Like the old They Were Lawyers post, this post became too bulky to be here on the main blog, so it's now its own page on the blog.
They Had Been Soldiers.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Related Posts:
They were Clerics.
They were Farmers.
They were Hunters or Fishermen.
They were Lawyers.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Proposed Constitutional Amendment: Non Resident Trustees
Wyoming's voters have a proposed Constitutional amendment to vote on this November. That amendment reads as follows:
The legislature shall provide by law for the management of the university, its lands and other property by a board of trustees, consisting of not less than seven members, to be appointed by the governor by and with the advice and consent of the senate, and the president of the university, and the superintendent of public instruction, as members ex officio, as such having the right to speak, but not to vote. The duties and powers of the trustees shall be prescribed by law. Not more than twenty percent (20%) of the appointed trustees may be nonresidents of the state, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 6, Section 15 of this Constitution.
The legislative note accompanying this proposal states as follows:
The adoption of this amendment would allow the governor to appoint nonresidents of the state to serve as University of Wyoming trustees. Not more than twenty percent (20%) of the appointed trustees may be nonresidents of the state. The governor would not be required to appoint any nonresident as a trustee. All appointments to the board of trustees are with the advice and consent of the Wyoming Senate.
The effect of this would be to allow, but not require, the Governor to have two non residents be Trustees. While it's an "allowance", not a requirement, the effect would undoubtedly be the addition of two non residents. Wyoming is out of compliance with the law on Trustees right now, as it's failed to observe the two party requirement that also exists, but I'm sure that the Governors would follow the allowance here.
There's been next to nothing said in this election season about this proposal at all, but the Tribune ran an article on this this past weekend which was very well done in which Joan Barrons interviewed Phil Roberts of the University of Wyoming at length. Roberts, a lawyer who is a history teacher, is against it, and so am I.
I feel the passage of this is inevitable, for reasons that fit into Wyoming psychology, but the bill shouldn't pass. It won't be a disaster if it does, but it fits right into the Wyoming mindset that we're a service for others and that the only ones who really do good are those who start here and then leave, or those who did well and come in. Perhaps all people are that way everywhere, but it's been a long time feature of the State to view things that way.
The concept of allowing people from out of state to be Trustees is that we can thereby allow those former Wyomingites who did well to come back and share that with us here. Well, their career paths are largely ones that feature leaving. That's fine, and their absolute right, but the University already exist in an environment in which the ability of those who have educations and stayed is a bit under threat, and to emphasize that leaving is the smart thing to do in this fashion isn't the wisest.
None of this is to say anything negative about our ex-patriots. A lot of them keep a strong connection the state their entire lives (some, of course, make a point of emphasizing that it is where they were "from", not where they are). More than a few of those people left because they had no other rational economic choice at the time. But in a state that has but one university, which belongs to the residents of the state, a large board like this would seem better served by residents of the state who have stayed and made their livelihoods here and therefore would seemingly be in better touch with what Wyoming needs.
Tuesday, October 13, 1914. October 13, 1914: Braves finish off shocking World Series upset in Game Four
Which occurred on this day in 1914.
October 13, 1914: Braves finish off shocking World Series upset in Game Four
Last edition:
Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Natrona County Courthouse
Courthouses of the West: Natrona County Courthouse:
Natrona County Courthouse
The "old" (actually second) Natrona County Courthouse in Casper Wyoming.
This courthouse replaced a 19th Century courthouse that had become too small. In typical Western fashion, that old courthouse was then torn down, and the street now runs right through where it had once been. This courthouse that replaced it was built in the Great Depression as a part of a WPA project. Within the last decade it was in turn supplanted, as a courthouse, in favor of one built in an early 20th Century vintage five store hotel, in order that more courtrooms could be provided, reflecting the addition of more sitting judges since this one was constructed.
This is from our Courthouses of the West blog and can be linked into on the link above. This particular photo is one of several of this courthouse, which was the second entry on that blog.
