Tuesday, September 18, 2018

The Kavanaugh Nomination: What to do with accusations of past bad acts.



Eugene Vidocq, who lived an exemplary life after an early one as a thief and whom Jean Valjean was based upon.

Kavanaugh will not wreck the Constitution, as we just noted, but that doesn't mean he should be a Supreme Court justice.

Particularly if there's something heinous in his past that disqualifies him.

But is there?

Well, we don't really know, but he has been accused of something and that is something is pretty bad.

Christine Blasey Ford, now a research psychologist, has alleged that when she was in her teenage years she was at a party in which Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge Young locked in her a room and, while they were heavily drunk, groped her and maybe tried to do worse.

Now, Kavanaugh, who has undeniably lead an honorable adult life, absolutely denies it as does Mark Judge Young.  Ford absolutely maintains its true.  There's nothing strongly about Ford that would in any way cause us to doubt her (except perhaps her profession, I hate to say that but psychology is not a reliable field and frankly psychologist aren't always either). And all of the things that people tend to point out as problematic are frankly associated with any crime that's revealed years and years later, including the lack of recollection of details.

So we're down, really, to two people saying it didn't happen and one saying it did.  That leaves us with the situation of either Kavanaugh lying or Ford lying.  Somebody is (it may not be Young, he is a self confessed alcoholic who was in his teenage years and he might genuinely not recall if anything happened).

Added to this are some really uncomfortable truths.

One is that these nominations have become so problematic that it's now the case that people will make stuff up to stop one.  Am I saying that Ford did. No, I'm not.  Diane Feinstein did hold this information from July until September, which is problematic, but that's not Ford's fault.

Still, its a reality we have to consider.

Over the past couple of years we've seen the Me Too Movement really break out. By and large that's been a good thing, although I've repeatedly thought that the movement has been tainted by a strained attempt to create out of whole cloth a "new standard" which in fact is the old Christian standard that became so passe post 1970.  At any rate, the resurrection of that old standard, which is the reality of it, has been a good thing.

But it has also mean that the door has really been thrown wide open to false accusations, and they do happen.

Indeed, at this point, nearly every man in any position of authority is open to the accusation as its easy to make and hard to disprove.  Merely making the accusation does the damage, and sometimes people seek to do that damage for their own aims, which are sometimes political.  If this hasn't happened to date, it will at some point.

Additionally, we have the really uncomfortable question of what point can there be, and when can there be in general, a societal statute of limitations on some acts, no matter how horrible they are.

On this, I don't mean a criminal statute of limitations.  Contrary to what a lot of press reports have been saying, it is not necessarily the case that these acts are past the statute of limitations.  Not all states have statutes of limitations on criminal acts. Wyoming, for example, does not.  So perhaps, if this occurred, its prosecutable.  I have no idea.

No, I'm asking a wider question of at what point does society have to forgive, or should it forgive?

What about Jean Valjean?

People are aware, of course, of the protagonist of Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, but rarely do they consider the figure in context.  Valjean is a thief who reforms and goes on to be virtuous.

Indeed, such examples are not rare, and Valjean himself was based on a real figure, Eugene Vidocq, who had done just that.  Many others could be found, including some who went on not only to lead saintly lives, but to be actual Saints.  Indeed the first man that Christs affirmatively relates will join him in Heaven was such a person, the penitent thief who was also being crucified.

Russian Orthodox Icon, the Good Thief In Paradise.

None of which means that such individuals need to be forgiven by society, or that they need to be forgiven when they have lived an exemplary life and seek to obtain high office.  

Or maybe it actually does.  Vidocq, noted above, did just that, becoming an important figure in his own time and in his own society.  Plenty of other examples could be found.

Of course, Kavanaugh is accused of attempted rape, which is different.  Or maybe he isn't. And that's part of the problem.

The claimed events are related to have occurred at a prep school party at some undetermined point in the 1980s about which many details have forgotten.  Ford represents she was wearing clothes and a swimsuit underneath it and she claims that Kavanaugh, with Young aiding, basically, groped her and attempted worse.  But did they?

What they may have done is engaged in some really horrific groping activity that frankly wouldn't have been all that unusual in that setting at that time, which is disgusting in and of itself.  But should that bar a person in more mature years?  Well, even that's hard to know as we don't know if that was their intent alone, or if they were after more.  We never will, just as we don't even know if it really occurred.  Indeed, given as alcohol seems to have been an element of all of this, we don't know that something didn't occur, but that others may have been involved instead.  There are enough details that we can believe any story we care to out of this, which means that nobody except perhaps those directly involved know the truth.

Leaping back for a second, if it did occur, then the honorable thing to do at this point would be for Kavanaugh to explain it and publicly repent.  That he's not doing that would suggest that, give the balance of his life, it didn't happen.  Or maybe it did and he lying.  On the latter, in the current atmosphere, it's unlikely that he'd be forgiven publicly, after all.  Still, living with the lie would be horrific.

Although somebody is doing just that with the Clarence Thomas matter, which had the same elements, but in a less violent form.

Indeed, another uncomfortable aspect of all of this is that we tend to look at the sensationalized past and ignore the reformed present.

I don't want to go into it deeply, as it would appear to send the wrong message, but one of the things that came out of the recent grand jury release in Pennsylvania about sexual accusations against Catholic clerics is that past 2002 there had been two.  In other words, the evidence on the events strongly indicates that the Church got its act together and these incidents have largely ceased. That's a success story, but it's been wholly ignored.  It probably shouldn't be, no matter what other lessons can be learned.

