Thursday, January 11, 2024

Friday, January 11, 1974. Births.

Long Suffering Wife was born.

The first surviving sextuplets in human history, David, Elizabeth, Emma, Grant, Jason and Nicolette Rosenkowitz, were also born in South Africa to Susan and Colin Rosenkowitz. The couple already had two children.

There have been, of course, massive changes in South Africa since 1974 and the history of these siblings demonstrates that, as they later moved, respectively to locations around the English-speaking world, with three remaining in Cape Town.

Their father, Colin, was raised in an orphanage, although he was not an orphan.  He'd been placed there, as would occur in those days, due to the financial distress of his parents. In 1989 Colin and Susan divorced with Colin obtaining custody of all of their children.  Susan, who was from the UK, seems to have returned to the UK.  The children were teens at the time, but the large family obviously put Colin in financial distress, and he worked until he was 83 years old.  He died in 2021.

Tunisia's President Habib Bourguiba and Libya's President Muammar Gaddafi signed the Djerba Declaration, committing Tunisia and Libya to a merge as the Arab Islamic Republic, one of many various effort of Arabic nations to merge, all of which have failed.

Tad Szulc broke the news that the CIA had attempted to finance the assassination of Fidel Castro in 1964 and 1965, to be followed by an invasion of Cuba.

Bootmaker Tony Lama passed away at age 86.

Levantines

I've used the term "Coastal Arabs" here recently to describe the culture that stretches from teh Sinai to Turkey and which includes a lot of Syria.

Distribution of Levantine Arab dialect. By A455bcd9 - Own work based on: Levantine Arabic 2022.svgReferences:Brustad, Kristen; Zuniga, Emilie (2019) "Chapter 16: Levantine Arabic" in Huehnergard, John , ed. The Semitic Languages (2nd ed.), Routledge, pp. 403–432 DOI: 10.4324/9780429025563. ISBN: 978-0-415-73195-9. OCLC: 1103311755.Eberhard, David M.; Simons, Gary F.; Fennig, Charles D. (2022). Jordan and Syria. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. SIL International., CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=128220068

It turns out, the word that I should have used is Levantines.

The region has its own dialect of Arabic, its own (really good) cuisine, and those who genetic history from the region can be identified by their DNA.  

Yes, they are Arabs, but they are not Bedouin. 

The 2024 Election in Wyoming. Will anyone rise to the challenge, and is there even a point?

Lex Anteinternet: The 2024 Election, Part XI. The Winter of Disconte...January 4, 2023


Harriet Hageman announced her bid to be reelected with the release of a video:

Harriet Hageman is running for reelection.  This is not a surprise.

John Barrasso is as well. This is also not a surprise.

The difference between the two races, so far, is that Barrasso has drawn a challenger. . . from his own party, in the primary.

Hageman is unlikely to.

Neither candidate, so far, faces a Democrat.


Roncalio, a lawyer from Rock Springs, and a veteran of D-Day, was a Democrat.  

Nearly everyone in Rock Springs was.

At that time, one of our two Senators, Gale McGee, a former University of Wyoming professor, was also a Democrat.

Now, to use the term "Democrat", even in street speech, is slanderous in the state.  It's like calling somebody a wife beater or something.  Republicans vying to be as extreme as possible accuse their fellow Republicans of being Democrats (even though many of those who do that routinely are imports from the South or elsewhere and are really, even if they don't know it, Dixiecrats or Rust Belt Democrats).

Gale McGee was our Senator until 1977, when he was replaced by Malcolm Wallop, a very conservative Wyomingite of English peerage, in a race in which it appeared that McGee didn't really have any interest in running.  McGee was our last Democratic Senator, and he simply gave the race to Wallop.  

Roncalio served in the House in 1978.  He didn't run for reelection.  He was replaced by Dick Cheney in a race that pitted Cheney, fresh out of the Ford Administration, against Cheyenne attorney Bill Bagley.  Cheney won with about 60% of the vote against a lawyer who is now forgotten, but who held on in practice too long.  Interestingly, showing part of how we got to where we are now, one of his county chairs was a then Democrat who would later be in the legislature as a very conservative Republican.  

That's telling, as a whole herd of Democrats who were later conservative Republicans share that history in the state.

No Democrat has gone to Washington from Wyoming since 1978, but the party remained significant and a power well after that.  It twice took the Governor's office and twice reelected Democratic Governors, with the last Democrat leaving Cheyenne in that role as recently as 2011. Either one of the Democratic Governor's could have had a House, and maybe a Senate, seat if they had wanted one.  The Democrats routinely took the Secretary of State's office for much of the 20th Century, with the last Democratic Secretary of State, Kathy Karpan, leaving office in 1995.  Karpan went on to become the director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in 1997, being the first woman to hold that position, and being unanimously confirmed back when Congress still did its job.  Like Governors Sullivan and Freudenthal, Karpan could have stepped into the House or perhaps the Senate if she had wanted to.  

Freudenthal remains a significant figure in Wyoming politics.

The last really significant Wyomingite to make a serious run for office with a serious chance of success was Mary Thorne, a lawyer who ran against Governor Gordon in 2018.  There have been other real Democrats who have run for office, with Sergio Maldonado for State Superintendent of Education coming to mind, but since the mid 1990s It's become increasingly difficult and many of the Sullivan/Freudenthal Democrats have dropped out of the party, in part because of the Democratic leftward (and anti-democratic) drift, and in part because at some point being a Democrat was pointless and the Republican primary race became the real election.

2022 really demonstrated the direction that the cancer of Donald Trump had brought about.  

In 2022 the Republican Primary became a referendum on Donald Trump, with the Wyoming electorate, influenced by the import of Rust Belt and Dixie immigrants into the state, basically giving the insurrectionist a big wet kiss on the mouth by tossing out Liz Cheney.  The whole thing was more than a little ironic, as Cheney, who had risen to her office late in her occupation of it, really was never a Wyomingite in the first place, but the party dearly loved her, in no small part because it had embraced Dick Cheney, after having elected him cynically originally.  The Cheney's aren't Wyomingites and Dick Cheney had only won as the voters in 1978 were given a choice between somebody who seemed to have influence in Washington, Cheney had been Ford's Chief of Staff, and a Cheyenne lawyer who had, if I recall correctly, held off a challenge from a younger Casper lawyer who later became a Federal judge.  Wyomingites of that era were pretty practical and cynical, and they never developed a love for their politicians like occured later. Cheney seemed to do a good job, so he held office.  Liz Cheney won as the primary split the vote three ways.  Chance are high had that not occured, Tim Stubson would have been our Congressman, and have gone on to suffer the same fate as Cheney by not searing allegiance to the Dear Leader for life.

Hageman was a Cheney acolyte but was good at reading the wind and beat out her former friend.  Her competition was Lynette Grey Bull, a really interesting Democrat who had run twice and who drew 24.4% of the vote in spite of the times, in spite of being a Democrat, and in spite of being a Native American.

Who will run now.