Natrona County Courthouse
The "old" (actually second) Natrona County Courthouse in Casper Wyoming.
This courthouse replaced a 19th Century courthouse that had become too small. In typical Western fashion, that old courthouse was then torn down, and the street now runs right through where it had once been. This courthouse that replaced it was built in the Great Depression as a part of a WPA project. Within the last decade it was in turn supplanted, as a courthouse, in favor of one built in an early 20th Century vintage five store hotel, in order that more courtrooms could be provided, reflecting the addition of more sitting judges since this one was constructed.
This is from our Courthouses of the West blog and can be linked into on the link above. This particular photo is one of several of this courthouse, which was the second entry on that blog.
The Big Picture: Pabst Champion Six Horse Team 1904
Panographic photograph of a Pabst Blue Ribbon beer wagon from 1904. Strange to think that Pabst will soon belong to a Russian company.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Monday, October 12, 1914. The trial of the Serbian conspirators.
The trial of Serbian conspirators who had worked to assassinate Archduke Ferdinand commenced. Gavrilo Princip stated:
I am a Yugoslav nationalist and I believe in unification of all South Slavs in whatever form of state and that it be free of Austria ... By means of terror.
The Germans took Ghent.
The French and British took back the Mont des Cats.
The Union of South Africa declared martial law in response to the Maritz Rebellion.
Boston won game three of the World Series.
Last edition:
Sunday October 11, 1914. Front line stabilization sets in.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Sunday October 11, 1914. Front line stabilization sets in.
The French abandoned efforts to retake Saint-Mihiel. It would not be taken back until 1918.
Brown University celebrated its 150th anniversary with many dignitaries, including former President Taft, in attendance.
The Russian cruiser Pallanda was sunk in the Gulf of Finland by the U-26. It's entire crew perished in the first loss of a vessel by the Russians in the Great War.
"Lake Avenue. A part of the family residence section." - Keechelus Dam, Yakima River, 10 miles northwest of Easton, Easton, Kittitas County, WA
Last edition:
Saturday, October 10, 1914. Convention of Aguascalientes
Friday, October 10, 2014
Saturday, October 10, 1914. Convention of Aguascalientes
The Convention of Aguascalientes, called by Venustiano Carranza convened. Carranza, in spite of calling the meeting, did not attend and did not send representatives. Pancho Villa's representatives were in attendance. Álvaro Obregón came in person. Zapata's representatives would arrive fifteen days after the start of the convention. Villista's dominated.
The first thing the convention did was to declare itself sovereign, the de facto government of Mexico.
British and French forces attempted to take the French city of La Bassée.
King Carol I of Romania, who opposed entering the Great War, died.
The SMS Emden left British held Diego Garcia, with its residents unaware that a war had started.
Boston took game two of the World Series, 1 to 0.
Last edition:
Friday, October 9, 1914. Antwerp surrendered.
A Commentary on Commentary
I guess Bill Maher is taking some heat for some things he said about Islam, in a discussion or debate, or something, with Ben Affleck.
I didn't see his show, and I never do, but the commentary on it has been somewhat interesting, although not for the reasons its supposed to be.
First of all, I'm amazed that Maher, in his commentary, apparently made the comment that Islam was different from other religions due to an attachment to violence. The reason I'm amazed that Maher made that comment as he usually picks on Christianity, or rather Catholicism specifically. Apparently his father fell away from the Church when Maher was in his mid teens, and whatever got his father rolling stuck to Maher and he's been a died in the wool hater of the Church since. So there's a real degree of irony here in that died in the wool Islamist probably would be justified in thinking, "hey Bill, we thought we had your back". They probably don't think that, however, as they probably don't know or care who Maher is.
