard is one. It's been transferred from the Treasury, where it really should have remained, to the Department of Homeland Security.
Bring back the War Department.
President Wilson established the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Washington.
Last edition:
Tuesday, January 19, 1915. Air raid. Neon lights.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Would the ABA please gete over its "Big Law" Obsession? And over itself too?
This is a post I started, actually, some years ago, but I never finished it for a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, as I am an ABA member, and as I get disgusted with the ABA from time to time, I haven't "trashed" the old draft, and I'm finally completing it.
Anyhow, this, no doubt, is something that only matters to lawyers, and quite frankly only to a tiny number of lawyers at that, but the ABA needs to get over its obsession with "Big Law." At the same time, "Big Law" needs to get over itself, and so does the ABA.
Now, no doubt many non lawyers, upon hearing that term, would wonder what "Big Law" even is.
Well, Big Law is a term that legal commentators, within the legal community, have tagged on Super Sized East Coast law firms. Like many Super Sized East Coast things, they're irrelevant to people in the country otherwise, but those who are located there are seemingly so fascinated with them, that they can't grasp the irrelevance. Think of it like New York City. . . a vast metropolis that has passed its importance long ago, but doesn't realize it. And think of the ABA, in these regards, as a The New York Times, a once great public organ which is now a local newspaper, but which still believes that it speaks to the world, rather than wrap fish in Queens.
The ABA is constantly obsessed with what's going on in Big Law. Members of the ABA can subscribe to some email lists which supposedly will inform you in on this or that, and one of the things you are going to see constant commentary on is Big Law. Some big partnership back east will be laying people off, or the starting salaries of Big Law associates will be lower this year than last.
Well, so what? It doesn't matter to most lawyer, or most clients. Indeed, it doesn't matter to most "big time" lawyers.
But the commentary on it is so constant that other legal venues have picked it up. The legal Blawgs are full of "Big Law."
A dirty little secret of all of this is that a lot of Big Law commentary isn't about Big Law at all, but just regular old firms. If all the people who claim Big Law angst really worked for law firms employing the same number of people who lived in the Ottoman Empire, there would be no lawyers left employed by anyone else. I suspect that people who Blawg have, in their minds, converted their former occupation in a mid sized Mid Western firm to Big Law.
And maybe they should have, because much of the commentary and angst expressed about Big Law is really just stuff about general law. Big Law seems mostly distinguished from regular old law by its size, salary, locations, and probably the deluded corporate desire of big corporations to make sure that they they hire big.
For the most part, Big Law doesn't matter. Even the really big firms in big cities that handle lots and lots of important stuff in most places seemingly don't qualify as Big Law. So lawyers in a the Denver firm of Big, Huge, Giant and Titanic, which might have an office up in Casper and down in Albuquerque, don't count. And certainly that century old firm downtown employing ten or twenty lawyers doesn't count either.
Frankly, except to the ABA, for most of us, Big Law doesn't count. I don't care what some white shoe firm in New York does. It doesn't matter to me. Shoot, chances are good that I'll have a higher career total number of trials than most of them do, if I don't already. I'll never make the money their lawyers do, but I've never paid New York rent nor have I had to live in a place so undesirable as New York. I win.
But the ABA looses. It should just ignore the Big Law firms this year and focus on what most real lawyers do.
And while the ABA is at it, it can dump social activism for the year. I don't care, and nobody else does, on what the shining lights at the ABA think about gun control, or any such thing. Frankly, just because we're lawyers doesn't make us experts on social issues of any kind, and lawyers have been on both sides of every issue that ever was. The fact that the ABA feels itself compelled to bother with issues is one of the reasons that its becoming increasingly irrelevant to real lawyers.
Indeed, if the ABA wants to make itself relevant, it ought to go back to its century old roots and focus on practice standards. It could do that by working towards making legal education more rigorous and less frequent. As shocking as it may sound, it would be doing the law a favor if it advocated for fewer people to go to, and get through, law school. And it should do something about the fact that in an increasing number of American states bar applicants aren't tested on their state's own laws. If they want to be really bold, they could argue that judges should never be elected to office and ought to go off the bench when they hit 70, even if their Federal judges. I don't see the ABA making any of those arguments soon, however.
At the same time, we'll we're at it, perhaps everyone can just get over the Ivy League law schools. Yawn.
Anyhow, this, no doubt, is something that only matters to lawyers, and quite frankly only to a tiny number of lawyers at that, but the ABA needs to get over its obsession with "Big Law." At the same time, "Big Law" needs to get over itself, and so does the ABA.
Now, no doubt many non lawyers, upon hearing that term, would wonder what "Big Law" even is.
Well, Big Law is a term that legal commentators, within the legal community, have tagged on Super Sized East Coast law firms. Like many Super Sized East Coast things, they're irrelevant to people in the country otherwise, but those who are located there are seemingly so fascinated with them, that they can't grasp the irrelevance. Think of it like New York City. . . a vast metropolis that has passed its importance long ago, but doesn't realize it. And think of the ABA, in these regards, as a The New York Times, a once great public organ which is now a local newspaper, but which still believes that it speaks to the world, rather than wrap fish in Queens.
The ABA is constantly obsessed with what's going on in Big Law. Members of the ABA can subscribe to some email lists which supposedly will inform you in on this or that, and one of the things you are going to see constant commentary on is Big Law. Some big partnership back east will be laying people off, or the starting salaries of Big Law associates will be lower this year than last.
Well, so what? It doesn't matter to most lawyer, or most clients. Indeed, it doesn't matter to most "big time" lawyers.
But the commentary on it is so constant that other legal venues have picked it up. The legal Blawgs are full of "Big Law."