Since 2020 the State's GOP has gone into a civil war, with the old party at war with the "Freedom Caucus", one of whose (California migrant) members wrote an op ed in the Tribune which clearly indicates their intent to wage a second Stalingrad in the 2022 Legislature.  Two county organizations, Natrona and Laramie Counties, are in revolt against the GOP Central Committee who has fully adopted the Meine Ehre heißt Treue ethos.  Hageman hasn't been as noisy as might be expected, in part because she probably correctly read the tea leaves over the trouble that Trump ass-kisser Kevin McCarthy was in for not kissing even more private parts before he fell to a quiet and scary Johnson.  The House of Representatives had done nothing this term, and is on the edge of losing power due to attrition.  Pundits claim that the GOP will gain House seats in 2022, but they claimed that about 2020 as well.  The stench of Trump kept that from happening.

And so we have a non-functioning democracy, locally.

No Democrat can win any office in 2022.  The House and one Senate seat will be up, and both of the Republicans contending for those positions will pledge their true honor to the Leader without question.  Some in the race to come this year will go further with a full-blown Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer appeal.  The Senate primary will see a GOP opportunistic upstart attempting to claim that John Barrasso is a "RINO", which really means that he's not a Dixiecrat or Rust Belt Democrat.  While I've discounted that campaign, I don't really put it past it that it has a chance of success.

Will any Democrats run?

I sure hope so.  And I mean a real Democrat, not the Left Wing Flavor Of  The Month Democrats that the party has been fielding in some races locally.  Putting up somebody who self declares to be a homosexual polyamorus trangendered drag queen Pacific Islander is not going to win any hearts at all, and really isn't believeable (the same people would decarel themselves to be cocker spaniels if that was edgy, or Orthodox starets if that was edgy).  Soembody like Sullivan, Fruendenthal, Karpen, Thorne, or, once again, Grey Bull.

But who can be asked to be a sacrificial lamb.

Well, somebody had to be. 

The state's honor, and the preservation of democracy, require it.  With no choices now, we get further down the road to there being no choices, ever.  

The Democrats are faced with that burden.  What little there is the way of third parties here do as well.  

Tuesday, January 11, 1944. The State of the Union, a Second Bill of Rights.

Roosevelt delivering a Fireside Chat on his 1944 State of the Union address, January 11, 1944.

Franklin Roosevelt gave his State of the Union Address for 1944. The speech was wide-ranging, but is remembered for his call for a "Second Bill of Rights", which were:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.
The full speech stated:

To the Congress: 

This Nation in the past two years has become an active partner in the world's greatest war against human slavery.

We have joined with like-minded people in order to defend ourselves in a world that has been gravely threatened with gangster rule.

But I do not think that any of us Americans can be content with mere survival. Sacrifices that we and our allies are making impose upon us all a sacred obligation to see to it that out of this war we and our children will gain something better than mere survival.

We are united in determination that this war shall not be followed by another interim which leads to new disaster- that we shall not repeat the tragic errors of ostrich isolationism—that we shall not repeat the excesses of the wild twenties when this Nation went for a joy ride on a roller coaster which ended in a tragic crash.

When Mr. Hull went to Moscow in October, and when I went to Cairo and Teheran in November, we knew that we were in agreement with our allies in our common determination to fight and win this war. But there were many vital questions concerning the future peace, and they were discussed in an atmosphere of complete candor and harmony.

In the last war such discussions, such meetings, did not even begin until the shooting had stopped and the delegates began to assemble at the peace table. There had been no previous opportunities for man-to-man discussions which lead to meetings of minds. The result was a peace which was not a peace. That was a mistake which we are not repeating in this war.

And right here I want to address a word or two to some suspicious souls who are fearful that Mr. Hull or I have made "commitments" for the future which might pledge this Nation to secret treaties, or to enacting the role of Santa Claus.

To such suspicious souls—using a polite terminology—I wish to say that Mr. Churchill, and Marshal Stalin, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek are all thoroughly conversant with the provisions of our Constitution. And so is Mr. Hull. And so am I.

Of course we made some commitments. We most certainly committed ourselves to very large and very specific military plans which require the use of all Allied forces to bring about the defeat of our enemies at the earliest possible time.

But there were no secret treaties or political or financial commitments.

The one supreme objective for the future, which we discussed for each Nation individually, and for all the United Nations, can be summed up in one word: Security.

And that means not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security, moral security—in a family of Nations.

In the plain down-to-earth talks that I had with the Generalissimo and Marshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill, it was abundantly clear that they are all most deeply interested in the resumption of peaceful progress by their own peoples—progress toward a better life. All our allies want freedom to develop their lands and resources, to build up industry, to increase education and individual opportunity, and to raise standards of living.

All our allies have learned by bitter experience that real development will not be possible if they are to be diverted from their purpose by repeated wars—or even threats of war.

China and Russia are truly united with Britain and America in recognition of this essential fact:

The best interests of each Nation, large and small, demand that all freedom-loving Nations shall join together in a just and durable system of peace. In the present world situation, evidenced by the actions of Germany, Italy, and Japan, unquestioned military control over disturbers of the peace is as necessary among Nations as it is among citizens in a community. And an equally basic essential to peace is a decent standard of living for all individual men and women and children in all Nations. Freedom from fear is eternally linked with freedom from want.

There are people who burrow through our Nation like unseeing moles, and attempt to spread the suspicion that if other Nations are encouraged to raise their standards of living, our own American standard of living must of necessity be depressed.

The fact is the very contrary. It has been shown time and again that if the standard of living of any country goes up, so does its purchasing power- and that such a rise encourages a better standard of living in neighboring countries with whom it trades. That is just plain common sense—and it is the kind of plain common sense that provided the basis for our discussions at Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran.

Returning from my journeyings, I must confess to a sense of "let-down" when I found many evidences of faulty perspective here in Washington. The faulty perspective consists in overemphasizing lesser problems and thereby underemphasizing the first and greatest problem.

The overwhelming majority of our people have met the demands of this war with magnificent courage and understanding. They have accepted inconveniences; they have accepted hardships; they have accepted tragic sacrifices. And they are ready and eager to make whatever further contributions are needed to win the war as quickly as possible- if only they are given the chance to know what is required of them.

However, while the majority goes on about its great work without complaint, a noisy minority maintains an uproar of demands for special favors for special groups. There are pests who swarm through the lobbies of the Congress and the cocktail bars of Washington, representing these special groups as opposed to the basic interests of the Nation as a whole. They have come to look upon the war primarily as a chance to make profits for themselves at the expense of their neighbors- profits in money or in terms of political or social preferment.

Such selfish agitation can be highly dangerous in wartime. It creates confusion. It damages morale. It hampers our national effort. It muddies the waters and therefore prolongs the war.

If we analyze American history impartially, we cannot escape the fact that in our past we have not always forgotten individual and selfish and partisan interests in time of war—we have not always been united in purpose and direction. We cannot overlook the serious dissensions and the lack of unity in our war of the Revolution, in our War of 1812, or in our War Between the States, when the survival of the Union itself was at stake.

In the first World War we came closer to national unity than in any previous war. But that war lasted only a year and a half, and increasing signs of disunity began to appear during the final months of the conflict.

In this war, we have been compelled to learn how interdependent upon each other are all groups and sections of the population of America.

Increased food costs, for example, will bring new demands for wage increases from all war workers, which will in turn raise all prices of all things including those things which the farmers themselves have to buy. Increased wages or prices will each in turn produce the same results. They all have a particularly disastrous result on all fixed income groups.

