Saturday, July 3, 2021

Thursday July 3, 1941. Stalin speaks.

Joseph Stalin delivered a radio speech seeking to rally Soviet citizens in the face of the German invasion.  The speech read:

COMRADES, citizens, brothers and sisters, men of our Army and Navy!

My words are addressed to you, dear friends!

The perfidious military attack by Hitlerite Germany on our Fatherland, begun on June 22, is continuing. In spite of the heroic resistance of the Red Army, and although the enemy’s finest divisions and finest air force units have already been smashed and have met their doom on the field of battle, the enemy continues to push forward, hurling fresh forces to the front. Hitler’s troops have succeeded in capturing Lithuania, a considerable part of Latvia, the western part of Byelorussia and part of Western Ukraine. The fascist aircraft are extending the range of their operations, bombing Murmansk, Orsha, Moghilev, Smolensk, Kiev, Odessa, Sevastopol. Grave danger overhangs our country.

How could it have happened that our glorious Red Army surrendered a number of our cities and districts to the fascist armies? Is it really true that the German-fascist troops are invincible, as the braggart fascist propagandists are ceaselessly blaring forth?

Of course not! History shows that there are no invincible armies and never have been. Napoleon’s army was considered invincible, but it was beaten successively by the armies of Russia, England and Germany. Kaiser Wilhelm’s German army in the period of the First Imperialist War was also considered invincible, but it was beaten several times by Russian and Anglo-French troops, and was finally smashed by the Anglo-French forces. The same must be said of Hitler’s German-fascist army of today. This army had not yet met with serious resistance on the continent of Europe. Only on our territory has it met with serious resistance. And if as a result of this resistance the finest divisions of Hitler’s German-fascist army have been defeated by our Red Army, this means that it too can be smashed and will be smashed, as were the armies of Napoleon and Wilhelm.

As to part of our territory having nevertheless been seized by the German-fascist troops, this is chiefly due to the fact that the war of fascist Germany against the U.S.S.R. began under conditions that were favorable for the German forces and unfavorable for the Soviet forces. The fact of the matter is that the troops of Germany, a country at war, were already fully mobilized, and the 170 divisions brought up to the Soviet frontiers and hurled by Germany against the U.S.S.R. were in a state of complete readiness, only awaiting the signal to move into action, whereas the Soviet troops had still to effect mobilization and move up to the frontiers. Of no little importance in this respect was the fact that fascist Germany suddenly and treacherously violated the non-aggression pact which she had concluded in 1939 with the U.S.S.R., regardless of the circumstance that she would be regarded as the aggressor by the whole world. Naturally, our peace-loving country, not wishing to take the initiative in breaking the pact, could not resort to perfidy.

It may be asked, how could the Soviet Government have consented to conclude a non-aggression pact with such perfidious people, such fiends as Hitler and Ribbentrop? Was this not an error on the part of the Soviet Government? Of course not! Non-aggression pacts are pacts of peace between two states. It was such a pact that Germany proposed to us in 1939. Could the Soviet Government have declined such a proposal? I think that not a single peace-loving state could decline a peace treaty with a neighboring state even though the latter were headed by such monsters and cannibals as Hitler and Ribbentrop. But that, of course, only on the one indispensable condition-that this peace treaty did not jeopardize, either directly or indirectly, the territorial integrity, independence and honor of the peace-loving state. As is well known, the non-aggression pact between Germany and the U.S.S.R. was precisely such a pact.

What did we gain by concluding the non-aggression pact with Germany? We secured our country peace for a year and a half and the opportunity of preparing our forces to repulse fascist Germany should she risk an attack on our country despite the pact. This was a definite advantage for us and a disadvantage for fascist Germany. What has fascist Germany gained and what has she lost by perfidiously tearing up the pact and attacking the U.S.S.R.? She has gained a certain advantageous position for her troops for a short period of time, but she has lost politically by exposing herself in the eyes of the entire world as a bloodthirsty aggressor. There can be no doubt that this short-lived military gain for Germany is only an episode, while the tremendous political gain of the U.S.S.R. is a weighty and lasting factor that is bound to forth the basis for the development of outstanding military successes of the Red Army in the war with fascist Germany.

That is why the whole of our valiant Red Army, the whole of our valiant Navy, all the falcons of our Air Force, all the peoples of our country, all the finest men and women of Europe, America and Asia, and, finally, all the finest men and women of Germany—denounce the treacherous acts of the German-fascists, sympathize with the Soviet Government, approve its conduct, and see that ours is a just cause, that the enemy will be defeated, and that we are bound to win.

In consequence of this war which has been forced upon us, our country has come to death grips with its bitterest and most cunning enemy—German fascism. Our troops are fighting heroically against an enemy armed to the teeth with tanks and aircraft. Overcoming numerous difficulties, the Red Army and Red Navy are self-sacrificingly fighting for every inch of Soviet soil. The main forces of the Red Army are coming into action equipped with thousands of tanks and planes. The soldiers of the Red Army are displaying unexampled valor. Our resistance to the enemy is growing in strength and power. Side by side with the Red Army, the entire Soviet people is rising in defense of our native land.

What is required to put an end to the danger imperiling our country and what measures must be taken to smash the enemy?

Above all it is essential that our people, the Soviet people, should appreciate the full immensity of the danger that threatens our country and give up all complacency, casualness and the mentality of peaceful constructive work that was so natural before the war, but which is fatal to-day, when war has radically changed the whole situation. The enemy is cruel and implacable. He is out to seize our lands watered by the sweat of our brows, to seize our grain and oil secured by the labor of our hands. He is out to restore the rule of the landlords, to restore tsarism, to destroy the national culture and the national existence as states of the Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Uzbeks, Tatars, Moldavians, Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanians and the other free peoples of the Soviet Union, to Germanize them, to turn them into the slaves of German princes and barons. Thus the issue is one of life and death for the Soviet State, of life and death for the peoples of the U.S.S.R.; the issue is whether the peoples of the Soviet Union shall be free or fall into slavery. The Soviet people must realize this and abandon all complacency; they must mobilize themselves and reorganize all their work on a new, war-time footing, where there can be no mercy to the enemy.

Further, there must be no room in our ranks for whimperers and cowards, for panic-mongers and deserters; our people must know no fear in the fight and must selflessly join our patriotic war of liberation against the fascist enslavers. Lenin, the great founder of our state, used to say that the chief virtues of Soviet men and women must be courage, valor, fearlessness in struggle, readiness to fight together with the people against the enemies of our country. These splendid virtues of the Bolshevik must become the virtues of millions and millions of the Red Army, of the Red Navy, of all the peoples of the Soviet Union.

