Saturday, November 26, 2022

Sunday, November 26, 1922. Peanuts, Colorado's, and Gallipoli.

Today is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Charles Schultz, the great cartoonist.


Schultz was born in Minneapolis and grew up in St. Paul, Minnesota.  He was an only child that loved drawing from the beginning.  He was conscripted in 1943 and served as an infantryman, narrowly avoiding killing a German soldier towards the end of t he war as he fogot to load the  M2HB machine gun he was assigned to.


After the war, he first worked for the Catholic comic magazine Timeless Topix.  Peanuts had its first appearance, of sorts, in 1947.

I don't have a clue what this photograph is supposed to depict, and only know that it was taken on this day in 1922.

Opera singer Beniamino Gigli and Paul Longone, general manager of the Chicago City Opera Company.

The first popular election for the position of President of Uruguay was held.  José Serrato of the Colorado (Red) Party won.

Red would indicate, of course, it's left wing ideology, which it holds.  That's because red is the color of the left everywhere in the world, except the US.

Well, it wasn't always that way.  When John Birchers used to state "better dead than red" they didn't mean "better dead than a member of the Republican Party".  But later, some pinhead reversed the colors in the US as an example of moronic American Exceptionalism.  That individual should be sentenced to read Mao's Little Red Book every day for the rest of his life.

Anyhow. . . 

The United Kingdom turned control of the Gallipoli peninsula over to the Turks.

Dr. Jack premiered.

It was one of the most popular films of 1922.


Going Feral:  

Going Feral:   :  

Blog Mirror: Small Business Saturday: Remembering Quadragesimo Anno.

Small Business Saturday: Remembering Quadragesimo Anno.


It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. 

Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.

Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 1931

I suppose this entry here is mistitled in that not only do most people not remember Quadragesimo Anno, most have no clue what it is.

It was a Papal Encyclical issued in 1931 on economic matters and the social order.  

Because I write, of course, from the United States, the land of "rugged individualism" which has, curiously, turned the economy completely over to government sponsored and therefore, quasi state created economic entities, I can't expect that anyone will actually think of the Pope and economics, let alone as sort of a radical economic theorist.  But perhaps they should.  After all, the focus of the Faith isn't on economic profit, but on the wellbeing of body and soul.

This too, of course, will be a bit radical in the US. The US is a Protestant country still, and to an enormous degree, the "Protestant work ethic" defines how economic matters are viewed, even among Catholics and the fully secular.  That early heritage, which relied to a degree on a Calvinistic world view in which wealth was regarded as a sign of God's favor, remains even in an era in which liberalism has made major societal inroads.  And those inroads interestingly have not taken the view that the Catholic teaching of Subsidiarity would have taken us, which would seemingly be more natural for our society in which individualism is nearly worshiped, but rather into a morphed version of the American System, in which the government simply takes over certain areas of the economy, but in a hidden background fashion.

This may be why economic debates in the US are so fundamentally weird.  It's much like arriving late at an extended family dinner, in which two cousins are in a raging debate over whether the 1968 or 1969 Mets are the better team, and then turn to you to demand your opinion just as you find the little crackers with salami and cheese on them, you aren't going to come out well in this debate, no matter what.

So let's turn to the encyclical, in much reduced part:

QUADRAGESIMO ANNO

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SOCIAL ORDER TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN, THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE, AND LIKEWISE TO ALL THE FAITHFUL OF THE CATHOLIC WORLD.

Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

Forty years have passed since Leo XIII's peerless Encyclical, On the Condition of Workers, first saw the light, and the whole Catholic world, filled with grateful recollection, is undertaking to commemorate it with befitting solemnity.

2. Other Encyclicals of Our Predecessor had in a way prepared the path for that outstanding document and proof of pastoral care: namely, those on the family and the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony as the source of human society,[1] on the origin of civil authority[2] and its proper relations with the Church,[3] on the chief duties of Christian citizens,[4] against the tenets of Socialism[5] against false teachings on human liberty,[6] and others of the same nature fully expressing the mind of Leo XIII. Yet the Encyclical, On the Condition of Workers, compared with the rest had this special distinction that at a time when it was most opportune and actually necessary to do so, it laid down for all mankind the surest rules to solve aright that difficult problem of human relations called "the social question."

* * *

49. It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of ownership, that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To define these duties in detail when necessity requires and the natural law has not done so, is the function of those in charge of the State. Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners in the use of their property. Moreover, Leo XIII wisely taught "that God has left the limits of private possessions to be fixed by the industry of men and institutions of peoples."[32] That history proves ownership, like other elements of social life, to be not absolutely unchanging, We once declared as follows: "What divers forms has property had, from that primitive form among rude and savage peoples, which may be observed in some places even in our time, to the form of possession in the patriarchal age; and so further to the various forms under tyranny (We are using the word tyranny in its classical sense); and then through the feudal and monarchial forms down to the various types which are to be found in more recent times."[33] That the State is not permitted to discharge its duty arbitrarily is, however, clear. The natural right itself both of owning goods privately and of passing them on by inheritance ought always to remain intact and inviolate, since this indeed is a right that the State cannot take away: "For man is older than the State,"[34] and also "domestic living together is prior both in thought and in fact to uniting into a polity."[35] Wherefore the wise Pontiff declared that it is grossly unjust for a State to exhaust private wealth through the weight of imposts and taxes. "For since the right of possessing goods privately has been conferred not by man's law, but by nature, public authority cannot abolish it, but can only control its exercise and bring it into conformity with the common weal."[36] Yet when the State brings private ownership into harmony with the needs of the common good, it does not commit a hostile act against private owners but rather does them a friendly service; for it thereby effectively prevents the private possession of goods, which the Author of nature in His most wise providence ordained for the support of human life, from causing intolerable evils and thus rushing to its own destruction; it does not destroy private possessions, but safeguards them; and it does not weaken private property rights, but strengthens them.