A dirty little secret of all of this is that a lot of Big Law commentary isn't about Big Law at all, but just regular old firms. If all the people who claim Big Law angst really worked for law firms employing the same number of people who lived in the Ottoman Empire, there would be no lawyers left employed by anyone else. I suspect that people who Blawg have, in their minds, converted their former occupation in a mid sized Mid Western firm to Big Law.
And maybe they should have, because much of the commentary and angst expressed about Big Law is really just stuff about general law. Big Law seems mostly distinguished from regular old law by its size, salary, locations, and probably the deluded corporate desire of big corporations to make sure that they they hire big.
For the most part, Big Law doesn't matter. Even the really big firms in big cities that handle lots and lots of important stuff in most places seemingly don't qualify as Big Law. So lawyers in a the Denver firm of Big, Huge, Giant and Titanic, which might have an office up in Casper and down in Albuquerque, don't count. And certainly that century old firm downtown employing ten or twenty lawyers doesn't count either.
Frankly, except to the ABA, for most of us, Big Law doesn't count. I don't care what some white shoe firm in New York does. It doesn't matter to me. Shoot, chances are good that I'll have a higher career total number of trials than most of them do, if I don't already. I'll never make the money their lawyers do, but I've never paid New York rent nor have I had to live in a place so undesirable as New York. I win.
But the ABA looses. It should just ignore the Big Law firms this year and focus on what most real lawyers do.
And while the ABA is at it, it can dump social activism for the year. I don't care, and nobody else does, on what the shining lights at the ABA think about gun control, or any such thing. Frankly, just because we're lawyers doesn't make us experts on social issues of any kind, and lawyers have been on both sides of every issue that ever was. The fact that the ABA feels itself compelled to bother with issues is one of the reasons that its becoming increasingly irrelevant to real lawyers.
Indeed, if the ABA wants to make itself relevant, it ought to go back to its century old roots and focus on practice standards. It could do that by working towards making legal education more rigorous and less frequent. As shocking as it may sound, it would be doing the law a favor if it advocated for fewer people to go to, and get through, law school. And it should do something about the fact that in an increasing number of American states bar applicants aren't tested on their state's own laws. If they want to be really bold, they could argue that judges should never be elected to office and ought to go off the bench when they hit 70, even if their Federal judges. I don't see the ABA making any of those arguments soon, however.
At the same time, we'll we're at it, perhaps everyone can just get over the Ivy League law schools. Yawn.
Tuesday, January 19, 1915. Air raid. Neon lights.
The first major air raid (there had been a prior raid) on Britain occurred when Zeppelins attacked Great Yarmouth and King's Lynn. The raid killed twenty people.
1916 British poster.
British forces surrendered at Jassin, German East Africa, following two days of fighting.
This is another thing that I've never stopped to think about in terms of how old these are. I knew that neon advertising lights were common by the 1930s, but I hadn't thought of them before that. They're frankly something I really like.
Last edition:
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...:
Postscript III
For the first time, I've heard a really good explanation, but a noted religion writer, on the topic of this type of violence and Islam.
Of note, according to this author, who seemed very well informed indeed, such violence is in fact not sanctioned by Islam, even if Islam's history and texts have some violent aspects. A partial reason is that there's no authority that has authorized it, which can authorize it. Indeed, there would appear to be no authority which can in fact authorize it.
Additionally, it appears that the violence has in fact turned off a large segment of the Islamic population everywhere, to such an extent in fact that the religion is loosing a significant number of adherents in some areas, including Iran, where those abandoning the faith are either completely abandoning any faith, or are converting to Christianity.
Postscript III
For the first time, I've heard a really good explanation, but a noted religion writer, on the topic of this type of violence and Islam.
Of note, according to this author, who seemed very well informed indeed, such violence is in fact not sanctioned by Islam, even if Islam's history and texts have some violent aspects. A partial reason is that there's no authority that has authorized it, which can authorize it. Indeed, there would appear to be no authority which can in fact authorize it.
Additionally, it appears that the violence has in fact turned off a large segment of the Islamic population everywhere, to such an extent in fact that the religion is loosing a significant number of adherents in some areas, including Iran, where those abandoning the faith are either completely abandoning any faith, or are converting to Christianity.
Why Downton "Abbey"? The destroyed British abbeys
I've only watched a single episode, so perhaps its explained in it somewhere, but I've wondered how many people who watch Downton Abbey wonder why the estate is bears the name abbey? Maybe that's explained in the series. If it is, I'd appreciate somebody coming in and letting us know. The name, given that it is a drama, would be a bit of a mystery otherwise, however. Abbeys, after all, are religious institutions, being monasteries headed by an abbot.
Well, that's because King Henry VIII ruined centuries of English religious culture in his increasingly nasty efforts to separate the church in England from Rome, brought about by the fact that Rome wouldn't recognize his attempt at an annulment.
Furness Abbey. Founded in 1123, disestablished in 1537 by King Henry VIII.
England was a religious nation, indeed one recent historian has claimed that England's identity was that it was so strongly Catholic prior to Henry VIII. In his dispute with Rome, he listened to those who would have, and did, destroy much of that culture, including destroying the centuries old monastic culture of England which was so strong. The monasteries and convents were closed. After that, they fell into picturesque ruins, and often into private hands, with their place names retained by later owners.
Bolton Abbey, now part of a 33,000 acre estate.
Many of these ruins remain today, making for spectacular examples of ruined church architecture. They are sometimes massive, and very often very well built, explaining how they've lasted the centuries after falling into disuse.
Tintern Abbey, Wales. This abbey passed from the Church into private hands in 1540 and the lead was immediately stripped from the roof.