And I hope you will remember that all of us in this Government represent the fixed income group just as much as we represent business owners, workers, and farmers. This group of fixed income people includes: teachers, clergy, policemen, firemen, widows and minors on fixed incomes, wives and dependents of our soldiers and sailors, and old-age pensioners. They and their families add up to one-quarter of our one hundred and thirty million people. They have few or no high pressure representatives at the Capitol. In a period of gross inflation they would be the worst sufferers.

If ever there was a time to subordinate individual or group selfishness to the national good, that time is now. Disunity at home—bickerings, self-seeking partisanship, stoppages of work, inflation, business as usual, politics as usual, luxury as usual these are the influences which can undermine the morale of the brave men ready to die at the front for us here.

Those who are doing most of the complaining are not deliberately striving to sabotage the national war effort. They are laboring under the delusion that the time is past when we must make prodigious sacrifices- that the war is already won and we can begin to slacken off. But the dangerous folly of that point of view can be measured by the distance that separates our troops from their ultimate objectives in Berlin and Tokyo—and by the sum of all the perils that lie along the way.

Overconfidence and complacency are among our deadliest enemies. Last spring—after notable victories at Stalingrad and in Tunisia and against the U-boats on the high seas—overconfidence became so pronounced that war production fell off. In two months, June and July, 1943, more than a thousand airplanes that could have been made and should have been made were not made. Those who failed to make them were not on strike. They were merely saying, "The war's in the bag- so let's relax."

That attitude on the part of anyone—Government or management or labor—can lengthen this war. It can kill American boys.

Let us remember the lessons of 1918. In the summer of that year the tide turned in favor of the allies. But this Government did not relax. In fact, our national effort was stepped up. In August, 1918, the draft age limits were broadened from 21-31 to 18-45. The President called for "force to the utmost," and his call was heeded. And in November, only three months later, Germany surrendered.

That is the way to fight and win a war—all out—and not with half-an-eye on the battlefronts abroad and the other eye-and-a-half on personal, selfish, or political interests here at home.

Therefore, in order to concentrate all our energies and resources on winning the war, and to maintain a fair and stable economy at home, I recommend that the Congress adopt:

(1) A realistic tax law—which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congress does not begin to meet this test.

(2) A continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts—which will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profits out of war.

(3) A cost of food law—which will enable the Government (a) to place a reasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his production; and (b) to place a ceiling on the prices a consumer will have to pay for the food he buys. This should apply to necessities only; and will require public funds to carry out. It will cost in appropriations about one percent of the present annual cost of the war.

(4) Early reenactment of. the stabilization statute of October, 1942. This expires June 30, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, the country might just as well expect price chaos by summer.

(5) A national service law- which, for the duration of the war, will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make available for war production or for any other essential services every able-bodied adult in this Nation.

These five measures together form a just and equitable whole. I would not recommend a national service law unless the other laws were passed to keep down the cost of living, to share equitably the burdens of taxation, to hold the stabilization line, and to prevent undue profits.

The Federal Government already has the basic power to draft capital and property of all kinds for war purposes on a basis of just compensation.

As you know, I have for three years hesitated to recommend a national service act. Today, however, I am convinced of its necessity. Although I believe that we and our allies can win the war without such a measure, I am certain that nothing less than total mobilization of all our resources of manpower and capital will guarantee an earlier victory, and reduce the toll of suffering and sorrow and blood.

I have received a joint recommendation for this law from the heads of the War Department, the Navy Department, and the Maritime Commission. These are the men who bear responsibility for the procurement of the necessary arms and equipment, and for the successful prosecution of the war in the field. They say:

"When the very life of the Nation is in peril the responsibility for service is common to all men and women. In such a time there can be no discrimination between the men and women who are assigned by the Government to its defense at the battlefront and the men and women assigned to producing the vital materials essential to successful military operations. A prompt enactment of a National Service Law would be merely an expression of the universality of this responsibility."

I believe the country will agree that those statements are the solemn truth.

National service is the most democratic way to wage a war. Like selective service for the armed forces, it rests on the obligation of each citizen to serve his Nation to his utmost where he is best qualified.

It does not mean reduction in wages. It does not mean loss of retirement and seniority rights and benefits. It does not mean that any substantial numbers of war workers will be disturbed in their present jobs. Let these facts be wholly clear.

Experience in other democratic Nations at war—Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand- has shown that the very existence of national service makes unnecessary the widespread use of compulsory power. National service has proven to be a unifying moral force based on an equal and comprehensive legal obligation of all people in a Nation at war.

There are millions of American men and women who are not in this war at all. It is not because they do not want to be in it. But they want to know where they can best do their share. National service provides that direction. It will be a means by which every man and woman can find that inner satisfaction which comes from making the fullest possible contribution to victory.

I know that all civilian war workers will be glad to be able to say many years hence to their grandchildren: "Yes, I, too, was in service in the great war. I was on duty in an airplane factory, and I helped make hundreds of fighting planes. The Government told me that in doing that I was performing my most useful work in the service of my country."

It is argued that we have passed the stage in the war where national service is necessary. But our soldiers and sailors know that this is not true. We are going forward on a long, rough road- and, in all journeys, the last miles are the hardest. And it is for that final effort—for the total defeat of our enemies-that we must mobilize our total resources. The national war program calls for the employment of more people in 1944 than in 1943.

It is my conviction that the American people will welcome this win-the-war measure which is based on the eternally just principle of "fair for one, fair for all."

It will give our people at home the assurance that they are standing four-square behind our soldiers and sailors. And it will give our enemies demoralizing assurance that we mean business -that we, 130,000,000 Americans, are on the march to Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo.

I hope that the Congress will recognize that, although this is a political year, national service is an issue which transcends politics. Great power must be used for great purposes.

As to the machinery for this measure, the Congress itself should determine its nature—but it should be wholly nonpartisan in its make-up.

Our armed forces are valiantly fulfilling their responsibilities to our country and our people. Now the Congress faces the responsibility for taking those measures which are essential to national security in this the most decisive phase of the Nation's greatest war.

Several alleged reasons have prevented the enactment of legislation which would preserve for our soldiers and sailors and marines the fundamental prerogative of citizenship—the right to vote. No amount of legalistic argument can becloud this issue in the eyes of these ten million American citizens. Surely the signers of the Constitution did not intend a document which, even in wartime, would be construed to take away the franchise of any of those who are fighting to preserve the Constitution itself.

Our soldiers and sailors and marines know that the overwhelming majority of them will be deprived of the opportunity to vote, if the voting machinery is left exclusively to the States under existing State laws—and that there is no likelihood of these laws being changed in time to enable them to vote at the next election. The Army and Navy have reported that it will be impossible effectively to administer forty-eight different soldier voting laws. It is the duty of the Congress to remove this unjustifiable discrimination against the men and women in our armed forces- and to do it as quickly as possible.

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of "rightist reaction" in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.

I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights- for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.

Our fighting men abroad- and their families at home- expect such a program and have the right to insist upon it. It is to their demands that this Government should pay heed rather than to the whining demands of selfish pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans are dying.

The foreign policy that we have been following—the policy that guided us at Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran—is based on the common sense principle which was best expressed by Benjamin Franklin on July 4, 1776: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

I have often said that there are no two fronts for America in this war. There is only one front. There is one line of unity which extends from the hearts of the people at home to the men of our attacking forces in our farthest outposts. When we speak of our total effort, we speak of the factory and the field, and the mine as well as of the battleground -- we speak of the soldier and the civilian, the citizen and his Government.