If that can be true about an institution, it can be about an individual as well, and that's the pleasing and uncomfortable truth about a huge section of society. Like it or not, there are a lot of people with hideous early conduct of all types, and I mean all, that go on to exemplary lives later on.  If you know them personally, and I know some people like that, you wouldn't have wanted their early lives to rise up to crush them in later life.  Conversely, and not as focused on now, but at one time in the past very much focused on, some with exemplary lives go on to collapse with success.  Indeed, both are very common.  

So, no answers.  The drama will go on, and Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed, but somebody has lied and Kavanaugh will have to bear the public ruin of his reputation forever, probably.

Which brings me to one final thing.

As odd as this may seem, and it really says nothing about any of the parties in this directly, its time that we stop nominating people for high office with prep school and Ivy League educations.  I know I've said that repeatedly, but the entire country has really good education and we've managed to go from a more open court, in terms of those eligible, to a less open one.  The whole atmosphere of the alleged party incident reads like something out of some stupid prep school drama, and we can forego and should forgo that class for awhile.  Not perhaps as to Kavanaugh, but to whomever is next.  Why can't a nominee be out of a public school in New Jersey or Kansas, etc., for a change?

The Kavanaugh Nomination. "Wrecking the Constitution"

The New York Times reached the acme of liberal hypocrisy and panic when it ran an op ed by one of its regular columnist declaring that Brett Kavanaugh would "wreck" the Constitution.

By which they mean apply it as written.

A good argument can already be made that the Constitution is heavily damaged, if not wrecked, by a string of liberal justices that have contempt for the law as written.  The Constitution was not meant to be a "living" document with its life breath only being liberal causes.  It wasn't meant to be a conservative one either.  It was meant to be a law. The Supreme law of the land, but a law none the less.  It no more has a penumbra or is subject to sweeping evolution than your local traffic ordinances are.

Indeed, people would regard a judge who held that a 30 mph speed limit was now a 40 mph speed limit as cars had evolved and therefore social concepts of speed. Or, perhaps more accurately, people would be horrified by a judge declaring that a 30 mph speed limit caused the judge to find that nobody could drive at all, as evolving social norms are headed towards less driving and the use of automobiles is dangerous to the planet.  People might think those things, but we all know that if the law says the speed is 30 mph, that's what it is. For the most part interpreting the Constitution is only slightly more difficult than that.

But for decades now a liberal tilt on the court has allowed the justices of the Supreme Court to simply make up law when they chose, and they've come very near wiping out spelled out Constitutional rights that don't fit the liberal world view. That's trampling on the Constitution, and at some point an instrument that's trampled on enough is wrecked by the foot traffic.

Liberal politicians know that Kavanaugh is likely to return the court to where it has not been for decades. . . five justices who will read and apply the law whether they like it or not, and leave it up to the voters to change the law if they don't like it.  Liberals fear that as they have general contempt for the electorate and would prefer that law be imposed by a learned liberal band.

The irony of all of this is that a written Constitution itself came out of just such a scenario.  The drafters of the Constitution had historical experience and memory of the recent period of English politics in which the unwritten English constitution was changed by fiat.  Henry VIII had put the English church into schism due the church's denial of his aim to dump his wife, deciding the religious fate of an entire nation without the common man's vote.  That would change again and again over the next few decades leaving a situation in which the rights of religious minorities would be totally repressed even to the point that the adherents of the original Faith were lucky to be regarded as third class citizens.  The framers wanted a democracy, but they wanted a governing law that covered as much of its powers as possible and purposely decreed that the states, to which they were reserving the balance of power, must do the same.  The hope was that a written constitution, unlike the vague British concept of an unwritten constitution, might better hold up to the times.  It generally has.

But it hasn't perfectly.  There have been a lot of things that liberal politicians have found that people oppose, and some specifically spelled out rights that people support, that they disdain.  Therefore they've come to vest their trust not in the people, and not in the legislatures, but in the court, which they've heavily influenced over the years.

Now they fear that the court might revert to its actual role.

They shouldn't, as at some point a dictatorial court, and there could be a right wing one, politically, just as easily as a left wing, can turn around and oppress you.  And that's worth recalling.

The Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell, a progressive beacon in his day and a real bad guy. And, in temperament, the sort of judge that Schumer and his pals would advocate for, even though they don't realize it.

Sunday, September 16, 2018

Tweet



Folks who stop in here might be noting that there's a new item on the bottom right. . . our Twitter feed.

Frankly, if you stop in here there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to check our Twitter.  For the most part it just links to here, and you have to actually stop in here to read whatever we've posted.

As that note probably makes plain, Twitter isn't really my deal.  I don't get it quite frankly.  But at some point it became common for blogs to have one, so we do.

So if Twitter is your deal, I guess you can like our twitter page and then when we tweet you can note it, and link back to here, if you like.  Or not, if you don't.

Seeing the common threads

Twenty-fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time (Sunday, September 16, 2018).
Lectionary: 131

Reading 1 Is 50:5-9a

The Lord GOD opens my ear that I may hear;
and I have not rebelled,
have not turned back.
I gave my back to those who beat me,
my cheeks to those who plucked my beard;
my face I did not shield
from buffets and spitting.

The Lord GOD is my help,
therefore I am not disgraced;
I have set my face like flint,
knowing that I shall not be put to shame.
He is near who upholds my right;
if anyone wishes to oppose me,
let us appear together.
Who disputes my right?
Let that man confront me.
See, the Lord GOD is my help;
who will prove me wrong?