All our work must be immediately reorganized on a war footing, everything must be subordinated to the interests of the front and the task of organizing the destruction of the enemy. The peoples of the Soviet Union now see that German fascism is untamable in its savage fury and hatred of our native country, which has ensured all its working people labor in freedom and prosperity. The peoples of the Soviet Union must rise against the enemy and defend their rights and their land.

The Red Army, Red Navy and all citizens of the Soviet Union must defend every inch of Soviet soil, must fight to the last drop of blood for our towns and villages, must display the daring, initiative and mental alertness that are inherent in our people.

We must organize all-round assistance to the Red Army, ensure powerful reinforcements for its ranks and the supply of everything it requires; we must organize the rapid transport of troops and military freight and extensive aid to the wounded.

We must strengthen the Red Army’s rear, subordinating all our work to this end; all our industries must be got to work with greater intensity, to produce more rifles, machine-guns, guns, cartridges, shells, planes; we must organize the guarding of factories, power stations, telephonic and telegraphic communications, and arrange effective air-raid protection in all localities.

We must wage a ruthless fight against all disorganizers of the rear, deserters, panic-mongers and rumour-mongers; we must exterminate spies, sabotage agents and enemy parachutists, rendering rapid aid in all this to our extermination battalions. We must bear in mind that the enemy is crafty, unscrupulous, experienced in deception and the dissemination of false rumours. We must reckon with all this and not fall victims to stratagem. All who by their panic-mongering and cowardice hinder the work of defence, no matter who they may be, must be immediately haled before a military tribunal.

In case of a forced retreat of Red Army units, all rolling stock must be evacuated, the enemy must not be left a single engine, a single railway car, not a single pound of grain or gallon of fuel. The collective farmers must drive off all their cattle and turn over their grain to the safe keeping of the state authorities for transportation to the rear. All valuable property, including non-ferrous metals, grain and fuel that cannot be withdrawn must be destroyed without fail.

In areas occupied by the enemy, guerilla units, mounted and on loot, must be formed; sabotage groups must be organized to combat enemy units, to foment guerilla warfare everywhere, blow up bridges and roads, damage telephone and telegraph lines, set fire to forests, stores and transports. In occupied regions conditions must be made unbearable for the enemy and all his accomplices. They must be hounded and annihilated at every step, and all their measures frustrated.

The war with fascist Germany cannot be considered an ordinary war. It is not only a war between two armies, it is also a great war of the entire Soviet people against the German-fascist armies. The aim of this national patriotic war in defence of our country against the fascist oppressors is not only to eliminate the danger hanging over our country, but also to aid all the European peoples groaning under the yoke of German fascism. In this war of liberation we shall not be alone. In this great war we shall have true allies in the peoples of Europe and America, including the German people which is enslaved by the Hitlerite misrulers. Our war for the freedom of our country will merge with the struggle of the peoples of Europe and America for their independence, for democratic liberties. It will be a united front of the peoples standing for freedom and against enslavement and threats of enslavement by Hitler’s fascist armies. In this connection the historic utterance of the British Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, regarding aid to the Soviet Union, and the declaration of the United States Government signifying readiness to render aid to our country, which can only evoke a feeling of gratitude in the hearts of the peoples of the Soviet Union, are fully comprehensible and symptomatic.

Comrades, our forces are numberless. The overweening enemy will soon learn this to his cost. Side by side with the Red Army many thousands of workers, collective farmers and intellectuals are rising to fight the enemy aggressor. The masses of our people will rise up in their millions. The working people of Moscow and Leningrad have already begun to form huge People’s Guards in support of the Red Army. Such People’s Guards must be raised in every city which is in danger of enemy invasion; all the working people must be roused to defend with their lives their freedom, their honor and their country in this patriotic war against German fascism.

In order to ensure the rapid mobilization of all the forces of the peoples of the U.S.S.R. and to repulse the enemy who has treacherously attacked our country, a State Committee of Defense has been formed and the entire state authority has now been vested in it. The State Committee of Defense has entered on the performance of its functions and calls upon all our people to rally around the Party of Lenin and Stalin and around the Soviet Government, so as to render self-sacrificing support to the Red Army and Red Navy, to exterminate the enemy and secure victory.

All our forces for the support of our heroic Red Army and our glorious Red Navy!

All the forces of the people for the destruction of the enemy!

Forward to victory!

The speech contained some dramatic commands, notably the institution of the Soviet scorched earth policy, a classic and traditional Russian defense move which deprived invaders of access to resources as they advanced.  It also called for resistance by guerilla bands made up of those overrun by the Germans, something that the Germans generally had feared traditionally and something they had always reacted harshly to.  

The speech also justified certain recent Soviet actions, such as the non aggression pact with Germany which had now been violated by the invasion, and it cited the need to defend the cultures of lands the Soviets had only recently overrun themselves.

On the same day, the Germans took 290,000 Soviet prisoners in the Bialystok pocket and over 2,000 tanks.


A Hundred Years Ago: What Do Drawings and Pencil Marks Tell Us About a Book’s Original Owner?

 

What Do Drawings and Pencil Marks Tell Us About a Book’s Original Owner?

Colorado bans Native American Mascots and Offers In State Tuition to members of Federally recognized Tribes

The caption goes a long ways towards providing the basic information on the story.  

Representatives of Wyoming's Arapaho Tribe went to the signing ceremony and expressed the hope that Wyoming may follow suit.

Regarding the tuition, this is an excellent idea, and perhaps ought to go one step further with the legislature exploring ways to encourage Native American students living on the Wind River Reservation to enroll in the university for careers with needed skills on the Reservation or which would otherwise serve and assist it in some fashion.  Encouraging enrollment in law school provides one example.

On mascots, I'm not hugely familiar with the state's high school mascots so I had to look that up.  I'd note that grade schools and middle schools also have mascots, so that hardly amounts to a full exploration of the topic. Schools which appear to use Native American mascots are Star Valley (Braves), Worland (Warriors) and Wyoming Indian (Chiefs).  Wyoming Indian is in Fremont County School District No. 14 and ironically has a student body that's either 100% Native American or nearly so.  It is located on Wind River.

Wyoming Indian has had its mascot name used for the name of a well respected documentary about its high school basketball team, which is almost always excellent.  For that reason I'd think that there would be some reluctance on its part to change the name, but it deserves some slack for obvious reasons in this area.  I'm somewhat surprised that the other schools haven't already changed their names.