They are, however, also frightening examples of how ruin, turmoil and decay can come in almost overnight. Prior to Henry VIII there was no thought in England of turning monks and nuns out of their monasteries. And the act came, at the end of the day, because the King's head turned from his bride Catherine of Aragon. Catherin was the "true Queen" and held that position without question until 1533. Few doubt today that her position was legitimate, and few would dispute that Henry's desire to be rid of her, in the hopes that he could bear children, lead to his break with Rome and in turn, the destruction of a monastic history in England that had gone back centuries. Nobody would have seen that coming.
Ruins of Cistercian Abbey in Wales. It had been operating 400 years when King Henry VIII closed the monasteries. It's now protected by the Welsh government.
Valle Crucis Abbey, Wales. It was closed by King Henry VII in 1537 and leased to a private owner. It's now protected by the Welsh government
Lincluden Abbey, Scotland. Still a ruin today.
Sweetheart Abbey, Scotland.
Iona Abbey, Scotland. This site has been partially rebuilt in recent years by the Church of Scotland.
Glastonbury Abbey, England.
Netley Abbey, founded in 1239, disestablished in 1536.
Nor would anyone have seen it coming that those desiring land would take advantage of this situation in this fashion, when only a few years prior the same men would have proclaimed loyalty to the same institutions.
That some would even stoop to stripping lead from roofs is amazing, and not admirable. So, while these ruins are picturesque, they also serve as monuments to the worst instincts of man, and that man will turn from even declared loyalties almost over night under some circumstances.
And it was, moreover, a disaster for the English. The monasteries held land that was used to feed the monks, and the poor. The transfer of the monasteries suddenly put the poor into jeopardy and the English crown was faced for the first time with dealing with a landless poor population. It also resulted in the destruction of what were effectively institutions of learning, as the monasteries had also taken on that role for centuries.
All of which goes to make for a cautionary tale. And not a pleasant one. The results of Henry VIII's actions were destructive, cruel and permanent.
They should give us pause for any such proposed radical change, let alone the changes proposed by wreckers of one kind or another today.
And in remembering that, it should be remembered that movements that start off claiming adherence to one idea or another can surrender to human greed and self interest amazingly fast. Henry claimed to be advancing a point of theology, although the weakness of it was fairly clear. In the end, those who supported him turned to self interest pretty quickly in some instances.
And such things can result in misery for the many quickly too. Monastic lands that supported poor farmers and fed the poor went to landed interest who didn't do that, and their descendants held on to the land for centuries. Movements that claim to be for the good of all, can turn out to be for the good of few, almost instantly.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein...
Small rig, in mine, 1972. A type that's change a lot.
Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein...: I've been bumping up this thread from time to time: Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: $40/barrel? : A couple of we...
After weeks of running "we don't see it here" articles about how the slow down in the oil fields wasn't being felt in Wyoming, Schlumberger's decision to lay off 9,000 employees made it impossible to deny, so the Tribune ran a series of articles about how things are, indeed, slowing way down in the oil field, and even asking "is the bust here?"
For those who are close to a story, it's interesting to see how far behind a trend the press really is. Yes, the bust is here. It's been here for weeks.
The Schumberger story, which of course is a national layoff (or maybe a global one) makes ignoring things, or putting a rosy face on them, impossible, but it actually isn't a symptom that the slow down has begun, that's been going on for weeks. Layoffs have been occurring, the press just hasn't noticed. Rig counts are declining, and so on. For those who work in the oilfield or in industries closely associated with it, it's impossible at this point not to be aware of it. Moreover, everyone in the collection of related industries is in fact preparing for it. The state government is now trying to prepare for it as well.
None of this means, of course, that the price can't rebound and be back up in six months. But those taking a continued rosy view of this have to realize that oil exploration and production is like a military campaign. You can't just decide to go out and get to work overnight. All of the equipment is heavy duty, and a lot of it is specially built and often one of a kind, including the rigs themselves. You can stack them for a few months, but after that, you really can't just plug them in and go.
The crews are the same way. Most men, and it mostly is men, who work in the oilfield are young men, or if they're older, that's because they've moved up the chain. The young men who get laid off during a bust don't come back to the oilfield, ever. They go on to other work, as indeed they tend to do so as they age anyhow. So if things last more than a few months, those crews are lost to the industry. So even if things rebound this time next year (which they won't, as they don't rebound in the winter), there'd be a gap before things got rolling again.
If they ever do, and that's the big unknown. Right now, the state is predicting that the price will remain low through the year. And if the price is low, exploration will be low. But will it remain low, basically, forever? That's a real possibility. If we're just in another boom/bust cycle, they won't. But if we've entered a new petroleum economic era, and there's some evidence that we have, they might never rebound. With ever increasing environmental concerns, growing acceptance of regulation on fossil fuels, and the like the depressed price might have no real influence on demand, and in that case, higher prices won't return.
For Wyoming, that's a triple whammy. Coal is already falling through the floor price wise and so subject to increased regulatory attention that the Governor, in his State of the State speech, promised to "fight for coal". But there's really very little he can do. Gas prices have fallen and can't get back up, making the gas boom that preceded the oil boom a gas bubble. Now oil is declining.
And Now the U.S. Supreme Court: Lex Anteinternet: Today In Wyoming's History: Federal Court rules on same gender marriage
As I was sure would occur, when I wrote this some months ago, this issue is headed for the United States Supreme Court.
Lex Anteinternet: Today In Wyoming's History: Judge Skavdahl rules o...: A few days ago I wrote a post here about the history of marriage . Last Friday, one of the three Federal judges in Wyoming struck down Wyomi.
I knew that his would occur, it was inevitable. And while predicting a result now is hazardous, I strongly feel that we're very likely to get a four to five decision in this, but which four, and which five, is the question. Hazarding a guess is indeed a hazard here, but I'll go ahead and do one.