Responsorial Psalm Ps 116:1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 8-9

R. (9) I will walk before the Lord, in the land of the living.
or:
R. Alleluia.
I love the LORD because he has heard
my voice in supplication,
because he has inclined his ear to me
the day I called.
R. I will walk before the Lord, in the land of the living.
or:
R. Alleluia.
The cords of death encompassed me;
the snares of the netherworld seized upon me;
I fell into distress and sorrow,
and I called upon the name of the LORD,
"O LORD, save my life!"
R. I will walk before the Lord, in the land of the living.
or:
R. Alleluia.
Gracious is the LORD and just;
yes, our God is merciful.
The LORD keeps the little ones;
I was brought low, and he saved me.
R. I will walk before the Lord, in the land of the living.
or:
R. Alleluia.
For he has freed my soul from death,
my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling.
I shall walk before the Lord
in the land of the living.
R. I will walk before the Lord, in the land of the living.
or:
R. Alleluia.

Reading 2 Jas 2:14-18

What good is it, my brothers and sisters,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear
and has no food for the day,
and one of you says to them,
"Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well, "
but you do not give them the necessities of the body,
what good is it?
So also faith of itself,
if it does not have works, is dead.

Indeed someone might say,
"You have faith and I have works."
Demonstrate your faith to me without works,
and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

Alleluia Gal 6:14

R. Alleluia, alleluia.
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord
through which the world has been crucified to me and I to the world.
R. Alleluia, alleluia.

Gospel Mk 8:27-35

Jesus and his disciples set out
for the villages of Caesarea Philippi.
Along the way he asked his disciples,
"Who do people say that I am?"
They said in reply,
"John the Baptist, others Elijah,
still others one of the prophets."
And he asked them,
"But who do you say that I am?"
Peter said to him in reply,
"You are the Christ."
Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.

He began to teach them
that the Son of Man must suffer greatly
and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed, and rise after three days.
He spoke this openly.
Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples,
rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind me, Satan.
You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."

He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said to them,
"Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself,
take up his cross, and follow me.
For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it,
but whoever loses his life for my sake
and that of the gospel will save it."

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Japanese Church of Christ, Salt Lake City Utah

Churches of the West: Japanese Church of Christ, Salt Lake City Utah:



This is the Japanese Church of Christ in Salt Lake City,. This is a Presbyterian and United Church of Christ church in what was formerly "Japantown" in Salt Lake City. The church was built in 1924.

Friday, September 14, 2018

Friday Farming: DELCO Farm Lighting Installation & Service 1918 Film





Hardcore Conservatives and the Wyoming Electorate. Getting things completely wrong.

Wyoming's first elected Democratic Governor, John E. Osborne, who was elected in the wake of the Johnson County War scandal.  Osborne would contend again in later years, including during World War One.  His rise due to a land and money issue is telling and echoes to the present day.

I was just going to update the existing blog topic on the Wyoming election with this, but instead, rather than clutter that up any more than it already is, I thought I'd just do this one as a new election issue post. (Actually I started this post some time ago).

There's a pile of crying and whining right now by "conservatives" about how the Democrats ruined the GOP primary by registering to vote in it as Republicans late in the day, thereby throwing the election from True Blue (um Red?) Conservative Foster Friess to that secret liberal Mark Gordon.  We now know, of course, thanks to some analysis down at the University of Wyoming, that this isn't actually correct. We posted on that the other day:



September 12, 2018.  The election wasn't stolen edition.
From University of Wyoming Senior Research Scientist Brian Harnisch's Twitter feed, and as followed up on by the Casper Star Tribune:  
Sure doesn't look like "Democrats meddled" in the Wyoming Republican primary. Instead - A few Democrats, more independents, and even more Republicans wanted a say in who governor will (or won't) be.  
 Sep 10 


Well, perhaps in some really concentrated in time way of looking at things there might have been a little bit of truth to that such that it could have been believed, but perhaps not as well.  And now we know it isn't correct.  While it might be true that some people who have of late been registered as Democrats and, moreover as Independents, moved to the GOP to vote for the primary the truth of the matter is that in the long view of Wyoming politics what this really does is tend to return to the GOP its members who were usually there and, at the same time, make the fortunes of the Democratic Party, as an institution, even worse.  Indeed, now we know that the primary simply brought out Republican voters who were previously staying away from the polls, and that's hugely significant.


The entire concept that Friess would have won but for late Democratic switchers is highly flawed in every sense. Wyoming doesn't really have that many Democratic voters anymore in the first instance and, while there were only 9,000 votes between Gordon and Friess in the general election, it was never safe to assume that 9,000 Democrats switched to vote for Gordon.  At most it appears that only 1,801 could have.


As we've already noted, what may have actually occurred is that Harriet Hageman ended up drawing the really  hardcore right wing of the GOP away from Friess. . . she certainly wasn't drawing that group away from Gordon, and that torpedoed Friess.  Friess, for his part, probably picked up some Galeotos voters when Galeotos' campaign was clearly imploding during the last few weeks.  For that matter, Gordon almost certainly picked up a lot of voters when Galeotos 1) played the "I"m going to help Trump card; and 2) imploded.  Voters who really like Trump, and I frankly think his popularity in Wyoming is grossly exaggerated, went to Friess at that point, while voters who are repelled by Trump, which includes a lot of rank and file Republicans, moved to Gordon.  In the meantime, dormant Republicans, who were never of the Tea Party type, came back to the polls and didn't want the extremism that some of the GOP candidates were offering up, or the Southern style conservatism that others were offering.

So the entire "my election was stolen" crying and whining by some hard right Republicans was always pretty devoid of evidence.


