Farmland in Quebec. Ils se souviennent

I wish we had this law.  It's from Quebec.

chapter A-4.1

ACT RESPECTING THE ACQUISITION OF FARM LAND BY NON-RESIDENTS

DIVISION I

INTERPRETATION

1. In this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise,

“acquisition” means the act of becoming the owner of property by conveyance of ownership, including sale with a right of redemption, emphyteusis, alienation for rent, forced sale within the meaning of article 1758 of the Civil Code and sale for unpaid taxes, except by

(1)  transmission owing to death;

(2)  the exercise of the right of redemption following a sale for unpaid taxes and any conveyance resulting from the Expropriation Act (chapter E‐24);

(3)  transfer of a right contemplated in section 8 of the Mining Act (chapter M‐13.1) or section 15 of the Petroleum Resources Act (chapter H-4.2);

(4)  transfer of cutting rights or timber limits under the Lands and Forests Act (chapter T‐9);

“agriculture” , “public road” , “commission” and “lot” have the same meaning as in the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities (chapter P‐41.1);

“farm land” means land used for agricultural purposes having an area of not less than four hectares, consisting of one lot or several contiguous lots or several lots that would be contiguous were they not separated by a public road.

1979, c. 65, s. 1; 1987, c. 64, s. 328; 1996, c. 26, s. 85; 1999, c. 40, s. 6; 2016, c. 35, s. 23.

The reference pursuant to section 97 of chapter 23 of the statutes of 1987 in respect of the Lands and Forests Act (chapter T‐9) could not be effected in this section because all timber limits leased on the domain of the State were cancelled on 1 April 1987. (1986, c. 108, s. 213; 1999, c. 40, s. 140).

2. For the purposes of this Act, a natural person is resident in Québec if the person is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) and has lived in Québec for not less than 1,095 days during the 48 months immediately preceding the date of acquisition of farm land.

1979, c. 65, s. 2; 2013, c. 24, s. 1.

3. Notwithstanding section 2, a natural person is deemed to be resident in Québec if he or she lived in Québec for not less than 1,095 days during the 48 months immediately before leaving, and

(1)  is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces;

(2)  is an ambassador, minister, commissioner, civil servant or agent of Québec or of Canada;

(3)  holds an office within the framework of a program sponsored by the Government of Canada or of Québec, or an agency of one of these;

(4)  is pursuing a course of studies or a training program;

(5)  is the married or civil union spouse or the minor child of a person contemplated in paragraph 1, 2, 3 or 4.

1979, c. 65, s. 3; 2002, c. 6, s. 77; 2013, c. 24, s. 2.

4. For the purposes of this Act, a legal person is resident in Québec if it is validly constituted, regardless of the manner or place of its constitution and

(1)  in the case of a legal person with share capital, more than 50% of the voting shares of its capital stock are owned by one or more persons resident in Québec and more than one-half of its directors are natural persons resident in Québec;

(2)  in the case of a legal person without share capital, more than one-half of its members are resident in Québec; and

(3)  it is not directly or indirectly controlled by one or more non-residents.

1979, c. 65, s. 4; 1999, c. 40, s. 6.

DIVISION II

TERRITORIAL APPLICATION

5. This Act applies to that part of the territory of Québec situated south of the Fiftieth Parallel of North Latitude.

1979, c. 65, s. 5.

6. Notwithstanding section 5, in a territory under a designated agricultural region decree passed under the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities (chapter P-41.1), this Act applies only to farm land situated in a reserved area or in an agricultural zone.

However, subject to sections 21 to 24, this Act does not apply to the acquisition of an area of farm land which, by virtue of sections 101 to 105 of the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities, may be used for a purpose other than agriculture without the authorization of the commission.

1979, c. 65, s. 6; 1996, c. 26, s. 85.

7. In a territory not subject to a designated agricultural region decree passed under the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities (chapter P‐41.1), this Act does not, subject to sections 21 to 24, apply to the acquisition of farm land if, at the time of its acquisition by a non‐resident, authorization has already been given by order of the Government or a municipal by‐law for its use or acquisition for public utility by the Government, a government minister, an agency within the meaning of paragraph 12 of section 1 of the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities, or an authorized expropriator.

The same rule applies in respect of farm land which,

(1)  before its acquisition by a non‐resident, had been acquired under the Act respecting municipal industrial immovables (chapter I‐0.1);

(2)  at the time of its acquisition by a non-resident, is adjacent to a public road on which water and sewer services were authorized by a municipal by-law passed before the date of the acquisition and lawfully approved.

The right set forth in subparagraph 2 of the second paragraph does not extend, however, beyond the bounds described in the third paragraph of section 105 of the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities.

1979, c. 65, s. 7; 1996, c. 26, s. 85.

DIVISION III

CONTROL OF THE ACQUISITION OF FARM LAND

8. Non-residents shall not, directly or indirectly, make an acquisition of farm land except with the authorization of the commission.

1979, c. 65, s. 8.

9. The acquisition of any lot causing a non-resident to become the owner of farm land is deemed to be an acquisition of farm land.

1979, c. 65, s. 9.

10. A non-resident is deemed to make an acquisition of farm land if he acquires shares in a business corporation whose principal asset is farm land and if, through that transfer of shares, that business corporation becomes a non-resident legal person.

1979, c. 65, s. 10; 1999, c. 40, s. 6; 2009, c. 52, s. 714.

11. A person resident in Québec shall not make an acquisition of farm land in the name or on behalf of a non-resident, except with the authorization of the commission.

1979, c. 65, s. 11.

12. A non-resident who wishes to obtain an authorization under this Act must submit an application to the commission together with all the documents and information prescribed by government regulation and, where applicable, payment of the duties prescribed for that application.

1979, c. 65, s. 12.

13. The application must be accompanied with an affidavit declaring the reasons for the acquisition of the farm land, the intended use of the land, and, where such is the case, that the applicant intends to settle in Québec.

1979, c. 65, s. 13.

14. The commission must give the applicant and every interested person the opportunity to present observations.

It may, furthermore, require from these persons, who must comply with this requirement, all such information and documents as it may consider relevant to the examination of the application.

It shall, before rendering an unfavourable decision, notify the applicant in writing as prescribed by section 5 of the Act respecting administrative justice (chapter J-3) and allow the interested person at least 10 days to present observations.

1979, c. 65, s. 14; 1986, c. 95, s. 11; 1997, c. 43, s. 14.

15. The commission, taking into consideration the biophysical conditions of the soil and of the environment, shall determine whether the farm land that is the subject of an application is suitable for the cultivation of the soil or the raising of livestock.

1979, c. 65, s. 15; 1996, c. 2, s. 14; 2013, c. 24, s. 3.

15.1. An authorization is to be granted in all cases where the land concerned is not suitable for the cultivation of the soil or the raising of livestock.

2013, c. 24, s. 3.

15.2. An authorization to acquire farm land suitable for the cultivation of the soil or the raising of livestock is to be granted to any natural person who intends to settle in Québec on the condition that the person live in Québec for not less than 1,095 days during the 48 months following the date of acquisition and that on the expiry of such time the person be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27).

2013, c. 24, s. 3.

15.3. Except for areas of land in respect of which an authorization is granted to natural persons who intend to settle in Québec, no more than 1,000 ha of farm land suitable for the cultivation of the soil or the raising of livestock may be added in a year to the total of such areas that any other persons have already been authorized to acquire.

An application filed by a legal person or by a natural person who does not intend to settle in Québec that would ultimately bring the total area added in the year beyond the 1,000-ha limit may nevertheless be examined by the commission.

2013, c. 24, s. 3.

16. In examining an application, the commission shall take into consideration

(1)  the intended use, in particular the applicant’s intention to cultivate the soil or raise livestock on the farm land that is the subject of the application;

(2)  the impact of the acquisition on the price of farm land in the region;

(3)  the effects of the acquisition or projected use on the economic development of the region;

(4)  the development of agricultural products and the development of underutilized farm land; and

(5)  the impact on land occupancy.

1979, c. 65, s. 16; 2013, c. 24, s. 3.