Each and every one of us has a solemn obligation under God to serve this Nation in its most critical hour—to keep this Nation great -- to make this Nation greater in a better world.

TBFs from the USS Block Island (CVE-21) made the first aircraft rocket attack on a German (Type VIIC) U-boat, U-758.


The Japanese cruiser Kuma was sunk by the British submarine Tall7-Ho off of Penang, Malaya.

The Soviet government issued a statement through TASS disputing Polish territorial claims and insisting that the Soviet-Polish border had been determined through a democratic 1939 plebiscite.  It also declared that the Polish Government in Exile was "incapable of establishing friendly relations with the USSR, and has also shown itself incapable of organizing active resistance against German invaders inside Poland. Moreover, by its erroneous policy it has often played into the hands of German invaders."

So, quite clearly, a war that had been started as an attempt to protect Polish integrity didn't look likely to end that way.

P-51s started escorting US bombing missions over Germany, joining P-47s and P-38s which already had that role.

From Sarah Sundin's Blog:

Today in World War II History—January 11, 1944: In a US Eighth Air Force raid on Brunswick, the 94th Bomb Group makes a rare second run on the target and receives the Distinguished Unit Citation.

The Moroccan Nationalist Movement issued its Proclamation of Independence demanding a united Morocco independent of France and Spain.


The Hitchcock movie Lifeboat was released.


The members of the Fascist Grand Council sentenced to death by the rump Italian puppet Italian Social Republic were executed.  They included Mussolini's son-in-law, Galeazzo Ciano.

Friday, January 11, 1924. Federals Advance, Coolidge speaks.

Mexican Federals retook Pachuca and advanced on Tuxpan.

President Coolidge held a press conference:

Here is a small rumor, I don’t generally pay much attention to the rumors because I know the press isn’t interested in rumors, about Mr. Olsen of North Dakota resigning in favor of Mr. Roy Frazier. That is a rumor that never came to my attention. I guess you will be perfectly safe in saying it has no foundation. It is nothing I ever heard of. Mr. Frazier I met when he was down here. He is interested in securing some agricultural legislation. I think he has gone back, Mr. Olsen I never happened to hear of. He is an internal revenue commissioner. I have no doubt he is a good one.

I don’t know anything about Governor General Wood returning to the U. S. I don’t think he has any intention of coming here, and I know of no reason why he should come. I think any information that would be required from him could be sent by him very easily, if any were needed.

I think nothing has been done about selecting a Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to succeed Mr. Hill. That is being looked after by Mr. Mellon, and I don’t really know whether Mr. Hill’ s resignation is final or not. I don’t know that it isn’t, nor do I know that it is. So I can’t give you much of any definite information about that.

I have three or four inquiries here about the Tariff Commission. I like to keep in touch somewhat with the work of the Commissions, now that I have my message out of the way, and I am giving a little more attention to administrative features. I have had several conferences, as you know, with the Shipping Board to try and see what we could do in the way of adopting a policy for them, and yesterday I had a long conference with the Tariff Commission, in order that I might get a better idea of their problems. They have pending before them a good many different questions that go there from my office, and I wanted to see how they were getting along, what progress they were making, and what their problems are. I do not feel like giving out any information about that now. I think you can depend upon the Tariff Board to make disinterested reports, and so to conduct their hearings and make their decisions, that the results will meet with the approval of those acquainted with the circumstances. I don’t know of any member of the Board, I will say here, that is financially interested in anything pending before the Board. I don’t know that there aren’t several of the Board that may be. But I don’t know of any that are.

Mr. President, is it your plan to have similar conferences with other Boards?

I think I shall from time to time. I haven’t adopted that as a definite policy any more than I have stated before, that very likely as the work of legislation comes on I shall want to give considerable attention to that. I just had a conference with Senator Smoot relative to financial legislation – to see what the prospect is. He reports it is encouraging, and I shall undoubtedly be in conference with different members of the House and Senate to keep myself informed, and in that way to see what I can do that might be of assistance; also any of the other Boards, as their problems are brought to my attention.

Mr. President, will it be in order to ask whether Senator Smoot brought any more encouraging report about the bonus, about the possibility of the Senate supporting a veto?

I don’t know that I would want to anticipate what I might do with legislation that was brought to me. I have stated my position in relation to bonus legislation in my message, – –

Mr. President, I was thinking more of what Senator Smoot brought in – –and I have enlarged somewhat on that in my budget message. I don’t believe it is quite the thing for the executive to make public announcements that he would veto certain legislation that might come to him in advance of its arrival here – though there are certain inferences always of what might be done. You gentlemen are very adroit at that.

We might speculate on that, Mr. President.

I don’t need to stimulate you.

I haven’t decided on the Chairmanship of the Tariff Commission for the coming year. There are several very good men on the Commission. I think any one of them is well qualified to be Chairman. I believe they have adopted, on the Interstate Commerce Commission, the plan of rotation. One man is Chairman one year, and another man the next year. It is a practice that has more or less merit in it, and oftentimes might be a very helpful solution.

Mr. President, would you care to say what the Cabinet discussed today?

We discussed almost nothing this morning. I was taken up taken up considerably in time by people that wanted to see me, so that I was about twelve minutes late getting in, I don’t think we stayed in session very long.

Any resignations, Mr. President?

No, no Cabinet resignations. Hone of the Cabinet resigned this morning. Several of them were absent, and that was the reason why the session was so short.


Wednesday, January 10, 2024

Blog Mirror. Tom Lubnau: Like It Or Not, Wyoming Depends On Federal Money

 As always, excellent commentary from Tom Lubnau:

Tom Lubnau: Like It Or Not, Wyoming Depends On Federal Money

And the blistering truth:

Wyoming is a very unique state because it figured out a long time ago how to make people from out of state pay our essential taxes. In other words, we mooch off of other taxpayers to pay our bills.

The dying West.

I'm afraid that the West will die. There are plenty of signs. No more childbearing. You are invaded, still, by other cultures, other peoples, who will progressively dominate you by their numbers and completely change your culture, your convictions, your morality.

Cardinal Sarah

Base Ten. 40 is a big round number, I guess.

40

I walked out of the courthouse with a lawyer I know, as that lawyer was in the same law school class as I was.  We're not close friends, but his circle of law school friends intersects with mine, mostly due to a common interest in the outdoors.  Other than that, I guess because our backgrounds are quite different, we never developed a close friendship.  I guess friends of friends are sort of friends, however.

Anyhow, as we were walking out at the same time, having just argued motions against each other, I asked about a partner of his that I had been told was stepping into part-time.  He laughed and noted that it was true, but they guy was busier than ever, which I'm sure he is.

At that point, he asked me, "what about you, what are your plans?", meaning not am I about to retire, but as we're law school colleagues, and therefore the same approximate age, do I have retirement on my horizon.

I begged off on the topic.  I'm very private by nature and as this recent post indicates, I've had a lot going on recently.  In the end, I stated "oh I'll probably die before I retire", which always come across as a joke, and I guess it is, but it's a half-hearted one.  Given family history on my father's side, I probably will, and probably well before 65, which basically means, could be any time.

But then actually that's true for a lot of men over 30.

Anyhow, I'm not near retirement.  My wife is a decade younger than me, I've had a year of health concerns commencing in October, 2022, and I need the insurance, and I don't want to run out of cash in retirement.  And that's not what people really mean when they bring this up. What they mean, is that once you are 60, how far out are you looking?