Today In Wyoming's History: City of Casper starts Black History Project

Today In Wyoming's History: City of Casper starts Black History Project

City of Casper starts Black History Project

An article in the Tribune indicates that the City of Casper, partially through grant funding, is starting a black history project.

Funding for the project starts at $10,000, which isn't large, but will be used to hire an archeologist as part of the project.  The project is designed to fill gaps in the history of Casper and will partially rely on volunteers.

Friday, July 2, 2021

Wyoming Air Mail Centennial Talk by Dave Marcum, Cheyenne 6-30-2021

I'm sick of the rain.

I know, I know, "we need the rain".

We don't need an entire years worth of rain in two weeks.  This is absurd.

Of course, whenever you get a pile of rain, it creates the same "elevator talk", which doesn't really all occur in elevators.

"Well, we sure need the moisture".

Oh B**s**t.  The ground can absorb so much moister and its done that.  What we needed was snow in December and we didn't get that. We did need, past tense, the moisture about two weeks ago, but we have it now. Save for the fact that that its filling up stock ponds, this is waisted rain.

"Well, it'll help the fires from happening. . ."

Yeah, if it keeps up through the first snowfalls in December, which is unlikely.

A lot of this, I'd note, is like the casual observations from various times of the year.

"It sure is hot outside".

Really, it's like 40F.  Not hot for July.

"It sure has been cold", coming in December, when its 50F.  No, that's not cold.\

Free Britney and stop raining.

Saturday, July 2, 1921. Fights.

On this day in 1921 the United States and Germany officially entered into a peace bringing about the end of a state of war between the nations that had existed since April, 1917.  The treaty provided:

A TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY, SIGNED ON AUGUST 25, 1921, TO RESTORE FRIENDLY RELATIONS EXISTING BETWEEN THE TWO NATIONS PRIOR TO THE OUTBREAK OF WAR

GERMANY AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Considering that the United States, acting in conjunction with its co-belligerents, entered into an Armistice with Germany on November 1l, 1918, in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded;

Considering that the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, and came into force according to the terms of its Article 440, but has not been ratified by the United States;

Considering that the Congress of the United States passed a Joint Resolution, approved by the President July 2, 1921, which reads in part as follows:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war declared to exist between the Imperial German Government and the United States of America by the joint resolution of Congress approved April 6, 1917, is hereby declared at an end.

"Sec. 2. That in making this declaration, and as a part of it, there are expressly reserved to the United States of America and its nationals any and all rights, privileges, indemnities, reparations, or advantages, together with the right to enforce the same, to which it or they have become entitled under the terms of the armistice signed November 11, 1918, or any extensions or modifications thereof; or which were acquired by or are in the possession of the United States of America by reason of its participation in the war or to which its nationals have thereby become rightfully entitled; or which, under the Treaty of Versailles, have been stipulated for its or their benefit; or to which it is entitled as one of the principal Allied and Associated powers; or to which it is entitled by virtue of any Act or Acts of Congress; or otherwise.

* * * * *



"Sec. 5. All property of the Imperial German Government, or its successor or successors, and of all German nationals, which was, on April 6, 1917, in or has since that date come into the possession or under control of, or has been the subject of a demand by the United States of America or of any of its officers, agents, or employees, from any source or by any agency whatsoever, and all property of the Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government, or its successor or successors, and of all Austro-Hungarian nationals which was on December 7, 1917, in or has since that date come into the possession or under control of, or has been the subject of a demand by the United States of America or any of its officers, agents, or employees, from any source or by any agency whatsoever, shall be retained by the United States of America and no disposition thereof made, except as shall have been heretofore or specifically hereafter shall be provided by law until such time as the Imperial German Government and the Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government, or their successor or successors, shall have respectively made suitable provision for the satisfaction of all claims against said Governments respectively of all persons, wheresoever domiciled, who owe permanent allegiance to the United States of America and who have suffered through the acts of the Imperial German Government, or it-[sic] agents, or the Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Governs[sic] ment, or its agents, since July 31, 1914, loss, damage, or injury to their persons or property, directly or indirectly, whether through the ownership of shares of stock in German, Austro-Hungarian, American, or other corporations, or in consequence of hostilities or of any operations of war, or otherwise, and also shall have granted to persons owing permanent allegiance to the United States of America most-favored-nation treatment, whether the same be national or otherwise, in all matters affecting residence, business, profession, trade, navigation, commerce and industrial property rights, and until the Imperial German Government and the Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government, or their successor or successors, shall have respectively confirmed to the United States of America all fines, forfeitures penalties, and seizures imposed or made by the United States of America during the war, whether in respect to the property of the Imperial German Government or German nationals or the Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government or Austro-Hungarian nationals, and shall have waived any and all pecuniary claims against the United States of America."

Being desirous of restoring the friendly relations existing between the two nations prior to the outbreak of war;

Have for that purpose appointed their plenipotentiaries:

The President of the German Empire, Dr. FRIEDRICH ROSEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the President of the United States of America; ELLIS LORING DRESEL, Commissioner of the United States of America to Germany;

Who, having communicated their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I

Germany undertakes to accord to the United States, and the United States shall have and enjoy, all the rights, privileges, indemnities, reparations or advantages specified in the aforesaid Joint Resolution of the Congress of the United States of July 2, 1921, including all the rights and advantages stipulated for the benefit of the United States in the Treaty of Versailles which the United States shall fully enjoy notwithstanding the fact that such Treaty has not been ratified by the United States.

ARTICLE II

With a view to defining more particularly the obligations of Germany under the foregoing Article with respect to certain provisions in the Treaty of Versailes, it is understood and agreed between the High Contracting Parties:

(I) That the rights and advantages stipulated in that Treaty for the benefit of the United States, which it is intended the United States shall have and enjoy, are those defined in Section I, of Part IV, and Parts V, VI, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIV and XV.

The United States in availing itself of the rights and advantages stipulated in the provisions of that Treaty mentioned in this paragraph will do so in a manner consistent with the rights accorded to Germany under such provisions.

(2) That the United States shall not be bound by the provisions of Part I of that Treaty, nor by any provisions of that Treaty including those mentioned in paragraph (I) of this Article, which relate to the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor shall the United States be bound by any action taken by the League of Nations, or by the Council or by the Assembly thereof, unless the United States shall expressly give its assent to such action.

(3) That the United States assumes no obligations under or with respect to the provisions of Part II, Part III, Sections 2 to 8 inclusive of Part IV, and Part XIII of that Treaty.

(4) That, while the United States is privileged to participate in the Reparation Commission, according to the terms of Part VIII of that Treaty, and in any other Commission established under the Treaty or under any agreement supplemental thereto, the United States is not bound to participate in any such commission unless it shall elect to do so.