50. Furthermore, a person's superfluous income, that is, income which he does not need to sustain life fittingly and with dignity, is not left wholly to his own free determination. Rather the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church constantly declare in the most explicit language that the rich are bound by a very grave precept to practice almsgiving, beneficence, and munificence.

51. Expending larger incomes so that opportunity for gainful work may be abundant, provided, however, that this work is applied to producing really useful goods, ought to be considered, as We deduce from the principles of the Angelic Doctor,[37] an outstanding exemplification of the virtue of munificence and one particularly suited to the needs of the times.

52. That ownership is originally acquired both by occupancy of a thing not owned by any one and by labor, or, as is said, by specification, the tradition of all ages as well as the teaching of Our Predecessor Leo clearly testifies. For, whatever some idly say to the contrary, no injury is done to any person when a thing is occupied that is available to all but belongs to no one; however, only that labor which a man performs in his own name and by virtue of which a new form or increase has been given to a thing grants him title to these fruits.

53. Far different is the nature of work that is hired out to others and expended on the property of others. To this indeed especially applies what Leo XIII says is "incontestible," namely, that "the wealth of nations originates from no other source than from the labor of workers."[38] For is it not plain that the enormous volume of goods that makes up human wealth is produced by and issues from the hands of the workers that either toil unaided or have their efficiency marvelously increased by being equipped with tools or machines? Every one knows, too, that no nation has ever risen out of want and poverty to a better and nobler condition save by the enormous and combined toil of all the people, both those who manage work and those who carry out directions. But it is no less evident that, had not God the Creator of all things, in keeping with His goodness, first generously bestowed natural riches and resources - the wealth and forces of nature - such supreme efforts would have been idle and vain, indeed could never even have begun. For what else is work but to use or exercise the energies of mind and body on or through these very things? And in the application of natural resources to human use the law of nature, or rather God's will promulgated by it, demands that right order be observed. This order consists in this: that each thing have its proper owner. Hence it follows that unless a man is expending labor on his own property, the labor of one person and the property of another must be associated, for neither can produce anything without the other. Leo XIII certainly had this in mind when he wrote: "Neither capital can do without labor, nor labor without capital."[39] Wherefore it is wholly false to ascribe to property alone or to labor alone whatever has been obtained through the combined effort of both, and it is wholly unjust for either, denying the efficacy of the other, to arrogate to itself whatever has been produced.

54. Property, that is, "capital," has undoubtedly long been able to appropriate too much to itself. Whatever was produced, whatever returns accrued, capital claimed for itself, hardly leaving to the worker enough to restore and renew his strength. For the doctrine was preached that all accumulation of capital falls by an absolutely insuperable economic law to the rich, and that by the same law the workers are given over and bound to perpetual want, to the scantiest of livelihoods. It is true, indeed, that things have not always and everywhere corresponded with this sort of teaching of the so-called Manchesterian Liberals; yet it cannot be denied that economic social institutions have moved steadily in that direction. That these false ideas, these erroneous suppositions, have been vigorously assailed, and not by those alone who through them were being deprived of their innate right to obtain better conditions, will surprise no one.

* * *

57. But not every distribution among human beings of property and wealth is of a character to attain either completely or to a satisfactory degree of perfection the end which God intends. Therefore, the riches that economic-social developments constantly increase ought to be so distributed among individual persons and classes that the common advantage of all, which Leo XIII had praised, will be safeguarded; in other words, that the common good of all society will be kept inviolate. By this law of social justice, one class is forbidden to exclude the other from sharing in the benefits. Hence the class of the wealthy violates this law no less, when, as if free from care on account of its wealth, it thinks it the right order of things for it to get everything and the worker nothing, than does the non-owning working class when, angered deeply at outraged justice and too ready to assert wrongly the one right it is conscious of, it demands for itself everything as if produced by its own hands, and attacks and seeks to abolish, therefore, all property and returns or incomes, of whatever kind they are or whatever the function they perform in human society, that have not been obtained by labor, and for no other reason save that they are of such a nature. And in this connection We must not pass over the unwarranted and unmerited appeal made by some to the Apostle when he said: "If any man will not work neither let him eat."[41] For the Apostle is passing judgment on those who are unwilling to work, although they can and ought to, and he admonishes us that we ought diligently to use our time and energies of body, and mind and not be a burden to others when we can provide for ourselves. But the Apostle in no wise teaches that labor is the sole title to a living or an income.[42]

58. To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is laboring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice.

59. The redemption of the non-owning workers - this is the goal that Our Predecessor declared must necessarily be sought. And the point is the more emphatically to be asserted and more insistently repeated because the commands of the Pontiff, salutary as they are, have not infrequently been consigned to oblivion either because they were deliberately suppressed by silence or thought impracticable although they both can and ought to be put into effect. And these commands have not lost their force and wisdom for our time because that "pauperism" which Leo XIII beheld in all its horror is less widespread. Certainly the condition of the workers has been improved and made more equitable especially in the more civilized and wealthy countries where the workers can no longer be considered universally overwhelmed with misery and lacking the necessities of life. But since manufacturing and industry have so rapidly pervaded and occupied countless regions, not only in the countries called new, but also in the realms of the Far East that have been civilized from antiquity, the number of the non-owning working poor has increased enormously and their groans cry to God from the earth. Added to them is the huge army of rural wage workers, pushed to the lowest level of existence and deprived of all hope of ever acquiring "some property in land,"[43] and, therefore, permanently bound to the status of non-owning worker unless suitable and effective remedies are applied.