16.1. A natural person referred to in section 15.2 may prove to the commission that the prescribed conditions have been fulfilled and request a certificate attesting that the person is resident in Québec. Such a certificate confirms the acquisition for all legal purposes.

2013, c. 24, s. 3.

17. The commission shall render a substantiated decision and send it by registered mail to the non-resident, to the owner of the immovable concerned and to every other interested person.

1979, c. 65, s. 17.

18. Subject to the review or proceeding referred to in section 34, the decisions of the commission are final and without appeal.

1979, c. 65, s. 18; 1997, c. 43, s. 15.

19. The commission’s decisions shall be filed in its head office in conformity with section 15 of the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities (chapter P-41.1).

1979, c. 65, s. 19; 1996, c. 26, s. 85; 1997, c. 43, s. 16.

20. The Government may, by a written notice to the commission, withdraw any non-resident’s application from its jurisdiction and take it up itself.

Where the Government avails itself of the powers conferred on it by this section, the secretary of the commission must transmit to it a copy of the record and notify the interested persons in writing that the application has been withdrawn from the commission’s jurisdiction. The Government shall then decide the application, after obtaining the commission’s advice.

The decision of the Government shall be filed in the head office of the commission, which shall notify the interested persons in writing.

1979, c. 65, s. 20; 1997, c. 43, s. 17.

DIVISION IV

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF AN ACQUISITION

1995, c. 33, s. 11.

21. The application for registration of the acquisition of farm land by a non-resident must contain

(1)  the declaration of the acquirer that he is not resident in Québec;

(2)  the name of the local municipality in whose territory, or of the unorganized territory in which, the land is situated;

(3)  the area of the farm land so acquired;

(4)  the authorization granted by the commission or, in the cases provided for in the second paragraph of section 6 and in section 7, the ground on which it is not required.

1979, c. 65, s. 21; 1995, c. 33, s. 12; 1996, c. 2, s. 15.

22. (Repealed).

1979, c. 65, s. 22; 1995, c. 33, s. 13; 2000, c. 42, s. 96.

23. The registrar shall notify the commission of the acquisition of farm land by a person who is not a resident of Québec by transmitting to the commission a copy of the application for registration and, where the application is in the form of a summary, a copy of the accompanying document, not later than the fifteenth day of the month following the month of the registration of the acquisition.

1979, c. 65, s. 23; 1995, c. 33, s. 13; 2000, c. 42, s. 97.

24. The registrar must refuse to register the acquisition of farm land by a person who is not a resident of Québec if he ascertains that the application for registration does not contain the information required by section 21.

1979, c. 65, s. 24; 1995, c. 33, s. 13; 2000, c. 42, s. 98.

DIVISION V

PENALTIES

25. Where the commission becomes aware that a person is contravening any provision of this Act, or the conditions of an order or of an authorization to acquire farm land, it may issue an order enjoining that person to cease the alleged contravention within a prescribed time.

The order shall be served on the contravener in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure (chapter C‐25.01).

1979, c. 65, s. 25; I.N. 2016-01-01 (NCCP).

26. If a person fails to comply with an order of the commission issued under section 25, the Attorney General or the commission may, by an application, obtain an order from a judge of the Superior Court enjoining that person to comply with the order of the commission, and ordering that on his default it may be carried out at his expense.

1979, c. 65, s. 26; I.N. 2016-01-01 (NCCP).

27. Any acquisition of farm land made in contravention of sections 8 to 11 is null.

The Attorney General, the commission or any other interested person may apply to the Superior Court to have such nullity declared.

In such a case, the Superior Court may order the cancellation of all rights and hypothecs created by or resulting from any deed of acquisition effected in contravention of this Act.

However, that nullity shall not be set up against a person resident in Québec who acquired the immovable by a deed of conveyance of ownership.

1979, c. 65, s. 27; 1992, c. 57, s. 427.

28. Where a person has made an acquisition of farm land in contravention of sections 8 to 11, the commission may, by order, to the extent that the right of action contemplated in section 27 is not exercised, enjoin that person to divest himself of that farm land within six months of the service of that order.

If that person fails to comply with the order within the allotted time, the commission may apply to a judge of the Superior Court to obtain authorization to sell the immovable under judicial authority. In such a case, articles 704 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure (chapter C‐25.01) apply, with the necessary modifications.

The proceeds of the sale, after payment of the costs, the claims of the prior and hypothecary creditors, and the fines, if any, due under section 31, shall be remitted to the contravener.

1979, c. 65, s. 28; 1992, c. 57, s. 428; I.N. 2016-01-01 (NCCP).

29. Every person is guilty of an offence who

(1)  contravenes this Act or the regulations;

(2)  knowingly acquires or sells farm land or a lot in contravention of sections 8 to 11;

(3)  knowingly alienates farm land or a lot to a non-resident in contravention of sections 8 to 11;

(4)  knowingly hinders or misleads a person empowered to make an investigation under this Act or gives him false information; or

(5)  hinders the application of this Act, fails to comply with an order of the commission or refuses to comply with one of its decisions.

1979, c. 65, s. 29.

30. Every person who knowingly does or omits to do a thing with the object of aiding a person to commit an offence against this Act, or who knowingly advises, encourages or incites a person to commit an offence, is himself a party to the offence.

1979, c. 65, s. 30.

31. Every person who commits an offence described in paragraph 1, 4 or 5 of section 29 is liable,

(1)  in the case of a natural person, to a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $5,000;

(2)  in the case of a legal person, to a fine of not less than $600 nor more than $30,000.

Every person who commits an offence described in paragraph 2 or 3 of section 29 is liable,

(1)  in the case of a natural person, to a fine of at least 10% of the actual value of the farm land in question;

(2)  in the case of a legal person, to a fine of at least 20% of the actual value of the farm land in question.

1979, c. 65, s. 31; 1990, c. 4, s. 39; 1992, c. 61, s. 40; 1999, c. 40, s. 6.

32. Where a legal person commits an offence against this Act, every director, officer, functionary, employee or agent of that legal person who has prescribed or authorized the commission of the offence or who has consented thereto is deemed to be a party to the offence and is liable to the penalty provided in section 31 for natural persons.

1979, c. 65, s. 32; 1999, c. 40, s. 6.

DIVISION VI

GENERAL PROVISIONS

33. This Act does not apply where a non-resident becomes the owner of farm land by the exercise of a right to take in payment if

(1)  his principal business is making loans on real security;

(2)  (subparagraph repealed);

(3)  the farm land is not repossessed following one or more operations mainly intended to elude the application of this Act.

Similarly, this Act does not apply where a non-resident becomes the owner of farm land under a resolutive clause or by the exercise of a right to take in payment if

(1)  he is the vendor of the land and has not received payment for it; or

(2)  the act or acts granting him the right to become owner under a resolutive clause or by the exercise of a right to take in payment was or were registered according to law before 21 December 1979.

1979, c. 65, s. 33; 1992, c. 57, s. 429.

34. The commission is responsible for overseeing the application of this Act, and, to that end, sections 7, 8, 11, 13, 13.1, 14, 16, 17, 18.5, 18.6, 19 and 21.1 to 21.5 of the Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities (chapter P-41.1), adapted as required, apply.

1979, c. 65, s. 34; 1989, c. 7, s. 32; 1996, c. 26, s. 64; 1997, c. 43, s. 18.

35. The Government may, by regulation,

(1)  prescribe the inclusion of certain declarations in deeds or other documents contemplated in this Act;

(2)  determine the manner in which the declarations required under this Act and the regulations must be made;

(3)  determine the manner of submitting an application for authorization and the form and content of any document, notice or form required for the application of this Act;

(4)  prescribe the tariff of duties, fees and costs for applications to the commission under this Act;

(5)  (subparagraph repealed).

Regulations made under this Act come into force on their date of publication in the Gazette officielle du Québec or on a later date fixed therein.

1979, c. 65, s. 35; 1995, c. 33, s. 14.

36. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is responsible for the application of this Act.

1979, c. 65, s. 36; 1979, c. 77, s. 21.

37. (Omitted).

1979, c. 65, s. 37.

38. (This section ceased to have effect on 17 April 1987).

