Archbishop Chaput says what should have been said long ago. Scandal.

I'm certain that most of the readers here do not know who Archbishop Charles J. Chaput is.  For Catholic insiders, however, or for those who follow the Church closely, or for those who listen to Catholic Stuff You Should Know (which should be everybody), he's a familiar name.

The Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, Denver Colorado.

Archbishop Chaput is a highly respected, brilliant, and very orthodox Catholic cleric who was located for many years in Denver, Colorado.  When he came up on the mandatory retirement age for his office there was hopeful speculation in orthodox Catholic circles that the Pope would keep him in position, as will sometimes be the case.  Instead Pope Francis immediately accepted his retirement which in the eyes of many Catholics who are struggling with their outlook on the his papacy was another strike against it.

Chaput, as noted, is a very orthodox cleric and a noted intellectual.  He is a Capuchin Franciscan and also a Potawatomi Indian.  He was the Archbishop of Denver before becoming the Archbishop of Philadelphia.  Many hoped he'd be made a Cardinal, but he never was.

I wish he had been, and I'm not alone.

He hasn't gone quietly into retirement.

And he just came out for denying President Joe Biden communion in the journal First Things.

Now, right away some casual readers here, if there are any, are going to be confused.  Reading this blog some days you'd think that I was a diehard opponent of Donald Trump, and others you'd think I was a diehard opponent of Joe Biden. Rather, I'm like Catholic apologist Gloria Purvis who unleashed a blistering defense of Catholic orthodoxy, against Melania Trump, last week upsetting Trump supporters even though she wasn't supporting Joe Biden either. Rather, she was supporting Catholic orthodoxy  noting that Biden and his crew are seriously outside of Catholic doctrine in supporting things a Catholic in good standing cannot, and Melania is a baptized Catholic in a marriage that Catholics don't recognize as a marriage.  The theme was scandal.

And so is Archbishop Chaput's

This gets into something I just noted here the other day, which is that those who like to define Joe Biden as a "Catholic" President or the nation's "second Catholic President" are more than a little off the mark.

Yes, it's true that Biden is a Mass attending Catholic.  And so was Jack Kennedy.  But Kennedy, as much as he is lambasted here, and he has been, may have been a more faithful Catholic than Biden, even though Biden appears to be a personally much more honorable man, and Kennedy had the personal morals of an alley cat.

All of which assumes a lot.

Joe Biden has a heavy burden in front of him.  Donald Trump has managed to wrap himself in the mantle of populism and nationalism, even as he is personally a horrific example of personal conduct.  His personal relationships with women doesn't appear to compare favorably with Biden's and are much more like Kennedy's.  At the same time, he's been the most pro life American President since 1973 and he also has been more loyal to the working class since any President since Truman.  There's a reason that populist feel that he's a "real" American and that anyone else is a traitor, and that's a lot of what Biden has to overcome.

Biden could in no small part do that by being true to his origins. . .and his Faith.  And if his faith means anything, he should do that in any event.  With his historical track record, that won't be easy.

Which is where Archbishop Chaput comes in.  The Archbishop starts off:

Readers may recall that during the 2004 presidential campaign, Sen. John Kerry led the Democratic ticket. As a Catholic, Kerry held certain policy views that conflicted with the moral beliefs of his Church. This led to internal tensions among U.S. bishops about how to handle the matter of Holy Communion for Catholic public officials who publicly and persistently diverge from Catholic teaching on issues like abortion. At the time, Washington’s then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, along with Pittsburgh’s Bishop Donald Wuerl, had very different views from my own regarding how to proceed.  

I believed then, and believe now, that publicly denying Communion to public officials is not always wise or the best pastoral course. Doing so in a loud and forceful manner may cause more harm than good by inviting the official to bask in the media glow of victimhood. What I opposed in 2004, however, was any seeming indifference to the issue, any hint in a national bishops’ statement or policy that would give bishops permission to turn their heads away from the gravity of a very serious issue. At the time, fortunately, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith resolved any confusion about correct practice in these matters with its July 2004 memorandum to then-Cardinal McCarrick, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles. It includes the following passage:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

To my knowledge, that statement remains in effect. And it reflects longstanding Catholic sacramental discipline based on the Word of God.

And indeed it does.  

Archbishop Chaput goes on to state:

The implications for the present moment are clear. Public figures who identify as “Catholic” give scandal to the faithful when receiving Communion by creating the impression that the moral laws of the Church are optional. And bishops give similar scandal by not speaking up publicly about the issue and danger of sacrilege. Thus it’s also worth revisiting the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the evil—and the grave damage—of scandal:

2284.  Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2286.  Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.”  This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

Those bishops who publicly indicate in advance that they will undertake their own dialogue with President-elect Joseph Biden and allow him Communion effectively undermine the work of the task force established at the November bishops’ conference meeting to deal precisely with this and related issues. This gives scandal to their brother bishops and priests, and to the many Catholics who struggle to stay faithful to Church teaching. It does damage to the bishops’ conference, to the meaning of collegiality, and to the fruitfulness of the conference’s advocacy work with the incoming administration.