60. Yet while it is true that the status of non owning worker is to be carefully distinguished from pauperism, nevertheless the immense multitude of the non-owning workers on the one hand and the enormous riches of certain very wealthy men on the other establish an unanswerable argument that the riches which are so abundantly produced in our age of "industrialism," as it is called, are not rightly distributed and equitably made available to the various classes of the people.

61. Therefore, with all our strength and effort we must strive that at least in the future the abundant fruits of production will accrue equitably to those who are rich and will be distributed in ample sufficiency among the workers - not that these may become remiss in work, for man is born to labor as the bird to fly - but that they may increase their property by thrift, that they may bear, by wise management of this increase in property, the burdens of family life with greater ease and security, and that, emerging from the insecure lot in life in whose uncertainties non-owning workers are cast, they may be able not only to endure the vicissitudes of earthly existence but have also assurance that when their lives are ended they will provide in some measure for those they leave after them.

62. All these things which Our Predecessor has not only suggested but clearly and openly proclaimed, We emphasize with renewed insistence in our present Encyclical; and unless utmost efforts are made without delay to put them into effect, let no one persuade himself that public order, peace, and the tranquillity of human society can be effectively defended against agitators of revolution.

* * *

64. First of all, those who declare that a contract of hiring and being hired is unjust of its own nature, and hence a partnership-contract must take its place, are certainly in error and gravely misrepresent Our Predecessor whose Encyclical not only accepts working for wages or salaries but deals at some length with it regulation in accordance with the rules of justice.

65. We consider it more advisable, however, in the present condition of human society that, so far as is possible, the work-contract be somewhat modified by a partnership-contract, as is already being done in various ways and with no small advantage to workers and owners. Workers and other employees thus become sharers in ownership or management or participate in some fashion in the profits received.

66. The just amount of pay, however, must be calculated not on a single basis but on several, as Leo XIII already wisely declared in these words: "To establish a rule of pay in accord with justice, many factors must be taken into account."[45]

67. By this statement he plainly condemned the shallowness of those who think that this most difficult matter is easily solved by the application of a single rule or measure - and one quite false.

68. For they are greatly in error who do not hesitate to spread the principle that labor is worth and must be paid as much as its products are worth, and that consequently the one who hires out his labor has the right to demand all that is produced through his labor. How far this is from the truth is evident from that We have already explained in treating of property and labor.

69. It is obvious that, as in the case of ownership, so in the case of work, especially work hired out to others, there is a social aspect also to be considered in addition to the personal or individual aspect. For man's productive effort cannot yield its fruits unless a truly social and organic body exists, unless a social and juridical order watches over the exercise of work, unless the various occupations, being interdependent, cooperate with and mutually complete one another, and, what is still more important, unless mind, material things, and work combine and form as it were a single whole. Therefore, where the social and individual nature of work is neglected, it will be impossible to evaluate work justly and pay it according to justice.

70. Conclusions of the greatest importance follow from this twofold character which nature has impressed on human work, and it is in accordance with these that wages ought to be regulated and established.

71. In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family.[46] That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father's low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman. It will not be out of place here to render merited praise to all, who with a wise and useful purpose, have tried and tested various ways of adjusting the pay for work to family burdens in such a way that, as these increase, the former may be raised and indeed, if the contingency arises, there may be enough to meet extraordinary needs.

72. In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers. If, however, a business makes too little money, because of lack of energy or lack of initiative or because of indifference to technical and economic progress, that must not be regarded a just reason for reducing the compensation of the workers. But if the business in question is not making enough money to pay the workers an equitable wage because it is being crushed by unjust burdens or forced to sell its product at less than a just price, those who are thus the cause of the injury are guilty of grave wrong, for they deprive workers of their just wage and force them under the pinch of necessity to accept a wage less than fair.

73. Let, then, both workers and employers strive with united strength and counsel to overcome the difficulties and obstacles and let a wise provision on the part of public authority aid them in so salutary a work. If, however, matters come to an extreme crisis, it must be finally considered whether the business can continue or the workers are to be cared for in some other way. In such a situation, certainly most serious, a feeling of close relationship and a Christian concord of minds ought to prevail and function effectively among employers and workers.

74. Lastly, the amount of the pay must be adjusted to the public economic good. We have shown above how much it helps the common good for workers and other employees, by setting aside some part of their income which remains after necessary expenditures, to attain gradually to the possession of a moderate amount of wealth. But another point, scarcely less important, and especially vital in our times, must not be overlooked: namely, that the opportunity to work be provided to those who are able and willing to work. This opportunity depends largely on the wage and salary rate, which can help as long as it is kept within proper limits, but which on the other hand can be an obstacle if it exceeds these limits. For everyone knows that an excessive lowering of wages, or their increase beyond due measure, causes unemployment. This evil, indeed, especially as we see it prolonged and injuring so many during the years of Our Pontificate, has plunged workers into misery and temptations, ruined the prosperity of nations, and put in jeopardy the public order, peace, and tranquillity of the whole world. Hence it is contrary to social justice when, for the sake of personal gain and without regard for the common good, wages and salaries are excessively lowered or raised; and this same social justice demands that wages and salaries be so managed, through agreement of plans and wills, in so far as can be done, as to offer to the greatest possible number the opportunity of getting work and obtaining suitable means of livelihood.