1982, c. 21, s. 1; U. K., 1982, c. 11, Sch. B, Part I, s. 33.

REPEAL SCHEDULE

In accordance with section 17 of the Act respecting the consolidation of the statutes and regulations (chapter R-3), chapter 65 of the statutes of 1979, in force on 1 November 1980, is repealed, except section 37, effective from the coming into force of chapter A-4.1 of the Revised Statutes.

Good for them.

Tuesday November 18, 1941. German setbacks.

Yesterday the Finn's stopped advancing on Murmansk and the Germans stopped along with them, bringing to an effective end the German advance in the Arctic with the result that Murmansk would remain open to the Allies for the rest of the war.

On this day, the British launched Operation Crusader, a new offensive in the desert designed to relief the siege of Tobruk.

British tank in this operation passing a burning German one.  The British tank is, coincidentally, a "Crusader".

The attack demonstrated that the British were far from finished in the desert.

The British did conclude Operation Flipper on this day as well, which was not a success.

Mexico broke off diplomatic relations with  Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, giving a sign of the direction it would head in should the United States go to war. The sign had not been obvious, and it was still unclear. Mexico's PRI ruling party engaged in single state rule of the country, and accordingly it had a diversity of radical views within it, including strongly Communistic elements, but also some fascistic elements.  As a result, American defense planning included guarding the southern US border from Mexican incursions in case of it leaning towards the Axis.

Talks continued between the United States and the Japanese diplomatic mission in Washington, with the Japanese mission meeting with the Secretary of State, who issued this report:

After some preliminary remarks the Secretary took up the question of Japan's relations with the Axis. He pointed out that the public would place their own interpretation upon the implications of a situation wherein on the one hand Japan had an agreement with us and on the other was in an alliance with the Axis powers. He said that our people do not trust Hitler and furthermore we feel that it would be inevitable that Hitler would eventually, if he was successful, get around to the Far East and double-cross Japan. The Secretary cited the instance when Germany, after having concluded an 'anti-Comintern pact with Japan had surprised Japan later on by entering into a non-aggression pact with Russia and finally went back on the non-aggression pact by attacking Russia. The Secretary said that he presumed Japan did not know in advance what Germany's intentions were any more than we did. The Secretary expressed great doubt that any agreement into which we entered with Japan while Japan at the same time had an alliance with Hitler would carry the confidence of our people and he emphasized that we would have to have a clear-cut agreement making self-evident our peaceful purpose, for otherwise there would be a redoubled effort by all nations to strengthen their armaments. He pointed out that we are coming out of the Philippines in 1946 and that we are now bringing our marines out of China and in this way we are trying to make a contribution to the establishment of a peaceful world based on law and order. He said that this is what we want to work out with Japan; that we had nothing to offer in the may of bargaining except our friendship. Our commercial program was one, he said, calling for a maximum production and distribution of goods. The Secretary pointed out also that we are even now engaged in efforts to induce the British Empire to reduce its Empire preferences. w He said that what we desire is to put our people back to work in a way that can never be accomplished through permitting armies to overrun countries. The Secretary observed that many Japanese spokesmen had spoken of Japan's desire to have a controlling influence in Eastern Asia, but the only kind of controlling influence which was worth anything was one that could not be achieved or maintained by the sword.

He dwelt briefly upon what we have accomplished in South America through our peaceful policies and through renouncing the employment. of gunboats and armed forces. The Secretary made it clear that we recognized that under present emergency conditions we cannot carry out to perfection our commercial policy which must be modified to meet war conditions, but we can at least establish the. principles. The Secretary said, going back to the situation with regard to Japan's relations with the Axis, that a difficult situation was created thereby as far as our public was concerned-as, for example, when telegrams of congratulations were sent to Hitler by Japanese leaders when he commits some atrocity.

The Japanese Ambassador observed that the United States and Russia were not pursuing parallel courses and yet we are aligned with Russia at the present time. He also said he appreciated very well the relations we had developed with South America but that, although Japan would like to imitate us, Japan was not in a position to be so magnanimous-as, for example, in the mater of extending substantial lend lease aid to other countries. . . . The Secretary then added that he frankly did not know whether anything could be done in the matter of reaching a satisfactory agreement with Japan; that we can go so far but rather than go beyond a certain point it would be better for us to stand and take the consequences. The Ambassador then said that Japan is now hard?pressed and that the Secretary was well aware of how desirous Japan was to reach some agreement with the United States.

Mr. Kurusu said that he had served five years as Director of the Commercial Bureau of the Japanese Foreign Office and that he was familiar with the developments in Japan's commercial policy. He said that the situation with respect to the Empire preferences was one of the factors which had influenced Japan to go into the Axis camp. He said that the United States was an economically powerful country and that the United States was, therefore, in a much better position than was Japan to enter into commercial bargaining. Furthermore, Japan was much more dependent than was the United States upon foreign trade. He felt that what the two Governments should now do would be to achieve something to tide over the present abnormal situation.. He referred, for example, to the exchange control situation which had been developed in Japanese-occupied China and expressed the view that that situation could not be done away with in a short time. He said that perhaps after the war was over it might be possible to adopt a more liberal policy but that he was unable to promise anything on the part of his Government. The Secretary asked whether Japan could not now agree in principle on commercial policy. Mr. Kurusu made no direct reply but went on to say that in the early years of American intercourse in the Far East our main interest was in commerce and not religious and cultural activities; that we had pursued a course of idealism, but with American occupation of the Philippines the situation changed somewhat and the United States tied itself in with the European concert of nations.

Turning to the question of the Tripartite Pact, Mr. Kurusu said that he could not say that Japan would abrogate the Tripartite Pact but that Japan might do something which would "outshine" the Tripartite Pact.

The Secretary pointed out that unless peacefully minded nations now start their program of reconstruction it will be impossible to get such a program started later on because the selfish elements would get control of the situation and prevent the materialization of a liberal policy. Therefore, he said it was necessary to get the fundamental principles established, so that we might begin to enable the peaceful forces, which were now demoralized, to assert a leadership. Unless we pursue such a course, the Secretary noted, we shall not be able to obtain the confidence of peacefully minded people when the time for putting into effect a reconstruction program arrives. Mr. Kurusu asked whether the Secretary had a concrete formula for dealing with Japan's relations with the Axis alliance. The Secretary made it clear that this was a matter for Japan to work out. He said that if we could get a peaceful program firmly established, Hitler ought to be asked not to embarrass us too much. He asked whether Japan could not work it out in some way which would be convincing to the American people. He said that if it goes the wrong way every peaceful nation will redouble its defensive efforts. The Secretary emphasized again that the public would be confused in regard to a survival of a relationship between Japan and the Axis while Japan had an agreement with the United States.

The Ambassador asked whether it was not important now to make some understanding to save the situation. The Secretary said he agreed but that he felt that the Tripartite Pact was inconsistent with the establishment of an understanding.

Mr. Kurusu asked what could the Secretary suggest. The Secretary said that if we mix the Tripartite Pact with an agreement with the United States it will not be possible to get many people to follow us. The Secretary said that the question arises whether Japanese statesmen desire to follow entirely peaceful courses with China or whether they desire to face two ways. The Secretary went on to say that if the Japanese should back away from adopting a clear?cut position with regard to commercial policy, with regard to a course in China consistent with peaceful principles and with regard to Japanese relations to the European war this would leave us in an indefensible position in regard to the proposed agreement. We would have to say that the Japanese Government is unable to get its politicians into line.

The Ambassador repeated that the situation in Japan was very pressing and that it was important to arrest a further deterioration of the relations between the two countries. He suggested that if this situation could now be checked an atmosphere would develop when it would be possible to move in the direction of the courses which this Government advocated. He pointed out that big ships cannot turn around too quickly, that they have to be eased around slowly and gradually.

The Secretary replied that if we should sit down and write an agreement permeated with the doctrine of force it would be, found that each country would be entirely distrustful and would be piling up armaments, as countries cannot promote peace so long as they are tied in in any way with Hitler.