The court, on marriage, has a very long history of regarding it as the exclusive domain of the States. Exclusive. It feels different about interpersonal conduct, but in the regulation of marriage, the court has always viewed that, or nearly always, as a matter for the states.
And the court has traditionally been very concerned about the image of the Federal Courts. Indeed, while little appreciated, the Court has been aware of the degree to which Roe v. Wade tarnished its image because the legal reasoning and methodology in it was so poorly done, and the results were so widely unaccepted. The Court tries not to go down that road, therefore, if it can.
For those reasons, I think the result will be that the Supreme Court will reverse the Circuit Courts that have found that same gender marriage is Constitutionally mandated. It will have to do that for a variety of reasons.
First of all, the decisions simply fly in the face of prior Supreme Court decision, and its up to the Court to reverse itself, not the Circuits. Beyond that, however, if the Court accepts the Circuit's decision, it knows that it is overthrowing the long held system under which the states, not the Federal government, regulate marriage, and the Court is unlikely to want to assume the role as the largest domestic relations court in the world. The Circuit courts seemingly fail to grasp that stepping into this role does this, and soon Federal Courts will be addressing issues on plural marriage, divorce and any other number of domestic decisions it has heretofore been content to allow the states to handle.
Additionally, the various Circuit court decisions are poorly reasoned to a degree, and they smack of "me tooism". That doesn't mean that a person has to disagree with the decisions to feel that. The entire concept of there suddenly being a Constitutional right to something that nobody would have previously conceived of in our history is really suspect, and the Court in recent years has tried to avoid going in that direction.
It has done that in part as the Court's reputation did indeed suffer so much following the Roe era, and the Court knows that things that it foist on the nation tend to bring it into disrespect. It also well knows that if a social movement is going to eventually convince the majority of Americans that a change in long held social views has arrived, it will arrive without the help of the Court. The Court's safest major social decisions come when a majority of the population already feels the way the Court rules, making revolutionary decisions much less revolutionary than they really appear.
Of interest on this topic, the Wyoming Legislature is in session and there are presently two bills in the legislature seeking to afford protection to those who have moral objections to same gender marriage.So the topic is on the legislature's mind. After the decision by Governor Mead to not appeal Judge Skavdahl's ruling in the Federal District Court for Wyoming he, that is Governor Mead, took quite a bit of heat from some of his fellow Republicans for that decision. Indeed, some of the criticism was very pointed, causing Mead to actually have to defend his decision. Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court having indicated it will take this issue up, and with the legislature in session, it's going to be inevitable, in my view, that Mead will receive pressure to submit an amicus brief in the Supreme Court action, or he'll really see revived heat about his failure to appeal, which in turn means that we have no real standing to get into this suit if we wish to. My guess is that the Supreme Court would take amicus briefs (why not?) and that the State will take that action.
Of interest on this topic, the Wyoming Legislature is in session and there are presently two bills in the legislature seeking to afford protection to those who have moral objections to same gender marriage.So the topic is on the legislature's mind. After the decision by Governor Mead to not appeal Judge Skavdahl's ruling in the Federal District Court for Wyoming he, that is Governor Mead, took quite a bit of heat from some of his fellow Republicans for that decision. Indeed, some of the criticism was very pointed, causing Mead to actually have to defend his decision. Now, with the U.S. Supreme Court having indicated it will take this issue up, and with the legislature in session, it's going to be inevitable, in my view, that Mead will receive pressure to submit an amicus brief in the Supreme Court action, or he'll really see revived heat about his failure to appeal, which in turn means that we have no real standing to get into this suit if we wish to. My guess is that the Supreme Court would take amicus briefs (why not?) and that the State will take that action.
Be prepared for tons of really bad Court analysis. One thing about the Court is that a lot of the Press seems to think that it operates like a state legislature and a lot of the public seems to think that it operates like a city council. It doesn't. All the press about the public and the court, and politics and the court, etc, we can expect to see from now till July is largely way off the mark. The Court does a better job in its role than people imagine, which means that it doesn't really worry that much about voting the popular way on any one thing.
As a final prediction on this, I think there's probably close to 0% chance that the utlimate ruling will be accurately reported on or grasped by the public, although some group will have a huge reaction no matter what.
For people who support same gender marriage, if they win (again, I doubt they will) the result will legally achieve what they're seeking, but that won't equate with social acceptance, at least not immediately. The results of Roe v. Wade are less accepted now than they were in 1973. The nature of the debate just changes at that point, which is what will become apparently pretty quickly.
But if that same group looses, and I think it will, it won't be for the reason that most opponents of same gender marriage would argue for. That is, the Court is extraordinary unlikely to rule that as a matter of natural law, marriage must be between different genders, which is what the real argument there amounts to. That isn't going to happen.
Rather, the far more likely result will simply be that definition of marriage should be a matter of state law, and that the Court doesn't want to get into an argument about who can marry, how many people you can marry, what marriages a state must recognize as valid, what age you can marry, or any of that. That's the court's traditional position, and I suspect it'll be its position here.
As a final prediction on this, I think there's probably close to 0% chance that the utlimate ruling will be accurately reported on or grasped by the public, although some group will have a huge reaction no matter what.
For people who support same gender marriage, if they win (again, I doubt they will) the result will legally achieve what they're seeking, but that won't equate with social acceptance, at least not immediately. The results of Roe v. Wade are less accepted now than they were in 1973. The nature of the debate just changes at that point, which is what will become apparently pretty quickly.
But if that same group looses, and I think it will, it won't be for the reason that most opponents of same gender marriage would argue for. That is, the Court is extraordinary unlikely to rule that as a matter of natural law, marriage must be between different genders, which is what the real argument there amounts to. That isn't going to happen.