I dunno. .. .I'll probably die before I retire.

And even if I don't, given my nature, I'll probably keep on keeping on until I'm full retirement age, which according to the IRS is 67 for people born in 1963.  Of course, it's important to note that statistically a significant majority of men do not make it to the "full age". Women don't either.

Quite a few lawyers do, however, and beyond that.

Anyhow, he expressed that he intends to work until he's 68.  He's presently 61.  The reason is that at that point he will have been practicing law "for 40 years".  

Shoot, if I make it to 67, that'd be true of me as well.

And I can't imagine a lamer reason to work beyond full retirement age than that.  So you'll have been a working member of the bar for 40 years, so what?  Is that actually something to be proud of, and if so, why?  Or is it an achievement worth aiming for?

And what''s the magic of 40?  That its' divisible by ten?

As silly as that question is, I think that is actually it.  As we have a Base Ten numerical system, we tend to think of events that way.  Military (and much other service) retirements start when a person reaches 20 years of service, which went down at the start of World War Two from 30 years of service.  When I was a National Guardsman, the Guard issued Ten, Twenty, and Thirty years of service ribbons.The Wyoming State Bar used to confer honorifics on lawyers who had reached 30, 40 and 50 years of practice, although it doesn't seem to anymore.  I can recall being at a County Bar banquet, which we also do not have anymore, when the County Bar acknowledged some lawyers who had just reached 30, 40 and 50 years of service, the first of which I've surpassed but which seemed like a long, long time, at the time.

A good friend of mine in the law just retired at age 67, sort of.  Like a lot of retiring lawyers, indeed all the of the retiring lawyers that I've known recently, he's going to work "part-time".  This is super common in law.

I don't get it, and I don't get going for the big round number either.

Law, if you really work it, is all consuming and hard on you.  I've never seen one of the lawyers aiming for "part-time" succeed at it yet.  Litigation certainly isn't a part-time thing and the schedule is set by the Court, not by individuals, so there's no part-time to it.

Beyond that, however, how can a person become so dull that they hang on for an artificial number?

I know, I know, people will say "I love the law" and that's why they're doing it.  Well, bullshit.

Maybe they do love the law, but most lawyers in reality are in it because; 1) they're polymaths (and probably autodidacts) and it was the only thing that suited them, or 2) their undergraduate majors were a bust, and it was the only door open for a career, or 3) they were greedy and thought they could make a lot of money, or 4) they were delusional and mistook a career path that more properly involved a seminary for one that involved law school, or #5) they were the children of professionals that didn't want to become physicians, or #6) they were the children of blue collar workers whose parents held a gigantic outsized admiration for the law as they knew nothing about it.

None of that precludes a love of the law, although #1 suits it the best.  #3 and #4 are paths to utter misery.

But that's the point.

Going back to the misty dawn of time when I was a law student, and looking at my collection of friends and associated, they were an interesting group. So were my undergraduate major geology fellows, I'd note. The geology students were all major outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen.  Every single one without exception.  We didn't sit around and talk about geology, we talked about mountains and fields and wolves and hunting and hiking and fishing.*

Law school was sort of like that, but with a group of people with very divergent interests.  There were really dedicated outdoorsmen, but also people who had really pronounced intellectual interests.  Law students I was aware of hunted, fished, hiked, climbed mountains in the Himalayas, worked on cars, followed sports, and the like.

I don't recall a single one, not one, who had an interest in the law, actually.

Not one.

And that's how practitioners start out. And to some extent remain.  I'm down to a handful of genuine close friends who are lawyers, and then a little broader out than that, friends who are lawyers.  Of my close friends, one is an avid outdoors man and gearhead, one is an intellectual and a historian, and one is an autodidactic polymath.  Casting the net a little wider, I'd find outdoorsmen again.

Even today, in really thinking about it, I can't think of a single lawyer I know who is just a fanatic about legal topics. We'll discuss them, but its our line of country.  I've never once been in a group of lawyers who said, "guess what I saw, a motion for an order to show cause on an injunction that . . . " like I've heard people say, "guess what I saw, otters in the river!".

Which brings me to this.

People acquire their identify from their occupations over time.  Or maybe that's just true of some occupations.  I have heard people, well, no, men, identified as soldiers, policemen, firemen, and the like long after they retired.

I think that's why somebody is interested in being able to say "I was a lawyer for 40 years".  It seems like an accomplishment. . . if there's not much else left to be proud of, or anything else left.

Thing is, nobody really care about that.

It's quite literally, completely pointless.

There's also nothing intrinsically wrong with it, assuming that you didn't make half of that last decade leaning heavily on other lawyers, and that you were capable the entire time, but as an achievement, it isn't one.

Indeed, the much more interesting people are those who can start a conversation with "I was a lawyer for ten years, and then. . . "

At any rate, most people don't start off being some sort of AI image for their profession.  We shouldn't see, to end up like that.  Surely, a well-rounded person, from a profession of many topics, has other interests.

If they don't, they should.

Footnotes:

*The irony of geology is that so many people who are "granolas" end up being employed by industry.  Geology students were the most environmentally minded people I've ever been around, but then they end up working for extractive industries.  Among practicing geologist, I rarely meet one you'd call an environmentalist, unless they're employed in the environmental field. As the practicing geologists are drawn from the same pool as the students, it has to be their employment that impacts thier later expressed views.

Monday, January 10, 1944. The Verona Executions.

WACs march down the gangplank of transport at a North African port. Army trucks wait to take them to a nearby transit camp. 10 January, 1944.

The Verona Trial ended with the conviction of all six present defendants, with five sentenced to death.  Tullio Cianetti was spared that penalty, and instead received a 30-year sentence, after writing a letter of apology to Mussolini.

Following the war, he went into exile in Portuguese Mozambique.  He died in Mozambique, which became independent in 1975, in 1976.

The Red Army took Lyudvipol which had been within pre-war Poland.

The British took Maungdaw in Burma.

1944  A United States Army Air Force plane crashed near Cheyenne, killing the pilot. Attribution:  Wyoming State Historical Society.

Thursday, January 10, 1924. Soaring oil prices.


The sort of headlines that Wyomingites love to read, at least until they go to buy gasoline at the pump.

Wyoming, as we've explored here before, crossed over from being primarily an agricultural economy to an oil one due to World War One, with 1917 really being the demarcation point.  From that point forward the state drank so deeply of petroleum that it has never been able to see itself as anything but a petro state, even while keeping Steamboat as its symbol.  A century later, to suggest that the evolution of technology and other factors mean that this industry will decline is nearly regarded as treasonous.  Perhaps as a result, the state has neglected its other industries.

The Cohn-Brandt-Cohn film company (CBC) changed its name to Columbia Pictures.

France imposed a curfew on the Rhineland and closed its borders, save for railroads and food transportation.  The move was due to the murder of Franz Josef Heinz the prior day.  The French were so strict on the matter that they refused to let British officials in to investigate separatist movements connected with the incident.

Related Threads:

1917 The Year that made Casper what it is. Or maybe it didn't. Or maybe it did.

Sigh . . .

And depicted with a horse too. . . 

Kroger retires after 35 years of service 

Bart KrogerCODY - Worland Wildlife Biologist Bart Kroger retired last month, bringing his 35-year career with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to a close. 