Mr. Kurusu pointed out that a comprehensive solution cannot be worked out immediately, that he could make no promises. He said that our freezing regulations had caused impatience in Japan and a feeling that Japan had to fight while it still could. If we could come to some settlement now, he said, it would promote an atmosphere which would be conducive to discussing fundamentals. The Secretary asked if he did not think that something could be worked out on the Tripartite Pact. The Ambassador said that he desired to emphasize that Japan would not be a cat's-paw for Germany, that Japan's purpose in entering into the Tripartite alliance was to use it for Japan's own purposes, that Japan entered the Tripartite Pact because Japan felt isolated. The Secretary observed that it would be difficult to get public opinion in this country to understand the situation as Mr. Kurusu had described it.

He then asked what the Ambassador had in mind in regard to the Chinese situation and whether the Japanese stood for no annexations, no indemnities, respect. for China's sovereignty, territorial integrity and the principle of equality. The Ambassador replied in the affirmative.

The Secretary then said that while he had made this point already clear to the Ambassador he wished to make it clear also to Mr. Kurusu, that whereas the Japanese Government desired to consider our talks negotiations rather than exploratory conversations, the Secretary felt that without having first reached a real basis for negotiations, he was not in a position to go to the British or the Chinese or the other governments involved, as these governments had a rightful interest in these problems. Mr. Kurusu tried to get the Secretary to specify in just which problems each of the respective governments were interested but the Secretary said that he had not yet, for manifest reasons, discussed these problems with these other governments and anything that he might say would be just an assumption on his part. Mr. Kurusu then said that under such circumstances United States-Japanese relations would be at the mercy of Great Britain and China. The Secretary replied that he believed and must repeat that we must have something substantial in the way of a basis for an agreement to take to these governments for otherwise there would be no point in talking to them. Mr. Kurusu said that the situation was so pressing that it might get beyond our control. The Secretary agreed that, that was true but he pointed out that the fact that Japan's leaders keep announcing programs based upon force adds to our difficulties. He said he would like to leave the Hitler situation to the Japanese Government for consideration.

Turning to the China situation the Secretary asked how many soldiers the Japanese wanted to retain in China. The Ambassador replied that possibly 90 per cent would be withdrawn. The Secretary asked how long the Japanese intended to keep that remaining 10 per cent in China. The Ambassador did not reply directly to this but he invited attention to the fact that under the existing Boxer Protocol Japan was permitted to retain troops in the Peiping and Tientsin area. The Secretary pointed out that the question of the Japanese troops in China was one in which there were many elements of trouble. American interests even had suffered severely from the actions of the Japanese forces and we had a long list of such in stances. The Secretary made mention of the great patience this Government had exercised in the presence of this situation. He said the situation was one in which the extremists seemed to be looking for trouble and he said that it was up to the Japanese Government to make an extra effort to take the situation by the collar. He said also that the United States and Japan had trusted each other in the past, that the present situation was one of Japan's own making and it was up to the Japanese Government to find some way of getting itself out of the difficulty in which it had placed itself. The Secretary went on to say that the situation was now exceptionally advantageous for Japan to put her factories to work in producing goods which are needed by peaceful countries if only the Japanese people could get war and invasion out of mind.

The Ambassador said that our conversations had been protracted and if the American Government could only give the Japanese some hope with regard to the situation it might be helpful. He added that our country was great and strong. The Secretary replied that our Government has not made any threats and he has exercised his influence throughout to deprecate bellicose utterances in this country. He added that the Japanese armed forces in China do not appear to realize whose territory they are in and. that the people in this country say that Hitler proposes to take charge of one-half of the world and Japan proposes to take charge of the other half and if they should succeed what would there be left for the United States? Mr. Kurusu suggested, that Japan would have to move gradually in China, that one step right lead to another and that what was important now was to do something to enable Japan to change its course. The Secretary asked what was in Mr. Kurusu's mind. In reply to a suggestion that it was felt in Japanese circles that we have been responsible for delay the Secretary pointed out that we could more rightly accuse the Japanese of delays, that he had met with the Japanese Ambassador promptly every time the latter had asked for a meeting and had discussed matters fully with him. The Secretary added that when Japan's movement into Indo-china in July took place this had caused an interruption of our conversations and it was then that the Secretary could no longer defend the continued shipments of petroleum products to Japan, especially as for the past year he had been under severe criticism in this country for not having cut off those shipments. Mr. Kurusu asked whether we wanted the status quo ante to be restored or what we expected Japan to do. The Secretary replied that if the Japanese could not do anything now on those three points?getting troops out of China, commercial policy and the Tripartite agreement-he could only leave to Japan what Japan could do. The Secretary said that it is our desire to see Japan help furnish a world leadership for a peaceful program and that he felt that Japan's long-swing interests were the same as our interests. The Ambassador said that he realized that our Government was suspicious of the Japanese Government but he wished to assure us that Japan wanted to settle the China affair notwithstanding the fact that Japan desired to keep a few troops in China for the time being. The Secretary then asked again what the Japanese had in mind. Mr. Kurusu said that it was Japan's intention to withdraw Japanese troops from French Indochina as soon as a just Pacific settlement should be reached and he pointed out that the Japanese Government took the Burma Road situation very seriously. The Secretary asked, if there should be a relaxation of freezing, to what extent would that enable Japan to adopt peaceful policies. He explained that what he had in mind was to enable the peaceful leaders in Japan to get control of the situation in Japan and to assert their influence. The Ambassador said that our position was unyielding and that it was Japan's unyielding attitude toward Chiang Kai-shek which had stiffened Chinese resistance against Japan. He asked whether there was any hope of a solution-some small beginning toward the realization of our high ideals. The Secretary replied that if we do not work out an agreement that the public trusts the arming of nations will go on; that the Japanese Government has a responsibility in the matter as it has created the conditions we are trying to deal with. The Ambassador then suggested the possibility of going back to the status which existed before the date in July when, following the Japanese move into southern French Indochina, our freezing measures were put into effect. The Secretary said that if we should make some modifications in our embargo on the strength of a step by Japan such as the Ambassador had mentioned we do not know whether the troops which have been withdrawn from French Indochina will be diverted to some equally objectionable movement elsewhere. The Ambassador said that what he had in mind was simply some move toward arresting the dangerous trend in our relations. The Secretary said that it would be difficult for him to get this Government to go a long way in removing the embargo unless this Government believed that Japan was definitely started on a peaceful course and had renounced purposes of conquest. The Ambassador said that the Japanese were tired of fighting China and that Japan would go as far as it could along a first step. The Secretary said that he would consult with the British and the Dutch to see what their attitude would be toward the suggestion offered by the Japanese Ambassador. In reply to a question by the Secretary the Ambassador replied that the Japanese Government. was still studying the questions of commercial policy involved in our proposal of November 15. He said he assumed that what we had in mind was a program for dealing with the situation after the war. The Secretary replied in the affirmative, so far as the full operation of a sound program is concerned, but added that it should now be agreed upon as to principles.

When asked by the Secretary as to when the Ambassador would like to confer with us again the Ambassador said that he would get in touch with his Government and would communicate to the Secretary through Mr. Ballantine.

Friday November 18, 1921. No small beers, no new ships.

The U.S. Senate passed the Willis-Campbell Act on this day in 1921 prohibiting physicians from proscribing beer as a medical remedy. They could still prescribe hard alcohol and wine.

On the same day, the British suspended new ship construction in light of progress at the Washington Naval Conference talks.   And Roscoe Arbuckle's trial was proceeding.

Arbuckle with his defense team and brother.

Marshall Foch visited New York City's statue of Joan d'Arc.

Marshal Ferdinand Jean Marie Foch with mineralogist George Frederick Kunz at a ceremony held at the Joan of Arc statue in New York City. Standing at the right, is Anna Vaughn Hyatt Huntington, sculptor of the Joan of Arc statue, and Jacqueline Vernot holding flowers.

The Soviet Union, which was going to have an economy based on pure ownership by the proletariat of the means of production, figured out that banks were a necessity and crated a state bank.  The Soviet economy was collapsing.

I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural. . .

I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.

Thomas Jefferson

Monday November 17, 1941. Finland halts operations

On this day in 1941 Finland halted offensive operations, abandoning further progress on the joint German-Finnish Operation Silver Fox, which had sought to capture Murmansk.