In the long and short historical view, a better argument is that the GOP was stolen by well monied tea party elements and now the original owners of the party returned and whuped up on the thieves.


And that's because Wyoming isn't a conservative state.


Not one like that.


Some of this point would be better informed by anyone who cares to read it, if I had first published a thread on Wyoming's voting demographics that I haven't gotten around to pushing yet, but as this post is now topical, I'll just try to make some sense of it here.  But if Wyoming's voting history is looked at, there's never been a point when its been conservative in the "look, I have a red sign" category.  All politics is local, we're told, but Wyoming's is more local than most.


Indeed, localism, informed by a sort of regional agrarianism, is really the them of Wyoming politics.  Wyomingites are conceived of as conservative as they take a "leave me alone" approach to most things. But they aren't terribly conservative as to everything else.  Indeed, for people who have some strong social conservative views, and I frankly do, that's often a matter of frustration.

Joseph M. Carey, who had been a Republican but who ran as a Governor due to his disagreements with Francis E. Warren, and then went on to be one of the organizers of the Progressive Party.  Carey is the only Governor of Wyoming to have been a member of a third party.


And this is also the reason that Wyoming has had a lot of Democratic Governors including at least one spectacular example of a Republican who crossed to Democrat who crossed to Progressive Party, and went back to Republican, Joseph Carey.  If Wyoming has great governors, and there's a few who can be argued to be in that category, Carey is undoubtedly one of them.  So would Nellie Tayloe Ross be one, and of course she was a Democrat.  Most Wyomingites with a sense of history would include John B, Kendrick (Democrat) and Ed Herschler (Democrat) in that category.  Indeed, in the list of governors who would be considered really great governors of Wyoming, only Stan Hathaway really makes the list as a GOP example.  Some would include Francis E. Warren, also a Republican, as well.  But by the same token, at least one of our recent truly forgotten Republicans was a conservative who somewhat foreshadowed at least one of the candidates who took a run at the office this past year and whom probably nobody would regard as a great governor.

John B. Kendrick, who followed Carey as Governor.


The fact that there's been so many Democratic governors in a state that's been overwhelmingly Republican since day one really says something.  And it would have said something, potentially, had Friess won, and in my view certainly would have said something if Hageman had won, this cycle, as Throne may have, or would have, become the next governor under those scenarios.  Gordon taking the GOP nomination means that Throne likely can't win, as most voters will go to him.

Democrat Nellie Tayloe Ross. Ross was bizarrely called in as example by one obviously historically clueless Harriet Hageman supporter this last election.  Ross was a Democrat and went on to be the Director of Mints for Franklin Roosevelt.


But most Wyoming voters aren't Tea Party types and aren't exactly what really hardcore conservatives think they are.  Indeed, on some social issues Wyomingites have consistently been in the center left, which a candidate like Friess really isn't grasping.



Courthouse in Jefferson County Texas. When I was there a couple of years ago the general election was about to be held, which explains why all the signs are on the front lawn.  It was the first locality I was in which it seemed possible to me that Trump would actually win the general election, which came from listening to comments in the local Port Arthur Starbucks.  Foster Friess seemed to have a campaign that was aimed at Deep East Texas, not Wyoming.

The political ethos of Wyoming, from the native prospective, is basically "leave me the heck alone". This often gets mistaken for libertarianism, but it isn't that either.  Generally Wyomingites have a live and let live view of the world which doesn't equate to the liberal ethos of "tolerance" so much as it equates with "stay out of my business".

Highly respected Governor Ed Herschler, receiving a Stetson from F. E. Warren's cavalry recalling honor guard.


This is why it has so often been the case that both liberals and conservatives have badly misjudged Wyoming voters and why outsiders nearly always do.  Wyomingites tend to hold deeply conservative values on many things but don't feel that this really means that politics have much to do with any of that.


They also tend to be highly agrarian in an old sense that modern politicians have a really difficult time grasping.  This places them quite often on the hard left and hard right of various political questions all the time, which most Wyomingites do not feel is an inconsistent thing to do.


If we look at this in practical application, we see how this really tends to be missed by politicians and parties at anyone time.  Indeed, the political demographic that most Wyomingites tend to resemble, with one significant difference, is the Southern Yeoman class of the late 19th Century.  A fact not grasped at all by political demographers.


This past election gives us a good example of how all of this worked.


Two of the candidates were quite vocal about their religious faith, those being Hageman and Friess.  Friess is some sort of Evangelical Christian.  I don't know what Hageman's religious affiliation actually is and it was never apparent from her advertisements even though they cited a strong faith. 


Now, as I've noted before, I have a post in the hopper on demographics and the Wyoming electorate and it will address religion as a factor, so I'm not going to go into depth with that here, but what I will note is that Wyoming has historically and through out its history been one of the least religious states in the United States.  I'll go into that deeper later, but the reason that I'll note that is that religion tends to strongly inform two minority, but significant, Wyoming populations (Catholics and Mormons) but doesn't weigh heavily into the views of many others.

That doesn't mean that a lot of Wyomingites aren't religious, but what it does mean is that religion doesn't tend to enter politics in the same way that it does in other states.  And while most Wyomingites are Protestants, there isn't one dominant Protestant denomination in the state and never really has been.



St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral, Laramie Wyoming.  There was a time during which the Episcopal Church could have been regarded as the most politically and civilly significant in Wyoming, but at the same time it was in the United States in general.  Even then, it did not dominate in the way that it did in other localities, although having said that there was a time when being Catholic in Wyoming meant hard economic times for professionals.  Today the fortunes of the Episcopal Church have enormously declined everywhere and that has reflected back to Wyoming. Casper, for example, has two separated Anglican churches in addition to the Episcopal churches.