Rather, the far more likely result will simply be that definition of marriage should be a matter of state law, and that the Court doesn't want to get into an argument about who can marry, how many people you can marry, what marriages a state must recognize as valid, what age you can marry, or any of that. That's the court's traditional position, and I suspect it'll be its position here.
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...
Lex Anteinternet: Islamic Violence, Islamic Silence and Western Rela...: This past week the world has been witness to another outrage committed by those who claim devotion to Islam. If this event were unique, a ...Of note, on this matter, in the past week protests, some pretty heated, have broken out in Pakistan, Algeria and Jordon.
Protesting violence in the name of Islam? No.
Protesting Charlie Hedbo's post assault cover showing a crying Mohammed.
Most would think this a pretty innocuous cartoon, perhaps even slightly reverent, but Muslim crowds have not in those locations, demonstrating the nature of the problem here.
Even more demonstrative, the paper, which in my view is not at all admirable in general, as I made clear in my Je ne suis pas Charlie post, attacked Christianity and the Catholic church viciously in the same issue, and proclaimed itself to be atheist. Taking pride in that status, it took vicarious credit for the large crowds that came out in Paris, perhaps failing to understand that sympathy for victims, which in this case is perceived as the French Republic as much as anything else, does not really equate to sympathy with the papers crude cartoons and sometimes crude text.
But was there a violent Christian or Catholic reaction? No, not at all.
There was a reaction, with even the Pope commenting, but of note it tended to once again find sympathy with the victims and also plead for all Faiths to be treated with respect. This too highlights the nature of the problem the West faces here. In the West, most agree with the Christian view of turning the other cheek. In Islam, it seems that a large percentage of the faithful do not agree with that view at all. As that's the case, this problem can't be regarded as minor, or isolated.
Sunday, January 17, 1915. Messing around in Arabia.
Ottoman stragglers were rounded up by the Russians at Sarikamish.
The Arab houses of Āl Rashīd and Āl Saʻūd fought the Battle of Jarrab north of Al Majma'ah. Āl Rashīd prevailed. Pre war civil servant and wartime British military advisor William Shakespear, a close friend of Ibn Saud, was killed, resulting in diminished British influence over the House of Saud.
African American radical Lucy Parsons led an unemployed march of 10,000 workers in Chicago. The event would result in a program for the unemployed.
Last edition:
Saturday, January 16, 1915. Cape Evans.
Labels: 1910s, 1915, 1970s, 1973, Antarctic, boats and ships, Greece, Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, Monarchy, U.S. Navy
Friday, January 16, 2015
Saturday, January 16, 1915. Cape Evans.
While the rest of the world was fighting tooth and nail with each other, the Ross Sea Party established a shore base at Cape Evans, Antarctica, in support of the Imperial Trans Antarctic Expedition.
Greek King Constantine created the Order of George, named after his father, in honor of Greek citizens who had given exceptional public service to Greece. In 1973 it was succeeded by the Order of Honour.
Sailors waving from the crow’s nest of the Wyoming class battleship USS Arkansas (BB-33)., January 16, 1915.
Last edition:
Friday, January 15, 1915. Thinking about Gallipoli and Solidarity Forever.
Labels: 1910s, 1915, Abortion, Disaster, Folk Music, French Navy, Gallipoli, Israel, Music, Norway, Ottoman Empire, Palestine, Protest Music, Solidarity, Turkey, Unions, Winston Churchill, World War One, Zionism
Thursday, January 15, 2015
And while we were watching Paris. . .
The Boko Haram, the Islamist terrorist group in Nigeria whose name means "Western education is forbidden" killed 2,000 villagers and displaced 30,000 in an assault on that that town. They also sent explosives into a target area strapped on the back of a girl believed to be about ten years old.
This is in the news, but not like Paris, no doubt because it's activities are principally in Africa, rather than somewhere else.
Just thought you'd want to know.
This is in the news, but not like Paris, no doubt because it's activities are principally in Africa, rather than somewhere else.
Just thought you'd want to know.
Today In Wyoming's History: Update: Today In Wyoming's History: January 14
Today In Wyoming's History: Update: Today In Wyoming's History: January 14: Today In Wyoming's History: January 14 : 2015: Governor Mead delivers his State of the State address to the Legislature .
Friday, January 15, 1915. Thinking about Gallipoli and Solidarity Forever.
The British War Council approved plans to open a new front by landing Allied troops on the Gallipoli Peninsula.
The blame for what would ultimately prove to be an Allied disaster is often placed at Churchill's feet, but in fact the concept was first suggested by an aging Royal Navy commander who was suffering from the onset of Alzheimer's.
There's a lesson in there.
The French submarine Saphir was sunk with the loss of 27 of her crew.
The submarines Saphir and Curie, fallen gloriously in battle, are brought to the agenda of the Naval Army. In his affliction of having seen succumb such valiant servants of the country, the commander-in-chief reminds everyone how proud the army should be to have in its ranks officers and crews capable of heroic actions such as those that were accomplished by these valourous ships whose names will remain in maritime legends. Honour and glory to the officers and crews of the Saphir and Curie, they have truly earned it from the Fatherland.
Augustin Boué de Lapeyrère, admiral of the French navy.
British Home Secretary Herbert Samuel proposed British support for Zionism and a Jewish state in Palestine, in The Future of Palestine.
Norwegian feminist Katti Anker Møller delivered a lecture in Oslo on reproductive rights and decriminalizing in the womb infanticide in Norway.
Labor activist Ralph Chaplin completed the trade union anthem "Solidarity Forever".