75. A right proportion among wages and salaries also contributes directly to the same result; and with this is closely connected a right proportion in the prices at which the goods are sold that are produced by the various occupations, such as agriculture, manufacturing, and others. If all these relations are properly maintained, the various occupations will combine and coalesce into, as it were, a single body and like members of the body mutually aid and complete one another. For then only will the social economy be rightly established and attain its purposes when all and each are supplied with all the goods that the wealth and resources of nature, technical achievement, and the social organization of economic life can furnish. And these goods ought indeed to be enough both to meet the demands of necessity and decent comfort and to advance people to that happier and fuller condition of life which, when it is wisely cared for, is not only no hindrance to virtue but helps it greatly.[47]

76. What We have thus far stated regarding an equitable distribution of property and regarding just wages concerns individual persons and only indirectly touches social order, to the restoration of which according to the principles of sound philosophy and to its perfection according to the sublime precepts of the law of the Gospel, Our Predecessor, Leo XIII, devoted all his thought and care.

* * *

79. As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.

80. The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary function," the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.

* * *

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter's, the fifteenth day of May, in the year 1931, the tenth year of Our Pontificate.

PIUS XI

And hence the irony. Pope Pius XI was pointing towards a more democratic, more distributist and more free market economy than any economist or politician in the American mainstream today.  Robert Reich may rail against corporate profits, but he's not going to go there.  Harriet Hageman may note that "she grew up on a ranch", but she's not going to work towards an economy that would remove corporate interests from the agricultural picture.  President Biden isn't going there either, and neither will candidate Trump.

So today we have Small Business Saturday.

At least there's this day in the year.  But it's worth pondering that, in spite of what Americans like to claim, we do not have a truly free market economy, but a capitalistic corpratized one.  This is so much the case, that most Americans aren't capable of realizing that this is a government created and supported structure, or the reasons therefore.  Indeed, ironically the same people who run around erroneously claiming that "we're a republic, not a democracy", apparently not knowing that we're a democratic republic, will note the glories of the free market system in contrast with what they deem "socialism", apparently not realizing at all that our economy is a capitalistic economic system with heavy doses of the old American System.

Small business provide a huge amount of the national employment. They suffer the most in the economy even when it's good, and suffer more yet when the economy is bad.

Give them a chance.  If you are shopping today, visit a small business.

Related Threads:

Distributist of the world unite! National Small Business Saturday.


Blog Mirror: Joe, please don't run again

Joe, please don't run again

Friday, November 25, 2022

Friday Farming: New UW Extension Publications Estimate Economic Impact of Removing Federal Grazing

In a word, it would be far-reaching:

New UW Extension Publications Estimate Economic Impact of Removing Federal Grazing

None of which kept a Cheyenne newspaper I'd never heard of from claiming basically that ranching is irrelevant in regard to the state's agriculture, the sort of headline that causes even people not otherwise inclined to distrust the press and suspect it has an agenda to do just that.

The Tribune, I'd note, did much better with its headline.

The Studies, as posted on the UW Ag Extension site, can be found here:

Economic Impacts of Removing Federal Grazing Used by Cattle Ranches in a Three-State Area (Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming) cover

Economic Impacts of Removing Federal Grazing Used by Cattle Ranches in a Three-State Area (Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming)

Publication #: B-1385.4
Publication Type: Bulletin
Date Published: 08/18/2022
Publication Author(s): David T. Taylor, John Tanaka, Kristie Maczko

Economic Impacts of Removing Federal Grazing Used by Cattle Ranches in Oregon cover

Economic Impacts of Removing Federal Grazing Used by Cattle Ranches in Oregon

Publication #: B-1385.3
Publication Type: Bulletin
Date Published: 08/18/2022
Publication Author(s): David T. Taylor, John Tanaka, Kristie Maczko

Economic Impacts of Removing Federal Grazing Used by Cattle Ranches in Idaho cover

Economic Impacts of Removing Federal Grazing Used by Cattle Ranches in Idaho

Publication #: B-1385.2
Publication Type: Bulletin
Date Published: 08/18/2022
Publication Author(s): David T. Taylor, John Tanaka, Kristie Maczko

Economic Impacts of Removing Federal Grazing Used by Cattle Ranches in Wyoming cover

Economic Impacts of Removing Federal Grazing Used by Cattle Ranches in Wyoming

Publication #: B-1385.1
Publication Type: Bulletin
Date Published: 08/18/2022
Publication Author(s): David T. Taylor, John Tanaka, Kristie Maczko


Note, that's a direct copy from the UW Ag extension website.

I'd note that part of the ongoing angst of our age is the real boneheaded effort to remove agriculture from the public lands.  It would end up developing those lands, as if areas like Ft. Collins or Denver are somehow a better thing for nature.  The people who advocate such things haven't really thought them through

Wednesday, November 25, 1942. Operation Mars commences

Having just concluded Operation Uranus around Stalingrad, the Red Army launched Operation Mars near the Rzhev salient outside of Moscow.


Operation Mars remains a controversial offensive, as the Soviets later claimed it was a diversion designed to tie down German forces in the north so that they could not be redeployed to the south.  This view has been taken by famed student of the Red Army, Anthony Beever.  Noted historian David Glanz, however, disagrees, and I frankly feel that Glanz has the better side of the argument.

It should be noted that the offensive was supposedly the subject of a radio false information campaign by the Soviets, something they were very good at, designed to draw attention to it prior to its commencement.  The overall problem is that, as a diversion, if it was one, it was a big one which wasn't skillfully executed, which would be odd as its success, diversion or not, should have been something sought by the Soviets.