And that's significant in that while Wyoming is conservative as a state, what this has tended to mean is that a sort of "none of your business" ethos creeps into a lot of social issues in Wyoming.  Politicians who tend to assume that social issue are hot button issues in the state tend to be wrong and this is even the case among some deeply religious voters.


The classic example of this is the topic of abortion.  I'll be perfectly frank that I am opposed to abortion and think it wrong in every sense. But in the Wyoming legislature this has never managed to be a really hot issue.  An ultrasound bill sponsored by Chuck Gray was successful in the recent legislative session but that's the first such bill to be passed into law in Wyoming in a very long time and may tend to reflect a national trend.  Having said that, this may in fact reflect a really significant change in views that may start to reflect itself in future legislators.  All of the Republican candidates for Governor were careful to state they were pro life, with Friess emphasizing it.  Barasso challenger Dodson was much cagier about his views, expressing the traditional weasel out words of being concerned for all the parties involved.


Previously a lot of Wyoming Republicans were very careful to state that they were opposed to abortion but didn't want to interfere with women's decisions, etc. etc., and similar positions held by Democrats have not hindered them from obtaining office in the past.  Again, I'm opposed to abortion personally and think it a real issue, but it has generally not been a major topic in Wyoming's politics.  I suspect that if Roe v. Wade were stricken or modified that Wyoming's law would reflect that, but I also feel that's part of a nationwide trend.  And I think that trend would express itself in Wyoming at this time, in that event.


Views on homosexuality have been more strongly held by Wyomingites but not in the way the national press would have it.  It's almost certain that most Wyomingites opposed the legalization of gay marriage when it was forced on the country by the United States Supreme Court but its much less certain what the state would do now. I think that if Obergefell were to be reversed Wyoming's old law would just pop back into place and the state would be comfortable with that and leave it as it is.  I also think that most Wyomingites resent on some level the Supreme Court simply overriding the state on an issue like this.


But when it comes down to homosexuality itself the state has long had a "just leave me alone on what you're doing" view.  Indeed, the huge irony of the entire Matthew Shepherd murder becoming a cause celebe is that Wyoming was actually highly tolerant towards homosexual conduct in that sense.  Nobody particularly cared much about it as long as you weren't being forced to approve of it, a common Wyoming view on almost everything.  The Shepherd murder has been grossly misinterpreted for political reason as an act of community violence against homosexuals when it was nothing of the sort whatsoever.  Roughly at the same time as the Shepherd matter I represented somebody in something where the opposing side sort of silently thought my client's open homosexuality was an issue and could never get more than a big yawn from everyone on the topic, the common Wyoming view.

The reaction of the state to something like Obergefell actually tend to reflect a bit of something else, however, which is the "you can't tell me what to do" view which is strongly held by Wyomingites. That, and our provincialism, explained our delay in making the national Martin Luther King Day a holiday here and our making it Equality Day when we did.  It wasn't that Wyomingites had something against Martin Luther King. Rather, and wrongly, they felt that he didn't have anything to do with us really, and so why were we being made to do something?


As an old example of moral issues in Wyoming politics, there was once a member of the legislature who rose high up in it and then went after pornography.  That basically doomed his anticipated run for Governor.  People weren't backing pornography, but it just seemed that it was a bit much to base your campaign on it let alone introduce a bill addressing it, as he tried to do and which pretty much torpedoed his later chances.


Perhaps the best example of this is one that never comes into campaigns but which demonstrates the general viewpoint, prostitution.  I've lived in pretty much the same county, except for periods of time out of it in my adult years for various reasons, my entire life, and during that time I don't recall a single instance in which there was not a known house of prostitution in the county that everyone knew about and ignored.


Now prostitution has always been illegal here, but it's also been pretty much openly tolerated as long as it wasn't flaunted.  Indeed, at one time Casper had a very open red light district that more or less did flaunt it until it spilled out of the district, when there would then be reactions.  That district, the Sand Bar, was in its dying days when I was a kid, but was still around.  When it closed its business was shift to other locations.  One of those was an establishment near the airport, Tokyo Message, which carried on business for decades.  Everyone knew this.  When it was raided and closed in the last decade it was a huge surprise, not because prostitution was going on there, but rather because it was hard to figure out why it was suddenly subject to having the law enforced.


Not that raiding Tokyo Message ended prostitution here.  It didn't.  It ended Tokyo Message.  Prostitution carries on.  The point is that almost everyone knows about this and agrees that prostitution is wrong, but almost nobody really feels that there's pressing need to address it.


Therefore, candidates like we just saw in the last election who ran on their outward Christianity weren't going to really get that much traction with it.  There are, no doubt, a lot of devout Protestants who may care if a person claims a faith or not, but there are more who are not likely to care that much, and many more who are Christian on some basis but don't base their votes too much on that.  The two demographics that are likely to really inform their votes through their Faith, moreover, aren't the ones that people openly campaign on.

Frank Barrett, a Republican Governor who was a Catholic and who I think may have been the first Catholic Governor in the state.  If you look up his Wikipedia bio, you wont find that mentioned as it likely wasn't mentioned much during his campaigns.