"Scandal".

It's a word that we hardly seem to believe exists anymore but which we are seemingly simultaneously getting a reintroduction to.  

It's meaning is not the same in the secular world as it is in the religious sense, but it is related, and oddly in contemporary time perhaps it has once again intersected.

Archbishop Chaput, in First Things, calls for the observance of certain absolutes, absolutes that Joe Biden states he's for.  Joe Biden, at the same time has lived a life of moral compromise.  Most politicians do.

But most politicians haven't been presented with the challenges that Biden has.  He has to succeed.

And most politicians don't have as heavy of past burden as Biden.

And that means doing the bold and unconventional.  And that in part means going back to what is fundamental, and what we profess to be true.  Not that its easy. Great confessions are not easy, which is party of why great sanctity is not easy. But that is why we should strive to go through the narrow gate.  Going the broad path is easy. . .  but the result is far from assured. . . which ironically makes it the harder one in the end.

Wow. Modern Medicine

 Something spotted on the net the other day:

You may be surprised to learn that of the trio of long-awaited coronavirus vaccines, the most promising, Moderna’s mRNA-1273, which reported a 94.5 percent efficacy rate on November 16, had been designed by January 13. This was just two days after the genetic sequence had been made public in an act of scientific and humanitarian generosity that resulted in China’s Yong-Zhen Zhang’s being temporarily forced out of his lab. In Massachusetts, the Moderna vaccine design took all of one weekend. It was completed before China had even acknowledged that the disease could be transmitted from human to human, more than a week before the first confirmed coronavirus case in the United States. By the time the first American death was announced a month later, the vaccine had already been manufactured and shipped to the National Institutes of Health for the beginning of its Phase I clinical trial. This is — as the country and the world are rightly celebrating — the fastest timeline of development in the history of vaccines. It also means that for the entire span of the pandemic in this country, which has already killed more than 250,000 Americans, we had the tools we needed to prevent it .

That really is remarkable.

If only a vaccine could have been synthesized then.  So much agony, and needless strife, could have been avoided.

But in the future. . . 

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Metropolitan Community Church, Denver Colorado.

The thing omitted from this commentary was that I was somewhat lost when I took this photo, even though I've been in this neighborhood a million times.

Oops.

Churches of the West: Metropolitan Community Church, Denver Colorado.: 

Metropolitan Community Church, Denver Colorado.

I really know nothing about this church at all, other than its in the Capitol Hill region of Denver where a lot of older churches are.  It's not far from the large Episcopal Cathedral in Denver.  Based upon what I can find about it, it fits into the politically and theologically liberal branch of Protestantism, and its occupying a church that was almost certainly built for another denomination some time ago.  

My photo of it is awful, but I was in a hurry at the time I stumbled across it.

December 13, 1940: Operation Marita

 

Day 470 December 13, 1940

Best Posts of the Week of December 4, 2020

 And what a week it was.

I don't usually comment on "the week that was", but this week has been truly exceptional.  Over the past week a COVID 19 vaccine was approved by the FDA and the British National Health Service, the socialized medicine system that the British love and the Americans, who don't benefit from it, hate (the most hated health care system in the US next to the Canadian one, which Canadians love and Americans also hate) started vaccinations.  At least one 90+ year old British citizen stepped up to be vaccinated.

During the same week, the nation lived through another series of "surely this will be it" Trump moments as President Trump, unique for American Presidents, disputed the results of a national election to an extent not previously matched since Jefferson Davis was elected to head the collection of states that couldn't accept that Lincoln had been elected.  Indeed, the spectre of Jefferson Davis rose up, ironically in the form of a pronunciation from the Republican Party of Texas, suggesting that if the courts wouldn't assist Trump loyalist with a reading of the Constitution that no competent jurist and the vast plethora of lawyers would allow, that perhaps Texas ought to leave with the like minded and form a new union of states that "respect" the Constitution, which by definition would be the states that didn't join in a seditious or near seditious attempt to subvert the results of the election lead by Texas.  Lincoln, beyond these concerns now, must nonetheless be shaking his head a bit.

Elections are supposed to be the thing Americans do well, and respect for elections the thing that sets us apart.  We've defied, so far, Benjamin Franklin's gloomy "if you can keep it" declaration about the republic, but this week tends to demonstrate that Franklin may have been correct.

Democracy isn't about liking the results, after all, it's about respecting democracy.  A lot of us don't respect it anymore, or aren't right now anyhow.