“Bart has been referred to as the ‘core of the agency’, meaning through his dedication and continuous hard work, he has significantly and meaningfully impacted wildlife management within his district and throughout the state,” said Corey Class, Cody region wildlife management coordinator. “Throughout his career, he has been a solid, steady and dependable wildlife biologist, providing a foundation for wildlife conservation and management in the Bighorn Basin.”

Through his quiet and thoughtful approach, Bart has gained the respect of both his peers and the public. Bart is best known for his commitment to spending time in the field gaining first-hand knowledge of the wildlife and the habitat that supports them, as well as the people he serves in his district. 

Pope Francis addresses a lot of topics, but is quoted on only one.

In an example of how things are badly and oddly reported, Pope Francis gave a wide ranging speech, touching on many topics, on January 8, but only his comments on surrogacy (which I fully agree with) were reported on.

In his speech, he stated:

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am pleased to welcome you this morning and to extend my personal greetings and good wishes for the New Year. In a special way, I thank His Excellency Ambassador George Poulides, Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, for his kind words, which eloquently expressed the concerns of the international community at the beginning of a year that we hope to be one of peace, but has instead dawned amid conflicts and divisions.

Our meeting is a fitting occasion for me to thank you for your efforts to foster good relations between the Holy See and your respective countries.  Last year, our “diplomatic family” became even larger, thanks to the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Sultanate of Oman and the appointment of its first Ambassador, here present.

Here I would note that the Holy See has now appointed a resident Papal Representative in Hanoi, following last July’s conclusion of the relative agreement on the status of the Papal Representative. This is a sign of the intent to pursue the process already initiated in a spirit of reciprocal respect and trust, thanks also to frequent contacts on the institutional level and to cooperation with the local Church.

2023 also saw the ratification of the Supplementary Agreement to the 24 September 1998 Agreement between the Holy See and Kazakhstan on mutual relations, which facilitated the presence and work of pastoral agents in that country. The past year also marked the celebration of significant anniversaries: the hundredth anniversary of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Panama, the seventieth anniversary of those with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the sixtieth of those with the Republic of Korea, and the fiftieth of those with Australia.

Dear Ambassadors,

One word in particular resounds in the two principal Christian feasts. We hear it in the song of the angels who proclaimed in the night of the birth of the Saviour, and we hear it again in the greeting of the risen Jesus. That word is “peace”. Peace is primarily a gift of God, for it is he who has left us his peace (cf. Jn 14:27). Yet it is also a responsibility incumbent upon all of us: “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Mt 5:9). To strive for peace. A word so simple, yet so demanding and rich in meaning. Today I would like to concentrate our reflections on peace, at a moment in history when it is increasingly threatened, weakened and in part lost. For that matter, it is the responsibility of the Holy See within the international community to be a prophetic voice and to appeal to consciences.

On Christmas Eve 1944, Pope Pius XII delivered a memorable Radio Message to the peoples of the world. The Second World War was drawing to a close after more than five years of conflict and humanity sensed – in the Pope’s words – “an ever more clear and firm will: to make of this world war, this universal upheaval, the starting point for a new era marked by profound renewal”. [1] Some eighty years later, the impetus for that “profound renewal”, appears to have receded, and our world is witnessing a growing number of conflicts that are slowly turning what I have often called “a third world war fought piecemeal” into a genuine global conflict.

Here, in your presence, I cannot fail to reiterate my deep concern regarding the events taking place in Palestine and Israel. All of us remain shocked by the October 7 attack on the Israeli people, in which great numbers of innocent persons were horribly wounded, tortured, and murdered, and many taken hostage. I renew my condemnation of this act and of every instance of terrorism and extremism. This is not the way to resolve disputes between peoples; those disputes are only aggravated and cause suffering for everyone. Indeed, the attack provoked a strong Israeli military response in Gaza that has led to the death of tens of thousands of Palestinians, mainly civilians, including many young people and children, and has caused an exceptionally grave humanitarian crisis and inconceivable suffering.

To all the parties involved I renew my appeal for a cease-fire on every front, including Lebanon, and the immediate liberation of all the hostages held in Gaza. I ask that the Palestinian people receive humanitarian aid, and that hospitals, schools and places of worship receive all necessary protection.

It is my hope that the international community will pursue with determination the solution of two states, one Israeli and one Palestinian, as well as an internationally guaranteed special status for the City of Jerusalem, so that Israelis and Palestinians may finally live in peace and security.

The present conflict in Gaza further destabilizes a fragile and tension-filled region. In particular, we cannot forget the Syrian people, living in a situation of economic and political instability aggravated by last February’s earthquake. May the international community encourage the parties involved to undertake a constructive and serious dialogue and to seek new solutions, so that the Syrian people need no longer suffer as a result of international sanctions. In addition, I express my profound distress for the millions of Syrian refugees still present in neighbouring countries like Jordan and Lebanon.

I think in a special way of the beloved Lebanese people, and I express my concern for the social and economic situation that they are experiencing. It is my hope that the institutional stalemate that has even further burdened them will be resolved and that the Land of Cedars will soon have a President.

Remaining on the Asian continent, I would also call the attention of the international community to Myanmar, and plead that every effort be made to offer hope to that land and a dignified future to its young, while at the same time not neglecting the humanitarian emergency that the Rohingya continue to experience.

Alongside these complex situations, there are also signs of hope, as I was able to experience in the course of my Journey to Mongolia, to whose authorities I once more express my gratitude for their welcome. I also wish to thank the Hungarian authorities for the hospitality I received during my visit to that country last April. It was a journey into the heart of Europe, rich in history and culture, where I felt the affection of many people, yet sensed the proximity of a conflict that we would have considered unimaginable in the Europe of the twenty-first century.

Sadly, after nearly two years of large-scale war waged by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, the greatly desired peace has not yet managed to take root in minds and hearts, despite the great numbers of victims and the massive destruction. One cannot allow the persistence of a conflict that continues to metastasize, to the detriment of millions of persons; it is necessary to put an end to the present tragedy through negotiations, in respect for international law.

I also express my concern for the tense situation in the South Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and I urge the parties to arrive at the signing of a peace treaty. It is urgent that a solution be found to the dramatic humanitarian situation of those living in that region, while favouring the return of refugees to their own homes in legality and security and with respect for the places of worship of the different religious confessions present there. These steps will help contribute to the building of a climate of trust between the two countries, in view of the greatly desired peace.

Turning our gaze to Africa, we are witnessing the suffering of millions of persons as a result of the numerous humanitarian crises that various sub-Saharan countries experience due to international terrorism, complex social political problems, and the devastating effects caused by climate change. Added to these are the effects of the military coups d’état that have occurred in several countries and certain electoral processes marked by corruption, intimidation and violence.

At the same time, I renew my appeal for serious efforts on the part of all engaged in the application of the November 2022 Pretoria Agreement, which put an end to the hostilities in Tigray. Likewise, for the pursuit of specific solutions to the tensions and violence that assail Ethiopia, and for dialogue, peace and stability among the countries of the Horn of Africa.

I would also like to bring up the tragic events in Sudan where sadly after months of civil war no way out is in sight, and the plight of the refugees in Cameroon, Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan.  I had the joy of visiting the latter two countries at the beginning of last year, as a sign of my closeness to their people who are suffering, albeit in different contexts and situations. I express my heartfelt gratitude to the authorities of both countries for their efforts in organizing these visits and for their hospitality. My Journey to South Sudan also had an ecumenical flavour, since I was joined by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, as a sign of the shared commitment of our ecclesial communities to peace and reconciliation.