(5) That the periods of time to which reference is made in Article 440 of the Treaty of Versailles shall run, with respect to any act or election on the part of the United States, from the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty.

ARTICLE III

The present Treaty shall be ratified in accordance with the constitutional forms of the High Contracting Parties and shall take effect immediately on the exchange of ratifications which shall take place as soon as possible at Berlin.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty and have hereunto affixed their seals.

Done in duplicate in Berlin this twenty-fifth day of August, 1921.

[SEAL.] ROSEN.

[SEAL.] ELLIS LORING DRESEL.

By a proclamation of the President signed November 14, 1921, war between the United States and Germany was declared to have terminated July 2, 1921.

The war came about late, and just between the US and Germany, and well after the Armistice as the US Senate had refused to ratify the Versailles Treaty.  The US had become increasingly disinterested in supporting its former Allies in anything post war, so there was a slight irony in the war technically running so long in regard to the US.

Well, now it was officially over.

An echo of the war played on out in the Jack Dempsey v. Georges Carpentier boxing match.


Dempsey was the heavyweight champion, and Carpentier was a light heavyweight, meaning that Dempsey outweighed Carpentier by nearly twenty pounds.  He predictably won the match.



Dempsey had fallen a bit from grace at the time as he had recently divorced and the details of his marriage weren't favorable.  Additionlly there had been latent criticism of his wartime conscription exemption and he was now being accused of being a "slacker".  Carpentier, by contrast, was regarded as a war hero, having served as an aviator in World War One.

Police officers at Boyle's Thirty Acres, Jersey City, New Jersey, an arena buillt for the heavyweight championship fight between Jack Dempsey and Georges Carpentier on 2 July 1921.

Prior to the match Dempsey had started to receive favorable press, however, and the crowd that came to watch it totaled over 80,000 people including, for the first time, a fairly large number of women. The gate took in over $1.7M dollars, making it the first "Million Dollar Gate.

The Saturday magazines came out, with some celebrating the 4th of July weekend, although not all in the same way.  Others simply featured observations on life.



Thursday, July 1, 2021

On Arguing and Evolutionary Biology

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Matthew 5

Yes, this post will somewhat lack direction.

The Happy Warriors and the Wolves.

People who like to argue provoking an introvert into arguing. . . as seen by the introvert.

I don't like arguing.  It's one of the constant ironies of my profession in relation to me.

I'm really good at arguing.  I always have been.  I didn't intend to make it my living, that's for sure.  It was an accident that it ended up part of rice bowl really.  I hadn't intended to go into litigation, but when I was in my last year of law school I clerked at a firm that did litigation and now, 32 years later, that's where I still am.  

I learned to argue at home, but not in heated debates.  My home was pretty intellectual and I was the only child. Different parents deal with that differently, but as my parents also came from intellectual homes it was normal to discuss the merits and demerits of a lot of topics.

I'm highly used to arguing professionally, and of course do it all the time.  And I can do it on any topic, or at least on any I have knowledge of.  On some topics which are open to debate, such as certain historical topics, I do enjoy it. But I don't like argument for argument's sake.  And I regard forensic debate, as done in high schools and universities, with absolute contempt.

Indeed, I'll occasionally hear somebody aspiring to be a lawyer, or even who became a lawyer, state that they did it as "I like arguing". That doesn't make you well suited to be a lawyer, it means that you're an asshole.

Professionally, or on the topics which are open to debate and about which I enjoy discussions, I can completely separate myself from the argument.  Except where people can't do that, and get personal, mean or petty, I don't leave the courtroom or the discussion angry.  Not everyone can do that, however, and I note that some of the people who claim that they "enjoy arguing" cannot.  

Indeed, there is a real psychological difference between gregarious arguers and introverted intellectual arguers.  I'm highly introverted and when people who like to simply argue on stuff provoke one with me, I normally avoid it completely.  If basically cornered on one, however, and forced to argue, I have an Irish temper, and that spills over into arguing.

People think that people with Irish tempers fly suddenly into arguing  Not hardly. Rather, they avoid the fight until forced into it. At that point, it's not for fun, it's for blood.  At the point where one of the "happy warriors" that I encounter socially finally provokes me into an argument, as they "enjoy arguing" the game hasn't begun for me, as it isn't a game.  I never ever argue just for sport, in that context.

Indeed, I have a friend who claims to like arguing and constantly is provoking arguments with about anyone who will argue.  This doesn't usually involve me as I'll avoid the conversation.  When he's in the lunch room dissing something to provoke an argument or some body of thought, I just leave without joining the fray.  

The other day, however it became impossible as I was cornered on a topic. And as I'm really good at arguing, and this wasn't professional, and no separation was possible, I was forced to join the argument.

Provoking such a person into an argument like that is a lot like throwing rocks at wolves. Normally they'll walk away.  But if that gives you the idea that they always are going to do so, you are mistaken. If they turn on you, they're going to try to kill you, metaphorically.  Such arguers don't believe in allowing the other person to "walk away to fight another day". The battle is on and there will be only one survivor. That's it.

Which is where I'm at in such debates, metaphorically.  By the time I was done arguing with the person, I'd not only defeated their argument, I'd left the happy warrior as white as a ghost, broken down, and shaking.  And I don't regret it a bit.  Join me in an argument for sport and not know your facts, I'm going to destroy you.  I'll keep arguing once you try to disengage and I'll leave your argument torn to shreds and your world view messed up. 

If you are a happy warrior, i.e. an asshole, leave people who aren't like that alone.  We just wondered in here trying to get through the day, not for your sport.

We don't argue for sport.

And here endth that lesson.

Evolutionary Biology and the Argument.

Mother and daughter cooking. They'd probably been arguing before the photo was taken.

I'm constantly and deeply amazed how little attention evolutionary biology gets.

We are right now in a constant swirl of social nonsense which anyone with a modicum of understanding on evolutionary biology could avoid.  I'm practically at the point where if a person is going to spout off on any topic, they should have at least had an introductory course on it.

Indeed, the contempt for science, on the right and the left, is simply epic right now.  There are entire topics that "conservatives" can't touch right now as they run contrary to science.  And the left, which likes to point this out, is at war with evolutionary biology.

It's a tragedy.

And here's where I'll stand to get myself in trouble.

Men and women are radically different, as I've mentioned here before, and one of the things that they are really different in regards to are household arguments.

I don't argue much with my wife.  Every married couple. . . lets' make that every couple, argues some.  But we don't argue much, which is a good thing of course.  In addition, I don't like to argue, and therefore I generally avoid arguments with people if I can.