German forces outside of Murmansk.

Of all of Germany's allies in Europe, Finland was the most competent and was fighting for distinctly different war aims than Germany.  It's operations up to this date had been largely successful, and they had achieved  most of what they'd sought by entering the war on the German side in the first instance, that being territory lost during the Winter War.  This did not end the as to Finland, of course, as the Soviets didn't agree to be regarded as defeated, but the Finns were, by this time, skeptical of German abilities and saw no point in continuing offensive operations that would have mostly served German purposes.

The halting of Operations Silver Fox and Arctic Fox did mean that the Finnish/German forces failed to close Murmansk to the Allies.  This would prove to be a strategic failure in that the Western Allies used the port to supply the Soviets.  The Germans somehow failed to appreciate this, and the Finns after this point in the war wanted to avoid antagonizing the West any more than they already had, and further did not wish to fight for German, rather than Finnish, goals.  This would result in the Arctic Front stabilizing until 1944, when the Soviets were in a position to regain lost ground.

As it was, of course, having entered the war on the German side meant that Finland would be faced with attacks from the Red Army at the end of the war, by which time the Red Army was not at all the same army that the Finns had faced in the Winter War.  Finland was fortunate to escape a disaster as a result.

The cessation of hostilities was further significant in that it showed that Finnish war aims were limited to recovering truly lost territories to Finland, rather than an exercise in acquiring all the lands occupied by Balto Finnic peoples, which would have included all of Karelia, and even more territory occupied by the USSR if the Saami (Lapps) were included.  Finland's wise decision to halt rather than go for the inclusion of those territories would pay off when Axis fortunes reversed.

If Finnish forces had fought well in their campaign, the better materially equipped German forces had proven lacking.  Overall, German forces performed below expectation, particularly Waffen SS forces.  When the cold weather set in they were not adequately equipped, whereas the Finnish forces were.  Ultimately, the Germans started withdrawing its forces from this front, and had commenced doing so prior to the cessation of the offensive.

Without Finnish cooperation, there was nothing the Germans could do in order to ever resume an offensive on Murmansk, and they were not going to receive that.  Having said that, the German failure to appreciate the need to take the city was a monumental failure to grasp the logistical importance of the city. For a country engaged in a massive U-boat campaign in the Atlantic and North Sea, that oversight is difficult to grasp but perhaps goes to the German lingering belief that the campaign against the Soviet Union was going to be brief, and basically decided by taking Moscow.

On this day German World War One aviation hero and Luftwaffe general Ernst Udet killed himself.

Udet's World War One aviation tally was second only to Manfred Von Richtoeffen's.  He was a non-committed member of the Nazi Party, having joined based on a promise from Herman Goering to purchase two American dive bombers in 1933.  Moved to a administrative production position within the Luftwaffe, Udet became an alcoholic due to being both bored with the position and not really being able to do it. As the war began to loom, this became worse, as Udet did not believe that Germany could win the war. Goering supplied him with alcohol and drugs at parties to keep him in control, and he suffered a pre-war nervous breakdown.  A pre Operation Barbarossa report warning that the Soviet air force was good and technologically advanced that he issued was withheld from Hitler by Goering.  His situation was complicated by a sense that he had been abandoned both by Hitler and a mistress. To complicate matters further, he'd had an affair with Martha Dodd, the daughter of the US Ambassador to Germany who was a secret Communist and who was spying for the USSR.

Hitler would later blame Germany's looming defeat in later years on Udet, a rather fanciful explanation for the defeat.

British commandos completed their raid on Rommel's former headquarters.  Only two men escaped being killed or captured and Rommel was not there.

Cordell Hull met with the Japanese Ambassadors.  He summarized his meeting as follows:

I accompanied Ambassador Nomura and Ambassador Saburo Kurusu to the White House in order that the latter might be received by the President.

Following several minutes of an exchange of courtesies and formalities, the President brought up the more serious side by referring to the misunderstandings and matters of difference between our countries and made clear the desire of this country, and he accepted the statement of the Japanese Ambassador that it was the desire of Japan equally, to avoid war between our two countries and to bring about a settlement on a fair and peaceful basis so far as the Pacific area was concerned.

Ambassador Kurusu proceeded with one line of remarks that he kept up during the conversation and that was that we must find ways to work out an agreement to avoid trouble between our two countries. He said that all the way across the Pacific it was like a powder keg, and again he repeated that some way must be found to adjust the situation.

Ambassador Kurusu made some specious attempt to explain away the Tripartite Pact. I replied in language similar to that which I used in discussing this matter with Ambassador Nomura on November fifteenth, which need not be repeated here. I made it clear that any kind of a peaceful settlement for the Pacific area, with Japan still clinging to her Tripartite pact with Germany, would cause the President and myself to be denounced in immeasurable term and the peace arrangement would not for a moment be taken seriously while all the countries interested in the Pacific would redouble their efforts to arm against Japanese aggression. I emphasized the point about the Tripartite Pact and self-defense by saying that when Hitler starts on a march of invasion across the earth with ten million soldiers and thirty thousand airplanes with an official announcement that he is out for unlimited invasion objectives, this country from that time was in danger and that danger has grown each week until this minute. The result was that this country with no other motive except self?defense has recognized that danger, and has proceeded thus far to defend itself before it is too late; and that the Government of Japan says that it does not know whether this country is thus acting in self-defense or not. This country feels so profoundly the danger that it has committed itself to ten, twenty-five or fifty billions of dollars in self-defense; but when Japan is asked about whether this is self?defense, she indicates that she has no opinion on the subject-I said that I cannot get this view over to the American people; that they believe Japan must know that we are acting in self-defense and, therefore, they do not understand her present attitude. I said that he was speaking of their political difficulties and that I was thus illustrating some of our difficulties in connection with this country's relations with Japan.

The President remarked that some time ago he proclaimed a zone around this hemisphere, 300 miles out in the sea in some places and 1,100 miles in others.

The President added that this was self-defense.

I then said that Ambassador Nomura and I have been proceeding on the view that the people of the United States and Japan alike are a proud and great people and there is no occasion for either to attempt to bluff the other and we would not consider that bluffing enters into our conversations, which are of genuine friendliness.

The President brought out a number of illustrations of our situation and the Japanese situation as it relates to Germany and our self-defense which serve to emphasize our position and to expose the sophistry of the Japanese position.

Ambassador Kurusu said that Germany had not up to this time requested Japan to fight; that she was serving a desirable purpose without doing so; this must have meant that she was keeping the American and British Navies, aircraft, et cetera, diverted.

The further question of whether the United States is on the defensive in the present Pacific situation came up by soma general discussion in reference to that situation by Ambassador Kurusu, and the President and I made it clear that we were not the aggressors in the Pacific but that Japan was the aggressor.

At another point I said that the belief in this country is that the Japanese formula of a new order in greater East Asia is but another name for a program to dominate entirely, politically, economically, socially and otherwise by military force all of the Pacific area; that this would include the high seas, the islands and the continents and would place every other country at the mercy of very arbitrary military rule just as the Hitler program does in Europe and the Japanese in China. The Ambassador made no particular comment.

There was some effort by Ambassador Kurusu to defend their plan of not bringing the troops out of China. Placing the Japanese on the defensive, the President said that the question ought to be worked out in a fair way considering all of the circumstances and relative merits of the matters involved; and that at a suitable stage, while we know that Japan does not wish us to mediate in any way, this Government might, so to speak, introduce Japan and China to each other and tell them to proceed with the remaining or detailed adjustments, the Pacific questions having already been determined.

Ambassador Kurusu strongly stated that it would be most difficult to bring all the troops out of China at once.

Ambassador Kurusu said that we, of course, desired to bring up both sides of matters existing between our two countries and he said that we would recall. that when the Japanese went into Shantung during the World War, this Government insisted that she get out. I replied that my own country opposed a policy of this seizure of new territory by any country to the .fullest extent of its' ability to do so; that it declined to take a dollar of compensation or a foot of territory for itself; that it insisted that the world must turn over a new leaf in this respect or nations would be fighting always for territory and under modern methods of war would soon destroy and utterly impoverish each other; that in any event his country fared well in this respect.