Although there are no open wars in the Americas, serious tensions exist between several countries, for example Venezuela and Guyana, while in others, such as Peru, we see signs of a polarization that compromises social harmony and weakens democratic institutions.

The situation in Nicaragua remains troubling: a protracted crisis with painful consequences for Nicaraguan society as a whole, and in particular for the Catholic Church. The Holy See continues to encourage a respectful diplomatic dialogue for the benefit of Catholics and the entire population.

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Against this backdrop that I have sketched without any pretension to completeness, we find an increasingly lacerated world, but even more, millions of persons – men, women, fathers, mothers, children – whose faces are for the most part unknown to us, and frequently overlooked.

Moreover, modern wars no longer take place only on clearly defined battlefields, nor do they involve soldiers alone. In a context where it appears that the distinction between military and civil targets is no longer respected, there is no conflict that does not end up in some way indiscriminately striking the civilian population. The events in Ukraine and Gaza are clear proof of this. We must not forget that grave violations of international humanitarian law are war crimes, and that it is not sufficient to point them out, but also necessary to prevent them. Consequently, there is a need for greater effort on the part of the international community to defend and implement humanitarian law, which seems to be the only way to ensure the defence of human dignity in situations of warfare.

At the beginning of this year, the exhortation of the Second Vatican Council in Gaudium et Spes seems especially timely: “On the question of warfare, there are various international conventions, signed by many countries, aimed at rendering military action and its consequences less inhuman… These agreements must be honoured; indeed public authorities and specialists in these matters must do all in their power to improve these conventions and thus bring about a better and more effective curbing of the savagery of war”. [2] Even when exercising the right of legitimate defence, it is essential to adhere to a proportionate use of force.

Perhaps we need to realize more clearly that civilian victims are not “collateral damage”, but men and woman, with names and surnames, who lose their lives. They are children who are orphaned and deprived of their future. They are individuals who suffer from hunger, thirst and cold, or are mutilated as an effect of the power of modern explosives. Were we to be able to look each of them in the eye, call them by name, and learn something of their personal history, we would see war for what it is: nothing other than an immense tragedy, a “useless slaughter”, [3] one that offends the dignity of every person on this earth.

Wars, nonetheless, are able to continue thanks to the enormous stock of available weapons. There is need to pursue a policy of disarmament, since it is illusory to think that weapons have deterrent value. The contrary is true: the availability of weapons encourages their use and increases their production. Weapons create mistrust and divert resources. How many lives could be saved with the resources that today are misdirected to weaponry? Would it not be better to invest those resources in the pursuit of genuine global security? The challenges of our time transcend borders, as we see from the variety of crises – of food, the environment, the economy and health care – that have marked the beginning of the century. Here I reiterate my proposal that a global fund be established to finally eliminate hunger [4] and to promote a sustainable development of the entire planet.

Among the threats caused by these instruments of death, I cannot fail to mention those produced by nuclear arsenals and the development of increasingly sophisticated and destructive weapons. Here, I once more affirm the immorality of manufacturing and possessing nuclear weapons. In this regard, I express my hope for the resumption, at the earliest date possible, of negotiations for the restart of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the “Iran Nuclear Deal,” to ensure a safer future for all.

To pursue peace, however, it is not enough simply to eliminate the implements of war; its root causes must be eradicated. Foremost among these is hunger, a scourge that continues to afflict entire areas of our world while others are marked by massive waste of food. Then there is the exploitation of natural resources, which enriches a few while leaving entire populations, the natural beneficiaries of these resources, in a state of destitution and poverty. Connected to this is the exploitation of people forced to work for low wages and lacking real prospects for professional growth.

The causes of conflict also include natural and environmental disasters. To be sure, there are disasters that human beings cannot control. I think of the recent earthquakes in Morocco and China that resulted in hundreds of victims, as well as the severe earthquake that struck Türkiye and part of Syria, and took a terrible toll of death and destruction. I think too of the flood that struck Derna in Libya, effectively destroying the city, not least because of the simultaneous collapse of two dams.

Yet there are also disasters that are attributable to human activity or neglect and contribute seriously to the current climate crisis, such as the deforestation of the Amazon, the “green lung” of the earth.

The climate and environmental crisis was the topic of the 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP28) held last month in Dubai. I regret that I was unable to participate personally. The Conference began in conjunction with the World Meteorological Organization’s announcement that 2023 was the warmest year on record in comparison with the 174 years previous. The climate crisis demands an increasingly urgent response and full involvement on the part of all, including the international community as a whole. [5]

The adoption of the final document at COP28 represents an encouraging step forward; it shows that, in the face of today’s many crises, multilateralism can be renewed through the management of the global climate issue in a world where environmental, social and political problems are closely connected. At COP28, it became clear that the present decade is critical for dealing with climate change. Care for creation and peace “are the most urgent issues and they are closely linked”. [6] For this reason, I express my hope that what was adopted in Dubai will lead to “a decisive acceleration of the ecological transition, through means… [to be] achieved in four sectors: energy efficiency; renewable sources; the elimination of fossil fuels; and education in lifestyles that are less dependent on the latter”. [7]

Wars, poverty, the mistreatment of our common home and the ongoing exploitation of its resources, which lead to natural disasters, also drive thousands of people to leave their homelands in search of a future of peace and security. In journeying, they risk their lives along dangerous routes, like those through the Sahara desert, in the Darién forest on the border between Colombia and Panama in Central America, in the north of Mexico at the border with the United States, and above all on the Mediterranean Sea. Sadly, in the last ten years the Mediterranean has turned into a great cemetery, as tragedies continue to unfold, due also to unscrupulous human traffickers. Let us not forget that the great number of victims include many unaccompanied minors.

The Mediterranean should instead be a laboratory of peace, “a place where different countries and realities can encounter each other on the basis of the humanity we all share”. [8]  I wished to emphasize this in Marseille, during my Apostolic Journey for the Rencontres Méditerranéennes, and I am grateful to the organizers and the French authorities for having made that Journey possible. Faced with such an immense tragedy, we can easily end up closing our hearts, entrenching ourselves behind fears of an “invasion.” We are quick to forget that we are dealing with people with faces and names, and we overlook the specific vocation of this, “our sea” ( mare nostrum), to be not a tomb but a place of encounter and mutual enrichment between individuals, peoples and cultures. This does not detract from the fact that migration should be regulated, in order to accept, promote, accompany and integrate migrants, while at the same time respecting the culture, sensitivities and security of the peoples that accept responsibility for such acceptance and integration. We need likewise to insist on the right of people to remain in their homeland and the corresponding need to create the conditions for the effective exercise of this right.

In confronting this challenge, no country should be left alone, nor can any country think of addressing the issue in isolation, through more restrictive and repressive legislation adopted at times under pressure of fear or in pursuit of electoral consensus. In this regard, I welcome the commitment of the European Union to seek a common solution through the adoption of the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, while at the same time noting some of its limitations, especially concerning the recognition of the right to asylum and the danger of arbitrary detention.