My wife and daughter, however, argue with each other constantly.

I don't think either one of them grasps how distressing this is to a person who doesn't like arguing, particularly as there's virtually no way not to be involved in their arguments at some level.

I think this is a common feature of household dynamics, and I think its' explained by evolutionary biology.  Look it up on the net, however, you'll get a pile of social science crap, most of which isn't scientific in nature whatsoever.  Indeed, for such a common occurrence you'll see efforts to blame it on everything other than what it is. Blaming it on men is one such common approach, which is not only non scientific, it's just bullshit social propaganda.  I.e., it must be the fault of men as everything is the fault of men.

So, what provokes this part of my post?

I generally stay out of the mother/daughter arguments if I can, including avoiding efforts to be drawn into them.  When I can if there's a real point of contest that there's a solution to, or a problem that has caused them, I point it out, and generally the view is accepted.  This presumes, however, that you know what the argument is actually about. 

Often, you will not.

Indeed, there will be an observation on that below.

My work involves a lot of professional arguing. And as an introvert, my work also has the feature of dealing with people a lot, something that's draining on introverts.  At the end of a day, an introvert needs a little down time.  I often don't get it.

The other day I didn't, on either score.  When I got home, my wife was on the driveway (people can hear my vehicles distinct sounds pretty easily).  I thought at first how nice that was, my wife coming to greet me.  

Instead, I got in an odd tone, the question "what do you want to do for dinner?"

Now, that's an innocent enough question to be sure.  I really didn't have an answer, and I virtually never try to actually dictate a dinner choice.  I've given up on that, and after a long day, I don't really have any desire to plan out a dinner. So my answer was something neutral, as in whatever you want is fine.

"I haven't planned anything" was the response, and it was a bit of an agitated one.  Now, that's a common response to a conversation that I'd just as soon not have, but which we frequently do.

My wife is one of those people who like to make decisions by presenting endless options.  I've posted on that decision making type here before, on our laws of behavior series.

Everyone must make decisions in life, of course.  But not everyone has the same decision making style. Some people are highly analytical, others highly instinctive. Some make decisions based on facts, others on emotions.  Some make decisions rapidly, while others prefer to deliberate slowly.

But there are some people who actually prefer to have options, rather than make decisions at all. For highly decisive people, these people are aggravating in the extreme.

Chances are high that everyone knows somebody like this. Confronted with the necessity of deciding something, they tend to go to a decisive person and lay out the options. The decisive person will decide. Rather than accept it, the other person will set out 27 more options, and go on and on actually past the point where the other person  has committed a decision, with that person usually aggravated in the extreme by that point.

These people like options more than decisions, and are often able to get by on a lot of decisions by not deciding.  Somebody else will end up doing it, usually to the declared surprise of the option lover, who doesn't like having options eliminated, and who has added an other 72 options by the time the decisive person forces a commitment.

This is often my wife's approach to decisions.  If you are in the opposite camp, and I tend to be, this is a species of torture in some instances, although there are instances in which I will do that myself, particularly on some very serious topics.  At any rate, the I haven't planned anything comment drew a second "I want to go out".

That was fine, and was followed by me with a question where to, which was followed by the reply she didn't want to go out, but order in, which I agreed to.  This was followed by a comment that we'd saved food she didn't want to waste, which was true.  I said that was fine, which was followed by there wasn't enough spaghetti, which is what we'd saved. Then she pointed out there was also a chicken breast that had been saved from the day prior.

At this point there was clearly no way out, so I just said, thinking I was agreeing to what had been noted, that I'd make something with all of those, which was followed by that being an impossibility.  I then agreed to cook something, even though I'd done that the day prior after a really long day, which brought back the comment that she didn't want to waste food.

A conversation like this, for a person who is required to make decisions all day long is a special sort of torture.  I'd been asked to make a decision, given a range of options, and then told that all of the options were 100% impossible. What's the point of that?

Well, there probably wasn't one.  What was really going on was a continuation of some sort of argument about which I'm still unclear, between my wife and daughter.  My wife, in frustration, spilled out into the driveway to give me a set of problems because she was upset at my daughter.  I vaguely discerned that the conversation had started with one between them on dinner.

This flowed into a conversation in which I tried to draw my daughter out on the question, but she already had her back arched up as well, and it was instantly an argument between the two of them, with me as the unwilling referee. That rapidly expanded into a set of planning demands from my wife, who likes to plan things with precision further out than I conceivably can.  I'll tend not to plan things until I know that I can, which must be frustrating for people who like a clear agenda.  Indeed, I'm not really big on clear agendas for a lot of things as, over time, I tend to find that my professional life disrupts them.

This went on and on and ultimately I was involved more and more, something that I hate to do, until I was finally engaged.  And at that part, I destroyed all of their arguments Teutoburg Forest style and went off to the room where this computer is located, shut the door, and sat by myself.

On their own they came up with a dinner plan and we had that, and a very quiet evening.  People, having made me bitterly angry, avoided me, and they probably still should, as I'm still bitterly angry.  

What was that argument about?

I don't know, but I don't think it has anything to do with dinner. That would be monumentally stupid.

What I think it has to do is having two closely related women in the same household.

I know that sounds Neanderthal, and that's likely what causes female therapists to claim that the spats between wives and daughters are men's fault, but in looking up mother daughter conflicts, I came up with one comment that I thought absolutely brilliant.  Here it is:

mothers and daughters fight from 10 -20 there is nothing you can do about it . unless you are thinking about getting a divorce back up your wife in front of your daughter all the time . have a quiet word to you wife when its just the 2 of you . but if you take your daughters side she will think its ok to fight with your wife .

I think that's right.

That is particularly the case that "mothers and daughters fight from 10-20 there is nothing you can do about it".

But why?

Nature.  I.e., I think that's DNA.

In spite of what bullshit sociologist think, women mature much more rapidly and their behavior is radically different from men's.  And that impacts their relationship with their children, i.e., boys and girls, much differently.

From about the time they're 13, girls DNA tells them they are women.  And it also tells them that they are to be the head of their domestic households.  In the Old Testament we find examples of ancient Jews with more than one wife, and almost invariably it ends up being a miserable experience as one woman doesn't like the other and it drives the man nuts.  If you can stand to watch the horrible television show Sister Wives, you'll see the same thing at work.   Cody Brown must be on the most extensive set of pharmaceuticals imaginable simply to eat breakfast every morning.  Brown is a member of some Mormon offshoot that must compel him to such a lifestyle, but the more typical reaction in that circumstances is probably the one portrayed in Paint Your Wagon where the frustrated husband auctions off one of his wives for domestic peace.