When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run,There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun;Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one,But the union makes us strong.Chorus:Solidarity forever!Solidarity forever!Solidarity forever!For the union makes us strong.Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?For the union makes us strong.ChorusIt is we who plowed the prairies; built the cities where they trade;Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid;Now we stand outcast and starving ’midst the wonders we have made;But the union makes us strong.ChorusAll the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.While the union makes us strong.ChorusThey have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learnThat the union makes us strong.ChorusIn our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold,Greater than the might of armies, multiplied a thousand-fold.We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the oldFor the union makes us strong.
A familiar package was patented.
Last edition:
Wednesday, January 13, 1915. The Avezzano Earthquake.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Protection is sometimes not needed until it is. A bill to protect the clergy
Yesterday I commented on one of Wyoming's, indeed the entire West's, perennial bad ideas, that being that the Federal government should give (not sell) its land holdings in the West to the state's where they're located. My suspicion is that this makes us look foolish in the extreme in the East, where the citizenry wishes that they had what we had, and also knows that they are included in the putative landowners whose property we seek to expropriate gratis from the Federal government.
Today, however, I'm commenting on something that goes the other way, that being a bill that's in the legislature which would protect a person from suit who will not preside over a same gender marriage. The Tribune editorialized in opposition to this bill the other day.
That editorial was extremely telling, really, as it shows the mindset of those who just don't grasp this issue. Starting off with the claim that there are no worries, as the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects anyone in that position, it then goes on to express the view that the bill is just sour grapes as a Federal judge forced this on the state, and that same gender unions are good for marriage overall. So, in one fell swoop the editorial actually states the fears that this bill seeks to address, those being that: 1) the Federal courts can make something that was never conceived of as being legal the law overnight, and 2) if you don't agree with this change you ought to, so you have no legitimate complaint anyhow.
Beyond that, this is the first inkling of a concern by those who backed this change (as the Tribune did) that its likely be extremely temporary. The elephant in the room on this issue is that that U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it yet, but is likely to do so in the next two terms, and when it does, it's probable that the ruling will either uphold prior state laws or the Court will hold that the entire issue doesn't belong in Federal court at all, and remand all of it to the states. In that case, the local ruling would basically evaporate overnight and it would become a state issue. Nobody really knows what the Wyoming Supreme Court would do with this issue, but its pretty certain that the legislature would not be in favor of any changes in the reading of the law.
So what about the first point in the editorial. Is the Tribune right?
Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. We need to also keep in mind that there's a bill also pending in the legislature which would prohibit discrimination based upon a person's orientation. People everywhere in the US tend to already think that this is the law, and most people aren't in favor of any kind of real discrimination, but that actually isn't the law. Chances are that it will be, either legislatively our through court action in the foreseeable future.
For most people, that actually won't matter, but there are a collection of people for whom this creates a moral crisis. And its one that isn't often understood and is unfairly dismissed by those who don't look at it.
To start with, its very clearly a problem for ministers of most monotheistic religions that hold the long established theology of their faiths. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all regard the conduct that this surrounds as sinful, and none of them regard marriages between same gender couples as valid. Now, before somebody seeks to correct me, I do concede of course that there are present examples of individuals in Judaism and Christianity, including their ministers, who hold the opposite view, but they are all reformist in some manner. That is, in order to take that view, they have to qualify or reinterpret part of what was very long held doctrine.
Now this post isn't intended to be a theology treatise, which I'm not qualified to attempt to do in depth anyhow, but rather to note the next item, which is that Conservative and Orthodox Jewish Rabbis, Muslim mullahs, and ministers in the Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant denominations hold the view that same gender unions cannot be regarded as marriages and that they cannot perform them. Indeed, they'd regard preforming them as an immoral act with enormous personal consequences.
Beyond that, members of these various faiths, at least in some cases, also hold the views that cooperating in such unions is itself a species of religious fraud, as it gives evidence that they, as loyal members of their faiths, disagree with the faith. Frankly, the average person in most faiths seems able to ignore big chunks of it if they're average members, but for those who are serious about their faiths, this can present a very real problem if they're asked to participate in some fashion, which can include everything from simply attending to being asked to provide some sort of service, like photographs or a cake.
Because so many people have very casual views about everything in this area, the fact that this can in fact create a moral crisis is lost to many people. Indeed, many people are pretty comfortable with a judge ordering a priest or rabbi to do something, as they feel "well, he doesn't have to believe. . but what's the harm. . .". And a larger group yet is very comfortable with the idea, for example, that a Jewish bakery can be ordered to provide a cake, as to not do so would be "mean", or that a Catholic flower shop can be ordered to provide flowers, as to not do so is hateful.
But if any of those individuals feel otherwise, and they stick to their guns, the full sanction of the law could impact them, as it already has in some states where the law has changed, in so far as laymen are concerned.
And, as touched on earlier, this is already a present problem, at least on a theoretical basis, for those who hold clerk positions. If a young Muslim woman is working in a county clerk's office and is asked to issue a marriage license, can she get canned if she refuses and it has to go to another clerk? What if a Greek Orthodox judge decides that he doesn't want to preside over civil unions in his courthouse? Is that the end for him?
It could be.
The Tribune, which has sued more than once when it feels its Constitutional rights are being trampled upon, feels that the 1st Amendment neatly solves all of this. The 1st Amendment states:
The First Amendment has been interpreted, of course, to allow "the free exercise" of any faith, and the Tribune's thought is that as this is the case, everyone is protected. And the Tribune might be 100% correct. Having said that, the states in fact do already restrict the free exercise of religion and always have. While I'm not advocating for a change in this particular aspect of state law (although that's coming about through court action anyhow) one such example is in that marriages are limited to one spouse a piece. What are sometimes referred to as "fundamentalist Mormons" believe that one man should be able to have multiple wives. Muslims believe that one man can have up to seven wives, although their faith doesn't mandate that they do so. Other examples could be found.