Indeed, that's also something worth noting.  There's never been a Wyoming politician who boldly declared during a campaign that they were Mormon and it'd be likely that would work against them if they did.  I do think that the Mormon faith is a having a politically notable influence on voting in some districts and even on certain issues, but it's not openly noted very often.  Likewise, there's never been a Wyoming Catholic politician who ran on being a Catholic, even though several have in fact been elected.  Early in the state's history that was one Irish immigrant politician who was a practicing Catholic who took steps to diminish his outward connection with the faith even while remaining adherent to it.   There have been to date two Wyoming candidates who were devout Greek Orthodox, including one of the just failed candidates, and you'd have to hunt that information down to even know that.   A long time very successful Wyoming candidate from my county was a practicing member of the Jewish faith and I can't even recall that ever coming up in a conversation regarding him.


Likewise the conservative assumption, still rampant post election, that Wyomingites hold radical views on the Federal government is totally misplaced.


Truth be known, most Wyomingites are aware of and comfortable with the Federal governments role in the state, which puts them in the middle or even the left in regards to that.  Wyomingites are overwhelmingly opposed to transferring public lands from the Federal government to the state.  Indeed, I'm sure that played a role in the votes received by both Gordon and Friess, both of whom were opposed to that, and why Hageman was not successful.



Indeed, the real Tea Party elements in the state seem to either be just incapable of acknowledging the reality that money talks, and transferring the public lands to Wyoming would result in their wholesale vending to big money elsewhere, or they live in the farm belt of the state where there isn't much public land and they have different interests than most people in the state, or they're from somewhere else and just don't get it.  That showed in Hageman's votes, which were very concentrated by county and show an element of that.  

This places, however, most Wyoming voters somewhere on what we'll call the "green" scale, green being the traditional color of agrarian parties.  They aren't read or blue.  And on this issue, that's a good thing. They're voting their interests, and those interests are value driven, not money driven, which in contrast, for all its talk of "freedom" and the like, Libertarians in this state tend to come down to (ie., "we'll all make boatloads of cash if only the government gets out of our way").

This, by the way, is also pretty demonstrable by the fact that the state loves Federal highway money.  Truth be known, I highly suspect that most Wyoming voters would be thrilled if the state took Federal Medicare money in the amounts that were offered to it, and we don't grasp why we said no on a matter of odd principle.  But then the last couple of legislatures has been highly Tea Party influenced.

It'll be interesting to see if that ends.  This election might have been a watershed.  Thousands of new Republicans registered to vote and the evidence is that the public lands issue may have brought them in. They aren't Tea Partiers by any means.

Review of 12th Division by Maj. Gen. Henry P. McCain, September 14th, 1918, Camp Devens, Massachusetts.


Thursday, September 13, 2018

The M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle used in action for the first time. September 13, 1918.

2nd Lt. Val Browning, son of John Browning, the legendary firearms designer. By the wars end three out of four of the standard small arms weapons in the infantry would be Browning designs.

On this day in 1918 the Browning M1918 Automatic rifle was first used in combat.

It certainly wouldn't be the last time.  Probably nobody knows the date that occurred, if it has, but the last time the US used it in action was probably in the 1960s, as it remained in front line service in the Marine Corps well into the Vietnam War.  National Guard units were still being issued the BAR in the mid 1970s.  Armies equipped by the United States no doubt had it that long as well, and perhaps somewhere around the world its still seeing some use today.



Which is because it was such a fantastic weapon. . . or maybe it was in spite of it being an awful one.


Saying something like that, of course, really requires an explanation.  And to explain it requires a context.

The BAR was designed to be an automatic rifle. In the photos immediately above we see it as it was designed to be, a selective fire (originally) rifle that could be used as an individual weapon to put down a barrage of walking fire.  And it was very good in that role.  The role, that is, of being an "automatic rifle".  It was so good at that role, in fact, that soldiers defeated its later role as a light machinegun by reconverting it back to its original sans bipod configuration.

And, if you've kept up on this blog, or otherwise are familiar with the US's combat experience in World War One, you can see why a weapon like that would have made a lot of sense.  The US was trying to sprint over the deadly space of "No Man's Land" and take enemy trenches, ultimately at close quarter.  An automatic rifle would be really ideal for a role like that, even if it meant, in the case of the BAR, issuing one that was extremely heavy.

US infantrymen in heavy pack.  Soldier on left carries a Chauchat, by all accounts one of the worst automatic weapons any fielded to any army.  He is also wearing his garrison cap under his helmet, which can be seen near the back of his head.  The soldier on the right carries a M1903 Springfield rifle, the barrel of which is barely visible on his right.

But that role was a short one in the U.S. military, and indeed in most militaries that had a similar weapon.  And there were other weapons in that role.  Indeed one of the worst weapons of World War One, the Chauchat, was designed for the same role.  But even at that time a competing series of weapons, light machineguns, were on the battlefield and were rapidly supplanting automatic rifles.  The British, for example, never fielded an automatic rifle but rather fielded two separate light machineguns, the Lewis and the Vickers.  The Germans fielded a "light", but not very light, version of their MG08.  Those crew served weapons were better able to lay down a barrage of sustained fire than any automatic rifle.



So after World War One the U.S. Army, pleased with the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, had the selective fire option eliminated from production and had the weapon retrofitted with a bipod.  It was re-classed, at that time, as a light machinegun, tactics having moved in the direction of a lmg being a squad support weapon.  For cavalrymen, however, a separate version, ostensibly somewhat lighter, and featuring a bipod at the muzzle and a monpod on the butt, was introduced as a "machine rifle", with it being given the designation of the M1922.  In 1937 the gun was redesigned slightly and became the M1918A1.  Improvments continued as World War Two loomed with the eye towards making the weapon a better light machinegun and it on June 30, 1938, the M1918 A2 was introduced, with there being orders to upgrade all existing stocks of the M1918 and M1918A1 to that configuration.  The M1922 was declared obsolete before World War Two began, but none the less stocks of them remained and during the war they were issued to Merrell's Marauders as light alternatives, to the M1918A2.