The Soviet offensive would ultimately fail, which may provide the reason for its having been claimed as a diversion.  If it was a diversion, it was a massive one, involving over 700,000 troops.  Notably, in Mars the Red Army was encountering German troops, who fought stubbornly from its onset, rather than the forces of Germany's Eastern Front allies.  Additionally, the offensive started after Uranus had concluded, whereas if it were a diversion it would seem more likely that it would have commenced simultaneously.

As with Stalingrad, the German forces were subject to a Hitler no retreat order.  Hitler had issued a similar order the prior winter, which had proven instrumental in stabilizing the front.  The strategic situation had changed since then, however, and while it worked in this instance, it was costly.  The Germans took 40,000 casualties, small compared to the outsized 335,000 casualties the Red Army took, but the losses would not be made up by the German 9th Army by the following spring and therefore made it less effective in resumed offensive operations that year.

The Washington Post ran an article with the headline:

Two Million Jews Slain

This was the written report on the live announcement by Rabbi Stephen Wise announcement of the prior day.  It did not make the front page.

The Luftwaffe began to fly supply missions into Stalingrad.

At Meijez el Bab British forces made a disastrous attack on the town, which was defended by German paratroopers of the Luftwaffe's 5th Fallschirmjager Regiment.   The unit had been in North Africa since the summer, at which point it became part of the Afrika Korps.  It's deployment to Tunisia had been by plane, but they had not made a combat drop.

Medjez al Bab is an ancient city and was the site of a prior battle, the Battle of Bagradas River in 536 at which Eastern Roman Empire forces under Belisarius fought rebel forces under Stotzas.

British SOE operatives and Greek resistance fighters raided the Gorgopotamos viaduct in Operation Harling.

Friday, November 25, 1922. Trotting Turkey


Country Gentleman came out with a Thanksgiving themed cover by illustrator Frederick Lowenheim.

In France, for St. Catherine's saint's day, the Catherinettes were out on the streets:




From John Blackwell's Twitter feed on the topic.

We noted this custom in 2020:

The day is also St. Catherine's Day,, the feast day for that saint, which at the time was still celebrated in France as a day for unmarried women who had obtained twenty-five years of age.  Such women were known as Catherinettes. Women in general were committed since the Middle Ages to the protection of St. Catherine and on this day large crowds of unmarried 25 year old women wearing hats to mark their 25th year would gather for a celebration of sorts, where well wishers would wish them a speedy end to their single status. The custom remained strong at least until the 1930s but has since died out.

We should also note that the plight of unmarried French women, and British ones as well (and probably German ones) had grown worse since 1914.  Due to the combat losses of young men in the Great War, their marriage prospects in an era when being an unmarried woman was somewhat grim, had greatly declined.  The youngest of these women had been 21 when the war ended, meaning that they were of marriageable age when most young men were fighting in the war.  As the war killed men in that demographic, it meant that some would never marry.  The war also meant that the surviving men had disproportionate options.

I'm sure there's a study of this somewhere, but it can't help be noted that it must have had long-lasting social impacts, and it probably also explains the significant number of "war brides" brought home from France by US servicemen after the war and occupation, as well as the same population brining home some German brides, and Russian brides.

The Italian Chamber of Deputies granted Mussolini full power over economic matters for a year.

On the Rebel Streets of Cork. . . 

When Dyslexia Strikes.

You never know when that's going to occur.

I saw this in an online newspaper:

Libertarian group sues to block student debt cancellation

I thought it said, "Librarian group sues. . . ", which left me wondering why this was an issue near and dear to the hearts of librarians. 

Apparently, it isn't.

While I think it's a bad idea, I’m also not too sure why it's important to libertarians.  If I read the article, I'd know, but I’m not going to bother.

Coal in Alberta - It Ain't Over Until It's Over!


This is a video by Canadian singer/rancher Corb Lund.

I'm posting it here for an odd reason. This reminds me so much of the view that Wyomingites and Montanans held back in the 70s its not funny.  You'd never guess that now.

Thursday, November 24, 2022

A Thanksgiving Still Life


 

A Thankgiving Day pondering.

(Note, this is one of many post that was lingering in the draft section for years, and was only now posted).

Something has happened . . . some ground moving departure from reality in the West.  But was it a slow evolution, or a rapid one.  Has it always been occurring, and does that mean perhaps we're just on the crest of a big wave, and some future generations will look back and see this era as simply insane?




When you are in the midst of something, it's not really obvious that it's occurring until it's far advanced, whether that change is for good or ill.  I'm sure, for example, Neanderthals didn't appreciate that the arrival of Cro Magnons in the neighborhood signaled the end of their human line, as for the very first of them, it didn't. The first Shoshone to meet a European American probably didn't think; "well. .  better ask for a reservation bordering the Wind Rivers right now". . . that's not how human experience work.

But at some point, at least for the observant, that day does arrive when you can look out and say "this is really amiss", but that doesn't mean that you grasp how it went amiss.

Well, things are amiss.

That's been obvious to me for a long time, but not to the degree to which it currently is, and not with what seems to be the clarity which I think I have on it now.  But, suffice it to say, at some point we boarded the train to unnatural existence, and it's plaguing us now.  Getting back will not be easy, and while I think nature and providence always self correct, I won't live long enough to see that correction.

It's important to note, when you state such things, that a perfect past never existed.  Other people, who sense something is wrong and turn their gaze back, far too often imagine a perfect past in some distant era.  That was never the case.  There was never a Camelot.


And even if there might have been a real Arthur of some sort, and even if he was a chieftain of some type, it was still the case that for most people the world hasn't been prefect.

Being a Medieval lord, in other words, may have been grand, but eking out your existence on a handful of oats and barley every day as a bound serf. . . not so much.