It's safe to say, in any event, that sooner or later some priest, rabbi or mullah would get sued for refusing to preside over a same gender union. And some flower shop, bakery, caterer, or banquet hall would as well. It'd be inevitable. Maybe the First Amendment would operate to protect them, it probably would, but to be concerned that it might not, or to feel that added protection might be in order, isn't unreasonable.
The truth of the matter is that Americans have sort of a dual religiosity and the United States is a fairly religious nation. But part of that is that there's sort of a widely held civil religion that's relativistic and which holds tolerance of everything and being nice to everyone as a primary virtue, without looking at any one topic too deeply. For the thousands, and maybe millions, who also take the tenants of their faiths seriously, however, there are lines they cannot cross. For most Americans, up until now, that's mattered little, although again there are tens of thousands and maybe millions who have actually do face trials of one kind or another of this type everyday, where things that they'd reject have crept into civil life over the decades. But what we've seen recently has come as a court made, in part, revolution and has placed these conflicts squarely in issue. The early history, indeed over half of our history, was marked by extremely deep religious bigotry in which certainly Catholicism and Judaism were deeply despised, and even Puritans could find themselves facing the death penalty for passing over a colonial boundary (giving us a rare early example of women being executed in what would become the United States). Without some protection for those who hold deeply held believes that do not square with civil trends, we face returning, to some degree, to that era in a more minor way, with the enforces of the civil religion oppressing the holders of other religious views.
Now, of course, the bill might not actually be effective. But some protection is at least worth affording.
Today, however, I'm commenting on something that goes the other way, that being a bill that's in the legislature which would protect a person from suit who will not preside over a same gender marriage. The Tribune editorialized in opposition to this bill the other day.
That editorial was extremely telling, really, as it shows the mindset of those who just don't grasp this issue. Starting off with the claim that there are no worries, as the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects anyone in that position, it then goes on to express the view that the bill is just sour grapes as a Federal judge forced this on the state, and that same gender unions are good for marriage overall. So, in one fell swoop the editorial actually states the fears that this bill seeks to address, those being that: 1) the Federal courts can make something that was never conceived of as being legal the law overnight, and 2) if you don't agree with this change you ought to, so you have no legitimate complaint anyhow.
Beyond that, this is the first inkling of a concern by those who backed this change (as the Tribune did) that its likely be extremely temporary. The elephant in the room on this issue is that that U.S. Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it yet, but is likely to do so in the next two terms, and when it does, it's probable that the ruling will either uphold prior state laws or the Court will hold that the entire issue doesn't belong in Federal court at all, and remand all of it to the states. In that case, the local ruling would basically evaporate overnight and it would become a state issue. Nobody really knows what the Wyoming Supreme Court would do with this issue, but its pretty certain that the legislature would not be in favor of any changes in the reading of the law.
So what about the first point in the editorial. Is the Tribune right?
Well, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. We need to also keep in mind that there's a bill also pending in the legislature which would prohibit discrimination based upon a person's orientation. People everywhere in the US tend to already think that this is the law, and most people aren't in favor of any kind of real discrimination, but that actually isn't the law. Chances are that it will be, either legislatively our through court action in the foreseeable future.
For most people, that actually won't matter, but there are a collection of people for whom this creates a moral crisis. And its one that isn't often understood and is unfairly dismissed by those who don't look at it.
To start with, its very clearly a problem for ministers of most monotheistic religions that hold the long established theology of their faiths. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all regard the conduct that this surrounds as sinful, and none of them regard marriages between same gender couples as valid. Now, before somebody seeks to correct me, I do concede of course that there are present examples of individuals in Judaism and Christianity, including their ministers, who hold the opposite view, but they are all reformist in some manner. That is, in order to take that view, they have to qualify or reinterpret part of what was very long held doctrine.
Now this post isn't intended to be a theology treatise, which I'm not qualified to attempt to do in depth anyhow, but rather to note the next item, which is that Conservative and Orthodox Jewish Rabbis, Muslim mullahs, and ministers in the Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant denominations hold the view that same gender unions cannot be regarded as marriages and that they cannot perform them. Indeed, they'd regard preforming them as an immoral act with enormous personal consequences.
Beyond that, members of these various faiths, at least in some cases, also hold the views that cooperating in such unions is itself a species of religious fraud, as it gives evidence that they, as loyal members of their faiths, disagree with the faith. Frankly, the average person in most faiths seems able to ignore big chunks of it if they're average members, but for those who are serious about their faiths, this can present a very real problem if they're asked to participate in some fashion, which can include everything from simply attending to being asked to provide some sort of service, like photographs or a cake.
Because so many people have very casual views about everything in this area, the fact that this can in fact create a moral crisis is lost to many people. Indeed, many people are pretty comfortable with a judge ordering a priest or rabbi to do something, as they feel "well, he doesn't have to believe. . but what's the harm. . .". And a larger group yet is very comfortable with the idea, for example, that a Jewish bakery can be ordered to provide a cake, as to not do so would be "mean", or that a Catholic flower shop can be ordered to provide flowers, as to not do so is hateful.
But if any of those individuals feel otherwise, and they stick to their guns, the full sanction of the law could impact them, as it already has in some states where the law has changed, in so far as laymen are concerned.
And, as touched on earlier, this is already a present problem, at least on a theoretical basis, for those who hold clerk positions. If a young Muslim woman is working in a county clerk's office and is asked to issue a marriage license, can she get canned if she refuses and it has to go to another clerk? What if a Greek Orthodox judge decides that he doesn't want to preside over civil unions in his courthouse? Is that the end for him?