That's a different situation, obviously, but the same logic, I think applies.  Once a girl hits 13, in her mind she's fully mature and her natural impulses are telling her to run things in regard to herself, and in the house.  Those same impulses are at work in her mother.  Getting the two to mesh, perfectly, isn't going to happen.

For whatever reason its different with men.  Men generally don't try to be head of the domestic household in a family, even if they are very much the head of the family in general.  In a tribal society, they're out during the day trying to hunt something, and they have to have cooperation with each other to get that done.  Just as too many cooks spoil the broth at home, a lack of teamwork in the field can get you stomped flat.

Additionally, irrespective of what bullshit sociologist wish to believe, men generally have a pretty strong protective instinct and women know this.  It's part of the reason that women in combat is a frankly stupid idea.  Any man who wont' act to save a woman from harm, if he can, isn't worth his rations, and rank and position have nothing to do with that.  It just is.

Women also have a strong nurturing aspect that men lack to the same degree.  Almost everyone knows this, in spite of what they might assert.  When we find that in men, it's remarkable.  Be that as it may, in the domestic household its generally what makes the mother somebody that children turn to with problems, arguments notwithstanding.  And this frustrates mothers in regard to their daughters and also strongly ties mothers to their sons.  

All this goes back to the tribe and what we were days long gone, maybe even before our current species. And that's what those arguments are about.  They aren't about dinner, they're about "this is my tent."

None of which really deals with the complications such things entail or that arguments are serious by nature (except to the aforementioned "I like to argue" crowd).  But which partially explains why I have a long day ahead of me and I'm already tired.  I love my family, and I like having them all here.  One of the tragedies of the modern industrial world is that everyone has to leave home, it seems.  I'll be glad when the arguing era stops, which hopefully it will soon.

Tuesday, July 1, 1941. The dawn of the Television commercial.


On this date in history, the first television commercial ran, which you can now watch above.

It was an interesting day in the history of television overall:

Today in World War II History—July 1, 1941


On this day in 1941 a Federal photographer was photographing defense housing in Marrimack Park, Virginia.  You can tell which photographer it is by the fact that one of them consistently could never fully focus his camera.  Perhaps it was his equipment, but the photos are always out of focus.

Defense housing. Merrimack Park, Norfolk, Virginia. This project to house married enlisted personnel of the Norfolk naval base has 500 units which include single-story detached dwellings, two family houses, two-story group houses and apartments. Built at a cost of $1,980,000 by the US

Defense housing. Merrimack Park, Norfolk, Virginia.   Enlisted housing.

On the same day, the British took took the Syrian location of Palmyra.

British troops in Palmyra.

The battle featured mechanized British cavalry, and the Arab Legion, which would become famous post war in regard to the early Arab Israeli conflicts.  The location was inhabited since vastly ancient times, but was abandoned in 1932.

A press photographer photographed a convalescent home for British officers.  One of the photos appears here:
Lady MacMichael, at the Knights of St. John's Br. Red Cross, convalescent house for officers.

The Germans and Finns were also advancing, in the northernmost front of the war.  They jointly commenced Operation Arctic Fox, which aimed to capture Murmansk.  The operation would run until November, and fall short of its goal.

That failure was significant, as was the Finnish participation in the effort to seize the port.  The seizure would have choked off Allied supplies from that port, one of the most significant routes to the Red Army by sea.

The Vichy French government froze Soviet assets in France.

The Germans killed a small number of Polish academics and their families in Lwow, a targeted strike against the Polish intellectual community.  The death tole was 25, small in comparison to the number of people being executed elsewhere, but its still significant nonetheless.

Friday, July 1, 1921. Reds in China.

                       

The Communist Party of China, which ultimately would have the blood of millions on its hands, was founded on this day in 1921, or at least claims to have been.  The actual date is somewhat murky, which is natural given the circumstances, but it was right about about this time, perhaps within a few days.


Symbol of the Chinese Communist Party, appropriately in blood red.

An alien introduction in the first place, the Chinese Communist Party grew out of the May 4th Movement which expressed student discontent with the Versailles Treaty, which had failed to recognize Chinese claims to German colonial holdings on Chinese territory, finding in favor of Japan instead. While Japan was a full belligerent in the war, the failure to assign these territories to China was clearly a violation of Wilson's Fourteen Points and a shocking denial of legitimate Chinese claims in favor of illegitimate Japanese ones.  While the protests were legitimate, they came at a time during which radical Marxism was gaining ground in Europe and those movements spilled over into China.  At nearly the same time, many of the same ideas would begin to get a toehold in Japan, along with concepts of extreme nationalism, such as would take hold in Germany and Italy.  For that matter, the Bolsheviks, even thought they lacked a firm grasp on Russia at the time, was active in promoting Communism in China and had an early foundational role in the CCP by 1919.

Student protest in May 4th Movement.

The same was somewhat true of the Chinese Nationalist Party, the KMT, and early on the CCP ended up being a wing of the KMT. Sun Yat Sen, one of the KMT's founders, was at least somewhat sympathetic to Communism and the KMT early on adopted certain Leninist principals.  Indeed, some proto communist elements have never left the KMT, which remains a significant political party in Taiwan.

The party struggled with the KMT until after World War Two, at which time it defeated the KMT in the Chinese Civil War on the mainland.  The story is a long and complicated one, as is the story of the KMT itself, which we'll perhaps detail elsewhere, as that story has its roots in the era we are focused on. Suffice it to say, the CCP continues to rule China to this day, but on a model that draws some influence from the Leninist NEP.  It can't continue to govern China forever, and while it remains strongly in place, it's long-term prospects are probably shorter than generally suspected.  It has become, in recent years, the most serious military threat to the United States and the first peer level military opponent of the US since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

On the same day the left wing government of Mexico imposed increased tariffs on the export of petroleum products which brought oil production and exploration to a halt.

Thursday, July 1, 1971. Leaving the cabinet and Vietnam.

The United States Postal Service came into existence and replaced the cabinet level United States Post Office Department.

On the same day, the United States withdrew 6,000 troops from Vietnam as part of an ongoing troop drawdown, bringing the total U.S. commitment to 236,000, about half of what hit had been in 1969.

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

June 30, 2021. An odd day.

 An odd day, historically.

Rumsfeld the second time he served as Secretary of Defense.

Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford from 1975 to 1977, and again under George W. Bush, died at age 88.