The question of our recent proposal on commercial policy was brought up by us and Ambassador Kurusu said he had not examined it and that he had forgotten much of the technical side of commercial policy since he was in the Foreign Office. The President made very pertinent and timely reference to the destructive nature of armaments and the still more destructive effects of a permanent policy of armaments which always means war, devastation and destruction. He emphasized the point that there is from the long-term point of view no difference of interest between our two countries and no occasion, therefore, for serious differences.

All in all, there was nothing new brought out by the Japanese Ambassador and Ambassador Kurusu. Ambassador Kurusu constantly made the plea that there was no reason why there should be serious differences between the two countries and that ways must be found to solve the present situation. He referred to Prime Minister Tojo as being very desirous of bringing about a peaceful adjustment notwithstanding he is an Army man. The President expressed his interest and satisfaction to hear this. The President frequently parried the remarks of Ambassador Nomura and also of Ambassador Kurusu, especially in regard to the three main points of difference between our two countries. There was no effort to solve these questions at the conference. The meeting broke up with the understanding that I would meet the Japanese representatives tomorrow morning.

Thursday November 17, 1921. Deliveries.

Life magazine, which was a humor magazine in the 1920s, put out its issue on this day.  The magazine always came out on odd days.  A humorous Norman Rockwell painting graced the cover, although being in the situation illustrated would not, in fact, be humorous to experience.

The youthful Pilgrim depicted had bagged a turkey in the illustration, of course, and on this day one was delivered to the Harding White House household.

The National Tuberculosis Association was engaged in a fund drive.

New Zealand's first radio broadcast was made on this day.  It was a musical selection broadcast by a university professor.

Lex Anteinternet: Nowhere to run

Lex Anteinternet: Nowhere to run: 

Nowhere to run

For whatever reason, it occurred to me that one of the big differences between our country now, as opposed to a century ago, or even a half century ago, is that there is really no longer a place for most people to run.

By that, what I mean is that,  like it or not, to some degree the United States proved to be such a huge success as it was ideal for quitters.  Sounds  harsh, in no small part because of our "never say die" public attitude, but it's true.

Most people in the country today descend from people who quit whole countries. Germans, Irish, whatever, who picked up, said of their native land "I quit", and left.  Suire, a lot of that still goes on today, but an awful lot of immigration today is of the "I must leave", or "I can make a better buck", variety. That's been the case since the immigration reforms of the 70s. And that element was always a strong aspect of immigration. But there was also a lot of "I don't like England anymore. . .", or the like, in it also.

And within our own country quitting a region, picking up, and starting over was very common.  The entire State of Texas, in terms of its early history, seems to have been populated by titanic quitters.

All this sounds really harsh, but quitting is often the simple acknowledgment of a mistake.  Things are working out, people thought, so I'll hitch up the mule and move over the divide, or the next one, or whatever.

Now, you can move, but you really can't quit.  Your credentials follow you everywhere, and determine what you can do, and you can do what you've been doing.  No quitting.

Perhaps that's inevitable for a country as densely populated as ours is now.  Quitting was greatly aided by available land.  You needed no qualifications, and not all that much cash, to quit your job as a bank clerk and homestead. Sure, you might fail, but then you could always pull over the next ridge, or quit that and go on to something else.

No. longer.

Geologists, do you still use them? Brunton Compass

Lex Anteinternet: Brunton Compass: 

Brunton Compass

Brunton Pocket Transit, folded for carrying.

Artillerymen, do you still use them? The Brunton Compass

Lex Anteinternet: Brunton Compass: 

Brunton Compass

Brunton Pocket Transit, folded for carrying.

Steve Bannon arrested for contempt . . .

 of personal appearance.

Congress, finally having had enough of some taking Steve Bannon seriously while, at the same time, he looks like a guy who spends his time on a park bench drinking out of brown paper bag, had him arrested for contempt of personal appearance.

"He looks like a bum" said a Congressional spokesman, "and we just couldn't take it anymore.

Bannon checked himself in, appearing with his usual stubble, and was defiant as ever.  "I don't know what they're talking about" said Bannon, "I look like Adonis."  

Bannon was released on personal recognizance but provided with a list of barbers near the courthouse.  

Old guys with bad hair.

Like Donny Masterson's lawyer Thomas Mesereau, for example.  His hair isn't only poorly kept.  His coif is freaking absurd.

Okay, let's make something brutally plain.

You can't have long locks, as a guy, like  you did when you were 13.  It's going to look stupid.  I know that you think you look like that 1980s Italian male romance model guy, but instead you look like a guy who is denying that he's past 50.

I don't know if I should be comforted, or just sad, that . . .

 we've reached the point where things are beginning to sound like satire from the 1960s.

I haven't reviewed Dr. Strangelove, or the film Failsafe, here yet.  I'll have to get to that.  Dr. Strangelove was a satirical version of the same work, both being based on the novel Failsafe.  It's a tribute to Stanley Kubrick that the satirical version is remembered more than the straight drama.

For those who don't recall it or who haven't seen it, the plot is based on an Air Force general, Gen. Jack D. Ripper, going insane and launching the B-52s under his command on an unauthorized first strike, with nuclear weapons, on the USSR.  Once the bombers have passed their "failsafe" point, where they cannot be recalled, he makes his plot known.

The Dr. Strangelove version involves some heavy satire of 1950s and 1960s Cold War conspiracy theories. These theories really existed at the time.  One of them involved fluoridation of water, which some people really believed was a Communist plot, rather than a health move to strengthen teeth and reduce tooth decay, which was its real motives.  The film is full of really hilarious lines that related to this, including:

General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began? 

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack. 

General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works

And; 

Gen. Buck Turgidson: General Ripper called Strategic Air Command Headquarters shortly after he issued the go code. I have a phone transcript of that conversation if you'd like me to read it. 

Preisdent Merking Muffley: Read it. 

Turgidson: Ahem... The Duty Officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact that he had issued the go code, and he said, uh, "Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and nobody can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation." Uh... "My boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now." Uhuh. Uh... "So let's get going, there's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all." And he hung up.

Turgidson: Uh, we're... still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir. 

Muffley: There's nothing to figure out, General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic. 

Turgidson: We-he-ell, uh, I'd like to hold off judgment on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in. 

Muffley: General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring! 

Turgidson: Well, I, uh, don't think it's quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir. 

Muffley: General Turgidson, I find this very difficult to understand. I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. 

Turgidson: That's right sir. You are the only person authorized to do so. And although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like General Ripper exceeded his authority.

Over the weekend, I read an op-ed by a candidate challenging Cheney for her seat, which contained the quote; "Biden’s vaccine mandate violates our constitutional rights to bodily integrity and to decline medical treatment."

Bodily integrity?

Now, I know what the candidate means.  And I'll further note that the candidate represents Federal employees in regard to the vaccine mandate for Federal employees.  What she means, essentially, is that requiring a person to get a vaccine amounts to something like a 4th Amendment violation to be secure in your person.

But it doesn't sound that way.

Part of the reason I fear that people won't put it that way, as they don't want to extend the rest of the argument, which is one of radical libertarianism which most people are pretty uncomfortable with.  Indeed, I'm getting a little bit of a scent in the wind that this is really about to start drifting the other way.

Radical libertarianism holds that a person is free to do whatever they want with their bodies with no societal restraint.  I.e, you can be a drug addict, drink  yourself to death, whatever.  Generally, the only limit is "as long as you don't hurt others".

Truly radical libertarianism doesn't have the latter aspect to it.  I.e, in the anarchical form you can hurt others, they just have the right to hurt you back.

Most people aren't for that.

Of course, generally the argument isn't posed this way at all, but candidates are very careful, for the most part, not to take the other step lest they go down a road that is too Kubrikesque.

What the candidate didn't say, we'd note, is that the candidate feels the vaccines are dangerous, or alter people's DNA, or contain microchips, or anything of that sort.  We know that they aren't any more dangerous than other vaccines, and we know that they don't alter your DNA in some scary chimera, and we know that they aren't part of a Bill Gates plot.  I've heard all of those things said. The most outlandish one, I'll note, is the claim that everyone who receives the vaccine will be dead within one year, a frankly absurd assertion.