It could be.
The Tribune, which has sued more than once when it feels its Constitutional rights are being trampled upon, feels that the 1st Amendment neatly solves all of this. The 1st Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.All the 1st Amendment really says, of course, regarding religions is that no U.S. state was to go down the same road that England, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, or Denmark had, and make a certain religion the state religion. Indeed, of significance to this discussion, in each of those instances the establishment of a state religion came about when the state acted to overthrow the religions establishment of the country and get it to do something it wasn't going to do voluntarily, so in essence the state acted to tell the established church what to do.
The First Amendment has been interpreted, of course, to allow "the free exercise" of any faith, and the Tribune's thought is that as this is the case, everyone is protected. And the Tribune might be 100% correct. Having said that, the states in fact do already restrict the free exercise of religion and always have. While I'm not advocating for a change in this particular aspect of state law (although that's coming about through court action anyhow) one such example is in that marriages are limited to one spouse a piece. What are sometimes referred to as "fundamentalist Mormons" believe that one man should be able to have multiple wives. Muslims believe that one man can have up to seven wives, although their faith doesn't mandate that they do so. Other examples could be found.
It's safe to say, in any event, that sooner or later some priest, rabbi or mullah would get sued for refusing to preside over a same gender union. And some flower shop, bakery, caterer, or banquet hall would as well. It'd be inevitable. Maybe the First Amendment would operate to protect them, it probably would, but to be concerned that it might not, or to feel that added protection might be in order, isn't unreasonable.
The truth of the matter is that Americans have sort of a dual religiosity and the United States is a fairly religious nation. But part of that is that there's sort of a widely held civil religion that's relativistic and which holds tolerance of everything and being nice to everyone as a primary virtue, without looking at any one topic too deeply. For the thousands, and maybe millions, who also take the tenants of their faiths seriously, however, there are lines they cannot cross. For most Americans, up until now, that's mattered little, although again there are tens of thousands and maybe millions who have actually do face trials of one kind or another of this type everyday, where things that they'd reject have crept into civil life over the decades. But what we've seen recently has come as a court made, in part, revolution and has placed these conflicts squarely in issue. The early history, indeed over half of our history, was marked by extremely deep religious bigotry in which certainly Catholicism and Judaism were deeply despised, and even Puritans could find themselves facing the death penalty for passing over a colonial boundary (giving us a rare early example of women being executed in what would become the United States). Without some protection for those who hold deeply held believes that do not square with civil trends, we face returning, to some degree, to that era in a more minor way, with the enforces of the civil religion oppressing the holders of other religious views.
Now, of course, the bill might not actually be effective. But some protection is at least worth affording.
Today In Wyoming's History: January 13 Updated
Today In Wyoming's History: January 13: 2015 Legislature commences general session.
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Wednesday, January 13, 1915. The Avezzano Earthquake.
Panorama of Lincoln, Nebraska. January 13, 1915.
The British in Egypt received intelligence information that the Ottomans were planning a raid on the Suez Canal and moving troops accordingly.
The First Battle of Artois ended with France unable to restore battlefield momentum on their side.
An earthquake in Avezzano, Italy, killed over 30,000 people.
The HMS Viknor struck a mine in the North Atlantic and sunk. The U-31 went missing.
Last edition:
Movies In History: Monuments Men
This has been an unusual year for me (by that meaning 2014 and 2015) as I've seen more movies than I usually do, including this one.
I should have added this one here some time ago, but I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't know that much about this particular unit or series of events, other than that there was an American unit, at least, that was dedicated to trying to preserve European cultural works. We have the book, but I haven't read it yet. I'll come back and update this after I do. Most of what I know about this unit is from reading an article on this topic in The New Republic. I read that article some time ago, and don't recall the details of it really well other than that I think I recall that at least some of the details of the film depart from the actual history of the unit. At least some of the story depicted in the film almost certainly departs from the actual history and was added for dramatic and storyline effect.
For the meantime, what I'll do is restrict my comments to just the material details of the film and not try to post on any larger historical items. I will note, of course, as is well known that the Germans looted vast amounts of European art, quite a bit of which is still missing (apparently one major item noted in the film is actually strongly suspected of being in certain private hands, which has yet to return it but which there is anticipation that they will at some point). Some is lost to history, no doubt, for all time, having been destroyed at one point or another during the war.
That the Germans went to such extent to loot art is truly amazing. The removal of significant artifacts by invading armies isn't a wholly new thing, but to engage in it to this extent is in the modern world. This reflected the sick and debased nature of the Nazi regime, which viewed itself as the pinnacle of everything, and therefore entitled to own everything. In reaction, the U.S. did form a unit of specialist who attempted to preserve and track down works of art. Whether that unit had an international composition, I don't know.
I also don't know if the unit was generally made up of middle aged men, as depicted in this film, but the use of middle aged men for various roles during World War Two actually was fairly common, contrary to the opposing supposition that's quite common. So, whether accurate to this endeavor or not, it's accurate to the war.
In material details, the uniforms and equipment are largely correct. About the only departure I could see was the odd use of British sidearms, which would have been very unlikely. Troops being equipped, in this unit, with M1 Carbines is correct for their use. Use of a captured German Kübelwagen is shown, which wouldn't have been surprising for a unit of this type. Other Allied vehicles depicted are correct. Amazingly, Red Army vehicles depicted are also correct, a pretty surprising thing for an American movie and demonstrative of the increased effort we've seen in recent years to be accurate in material details.
All in all the movie is worth seeing in part because it's a "small story", which World War Two offers quite a few of, but which have generally not been touched by film makers in the context of World War Two for quite some time. They're worth doing, and when done well, as this film is, they add to our overall understanding of the war.
Monday, January 12, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)