So, here's the "best" post of a week the entire nation ought to be ashamed of in some ways.  Not because of what the courts didn't do, we ought to be proud of that, but because we can't seem to respect what our forefathers did.

Railhead: Burlington Northern Depot, Casper Wyoming

Our Pearl Harbor Day entry, a lot of men who died for American democracy.  I wonder what they think of their country right now:

Retroactive Counter Factual. Imagining yourself seventy-nine years ago.

Tempus fugit

An American hero who passed on December 7, right in the midst of our embarrassing episode:

Chuck Yeager passes at age 97.

Am I the only one who finds Korean boy bands to be super creepy?

Personal Retroactive Counterfactuals as an historical exercise.

Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming Myths. Sacagawea. An added footnote

Wyoming Myths. Jean Baptiste Charbonneau

Strange and Strained Observations.

Pandemic, Part 4

Sowing the wind.

December 11, 1920. The Burning of Cork.

We managed to be shocked by the obvious yet again, somehow:

Neanderthals buried their dead. Duh.

A Matter of Perception

2020 General Election, Part II

Charlie Pride dies at age 86.

Of course, in this era, as we'd expect, he died of complications from COVID 19.

I'm not a huge country music fan, but Charlie Pride was a class act.  He was not only a great artist, but he reflected the fact the fact that the balkanization of American music is really an artificial recording industry thing, not a natural thing. Before music was recorded, it blended pretty well. And as late as the 60s and 70s, before music became completely artificial, it still did.

Pride reflected proudly on the best of us.  He had been a baseball player in the "Negro" leagues before they were integrated and went on to bring integration to a Country Music industry which had been solidly, and artificially, white since the recording industry created race based record classifications. His passing at this time is not only a loss, but seems out of time in that it reminds us of a time in which we seemed to be better than we currently are.

2020 General Election, Part II

 We'll we've never had that happen before.

November 13, 1920 cover of Judge.  I mean nothing by posting this at all, including commenting on "ads is ads" or "pigs is pigs", whatever that means.  I just like the illustration and the wry sense of getting back to normal, as if we're getting back to normal.  One thing we can't say about this year is Elections is Elections.

And by that I mean run a second "General Election" thread. Usually I run one, and then the election post mortems.  This year has been dramatically different.

Yesterday Pennsylvania and Nevada certified their elections. The day prior, Michigan did. Georgia already has. There the states that were extremely close have officially called their elections and, while some litigating goes on, it's over.

Or not.  

The Georgia Senate race remains up and running for January 5.  And that race will determine who controls the Senate.  If the Democrats win the Senate will be evenly split 50/50 and Vice President Kamala Harris will be the tie breaker.  If the Republicans retain even one of the two Georgia seats then they'll control the Senate.

Either way, Joe Biden definitely won't have a carte blanche for whatever his agenda may be.  He'll have to work with the Senate.  He'll have an easier time working with a Democratic Senate than a Republican one, but he'll have to do that either way.  If its a Republican Senate very little may get done indeed given as it'll be lead by Mitch McConnell who didn't work with President Obama much the last time there was a Democratic President.  But even if its a Democratic one there are Democrats who are going to cross over from time to time.  Indeed, such a Senate may be fairly moderate.

And the House is pretty evenly split as well  A person could suppose that the American public voted for divided government. . . or they're extremely but evenly divided.

This thread will hopefully run until the end of the election, but we'll see. It should be interesting.  More money will pour into the Georgia race than has ever been poured into a Senate race before, and more effort by both parties will have seen no equal.

The whole process in this atmosphere, which is highly polarized in the extreme, and which was prior to the General Election, would have been difficult in any event. The immediate post election atmosphere may have amplified that and may have pushed things towards the Democrats, at least temporarily.  As the drama of the suits dies down, however, we suspect that this race will begin to resemble a more conventional one, even if it never becomes fully that.

November 25, 2020, cont:

A court in Pennsylvania ordered that Pennsylvania courts cease certifying results until Friday, when it will be hearing a motion.

This is likely to be one of those things inaccurately reported as being of huge significance, when in fact its the court most likely preserving the status quo until it can hear the motion and likely rule against the Trump side of it.

November 28, 2020

As predicted, a Federal Appeals Court dismissed a Trump appeal from a Federal District Court  in Pennsylvania.  In doing so, the judge from the three judge panel noted the lack of evidence to support Trump's claims. That judge was a Trump appointee.

November 30, 2020

A group of Pennsylvania legislators, none of whom were in key positions, drafted a resolution calling on the state not to certify its results. The party rejected it.

December 2, 2020

Attorney General Barr confirmed that the post election investigations he authorized have found no evidence of widespread fraud in the election.  The evidence has been persistently clear that there was no widespread fraud, but as Barr is very much a Trump loyalist his finding is significant, and also anticipated by us here.