Rumsfeld had a long career in government, including a stint in Congress.  His association with the military began in 1954 when he was a Naval aviator.  Under President Gerald Ford he would oversea the dramatic destruction of the Cambodian navy due to the Mayaguez Incident, demonstrating that the Untied States was not as weak communist forces in Southeast Asia might imagine.  And yet, in spite of serving in the Navy, and that example, and as Secretary of Defense twice, it was his gross overestimation of the effectiveness of modern technology that lead to the under deployment of US forces early in Afghanistan, a result which lead to a protracted guerilla war, and perhaps to the situation in that country which exists today.

And on the same day the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned Bill Cosby's conviction.

Cosby in 1969.

Cosby went from the heights of fame to the height of infamy when a series of allegations against him lead to convictions for sex crimes.  He's being released not because he was found to be innocent, so to speak, but because his prosecutor failed to honor an agreement with a prior prosecutor.

As for the allegations, we can leave them as they are, but we will note that Cosby had the odd status of having been viewed nearly universally as a conservative family man while simultaneously being one of the individuals frequently found at parties at uber creep Hugh Hefner's mansion. That should have raised some red flags, although he certainly wasn't the only one who shared this status.

Perhaps that should in some ways be his legacy.  What he was accused of was gross creepy sexual behavior, in a nation that has come to celebrate creepy sexual behavior.  If that didn't match his image of being the ideal patriarch, perhaps that signifies that in our modern society we've come to tolerate conduct in the patriarchs and matriarchs that's creepy.  We may be holding him to a higher standard than we hold ourselves, none of which argues for a restoration of his reputation, but a condemnation of our own.

Suffice it to say, both men have obtained reputations that will remain defined by events surrounding them late in life, and which stand in contrast, to some degree, with reputations obtained earlier in life.

Wednesday, June 30, 1971. Dropping the voting age to 18, Soviet Space Disaster, the Pentagon Papers.

On this day in 1971 Congress ratified the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution which dropped the voting age from 21 to 18.

Marine Corps position in Vietnam, 1967.

The Vietnam War, and the increasing involvement of young Americans in protesting it, really caused the change to come about.  18 was the conscription age, which thereby made men that age liable for combat, and there was a widespread feeling that you couldn't really justly ask people to potentially go to their deaths for a country and not let the same people vote in its elections.  That logic was pretty solid really, even though as a practical historical fact very few 18 year olds served in Vietnam.  That point, while correct, is really irrelevant, however. The larger point, that you could require people to divert from their plans and force them to serve in the military, but they couldn't vote, didn't make a lot of sense and Congress recognized that fact.

Indeed, the voting age was really a carryover from a much older era in which the drafters of the Constitution paternalistically felt that a lot of people couldn't vote as they didn't have the mental maturity before a certain age or,  in other instances, because of their gender. Women couldn't vote, originally, at any age.  And the feeling in Colonial times that only propertied men could vote was widespread.

Indeed, in English speaking countries the concept that a person became an adult at age 18 was not the norm and is somewhat of an American oddity.  Ultimately it came to be the widespread view, but that was in no small part due to World War One. The English, for example, originally viewed 21 years of age as the service age, although it accepted the oddity of allowing parents to enlist their children, without the children agreeing to it, down to about age 13, if I recall correctly. Be that as it may, younger enlistees were not supposed to serve outside of Great Britain, although it occasionally occurred. The Great War changed all that.

The United States really started off with this view, which reflected, to some degree, its origin as an agrarian nation.  Contrary to widespread believe, youthful marriage was not an American norm and early in the country's history a man of 18 or 19 was most probably working on his parent's farm, or perhaps apprenticed to a nearby tradesman.  He wasn't out on his own, normally, and he wasn't in the Army, which was so small as to be nearly nonexistent, as we covered here the other day.   That started to increasingly change with industrialization and when the formal public school system became universal by the 20th Century the distinct concept of a person graduating from high school and into the adult world arrived.

By and large, however, people usually didn't.  Most 18 year olds who graduated, which was a minority of men well into the 20th Century, still went into nearby work and they weren't setting up their own households. The real separation of generations, as noted, began with World War One. Following that, the Roaring Twenties briefly started what the 1960s would more fully develop, which was the concept of leaving home to go to university.  The Depression put an end to the Jazz Age abruptly, but World War Two massively introduced the idea that at age 18, you were an adult.  It not only did that, it massively separated teenagers from their homes and, if they weren't in the service, many were in university on their way to the service.  The war also boosted youthful marriage, briefly, as people rushed into adulthood not knowing how long the war would last.

Coming out of the Second World War the trend continued with the GI Bill and the concept of "graduating from high school and going to college" really set in.  My own father was the first in his family to do that (my mother's parents, in contrast, were both university graduates from the 1910s, something extraordinarily unusual at the time).  He was somewhat compelled to do so, however, by family pressure and circumstances.  My grandfather had died and with him my father's probable future employment.  My father's Irish American mother, to whom he was close, had already seen him enter "junior college" and when my grandfather died she wouldn't allow my father to retain a job he'd taken with the Post Office and required him to move on, on the basis that "he was too intelligent" to work the job that he'd been comfortable with.  He was a genius, so perhaps her view had merit.  We'll deal with that another day.

My father, like many men of his generation, went right from university, where he'd obtained a DDS degree, into the service, in his case the Air Force.  After his Air Force service, however, he came back home and was living at home when he met and married my mother. That retained pattern of life remained common as well.

But by the 1960s things were really changing.  And Congress followed the change.  On this day in 1971, the voting age became 18 years of age.  Only nine Congressman and two Senators voted against it.

I recall this actually occurring. In 1971 I was a grade school student and it was the talk of the school.  The fact that all of us very young people thought it was a great idea, and that even then we associated it with the Vietnam War, shows to what extent that must have been the view of our parents.

It should be noted that right about this time, although I don't recall exactly when, the Wyoming state legislature dropped the drinking age to 19 years of age. The rationale was exactly the same.  Wyoming had only one military base, but the thought was that you really couldn't ask people to go off and fight in Vietnam and tell them they were too  young to have a beer.  It frankly makes some sense.  The neighboring state of South Dakota dropped it to 18.  I don't know why Wyoming didn't go that low, but the thought of having people in high school young enough to drink probably had something to do with it.  As it was, the drop in the age came to mean that there was almost no drinking age as a practical matter.

Of course, over time, things change in various and interesting ways.  The Federal Government came about and ultimately punished states that had dropped their drinking ages with the threat of withholding highway funds, so they all boosted them back up to 21.  Wyoming did so only very reluctantly and nearly didn't.  In the end, however, it came around.  Conscription came to an end with the end of the Vietnam War, although men and women can still enlist at age 18.  On base, those in the service could drink at the 1-2-3 clubs by my recollection, irrespective of age and state law, although only 3.2 beer.  I don't know if that's still true or not.