And so with every era.  Being a Roman magistrate would have been nifty, probably. A Roman slave? Not.  Being an American in 1830 would seem cool to me. . . as long as I wasn't black or an Indian on the border of lands about to be consumed by the American nation.

You get my point.

But one thing that has occurred since those times, or at least since the late period of the Roman Empire, is that we, and by that I mean Western Society, and which by that I mean the force that seems to drag the entire world along with it, has slipped into some sort of perverse anti-natural state.

How did that happen?

And when did it start to occur?


The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away.


We noted earlier this week the passing of Tom McIntyre.

One thing that I've noted in particular is this. This is how this is captioned on Stephen Bodio's blog, a link to which appears to the side here:

Thomas McIntyre, 1952–2022

1952 to 2022.  Seventy years.

1952 strikes me in particular.  I wasn't alive in 1952.  Indeed, my parents hadn't yet met in 52.  My mother was living in Canada and my father was going to school in Lincoln, Nebraska.  They'd meet and marry about six years later, by which time my mother had left Alberta to attend to her sister's wedding in Colorado, and had taken a job here on her way back north.  My father had served in the Air Force and was back out and starting a career here in town.

I'd come along in 1963.  So there's an eleven-year difference in that.

But there's a nine-year difference, almost ten, between my wife and I. About the same span of years here.
The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away.

Psalms, 90:10. 

I'm 59.  

Mr. McIntyre made it exactly to the Biblically referenced number of years. That number doesn't amount to, I'd note, a indication that the inspired writer was promising that God was going to terminate your life at that point.  No, rather, it indicates that even at that time it people lived just about as long as they do now.  Indeed, what's noted is that life tended to be hard and people tended to die around age 70, maybe 80 if they were of strong constitution.  Elsewhere, an upper maximum life span of 120 years is mentioned, which in fact does correlate to the rare examples of extreme old age.

Somebody I know well, and have for over 30 years, is very ill.  It came out of the blue from nowhere. They're only slightly older than me.

Yesterday, a lawyer I've practiced with for nearly 30 years called and spoke to me.  He's had a heart attack and is retiring.  After that, a lawyer I know elsewhere in another city was learned to be retiring.

A month ago or so a practicing lawyer I know, probably in his late 60s, died suddenly.

The point?

Well only this.  Financial planners may tell you to keep working forever, but you aren't going to live that long.

I've long said that after men reach age 30, they're living on borrowed time.  Up at my age, that becomes increasingly obvious for anyone who has eyes to see.

Tuesday, November 24, 1942. The end of Case Blue.

Case Blue, the 1942 German summer offensive on the Eastern Front, came to an end having not achieved its goals, which had been to capture the oil fields of Baku, Grozny and Maikop.

The thought was that without oil, the Soviets couldn't fight, and the Germans would be able to.  Indeed, taking Soviet oil production had been part of the original goal of Operation Barbarossa, with the thought being that the Germans needed it to wage war against the United Kingdom.

By User:Gdr - Own work information from Overy, Richard (2019) World War II Map by Map, DK, pp. 148−150 ISBN: 9780241358719., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=443854

It's strategic aims, often criticized, were sound and grasped the importance of petroleum on the ability to wage modern war.  Hitler had a major role in forming the campaign's development and direction and frankly, while the campaign is often criticized for redirecting German assets to southern Russia rather than the north, with the focus being Moscow, the plan demonstrated a good gasp on resources and modern warfare, and the protracted nature of the latter.  Had the campaign succeeded in its goals, which were problematic in more ways than one, it would have at least deprived the Soviet Union of significant war fighting assets.  It probably would not have succeeded in providing those to the Germans, however, as the Soviets would have destroyed oil production facilities prior to the Germans taking them.  Whether the Germans had the capacity to restore production is doubtful.

The plan was, moreover, overambitious and its initial success caused the Germans to take actions which reduced its potential effectiveness.  

In spite of its ultimate failure, the offensive was remarkably successful at first, which encouraged the Germans to overextend themselves.  By November the offensive had lost steam, without succeeding in its goals, and Operation Uranus soon demonstrated that the Germans were now grossly overextended. The Soviets, additionally, managed to increase the size of their army throughout the campaign and by its end had over 1,000,000 more men in the field than the Germans did. The Germans, for their part, lost 200,000 men during the campaign and the Romanian army was effectively ground down to semi ineffective.  By the campaign's end, moreover, the Germans were relying on Romanian, Hungarian and Italian troops to a dangerous extent.

The end of the campaign came with the Soviets launching a series of winter offensives.

Case Blue brought the Germans to their high water mark of World War Two.  Its failure was followed by losing ground in the East in the winter of 1942, which they were also doing in North Africa at the same time.  Indeed, due to its failure it should have been obvious to the Germans that wining the war was not impossible.

Rabbi Wise.

Rabbi Stephen Wise, president of the World Jewish Congress, held a press conference in which he revealed information leaked from Europe of German atrocities against the Jews.

Rabbi Wise had the information for three months, but has been asked not to reveal it by the U.S. Government as it could not be confirmed, which of course it could not.  At this point, however, he correctly felt that releasing the information was necessary.

Wise had been born in Hungary, but came to the US as an infant with his parents. His father and grandfather were also rabbis.

Peadar Kearney, writer of the Irish National Anthem A Soldiers Song, "Amhrán na bhFiann" died at age 58.

Friday, November 24, 1922. The Colorado River Compact signed.