December 8, 2020

Contrary to expectations, President Trump continues to attempt to prevent the electoral college from voting Joe Biden into office. The electoral college will vote next week, on December 14.  Today is the safe harbor date after which nothing can be done to prevent the electoral college results.

None the less pressure was put on Georgia to reverse its votes.  Two recounts confirmed that President Trump had won.  Yesterday the President was putting pressure on Pennsylvania officials once again to try to get them to reverse their state's results.  This will also fail but the fact that its occurring is remarkable.

The final act now appears to be set for January when Congress will accept the results. The process allows for the vote to be challenged as long as a Senate member will go along with that.   This has been tried by both Democrats and Republicans several times over the last twenty years, which now demonstrates how such a precedent can be dangerous.  In those instances those were mere protests in which the Congressmen foolishly taking them knew that they were doomed and stood no chance, but this year there's a real chance that such a step could result in a procedural process by which the results will be briefly challenged.

At this point this is becoming a real strain on American democracy and presenting a real danger of semi permanent damage to the system that's going to take some time to repair.  There's every sign that President Trump, in spite of his advanced age, does not intend to go away and instead plans on running again in 2024 with "stolen election" as his theme.  The theme is accepted by many of his supporters and as a result American democracy is shakier at any point since its been since 1860.

The degree to which this is permanent, however, may be debated.  The U.S. recovered from the 1860-65 test surprisingly well, if imperfectly, surprisingly rapidly.  And the real ability of either of the septuagenarian contestants to realistically plan for 2024 would be in at least statistical doubt, given their advanced ages and the rigors of the role.  Still, the strain being put on the system isn't doing it any favors, and at this point the GOP is sustaining extremely serious damage which it may not be able to overcome in spite of having done very well this year.

Georgia may prove to be the test.  If the GOP loses in Georgia, which it now appears it will, Republicans may turn on him and those in Georgia already are.  Those waiting for an excuse to do so, and they exist, may very well be provided that if the Republicans lose the Senate with Trump at the helm.

December 10, 2020

All fifty states have now certified the election results.

A group of thirty Wyoming legislators signed a letter to the state seeking to have Wyoming join Texas' suit to preclude electors from certain states from voting at the Electoral College.  The suit as filed with the United States Supreme Court and is unlikely to be accepted by that court and certain to fail if it is accepted.

Seventeen states have joined with Texas in the doomed effort.  The respondent states must reply by today by order of the Supreme Court which will reject the effort either late today or tomorrow.

The Electoral College meets next Monday.

December 11, 2020

Wyoming's Governor Gordon declared that he "supports" the litigation filed by Texas but that the state will not join it as it hasn't had time to analyze the complaint and he feared that it might trespass on state sovereignty.

In reality Gordon no doubt realizes the litigation is doomed and extremely ill advised, but he has to avoid saying that lest he anger certain sections of the state's GOP that support the action.

Time Magazine picked Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as the People of the Year for its end of the year issue.

Time's tradition is to pick the people, supposedly, who made the most news.  By that standard, while Biden and Harris certainly made news, they really wouldn't be entitled to the cover.  Indeed, something COVID 19 related would be entitled to that spot.

Cont:

The United States Supreme Court declined to hear the suit filed by the State of Texas.  This is no surprise whatsoever.  There were two opinions to the contrary by Alito and Thomas, but only because it is their declared view that the Court has no option but to hear disputes between states.

This is the definitive end in what seems to have been an effort to reverse the results of the election through judicial action, something based on a gross misreading of the courts.

December 12, 2020

Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey called for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to refuse to seat the Republican Congressmen, approximately 2/3s of the GOP member of the House, who had supported the Attorney General of Texas' lawsuit against other states which sought to undermine their election results.  The call is not well grounded in the law as it assumes that sedition equates directly with treason, which it doesn't perfectly, and that those signing on were seditious.  There is a legally cognizable argument on the latter, but its not so perfect that this would occur or, for that matter, be a wise political move.  It wouldn't be.

This is clearly a gadfly moment on Pascrell's part and I've never heard of him before.  He followed it up by calling for Trump to be prosecuted, but it is interesting in that the real threat, minute though it is, that something like that would occur would be in the Senate, not the House, where the Democrats could increase their margins by arguing that any Republican Senators who signed on, and I am not aware of any, were seditious.  The Senate's rules at least used to allow a seat refusal for less than that.

Again, I don't think any of this will occur, but it is an interesting example of "turnabout being fair play", which the Republicans now will need to be worried about, and also an interesting example of how American democracy appears to be teetering on the edge.  The administration is refusing to play by the normal rules in turning over power, and now at least one Democrat is calling for some to suffer banishment.