The big change, however, is that the older pattern of living, with adult children living at home, has returned in a major way as the post World War Two economy finally ground to a halt in the last quarter of the 20th Century.  A matter of constant speculation by the press as a "new" development, it's nothing of the kind, but rather a return to prior days.

On the same day, the crew of the Soviets Soyuz 11 spacecraft were all killed in reentry, a horrible tragedy that I can can also recall being talked about at the time.  Interestingly, while we feared the Soviets, the heartache over the disaster was so palatable that I can still feel it, in thinking of it.  May God rest the souls of the Cosmonauts who perished so tragically on that day.

Also on this day, the United States Supreme Court found the New York Times publishing of the "Pentagon Papers" to be constitutionally protected by rejecting a Federal government effort at imposing an injunction on it as an unconstitutional instance of illegal prior restraint.

Mid Week At Work: Wood vendor and burros at Fort Marcy, with bakery on left, Palace Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Wood vendor and burros at Fort Marcy, with bakery on left, Palace Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico

A fantastic photograph from 1905, and one truly from a bygone era.

This guy had a hard, very hard, job, and probably lived on the edge of poverty.  

On the other hand, he got to work outdoors, and with animals, two things deprived to the majority of people in the industrialized world today, a sort of poverty we endure.

Thursday, June 30, 1921. Former President Taft becomes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

 William Howard Taft was nominated, and confirmed, as Chief Justice of the United States.


It's a position that, unlike the Presidency, he'd very much wanted.  In fact, he'd been lobbying behind the scenes for it and believed he'd been promised the position during Harding's campaign.  Harding had in fact promised to another person, a Senator, as well.

The United Kingdom released a number of IRA prisoners from prison in anticipation of opening talks with Sinn Fein.  On the same day, Sweden abolished the death penalty.

General Electric, RCA and AT&T entered into an agreement with Westinghouse to develop common technologies for radios in an effort to boost that budding technology.

Bobby Darin "Beyond the Sea"

Monday, June 28, 2021

Email Subscription Notice. Email subscriptions are now on Follow.It

All email subscribers, please be aware that as of today, you'll be getting notices of email updates via Follow.It rather than through FeedBurner, which is how it used to work.

The reason for that is that Google, which owns FeedBurner, is wiping out its email subscription feature.

For some time there's been a new Email Subscription Gadget up, but the old one also was up.  I don't think anyone subscribed via the new one since I had it up, but as of today, you'll have to use it if you want to be updated by email.

I've been using the Follow.It email update personally since I linked it in here and I like it.  About the only difference I've really noticed that may catch you off guard at first is that it also has some news links at the bottom. Well, it would, as its own service and is free to the Blogger.  It has to pay for itself somehow.  Otherwise, it's at least as good, if not better, than FeedBurner was.

We hope you continue to enjoy the blog and don't dislike the new email updates.  When Blogger announced that it was giving FeedBurner the ax, we considered simply giving up blogging as most of our daily visits come from people who subscribe  We looked at moving this to a new blog on a different service, but decided not to do that, weighing in favor of simply giving up the blog instead. Finding this service allows us to continue on.

Tuesday, June 28, 1921. Gatherings.

The Parliament of Southern Ireland attempted to convene, but failed as only four members showed up.  The failure signified the transfer of loyalties to the putative Irish Republic by the residents of the southern Irish counties.

General Pershing was photographed with General Harford.

I don't know who Harford was. Usually details on a U.S. Army senior commander of this period are easy to find, but in this instance, I'm drawing a blank.  He was in the 2nd Division at some time, which we can tell as he's wearing its divisional patch.


Harford on the same day:


The British Air Navigation and Transport Act took effect, giving the United Kingdom the authority to regulate air travel in the Commonwealth.  And the Kingdom of Yugoslavia adopted its first constitution.

@#$@#$! The United States Supreme Court comes to the predictable, and correct, decision in Mahanoy Area School District, v. B. L., a Minor

I'm a bit surprised by the amount of attention that this decision has engendered, but the times seem like that.

Mahanoy Area School District, v. B. L., a Minor

I've mentioned this here before, but B. L. a vocal minor, posted a "vulgar" Snapchat when she was miffed over her school's cheerleading team, in spite of her status as a cheerleader.  She didn't make the varsity squad, and replied with some vulgarities about that. She made it the following year.  

In response to such rude behavior, she was suspended from her less august cheerleading position for a year.  

Her overprotective parents sued.

This was an out of school declaration and she suffered a government sanction for it, no matter how minor.  Pretty clear this was a violation of her right to free speech and pretty clear the school was doing what it had to do, in the context of its duties.

So, the result?  M'eh.

The surprising thing, to my view, is that there was a dissent.  Relying on a more traditional reading of the law, and perhaps on more traditional times, Justice Thomas thought the doctrine of in loco parentis applies and she got a constitutionally sanctioned dope slap.

So what can we take from this.

Well, your out of school free speech rights are pretty broad, which we already knew.

They really should be broad.

And modern technology has allowed the spontaneous rude behaviors of juveniles, both the juvenile in age and in mental outlook, to spread far more than it used to, or should.

And some parents are willing to sue over nothing. Cheerleading?  Seriously?

Oh well.  

I'm sure, of course, that this will receive a lot of press of a varied nature. Some will hail this example of parental protective largess as a great civil rights victory, which it really isn't. On MSNBC it's probably being wildly celebrated as if BL is Malcolm X and a new dawn of libertine progressive culture had taken root in America.  In contrast, Newsmax is probably using it as proof that Blues Clues makes people homosexual. 

Again, m'eh.

Well, I hope she does well in the future, doesn't take her parents excess to much to heart, and that she isn't inspired by all of this to become a lawyer.

Sunday, June 27, 2021

Monday, June 27, 1921. Jacksonville Florida and Crowley Louisiana photographed, Chinese Special Mission in Washington, Senator Shortridge goes fishing.



 



 

Sunday Morning Scene. Churches of the West: Bethel Baptist Church, Casper Wyoming

Churches of the West: Bethel Baptist Church, Casper Wyoming

Bethel Baptist Church, Casper Wyoming


The Bethel Baptist Church in Casper, Wyoming is located in the Sunrise area indicating that it was likely built during the 1960s.  It features modern architecture.

Best Posts of the Week of June 27, 2021

The best posts of the week of June 27, 2021.

And new penal provisions of the Canon Law. What does it mean?