Soldiers of the U.S. Army training with the M1918 A2 BAR (and without hearing protection) during World War Two.

The BAR in both versions were in service when the US entered World War Two, as noted, with the M1922 on the way out.  The M1918A2 BAR as a light machinegun remained, but quite rapidly soldiers assigned to the weapon instinctively reverted it to its original role and configuration as an automatic rifle.  Typically they removed its bipod and flash hinder as weight adding unnecessary elements.  The Marine Corps, huge fans of the BAR, began to issue it two per squad as well, anticipating the latter modern issuance of the current M249 "automatic rifle".

Heavily laden Marine with BAR during World War Two.  This is almost certainly a M1918A2 but it has had its bipod and flash hinder removed.

By World War Two it was pretty obvious that the BAR was not the best light machinegun in the world.  It was hindered in ammunition capacity from being a bottom loading weapon, unlike the top loading Brno light machinegun that is arguably the best lmg ever designed.  Like most light machineguns it also had a permanently affixed barrel which is something that designers began to reconsider in that role with the German introduction of the dual purpose MG34 and MG42 machineguns.  Nonetheless, it soldiered through the war and on into the next one, the Korean War and the service found itself ordering additional supplies of them, reflecting wartime losses and post wartime disposals of existing M1918A2s.  The Royal McBee Typewriter Company supplied the last BARs to the military during this time frame.

Helmet-less U.S. Army soldier firing M1918A2 BAR in Korea.  This soldier has removed his bipod from the BAR.  He's also in distinctive Korean War era winter gear, including the L. L. Bean designed "shoe packs" that came in during World War Two.

Following the Korean War the US planned on replacing the BAR as the US went to the GPMG concept introduced by the Germans during World War Two.  The US had no plans to put the US GPMG, the M60, in the BAR's role but rather planned to place a heavy barreled M14 rifle in that role, as the M14 began to replace the M1 Garand. And in fact the Army started to do that before problems with the concept, which should have been obvious from the onset, prevented it from being completed.  That light machinegun, the M15, was practically stillborn although it was in fact adopted.

The M14 Rifle, the intended replacement for the M1 Garand which did in fact replace it in the active duty branches of the Army and Marine Corps, and the M14A1 which had already replaced the M15 and which was replacing the BAR when the Vietnam War broke out and production of M14 rifles was stopped. The M14 was an excellent rifle.  The M14A1 was a pretty bad light machinegun.

Nonetheless, when the Army deployed to Vietnam in the early 1960s it was the M14A1 that went with it, not the BAR.  BAR's, however, were supplied to the ARVN.

South Vietnamese soldiers equipped with a BAR and a M2 carbine.

And the Marines retained the BAR. They liked it so much that they kept the BAR well into the Vietnam War where it served alongside the M16A1 and the M60.  I'm not aware of whether the Marines were ever equipped with M14A1s, but if they were, they didn't use them. They liked the BAR so much they kept using it, even after the M14, which they also greatly loved, was taken from them.

In the Army, the introduction of the M60 and the M14A! did not actually mean that the BAR completely disappeared, even if the Army did not use the BAR in Vietnam (or at least not much), and instead attempted to use the M14A1 and then went to a designated M16A1 (which was particularly bad in that role).  In the Army Reserve and the National Guard the BAR continued to serve into the mid to late 1970s (it was in service at least as late as 1976 in the Guard).  This reflected the fact that small arms in the military were in a real state of flux from 1960s forward.  The M15 was never made in sufficient quantities to replace the BAR and it self was replaced by a heavy stocked version of the M14 which was never made in large quantities either.  The M14 was soon challenged in the rifle role by the M16 and the M16A1 in Vietnam, and production of the it was stopped before there were adequate numbers for the reserves. The M1 Garand therefore carried on into the early 70s when, in the Guard and Reserve, the Garand was replaced with the M16, which now existed in large quantities.  The BAR kept on until it was basically replaced, at first, with the M60 in the late 1970s.  In the early 1980s the M249 5.56 machinegun was introduced at the squad level in the Army and it ultimately supplanted the M60 in that role, making its way into the Guard in the late 1980s.

Which of course doesn't mean that the BAR disappeared everywhere overnight.  BARs were supplied to a lot of American allies and clients, and they were manufactured by other nations.  Belgium's FN, for example, introduced the last variant of it, one with a detachable barrel, some of which went to Middle Easter nations.

By that time they were well obsolete.  But maybe they were by the late 1920s for that matter. As a light machinegun, it was never ideal.  As an automatic rifle, it excelled.  Its record was quite mixed.

The U.S. 2nd Cavalry conducts a cavalry attack, September 13, 1918.


Insignia of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment.

On this day in 1918, the 2nd Cavalry conducted a cavalry attack as part of the offensive at St. Mihiel.

The details can be found on the excellent Road To The Great War blog here:
Roads to the Great War: The AEF's Sole Cavalry Attack: The 2nd Cavalry at St. Mihiel [Ed. Note: The men of the four American cavalry regiments that were sent to France usually found themselv...
The attack was a small scale one, conducted by Troop F of the 2nd Cavalry, and was somewhat in the nature of a running cavalry patrol.  Troop F. was lead by Captain Earnest Harmon, who would go on to be a figure in the post war occupation of Germany, and then be a notable World War Two armored officer.