It also points out how the oath of office, which requires members of Congress to obey the Constitution, doesn't mean very much as it is correct that Trump's efforts were outside of the Constitution.  A person could argue that resort to courts was never unconstitutional, however.  That's long been evident, however, given the constant introduction of facially unconstitutional bills on various things.  It's interesting however as plenty of the same people who have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution pretty routinely pretend that doesn't mean anything.

On other matters in what rapidly is winding down, but isn't wound out yet, into a state of odd farce, one of Trump's fired lawyers called for the invocation of the Insurrection Act to suspend the Electoral College.  Note that this was a fired lawyer and the Trump Administration is not hinting at any such thing.  Each side has its extremist, but that's really extreme.

I note that in part as yesterday I took a long drive, something I'm not getting much of since the pandemic really set in, from one town to another and noted that outside of where I was going a lot of Trump flags were still flying.  One was one that had Trump images as the words "A Hero Will Rise".

This isn't the first time in recent years that a personality cult like that has developed around a political figure, but it's scary.  The first time I can recall it was when President Obama was Senator Obama and was running 2008.  His image was converted into a type of poster that really reminded me of the old Che Guevara image of the 60s, not something any American should aspire to.  Now we're seeing that again in a sort of really fanatic end of things in regard to Trump.  Again, of note, we've now seen that with two Presidents in a row, which really isn't a good thing at all.  Some Presidents are heroic, but we haven't had such a President for at least 80 years.  The fact that the last two have seemingly been looked at that was shows a really distressing polarization into an identity group politics and, as emphasized here in a long post just yesterday, shows how a section of the American electorate views itself as so disenfranchised it really is no longer looking at politics as a contest but as an existential struggle which it stands to lose, and which it feels it must absolutely not.

One good thing about all of this has been to demonstrate how Harvard Law is not all that. Both Ted Cruz, who delusionally  believed that the administration would want him to argue at the Supreme Court level (why, why, on earth would they want that) and Kayleigh McEnay are Harvard law graduates who are not living up the shining examples that the image of that institution would have you believe about its products.  The Ivy League law schools have had a lock grip for some time on the Supreme Court, which may have just ended, and graduating from one of them is an unwarranted ticket into government and wealth.  Perhaps this will cause that to be questioned just a bit.

Cont:  

The Texas GOP has actually suggested that perhaps succession from the union is the proper course of action in response to its losing its recent case in front of the Supreme Court

NEWS, PRESS RELEASES, SREC NEWS

Chairman Allen West’s Response to SCOTUS Decision

POSTED 12.11.2020 - by RPT Staff

Austin, TX, Release: December 11, 2020. For Immediate Release

Below is Chairman Allen West’s statement regarding the decision by the Supreme Court to dismiss Texas’ constitutionally legitimate and critical lawsuit.

“The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman, has decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

The Texas GOP will always stand for the Constitution and for the rule of law even while others don’t.

###

This is so thick with irony that its hard to describe.  Texas has, of course, succeeded once before on dubious claims of upholding the Constitution and now the GOP, which stood for the Union the last time this was seriously suggested, is suggesting the departure.

Prior threads:

The 2020 General Election

2020 Election Post Mortem I: The Conspiracy theorists.

2020 Election Post Mortem II. A vote for the center

2020 Election Post Mortem III. Democratic infighting

2020 Election Post Mortem IV: A Non Story? Kamala Harris and "firsts".

2020 Election Post Mortem V. Conservatives down ballot, Marching through Georgia, and what it means.

Access to Courts and Contempt of the Law

2020 Election Post Mortem VI. Looking at the Democrats. . . isn't it time that Pelosi and Schumer pack their bags?

2020 Election Post Mortem VII. Joe Biden and the "Catholic vote".

2020 Election Post Mortem VIII. What in the world is Donald Trump doing?

Sowing the wind.

Blog Mirror: Light and Dark

Light and Dark:  

Light and Dark

December 12, 1940. Compass and U-boots

 

December 12, 1940 photograph of construction of a water tower at Fitzsimmons Army Hospital, now the Anschutz Medical Center, in Denver.

Day 469 December 12, 1940

The Sheffield Blitz, three days of Luftwaffe bombing of that English city, began.

And it was the Christmas shopping season.

Department store display, Sachs, December 12, 1940.

Poster Saturday: His mask keeps him on the job.

 

A Matter of Perception

I follow the US Ag Ambassadors blog.

And I like it.

But I was amused by this entry:

Before the Snow Flies

It starts off:

I just came home for winter break to this list:

· Move the cows

· Repair the windbreaks

· Drain the tanks

· Check the antifreeze

· Fill the holes in the chicken coop

· Chop wood

· Plug in the tank heaters

· Locate the heat lamps

I look at and dread at all that needs to be done before the snow flies. There seems like so much to do in so little time.