The candidate didn't say anything about the candidate being vaccinated, either.

The candidate doesn't want to be associated with anything like that, of course, while still wanting the votes of people who feel that the vaccines shouldn't be mandated for any number of reasons, ranging from strong 4th Amendment beliefs, to strong religious beliefs to having fallen down into the conspiracy theory hole.

Which is emblematic of the entire political season.

Right now a lot of Republicans are being very careful not to say that they support insurrection while also being very careful not to say that they are condemning what happened on January 6.  They don't want to alienate the populists (whom ironically in many places include a large number of former blue collar Democrats).  We saw this in the race in Virginia.  The winning candidate walked a fine line between accepting Trump's endorsement and keeping him at more than arm's length.

The ultimate problem is how far you can go down that path before you've walked right into the conspiracy swamp without realizing it.  Plenty of conservative Germans did that in the late 1920s and early 1930s, only to find that while they never held conspiratorial beliefs about Jews themselves, they had walked into a dictatorship that marched into a Second World War.  While that sounds extreme, of course, it's clear by this point that Donald Trump began to work on a coup to retain power prior to the November election and he's working on fixing the 2024 election. The Republican Party hasn't won the popular vote for the Presidency in 22 years and now quite a few in the trenches are will to listen to theories that this is due to nefarious reasons, rather than it simply being due to the fact that, like it or not, the nation has evolved to the point where most of its citizens live in large cities.

All of which is a bit off point for where I was going.

I truly wonder if the candidate isn't vaccinated.  I have no idea, but my guess is that the candidate, like most, but not all, in the candidate's profession, have been, particularly where the candidate's spouse is appreciably older than the candidate and therefore more at risk.

Which of course gets to the flipside of radical libertarianism, which is that governmental bodies can and always have required people to do stuff they don't want to for the public good. The question is where you draw that line.

Wherever its drawn, I suspect its being redrawn right now, and not where those up in arms in this are would have it.  Wherever the Ritterhouse trail comes out, it's pretty clear that the nation is seriously reconsidering the libertarian expansion of firearms laws that has occurred over the past 20 years, and they're going to start retracting.  If that's correct, and I suspect it is, there's going to be a subtle shift here too.  

Picking up long-distance trends, even if they're four years out, is not easy to do, but it looks like the direction of the wind is in fact changing.

In the meantime, while I know its purely accidental, people ought to be careful about putting something into print that shows the same litigation driven instinct that caused us, when exercised on the left, to get to the anti-democratic point we're now at, and it'd be good to have these things proof read by somebody with a deep cultural knowledge.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalled Jack D. Ripper when I read the op ed.

And really, it'd be better just to be flat out honest and plain.  Whatever the reason for opposing the mandates is, just say it.  If it's that you don't believe the disease is risky, say that.  Or if you don't care if some die due to their decisions not to get vaccinated, say that.  If death is the price you're willing to pay to draw a line on individual freedom, say that.

But whatever is said, surely this isn't what the GOP race next year is really about.  And people ought to be really honest about that as well.

And they ought to be honest about their individual beliefs.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that the two state Senators feel that Trump tried to stage a coup, that they'd support mandatory vaccinations in nearly any other context, and that they'd have voted for the infrastructure bill (which I wouldn't have) had it been offered by a Republican.

For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?

They say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.  I suspect that's not true.

I think it's paved with personal compromises. Things we say but don't mean, mean but don't way, put up with when we disagree, and conduct we engage in as the world or others feel we should.  Pretty soon, we're goo far in to muster up the energy to change our courses.

Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally, Part VI. Bringing Brunton Home.

Lander residents, former science teachers, and inventors of the Axis Transit, Lauren and David Heerschap, have purchased the company.

Burton makes, among other things, the legendary "pocket transit", which is discussed below in what was once one of the the most popular posts here:

Brunton Compass

Brunton Pocket Transit, folded for carrying.

This is a Brunton Pocket Transit.  Probably most people who know of them just think of them as the Brunton Compass.  It's an old, old design, having been first made in 1894, although the patent date on the compass references 1896.  I'd be curious to know when  they really started to be common, if we can consider a specialized instrument like this as ever having been common.

I ran across my Brunton compass recently as, for some reason, I'd taken it out of the carrier this fall in order to use it for something.  At this point, I frankly don't know what that something was, as I very rarely use it any more.  I have a nice Garmin GPS with the topographic map software loaded into it, and I use that now, even though its' a model that's now discontinued, and the last software up data makes it a little slow

Brunton Pocket Transit, opened for use in the geologists fashion.

I sure remember getting the compass, however.  It was in 1986, during my last year at the University of Wyoming, when I was a geology student. We had to buy them for our summer field course, which took us all over Albany and Carbon counties, mapping, and all the way down to New Mexico, where we did field work, as well.  At that time, having a compass of this type was an absolute necessity, and they saw 100% employment by geologists who did field work.  I'm told that at one time, graduates of the mining engineering school at the Colorado School of Mines could be identified by the short brim Stetsons they all acquired upon doing their field work (back in the sensible headgear days).  If so, graduates of any geology program anywhere could be identified by the fact that they all owned Brunton compasses.

Brunton compass opened up with mirror facing to catch the sight, in the fashion used by geologists in the field.

The reason for this wasn't fashion, it was necessity.  The compass is a precision instrument, and the official name of "transit" is accurate.  A transit is a surveying instrument, and so is a Brunton compass.  Extremely precise, the location of about anything can be accurately determined by triangulation or even just flat out using it concert with a drawing compass (the plastic device) and a topographic map.  But we made topographic and geologic maps with them, which requires not only the compass, but more work.

Compass opened showing the interior device for measuring angles, for determining elevation.  This one is not set, as the level clearly shows.

The reason that the compass can do this is that it not only features  the typical magnetic compass feature, but it also has the ability to sight elevations with the use of an internal scale.  And when set on a Jacob's staff, a pole of a known size, distance on the ground may be measured over any sort of terrain while using that feature, with the compass attached to it, while the mapper walks over the ground.  A marvelous instrument.

My first exposure to this instrument didn't come in a geology class, however.  It came at Ft. Sill Oklahoma.  The Brunton Pocket Transit, to soldiers, is known as the artillery compass, and that's where I first learned how to use it, in basic training.

Compass set to site in the Army fashion.

I was actually surprised to learn, while a geology student, that my old friend the Brunton Compass, was used as a geologists tool.  I just thought it was a marvelously precise Army compass.  Adapting to geology use was, therefore, very easy, even though the Army uses the sights differently.

Compass set to sight in the Army fashion.

Artillerymen used the compass as it is so much more precise than the conventional infantry compass, and artillery needs to be spotted accurately.  Even so, we never used it to the same degree of precision that geologists did.

Combined geology use and artillery use made me glad to have one, even when it turned out that I was never going to be a field geologist, that occupation having entered one of its cyclical slumps at that point in time at which I graduated from the University of Wyoming.  It's just been a field companion since then, which I used for many years when out in the sticks.

But not so much lately. As noted, I've gone the GPS, although I was a late adapter of that technology.  Indeed, I hadn't looked at the compass for quite some time.

In looking at it, and then determining to post, I thought that it was probably a thing of the past now, but I see that this is one of those many things to which Holscher's Second Law of History apply, they're still being made today. And they're still pretty pricey, although all in all I actually think they aren't as expensive in real terms now as they used to be.  Indeed, my recollection on this may be inaccurate, but I think the Classic model with the Aluminum body is now cheaper than the plastic cased variant shown in these photos.  It pleases me, frankly, so see that such a useful item is still in use.