Dear Ambassadors,

The path to peace calls for respect for life, for every human life, starting with the life of the unborn child in the mother’s womb, which cannot be suppressed or turned into an object of trafficking. In this regard, I deem deplorable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs. A child is always a gift and never the basis of a commercial contract. Consequently, I express my hope for an effort by the international community to prohibit this practice universally. At every moment of its existence, human life must be preserved and defended; yet I note with regret, especially in the West, the continued spread of a culture of death, which in the name of a false compassion discards children, the elderly and the sick.

The path to peace calls for respect for human rights, in accordance with the simple yet clear formulation contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose seventy-fifth anniversary we recently celebrated. These principles are self-evident and commonly accepted. Regrettably, in recent decades attempts have been made to introduce new rights that are neither fully consistent with those originally defined nor always acceptable. They have led to instances of ideological colonization, in which gender theory plays a central role; the latter is extremely dangerous since it cancels differences in its claim to make everyone equal. These instances of ideological colonization prove injurious and create divisions between states, rather than fostering peace.

Dialogue, on the other hand, must be the soul of the international community.  The current situation is also the result of the weakening of structures of multilateral diplomacy that arose after the Second World War. Organizations established to foster security, peace and cooperation are no longer capable of uniting all their members around one table. There is the risk of a “monadology” and of splitting into “clubs” that only admit states deemed ideologically compatible. Even agencies devoted to the common good and to technical questions, which have thus far proved effective, risk paralysis due to ideological polarization and exploitation by individual states.

In order to relaunch a shared commitment to the service of peace, there is a need to recover the roots, the spirit and the values that gave rise to those organizations, while at the same time taking into account the changed context and showing regard for those who do not feel adequately represented by the structures of international organizations.

To be sure, dialogue requires patience, perseverance and an ability to listen, yet when sincere attempts are made to put an end to disagreements, significant results can be achieved. One example that comes to mind is the Belfast Agreement, also known as the Good Friday Agreement, signed by the British and Irish governments, whose twenty-fifth anniversary was commemorated last year.  Putting an end to thirty years of violent conflict, it can serve as an example to motivate and encourage authorities to trust in peace processes, whatever the hardships and sacrifices they entail.

The way to peace is through political and social dialogue, since it is the basis for civil coexistence in a modern political community. 2024 will witness elections being held in many nations. Elections are an essential moment in the life of any country, since they allow all citizens responsibly to choose their leaders. The words of Pope Pius XII remain as timely as ever: “To express one’s own view of the duties and sacrifices imposed on him or her; not to be compelled to obey without first being heard – these are two rights of the citizen which find expression in democracy, as its very name implies. From the stability, harmony and good fruits produced by this contact between the citizens and the government of the state, one may recognize whether a democracy is truly sound and well balanced, and perceive the vigour of its life and development”. [9]

It is important, then, that citizens, especially young people who will be voting for the first time, consider it one of their primary duties to contribute to the advancement of the common good through a free and informed participation in elections. Politics, for its part, should always be understood not as an appropriation of power, but as the “highest form of charity”, [10] and thus of service to one’s neighbour within a local or national community.

The path to peace also passes through interreligious dialogue, which before all else requires the protection of religious freedom and respect for minorities.  It is painful to note, for example, that an increasing number of countries are adopting models of centralized control over religious freedom, especially by the massive use of technology. In other places, minority religious communities often find themselves in increasingly precarious situations. In some cases, they risk extinction due to a combination of terrorism, attacks on their cultural heritage and more subtle measures such as the proliferation of anti-conversion laws, the manipulation of electoral rules and financial restrictions.

Of particular concern is the rise in acts of anti-Semitism in recent months. Once again, I would reiterate that this scourge must be eliminated from society, especially through education in fraternity and acceptance of others.

Equally troubling is the increase in persecution and discrimination against Christians, especially over the last ten years. At times, this involves nonviolent but socially significant cases of gradual marginalization and exclusion from political and social life and from the exercise of certain professions, even in traditionally Christian lands. Altogether, more than 360 million Christians around the world are experiencing a high level of discrimination and persecution because of their faith, with more and more of them being forced to flee their homelands.

Finally, the path to peace passes through education, which is the principal means of investing in the future and in young people. I have vivid memories of the celebration of World Youth Day in Portugal last August. As I renew my gratitude to the Portuguese authorities, civil and religious, for their hard work in organizing the event, I continue to treasure that encounter with more than a million young people from all over the world, brimming with enthusiasm and zest for life. Their presence was a great hymn to peace and a testimony to the fact that “unity is greater than conflict” [11] and that it is “possible to build communion amid disagreement”. [12]

In recent times, the challenges faced by educators have come to include the ethical use of new technologies. The latter can easily become a means of spreading division or lies, “fake news”, yet they also serve as a source of encounter and mutual exchange, and an important vehicle for peace. “The remarkable advances in new information technologies, particularly in the digital sphere, thus offer exciting opportunities and grave risks, with serious implications for the pursuit of justice and harmony among peoples”. [13] For this reason, I thought it important to devote this year’s Message for the World Day of Peace to the subject of artificial intelligence, one of the most significant challenges for the years to come.

It is essential that technological development take place in an ethical and responsible way, respecting the centrality of the human person, whose place can never be taken by an algorithm or a machine. “The inherent dignity of each human being and the fraternity that binds us together as members of the one human family must undergird the development of new technologies and serve as indisputable criteria for evaluating them before they are employed, so that digital progress can occur with due respect for justice and contribute to the cause of peace”. [14]

Consequently, careful reflection is required at every level, national and international, political and social, to ensure that the development of artificial intelligence remains at the service of men and women, fostering and not obstructing – especially in the case of young people – interpersonal relations, a healthy spirit of fraternity, critical thinking and a capacity for discernment.

In this regard, the two Diplomatic Conferences of the World Intellectual Property Organization, which will take place in 2024 with the participation of the Holy See as a Member State, will prove particularly important. In the view of the Holy See, intellectual property is essentially directed to the promotion of the common good and cannot be detached from ethical requirements, lest situations of injustice and undue exploitation arise. Special concern must also be shown for the protection of the human genetic patrimony, by prohibiting practices contrary to human dignity, such as the patenting of human biological material and the cloning of human beings.

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

This year the Church is preparing for the Holy Year that will begin next Christmas. In a particular way, I express my gratitude to the Italian authorities, national and local, for their efforts in preparing the City of Rome to welcome great numbers of pilgrims and to enable them to draw spiritual fruit from their experience of the Jubilee.

Today, perhaps more than ever, we need a Holy Year. Amid many causes of suffering that lead to a sense of hopelessness not only in those directly affected but throughout our societies; amid the difficulties experienced by our young people, who instead of dreaming of a better future often feel helpless and frustrated; and amid the gloom of this world that seems to be spreading rather than receding, the Jubilee is a proclamation that God never abandons his people and constantly keeps open the doors to his Kingdom. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Jubilee is a season of grace that enables us to experience God’s mercy and the gift of his peace. It is also a season of righteousness, in which sins are forgiven, reconciliation prevails over injustice, and the earth can be at rest. For everyone – Christians and non-Christians – the Jubilee can be a time when swords are beaten into ploughshares, a time when one nation will no longer lift up sword against another, nor learn war any more (cf. Is 2:4).

Dear brothers and sisters, this is my heartfelt wish for each of you, dear Ambassadors, for your families and colleagues, and for the peoples you represent.

Thank you and a Happy New Year to all of you! 

And yet the news is just on surrogacy.