And it goes on:

As I sat at the table this morning, I came up with every excuse I could to get out of doing my portion of the chores for winter break. As I came up with more reasons, the more I started to realize that I did not want to do any of this when the weather gets bad. I realized I should probably put the effort into figuring out when and how to do it rather than how to con my brothers into doing it for me. I would love to put off my portion, but I know it is better to get it done now than freezing my fingers when the wind was up, and the temperatures were down.

It's a matter of perception of course.  I have a "to do" list everyday, but my outdoor or manual labor items are always at the back of it.  Always.  When I was young I dreamed of having a list like this, or work that was outdoors, in agriculture, and has a compact, to some degree, beginning and end.  

I can't say that I've ever imagined that in dread.

Which may get to what a person has done, up to that point, in life, I guess, and what a person knows of what other people do.  I tend to find most of us have very little perception on the lives of others.  Litigating lawyers do, because we explore those lives.

I wonder what this student will do.  Whatever it is, the student may find that days that had a list like that were the best ones that they ever had.  Meaningful work that had morning and evening horizons, and which took them outdoors, and which were surrounded by people who loved them.  Not everyone's work is like that.  Most peoples' in fact, isn't.

Neanderthals buried their dead. Duh.

 

A new discovery has released the shocking news that Neanderthals buried their dead, released as this thought hadn't occurred to us before, which is odd as we've uncovered at least one Neanderthal grave with the deceased covered in flowers before.

Here's more shocking news.  Neanderthals were people.

We're unfortunately in a "splitter" era in terms of linnean classifications.  There have always been two such groups for such things, one being lumpers who hold that species are big groups with a fair amount of diversity, and splitters who hold the opposite.

I'm a lumper as they are correct.

The classic definition of a species is when two members of the same genus can breed and reproduce.  We're well aware that's the case with "our species" and Neanderthals, as most Europeans and now, we've learned, some Africans are packing around Neaderthal DNA.

But we should have known that all along and indeed some biologist and archeologist long held that.  And in fact at one time our species was referred to as Homo Sapien Sapien; Cro-Magnon man as Homo Sapien Archiac (or something like that) and Neanderthals as Homo Sapien Neaderthalensis.  Looked at that way, there was one species that had at least three subspecies, maybe more, but those are the ones we knew about.

And that definition is correct. 

So now we've confirmed, not discovered that Neanderthals buried their dead.  Of course they did. We already know that due to some of the injuries they had, and recovered from, they cared for their injured as well.  

They were simply people after all.  Every bit as smart or dull witted as we are.  

More significantly burying the dead implies that they knew of an afterlife. Their art may imply that as well. Which likewise shouldn't surprise us.

Our ancestors. . . pretty much like us.

December 11, 1920. The Burning of Cork.

Unionist, Police Auxiliaries and Black & Tans set a section of the Irish city of Cork aflame in retaliation for the IRA ambush at Dillon's Cross.  The Auxiliaries and Black & Tans further interfered with fire department attempts to come to the scene and address the fire.

The Bishop of Cork, Daniel Cohalan, condemned the arson at a Mass held on this day and also condemned the earlier ambush, issuing an edict that those participating in attacks of that sort should be denied Communion. It was not the first time he had issued such an edict.

In his sermon, he stated:

Murder is murder and arson is arson whether committed by agents of the government or members of the Volunteer organisation, and it is the duty of a bishop to denounce murder and arson from whatever source they come. In face of the destruction of the city, it was the duty of everyone to condemn, and try to put a stop to, outrage, murder, kidnapping and ambushes, with which, unfortunately, they had become too familiar.

He also noted: 

Some republicans say that districts have been delivered from British sway when the policemen were murdered and barracks burned. It is a narrow view. Who will now mention that a district has been delivered from British rule by the murder of RIC and the burning of the barracks? No – the killing of the RIC was murder, and the burning of the barracks the destruction of Irish property. Reprisals began there after the murder of Lord Mayor Mac Curtain, and now it looked like a devil’s competition between some members of the IRA and agents of the Crown in feats of murder and arson. 

The Bishop was noted for his condemnation of violence on both sides.  However, at this point things were spiraling out of control and the action by forces of the British government, while completely unauthorized, notched the violence up a notch in a way that could not help but cause the Irish to be further regarded as an occupied people.

On the same day a fire broke out at Walter Reed Hospital.

And Herbert Hoover was photographed on the streets of New York City.

Hoover was widely admired as a hero at the time for his running of food relief efforts in Europe following World War One.

December 11, 1940. Compass and other matters.

 

Day 468 December 11, 1940

Sowing the wind.

It has long been part of the American political canon that what George Washington did for the country should be and must be repeated by his Oval Office successors.

Washington served two terms as the first President under the Constitution.  As he approached the end of his second there was serious debate in some quarters on whether he would step down and out, run again, or just declare himself to be the chief administrator of the country.

He simply retired and went back to public life.