Today In Wyoming's History: November 241922     The Colorado River Compact was entered into on this day in 1922.   The text of the agreement provided:

Colorado River Compact, 1922

The States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, having resolved to enter into a compact under the Act of the Congress of the United States of America approved August 19, 1921 (42 Statutes at Large, page 171), and the Acts of the Legislatures of the said States, have through their Governors appointed as their Commissioners:

W.S. Norviel for the State of Arizona,

W.F. McClure for the State of California,

Delph E. Carpenter for the State of Colorado,

J.G. Scrugham for the State of Nevada,

Stephen B. Davis, Jr., for the State of New Mexico,

R.E. Caldwell for the State of Utah,

Frank C. Emerson for the State of Wyoming,

who, after negotiations participated in by Herbert Hoover appointed by The President as the representative of the United States of America, have agreed upon the following articles:

ARTICLE I

The major purposes of this compact are to provide for the equitable division and apportionment of the use of the waters of the Colorado River System; to establish the relative importance of different beneficial uses of water, to promote interstate comity; to remove causes of present and future controversies; and to secure the expeditious agricultural and industrial development of the Colorado River Basin, the storage of its waters, and the protection of life and property from floods. To these ends the Colorado River Basin is divided into two Basins, and an apportionment of the use of part of the water of the Colorado River System is made to each of them with the provision that further equitable apportionments may be made.

ARTICLE II

As used in this compact-

(a) The term “Colorado River System” means that portion of the Colorado River and its tributaries within the United States of America.

(b) the term “Colorado River Basin” means all of the drainage area of the Colorado River System and all other territory within the United States of America to which the waters of the Colorado River System shall be beneficially applied.

(c) The term “States of the Upper Division” means the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.

(d) The term “States of the Lower Division” means the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada.

(e) The term “Lee Ferry” means a point in the main stream of the Colorado River one mile below the mouth of the Paria River.

(f) The term “Upper Basin” means those parts of the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River System above Lee Ferry, and also all parts of said States located without the drainage area of the Colorado River System which are now or shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters diverted from the System above Lee Ferry.

(g) The term “Lower Basin” means those parts of the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah within and from which waters naturally drain into the Colorado River System below Lee Ferry, and also all parts of said States located without the drainage area of the Colorado River System which are now or shall hereafter be beneficially served by waters diverted from the System below Lee Ferry.

(h) The term “domestic use” shall include the use of water for household, stock, municipal, mining, milling, industrial, and other like purposes, but shall exclude the generation of electrical power.

ARTICLE III

(a) There is hereby apportioned from the Colorado River System in perpetuity to the Upper Basin and to the Lower Basin, respectively, the exclusive beneficial consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet of water per annum, which shall include all water necessary for the supply of any rights which may now exist. 

(b) In addition to the apportionment in paragraph (a), the Lower Basin is hereby given the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use of such waters by one million acre-feet per annum. 

(c) If, as a matter of international comity, the United States of America shall hereafter recognize in the United States of Mexico any right to the use of any waters of the Colorado River System, such waters shall be supplied first from the waters which are surplus over and above the aggregate of the quantities specified in paragraphs (a) and (b); and if such surplus shall prove insufficient for this purpose, then, the burden of such deficiency shall be equally borne by the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin, and whenever necessary the States of the Upper Division shall deliver at Lee Ferry water to supply one-half of the deficiency so recognized in addition to that provided in paragraph (d). 

(d) The States of the Upper Division will not cause the flow of the river at Lee Ferry to be depleted below an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre-feet for any period of ten consecutive years reckoned in continuing progressive series beginning with the first day of October next succeeding the ratification of this compact. 

(e) The States of the Upper Division shall not withhold water, and the States of the Lower Division shall not require the delivery of water, which cannot reasonably be applied to domestic and agricultural uses. 

(f) Further equitable apportionment of the beneficial uses of the waters of the Colorado River System unapportioned by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) may be made in the manner provided in paragraph (g) at any time after October first, 1963, if and when either Basin shall have reached its total beneficial consumptive use as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). 

(g) In the event of a desire for a further apportionment as provided in paragraph (f) any two signatory States, acting through their Governors, may give joint notice of such desire to the Governors of the other signatory States and to The President of the United States of America, and it shall be the duty of the Governors of the signatory States and of The President of the United States of America forthwith to appoint representatives, whose duty it shall be to divide and apportion equitably between the Upper Basin and Lower Basin the beneficial use of the unapportioned water of the Colorado River System as mentioned in paragraph (f), subject to the legislative ratification of the signatory States and the Congress of the United States of America. 

ARTICLE IV 

(a) Inasmuch as the Colorado River has ceased to be navigable for commerce and the reservation of its waters for navigation would seriously limit the development of its Basin, the use of its waters for purposes of navigation shall be subservient to the uses of such waters for domestic, agricultural, and power purposes. If the Congress shall not consent to this paragraph, the other provisions of this compact shall nevertheless remain binding. 

(b) Subject to the provisions of this compact, water of the Colorado River System may be impounded and used for the generation of electrical power, but such impounding and use shall be subservient to the use and consumption of such water for agricultural and domestic purposes and shall not interfere with or prevent use for such dominant purposes. 

(c) The provisions of this article shall not apply to or interfere with the regulation and control by any State within its boundaries of the appropriation, use, and distribution of water. 

ARTICLE V 

The chief official of each signatory State charged with the administration of water rights, together with the Director of the United States Reclamation Service and the Director of the United States Geological Survey shall cooperate, ex-officio: 

(a) To promote the systematic determination and coordination of the facts as to flow, appropriation, consumption, and use of water in the Colorado River Basin, and the interchange of available information in such matters.

(b) To secure the ascertainment and publication of the annual flow of the Colorado River at Lee Ferry. 

(c) To perform such other duties as may be assigned by mutual consent of the signatories from time to time.