The attack is sometimes considered to be the only one conducted by U.S. Cavalry during World War One, which is somewhat debatable.  Indeed, it's debatable if it was a true attack, in the charge sense, at all, but it was certainly a mounted advance.  It was not, however, the only one conducted by American cavalrymen during World War One.

The 2nd Cavalry was notable in and of itself for being one of the only U.S. Cavalry regiments, and some sources say the only U.S. Cavalry regiment, to deploy in its entirety to the France during World War One. Again, that claim is debatable.  The 2nd Cavalry also provided the first troops to land on French soil during the Great War as troopers from the 2nd escorted Gen. Pershing to France.

And it was already later. . .

From the Casper Star Tribune:
Last month, because pressroom operations had become unsustainable, the Star-Tribune made the decision to close its pressroom in favor of printing at a regional printing plant in Cheyenne. One of the many important issues we considered in making this decision was what to do about high school and UW sports coverage. We know this coverage is important to readers across Wyoming and one reason many subscribe to the state-wide newspaper. So we decided to do whatever it takes to include information that is critical to the value of our newspaper to many readers. 
Sports reports and scores are typically not available until after our first deadline. So including this important coverage requires later deadlines, and subsequently later production and delivery to your door on those days, typically fall weekends.
Oh yeah. . .that printing in Cheyenne isn't going to make any difference.

It's been slower every day now in general.  Indeed, on early days, and my early days start really early, it isn't making it here before I go to work.  But then most days it does.  Still, it's now rare for it to be on my doorstep when I wake up and stumble to my coffee.

And it appears that it will be later still. . . and it was already late on the weekends.

Views from "Y" 82, Camp Sevier, South Carolina. September 13, 1918.



Today In Wyoming's History: The Neiber State Stop, Washakie County Wyoming


Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Mid Week At Work: How to Retire in Your 30s With $1 Million in the Bank


How to Retire in Your 30s With $1 Million in the Bank

Which is exactly what the individuals who are the subject of this article did.

It's interesting how  this article reads. There's a subtle "what a bunch of slackers" tone to it. But there's a lot to consider here.

And it interestingly comes at the same time that there's been some press on how Baby Boomers of the Woodstock Generation were converted into the Reagan Republicans of the late 70s and the 1980s.  That same generation now routinely complains about Millenials who don't have the same fanatic level of devotion to work.

There may be some real changes going on.  This article is interesting, but they're basically spending down their principal by eating their interest, once the impact of inflation is considered.  That may very well not work out long term.

But I hope that it does.

Roads to the Great War: 100 Years Ago: The St. Mihiel Offensive Is Launched

Roads to the Great War: 100 Years Ago: The St. Mihiel Offensive Is Launche...: American Troops Advancing Into the St. Mihiel Salient —Montsec in Distance Where: Southeast of Verdun When :  12-16 September...

The 100 Days: The American Army offensive at Saint Mihiel. September 12, 1918.


On this day in 1918 the United States launched its first full scale offensive operation as an American Army.  The U.S. First Army launched the St. Mihiel Offensive.


We've read about this a little bit already, in that the operation was the subject of an argument between Foch and Pershing. As we've noted, in our view, Pershing was wrong and Foch was right. . . the offensive that Pershing was planning had become obsolete.

The offensive that was launched was a compromise plan that Foch could accept and which left the U.S. First Army intact.  It involved an offensive operation in the original direction planned by Pershing but which featured a hard right turn thereafter, incorporating somewhat of the plan envisioned by Foch.  In some ways, the most remarkable aspect of the plan was the commitment to a massive redirection of forces following the offensive to which the Americans committed before it was commenced. The details for that action were the product of of the remarkable mind of George C. Marshall, then a staff officer on Pershing's staff.

American engineers during the St. Mihiel offensive.

On this day the U.S. First Army launched a threefold assault on the remaining part of the St. Mihiel Salient, which the Germans had already begun to plan to withdraw from and which they had in fact commenced to do the day prior to the assault.  The Germans had occupied the area since 1914 and had densely prepared defensive positions.  Attached to the U.S. Army were four French divisions in addition to fourteen American divisions. The US alone committed 550,000 men to the assault with the French contributing another 110,000. The Germans, who had already committed to withdraw from the salient, numbered only about 50,000 men in ten divisions, about half of whom would become causalities in the attack.

Colonel George C. Marshall in 1919.

Air support for the assault was massive, with 1,481 aircraft committed to it, about 40% of which were piloted by American airmen.  The remainder were British, French and Italian.



The assault, in part because of the massive disproportionate nature of the contesting forces, and in part because it caught the German army in the midst of a withdrawal, was instantly successful and exceeded expectations.  Having said that, the operation was also a well planned combined arms attack and it featured the highly aggressive nature of American arms in the war which was shocking at the time.  Objectives were achieved within the first two days at which it was halted in anticipation of the planned offensive at the Meuse Argonne.

The battle was the first one in which American forces fought in an American Army, rather than associated with an army of the other allies.


Tuesday, September 11, 2018

The Germans commence to withdraw from the St. Mihiel Salient. September 11, 1918.



It made strategic sense. The salient was a projection into the Allied lines.  Occupying it would have made sense as a toehold for an advancing army, but for one that was retreating and simply trying to hold its place, and some order, holding it no longer did and in fact exposed the 50,000 German troops in ten divisions to being cutoff.

The decision had been made a few days prior, and the Germans put the withdrawal in action on this day, commencing their plan to withdraw from the salient and shorten their lines.