I don't know if they're still in Army use or not, but I did learn the following, thanks to Gordon Rottman who sent me the text from his book on World War Two equipment:

M1 and M2 compasses with M19 carrying case This sophisticated compass was based on the William Ainsworth & Sons-made D. W. Brunton’s Pocket Transit dating back to 1894, but adopted by the Army in 1918. The M1 designation was assigned in the 1930s. The “artillery compass” combined a highly accurate surveyor’s compass with a clinometer (for measuring vertical angles and slopes), tubular horizontal level, and circular bubble plumb (vertical level). The circular level was for leveling the instrument before the azimuth values were read and the tubular level for measuring horizontal angles. There was an angle-of-site mechanism and an azimuth scale adjuster assembly making this a complex instrument requiring specialized training. It was used by artillery forward observers. It had a dustproof and moisture proof, dark OD-painted brass case (smooth or crinkled finish), squarish in shape with rounded corners, 2-3/4 x 3in and 1-1/8in thick; 5-7/8in long when  opened exclusive of the sights. A mirror was fitted inside the lid with a black sighting wire. The mirror also proved useful for shaving. There was a black folding front sight on the lid’s top edge. On the rear was a black hinged rear sight holder with a folding sight on top. The compass card was black with white markings. The M1 compass was graduated in degrees only and was phased out before the war by the M2 graduated in mils. M1s may have seen limited use. The mil scales was graduated at 20-mil intervals with 10-mil intermediate tick marks divided into 1-mil ticks. The angle of sight scale was graduated in mils in the same manner, 1200-0-1200 mils. On the compass card, north was indicated by a star and the other cardinal directions by W, S, and E. The radium-painted white end of the needle indicated north. The light brown leather M19 case had a rigid rounded pocket with a snap-secured lid and a trousers belt loop on the back. The rigid dark OD  plastic case (10543560) is post-WWII. Today it is known as the “M2 unmounted magnetic compass.” 0.5-b.

Pretty impressive.  Showing that the test of a tool is its usefulness, not its age.

The pocket transit dates back to 1894 and was at one time, as noted above, a real tool of the trade for geologist and artillerymen.  I don't know about now.  The Axis transit is a version of it.  

The company makes other outdoor gear as well.

The company has gone through a number of owners, including overseas owners, in recent years.

Prior Editions:

Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally, Part V. The Inflation Edition.

Supply Chain Disruption and Other Economic Problems

Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally, Part IV

Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally, Part III

Eating the Seed Corn

Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally, Part II

Subsidiarity Economics. The times more or less locally.

November 15, 1941. German offensive resumes.

After a hiatus, more or less, of three weeks, the Germans resumed their offensive on Moscow, but the temperatures were dropping and progress was slow.  Progress only resumed, however, as the roads were now frozen and not mud.

German forces were advancing in two pincers, with one on the Russian city of Kiln, where the Soviet defenders had no reinforcements.

Tuesday November 15, 1921. A gift of a truck.

Veteran protests in Washington, D.C. demanding the release of incarcerated wartime dissenters.

On this day in 1921 there was a donation of a World War One artifact in Cheyenne.

Today In Wyoming's History: November 15, 1921

1921  A truck used by John J. Pershing in the Great War was donated to the Wyoming State Museum.         

I wonder where it is now?  I've been through the museum, but can't recall seeing it, which doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Marines guarding the U.S. mail.  Marines guarded high priority mail in 1921 and 1922 following some robberies.

Courthouses of the West: The Lamp: Gerald Russello, R.I.P.

Courthouses of the West: The Lamp: Gerald Russello, R.I.P.: 

The Lamp: Gerald Russello, R.I.P.

There hasn't been a photo of a courthouse put up here in well over a year.  I missed my opportunity to do that, fragrantly, when I tried a case in the State of Colorado's Denver District Court a couple of months ago.  I spent the whole week in and around the courthouse and never took a photograph of it. 

In my slight defense, I couldn't remember if I'd photographed it before, from the outside.  I had not.  I should have, just as a precaution.  And because it's a beautiful courthouse, and because I was also inside it, which I hadn't been.

I was busy, and just didn't.  

It's a shame to, as the courthouse in and of itself gives us a real view of how things were in the law, and how they now are.  

As odd as that may seem, that's my introduction for a blog post I'm linking in here, which is the following.

GERALD RUSSELLO, R.I.P.

BY MORGAN A. PINO

I suggest you read the post.  It's about somebody who was obviously very decent.

Normally I wouldn't post that here.  If I were to do so, it would be on one of our companion blogs, but I'm doing this here as lawyers work in courthouses and well it just feels like it should be here.

Part of the reason the last photograph of a courthouse that was put up here is so long ago has to do with COVID 19.  The last photo was in February 2019.  Now, there weren't any from February for the rest of that year either, so its not all due to COVID 19. Truth be known, I've taken photos of nearly every courthouse in Wyoming, with two exceptions I can think of, and there are very few let in the state to photograph as a result.  I was also taking a lot of photographs of out of state courthouses, but I had a lull in travel to new places in 2019 and then 2020 effectively was the year of no travel.  Indeed, I haven't been on an airplane since some time in 2019, due to COVID 19.  It's been a huge change in my work habits.  

And not only in mine, but in everyone's.  Now some lawyers are so acclimated to Zoom depositions they'll take nothing else.  I had hoped that would go away, as I hate them.  It shows no signs of doing so, however.  We may be stuck with Zoom depos and the age of lawyer travel may be over forever. It'll probably sound odd for me to say it, as I'm not a natural traveler, but I miss that part of the practice.

Anyhow, another thing I've really been noticing since COVID 19 is the decline, and changes, at least in my view, in all sorts of things law related.  Some people are having a really hard time simply resuming work.  Finding new lawyers to come to work for a firm has become increasingly difficult and some young lawyers don't seem to want to really work at all, at not least in private practice.  

And I've become disgusted with lawyer hypocrisy.

On the day I read this, which is to say today, I already read the news about a lawsuit being filed which contains a lie.  I know one of the lawyers associated with that complaint, and back when we were in law school that lawyer would have dismissed any concept that they'd file a suit containing a lie, but now its happened.  I'm not going further into it, but this sort of thing is appalling.

Just the other day I sat through a CLE in which another lawyer I know made a statement about how lawyers are essentially the guardians of society and advance what needs to be advanced in society.  After a year in which plenty of lawyers were associated with an effort to advance a political fabrication, that's at least open to question, but at the same time, the courts deserve enormous praise, and they're part of the law, for keeping that from occurring. The legal profession can and should be really proud of that while, at the same time, we should be deeply ashamed of those members of our profession who acted in an antidemocratic manner.

Also at that CLE I heard another lawyer speak about how he became a lawyer as he loved cross-examination.  I don't know if I buy that.  How would you know if you loved cross examination if you weren't a lawyer already?  It's like claiming you love saudero tacos if you've only ever had Taco Bell.  Come on.  Anyhow, that sort of thing gets to me.

I've tried lots of cases over the years, but it bothers me when people claim they love destroying people on the stand.  I've done it, and I've seen it done.  Recalling it as a war story is one thing, but to claim you love it in the abstract is quite another.  It's a skill, like argument is for a lawyers, and like killing is for soldiers.  A person needs to be cautious about what the claim to love. The day we took Hill 502 is one thing, the other thing is something else.

All of which gets me to this.

I don't know who Gerald Russello was and I don't know Morgan Pino is.  But as expressed in this article, they're decent human beings, and maybe even better than decent human beings. They're the way that lawyers ought to be.

Friday November 14, 1941. The Ark Royal Sinks, the Marines Leave, and Suspicion.

Suspicion, the film, not the feeling, premiered on this day in 1941. 

The Ark Royal, hit yesterday by a torpedo, sank.

Remarkably, only one life was lost due to the sinking.

The movie is also mentioned on Sarah Sundin's excellent blog, along with the item that the United States ordered the withdrawal of Marines from China to the Philippines along with the river gunboats of the U.S. Navy.

Today in World War II History—November 14, 1941

The Marine Corps had a presence in China that dated back to the 19th Century, as indeed did the U.S. Army (the 6th Cavalry had once patrolled in northern China).  In context however, the Marines in China in 1941 were there, as were the Navy's gunboats, as part of a military mission in the country to protect American lives and property in the context of the Chinese Civil War. They'd been placed there with that mission in 1927.

Their withdrawal came at this point as it war with Japan was regarded as nearly inevitable and the Navy and Marine Corps mission in the country placed those assigned to it at the mercy of the Japanese, given their location.  The Marine Corps returned to China following the war's end, but were withdrawn again in 1948 as the Nationalist began to slide towards defeat.