ARTICLE VI

Should any claim or controversy arise between any two or more of the signatory States: 

(a) with respect to the waters of the Colorado River System not covered by the terms of this compact; 

(b) over the meaning or performance of any of the terms of this compact; 

(c) as to the allocation of the burdens incident to the performance of any article of this compact or the delivery of waters as herein provided; 

(d) as to the construction or operation of works within the Colorado River Basin to be situated in two or more States, or to be constructed in one State for the benefit of another State; or 

(e) as to the diversion of water in one State for the benefit of another State; the Governors of the States affected, upon the request of one of them, shall forthwith appoint Commissioners with power to consider and adjust such claim or controversy, subject to ratification by the Legislatures of the States so affected. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the adjustment of any such claim or controversy by any present method or by direct future legislative action of the interested States. 

ARTICLE VII 

Nothing in this compact shall be construed as affecting the obligations of the United States of America to Indian tribes. 

ARTICLE VIII 

Present perfected rights to the beneficial use of waters of the Colorado River System are unimpaired by this compact. Whenever storage capacity of 5,000,000 acre-feet shall have been provided on the main Colorado River within or for the benefit of the Lower Basin, then claims of such rights, if any, by appropriators or users of water in the Lower Basin against appropriators or users of water in the Upper Basin shall attach to and be satisfied from water that may be stored not in conflict with Article III. All other rights to beneficial use of waters of the Colorado River System shall be satisfied solely from the water apportioned to that Basin in which they are situate. 

ARTICLE IX 

Nothing in this compact shall be construed to limit or prevent any State from instituting or maintaining any action or proceeding, legal or equitable, for the protection of any right under this compact or the enforcement of any of its provisions. 

ARTICLE X 

This compact may be terminated at any time by the unanimous agreement of the signatory States. In the event of such termination all rights established under it shall continue unimpaired. 

ARTICLE XI 

This compact shall become binding and obligatory when it shall have been approved by the Legislatures of each of the signatory States and by the Congress of the United States. Notice of approval by the Legislatures shall be given by the Governor of each signatory State to the Governors of the other signatory States and to the President of the United States, and the President of the United States is requested to give notice to the Governors of the signatory States of approval by the Congress of the United States. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Commissioners have signed this compact in a single original, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Department of State of the United States of America and of which a duly certified copy shall be forwarded to the Governor of each of the signatory States.

DONE at the City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, this twenty-fourth day of November, A.D. One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-two. W. S. NORVIEL W. F. McCLURE DELPH E. CARPENTER J. G. SCRUGHAM STEPHEN G. DAVIS, JR. R. E. CALDWELL FRANK C. EMERSON 

Approved: HERBERT HOOVER

The compact has not aged well.

The governed universe.

Every movement in the skies or upon the earth proclaims to us that the universe is under government.

John William Draper.

There is such a thing as a free lunch. Was, Lex Anteinternet: Quiet Quitting? Is it real, and if so, why?

We ran this yesterday:
Lex Anteinternet: Quiet Quitting? Is it real, and if so, why?: Poster that shows up in wide circulation, and posted here via the Fair Use exception.  I don't know who the author is, but this was used...

When I was young, there was no such thing as "free and reduced lunches" served at schools.  There was no lunch served by anyone at grade school whatsoever.  You either walked home for lunch, or your parents packed a lunch for you.

If your parents didn't pack a lunch, word would have gotten out, and they would have gotten a visit from the authorities.

By the time I was first practicing law, the concept had arrived that some kids were sent to school hungry, and the school district started serving free breakfasts and also free, or reduced price, lunches.

This in the early 1990s.

In the 1970s, those parents, which would have included very few "single" parents, would have been visited, as noted, by officialdom and if they couldn't feed their own kids that they had caused to come about in the world, the kids would be taken from them.

The point?

This.

In the 2000s, there was concern over the expense of the school food program. When it came up in the district, there was outrage. By that time, which hadn't taken long, the School District feeding children was regarded as a right that parents could expect, and a duty that the district had to provide.

Parents of my parents' generation, when we were young, would have been horrified over such a thought.

And yes, this has a connection.

Out of kindness, Americans have caused their government to provide all sorts of benefits to people conceived of, or indeed who are actually, disadvantaged.  But those things go from help, to a right, and a way of adults maintaining a lifestyle of a sort on the government dole. It's well established that people are at first embarrassed to accept the dole and then acclimate their lives to it, in an effort to avoid taking on that duty themselves once again, thereby making the situation permanent.

Free and reduced lunches become a government duty allowing parents to avoid it.  Aid to single mothers morphs into marrying the government on the part of some women and abandoning children by fathers.  

And sending money to people in times of crisis seems like a great idea.

But the consequences of the government becoming a charity, and then a sort of parent, are rarely thought out.

Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist XL. Panem et circenses.

Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist XL. Panem et circenses.

Bias?

Colorado Springs shooting suspect Anderson Aldrich is a registered member of the Mormon church, spokesman confirms

So what?

I note this as this does seem to be the sort of headline that imports next to no useful information but which reporters, because of a bias, believe it does. It's impossible not to read this and think that the suggestion is that Anderson Aldrich shot up a gay club because he's a Mormon.

I'm rather obviously not a Mormon, but I'm confident that the LDS church does not advocate this sort of thing in any sense.

This is, I'd note, just a stone's throw from suggesting that all members of any conservative religion that generally holds conservative social views is a menace to society, a suggestion I've seen in news articles more than once.


The father turns out to be a pornography performer, and a mixed martial arts competitor, with a criminal history.

Somehow, this is now less surprising.  As is the fact that Aldrich identifies as "non binary", a sociological category existing only in the minds of western sociologists.