No American President broke that tradition until Franklin Roosevelt kept running, ultimately dying in office.  Controversial at the time, it lead to the Constitutional Amendment prohibiting that.  But Roosevelt's presence in the office was democratic, not judicial.

Now President Trump has shattered that tradition, refusing to concede that he has lost when he did, and resorting to crackpot litigation.  Lawyers who are deeply in Trump's camp have signed on for the effort, including the Attorney General of Texas and Ted Cruz, who offered to argue the Pennsylvania appeal at the Supreme Court level if it got in the door. . . as if that was really supposed to achieve something.* The Republican Party has generally gone along with this.

The real thing that separates democracies from dictatorship is the democratic habit.  That's about it.  Lots of dictators started out as elected officials and then retained office by refusing to step down, manipulating the organs of power in order to make their retention of power appear legitimate.  It's extremely common.

Here the US judicial system has been put a stress test and really held up. The Republican Party has been put to one and has not.  Real questions remain going forward what this will end up causing.

Back in 2016 when Trump secured the GOP nomination I commented here that the GOP would have to live with the implications.  It will, and now the question really is, is there a GOP?  The party has certainly changed from what it was four years ago, and one of the things that has developed is a scary section of belief that the leader's word must be true because he is the leader. Added to that is the additional element that power must be retained as the opponent is unworthy of power, or even traitorous.

That crosses over a political line from supporting democracy to something akin to what fascist parties believed.  At their core they believed that only they were worthy of rule as their opponents were evil.  Indeed that outlook caused a debate in the 1930s on whether or not Communist parties were fascist parties, as that was in essence their belief as well.  It's not that the Soviet Union didn't have elections, it always did.  It's that only the "right" votes counted.

Added to that you can only stress things so many times before they bend.  Due to the disfunction of the American Federal Government since the 1990s the Courts have increasingly become an unelected national legislature.  Chief Justice Roberts complained about this openly in an oral argument just the other day.  Now the Courts are all that is keeping an attempted coup through the courts from succeeding. They're doing a magnificent job of it, but how many times can they keep doing that, and will it now be the case that every one of our national elections is legislated this way.  

If the latter is the case, we're now a second or even third rate nation, protected only by the overabundance of lawyers in our society.  That's a scary situation to be in.

We really don't know where this will lead over the next two to four years.  My suspicion is that the Trump banner will rapidly fade and with it will come a restructuring of the GOP back to a more Buckleyesque part.  If not, it'll split in two into a center right party and an alt right part, neither of which will be able to contend against the largest party in the nation, the Democratic Party.  

"they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"

The sad thing is that this is pretty conclusive evidence that there is something extremely fractured in American society.  It'd be too early to consign the country to the grave in terms of it being a first rate nation, but the US is fooling itself it believes that there's a quick fix to this.  Donald Trump promised to "make American great again", and he has some economic advances to his credit.  But the political damage now done to the country won't be repaired in four years, eight years, or twelve.  His legacy will be principally defined by an effort to illegitimately hold on to power, just like Richard Nixon's long and distinguished career is defined almost wholly by Watergate.

The country did get over Watergate, of course, although in real ways the reaction to Watergate and what it brought into the nation's politics is responsible for what we're seeing now.  It's certain, retrospectively, that Gerald Ford is partially responsible for what is happening now by his pardoning of Nixon, something that never should have been done.  Nixon should have been tried and convicted for his crimes so as to set a standard and example for the future.

Indeed, Nixon's pardoning is one of the two great American pardoning political mistakes that continues to haunt the nation, the first being the United States decision to decline prosecuting the treasonous Southern figures who lead the rebelling against the country in 1860 to 65.  Just as Washington's peaceful transfer of power set an example that lasted over 200 years, the post Civil War  and post Watergate examples set a precedent that you really can attack the institutions of the country and get away with it.  Trying the Southern rebels for treason would have shocked the Southern population into reform, which they were already inclined towards, in 1865 and have kept their antebellum masters from returning to rule over white and black alike once again.  Trying Nixon would have proved that the President wasn't above the law even when sitting behind the Resolute Desk.  Instead we made heroes out of traitors in the first instance and inserted the concept of near dictatorial powers while in office in the second.  Indeed Nixon openly opined that the President couldn't commit a crime.

But the President can and in a loose non judicial sense a crime against the American political culture is being committed right now and shows ever sense of running right up to the inauguration.  The Atlantic magazine has turned out to be prophetic in what Trump intended to try.  For the most part only the courts, and some brave state Republican officials, have kept this from occurring.  If it had succeeded the result would have been complete anarchy.

Some commentators, at this point in time, have begun to ponder if what is presently occurring goes further than that, however.  It might be a real crime, they're stating, with that crime being sedition.

Sedition, in Federal law, is as follows:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

As can be seen, the elements require two or more people, making it a species of conspiracy, who conspire to overthrow the government or "to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States".  

There's been commentary that this must be an attempt to violently overthrow or hinder, but that's not really clear.  Law is not only in the details, but also in the grammar.  It's perfectly possible to read 18 USC § 2394 to prevent conspiracies to 1) overthrow, or 2) put down, or "destroy by force". That doesn't require the conspiracies to overthrow, put down, or  hinder to require force.

Of course, that question is academic as nobody is going to charge Trump or his confederates with sedition.  And if they did, they'd fail, contrary to what some commentators have argued, as the effort has been pretty open and doesn't look like any sort of conventional conspiracy so much as a rather odd litigation based strategy.  The point, however, is that by sow the winds of the court, the doors are now open to what that may reap.  Some on the left are now openly advocating for trying Trump for something.  

By and large, that would be disastrous for the left unless something really dramatic comes forward post election, which some are speculating will.  That, they argue, is Trump's real reason for trying to hold on to power. The evidence doesn't support that, however.  It appears just to be an effort to hold on to power combined with a disrespect for the American democratic tradition.

Disrespect, of course, won't take a person anywhere without support and it seems pretty clear that the last time a crisis of this type, Watergate, existed neither the public nor the Republican Party were willing to participate in it. Of course, in that case an outright crime had occurred.  Still, being old enough to remember 1973, I can remember Nixon being held in contempt by average people for what he did.

Here we are seeing something else.  People are signing up to be part of this effort.  And that points to something just as troubling.

It wasn't in 2016 that the nation suddenly had a disgruntled populist segment of the country that was voting to light the match to the nation.  That impulse went all the way back to the latter part of Ronald Reagan's administration in the figure of such people as Newt Gingrich.  Starting in the 1970s the blue collar, rust belt, section of the nation began to suffer a decline which nobody made any effort to reverse.  At the same time the American left went from begin a WASP based sort of Episcopal left to an increasingly Hight Ashbury sort of left that had a really strong element of contempt for Western culture and tradition.  The right, in turn, began to give lip service to deep nativist impulses that have always been a feature of American culture even while directly participating in left wing agendas that directly impacted and damaged the people they were pitching to.  Rust Belt denizens who felt that they'd been forgotten and abandoned by both parties and cultural elites were completely correct, they had been.

Hence what we are now seeing with Donald Trump.  Trump is a populist and if he seems a populist in the mold of Huey Long or Fr. Charles Coughlin, it's because he is. Both of those men from the 1930s pitched to the same base and in the same fashion, and if people suspected that they were anti democratic, it was was a suspicion that was merited in the first instance and correct in the second.  Indeed, Trump may be more like Long in his personality that Coughlin, who was more anti democratic but not personally tainted by personal vice.  

That should be really frightening as what that means is that a large demographic really doesn't care if what Trump does in an effort to retain power is democratic or not.  And that's what gave Italy a figure like Mussolini, Spain a figure like Franco, or Portugal Salazar.  They didn't seize power on their own, they obtained it as they were supported by a real base that had lost interest in democracy in the greater sense and who were concerned only about their own agendas, which they believed to be the correct agendas.

What this means is that the incoming President, Joe Biden, has a massive amount of work to do in order to address populist complaints.  Ultimately, all populist movements break upon reality and the key is to address the complaint, or alternatively to completely bury the complaining demographic politically.  Indeed, all totalitarian populist movements ironically achieve that latter result. Portugal went right from a right wing dictatorship to a radical Socialist government with nothing in between. The Spanish Falangist are thing of the political past.  In the US, however, the disgruntled populist demographic is too large to ignore.

Biden has only four years to really get this fixed.  It'll be a big task, but frankly not an impossible one.  To do it, he has to ignore the advice of his supporters who want to treat the nation like a giant sociology petrie dish.  Forcing more left wing ideology down the throats of the public on social issues will cement the populist drift of the GOP and likely bring a rapid end to Democratic power in Congress in 2022.  Biden, who was once a Republican, and who was at one time an observant Catholic, can return to much of his roots and assuage fears while also addressing issues that need to be addressed.  If that's done, he may come out a hero in what is likely to be his single term, and perhaps start to repair the damage being meted out to the country by a President who clearly doesn't respect American political culture.  Or he can ignore that, or just be ineffectual, and make the damage worse.

At some point, however, people who supported this poorly thought out effort to effect a sort of judicial coup will have to come to account.  We can expect them all to have long political careers, but like American politicians who said nice things about the Nazis in the 1930s, and not like the American politicians who said nice things about  the Soviets in the 1940s, they'll need to address it.  With this having been loosed in the hot wind of this election seasons, something is going to be need to send when the wind calms and the weather cools.  It'll be necessary for the country.

*It probably did put an end to speculation that Cruz would make a good Supreme Court justice.  There's no way he'd pass muster now.