For that matter, I don't know why we care what Maher has to say on these topics. Maher is a species of comedian, sort of, and Affleck is an actor. Maher has made a career out of Snark, a sort of juvenile minor sarcasm that tends to be of the type affected by middle school boys whose parents have told them that they're really smart, but who suspect that they aren't as smart as they've been told. We've all been there in that class, and there's always some almost witty kid who acts like he's super witty, and who is genuinely occasionally funny, but at the same time, you don't really figure he's a truly Big Brain. Maher has been lucky that just enough people like middle school humor, and that he is genuinely occasionally funny, that he's done well at it. But he still displays that condescending smile that tends to portray the message, "I'm funny, right? Right guys?"
I don't care what Maher dose and I don't watch him. He's not Bill Cosby, Jerry Seinfeld or even Steven Colbert, but if folks want to watch him, so be it. I just don't get why anyone really cares what he has to say on anything really serious. For that matter, why would we care what Ben Affleck thinks either.
It's really odd that celebrity entertainment status translates into an illusion of gravitas. Frankly, it's disturbing that it does.
I didn't see his show, and I never do, but the commentary on it has been somewhat interesting, although not for the reasons its supposed to be.
First of all, I'm amazed that Maher, in his commentary, apparently made the comment that Islam was different from other religions due to an attachment to violence. The reason I'm amazed that Maher made that comment as he usually picks on Christianity, or rather Catholicism specifically. Apparently his father fell away from the Church when Maher was in his mid teens, and whatever got his father rolling stuck to Maher and he's been a died in the wool hater of the Church since. So there's a real degree of irony here in that died in the wool Islamist probably would be justified in thinking, "hey Bill, we thought we had your back". They probably don't think that, however, as they probably don't know or care who Maher is.
For that matter, I don't know why we care what Maher has to say on these topics. Maher is a species of comedian, sort of, and Affleck is an actor. Maher has made a career out of Snark, a sort of juvenile minor sarcasm that tends to be of the type affected by middle school boys whose parents have told them that they're really smart, but who suspect that they aren't as smart as they've been told. We've all been there in that class, and there's always some almost witty kid who acts like he's super witty, and who is genuinely occasionally funny, but at the same time, you don't really figure he's a truly Big Brain. Maher has been lucky that just enough people like middle school humor, and that he is genuinely occasionally funny, that he's done well at it. But he still displays that condescending smile that tends to portray the message, "I'm funny, right? Right guys?"
I don't care what Maher dose and I don't watch him. He's not Bill Cosby, Jerry Seinfeld or even Steven Colbert, but if folks want to watch him, so be it. I just don't get why anyone really cares what he has to say on anything really serious. For that matter, why would we care what Ben Affleck thinks either.
It's really odd that celebrity entertainment status translates into an illusion of gravitas. Frankly, it's disturbing that it does.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Friday, October 9, 1914. Antwerp surrendered.
Belgian civil administrators surrendered the city of Antwerp.
German troops arrived at the Vistula.
Boston one Game 1 against Philadelphia in the 1914 World Series.
Last edition:
Thursday, October 8, 1914. An Air Raid.
Labels: 1910s, 1914, Aircraft, baseball, Germany, Lighter than air aircraft, Music, Royal Navy, World War One
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Unsolicited Career Advice for the Student No. 4. Get a useful education.
Just recently I posted my Caveat Auctor post about career advice. Read that first.
Many years ago I worked with a lawyer who decided to drop out of law, which was his third career path at the time. He'd studied to be a meteorologist, switched to geophysics, and then gone to law school. Oddly enough, fwiw, and having nothing to do with this thread, I've known quite a few lawyers, including myself, who started out as geoscientists. Anyhow, when I ran into him after he quit the law, and was ready to go back to school (to become a teacher) he observed "lawyers are occupationally illiterate.".
Young men, African Americans, training to be wheel wrights. 1900.
Many years ago I worked with a lawyer who decided to drop out of law, which was his third career path at the time. He'd studied to be a meteorologist, switched to geophysics, and then gone to law school. Oddly enough, fwiw, and having nothing to do with this thread, I've known quite a few lawyers, including myself, who started out as geoscientists. Anyhow, when I ran into him after he quit the law, and was ready to go back to school (to become a teacher) he observed "lawyers are occupationally illiterate.".
That's absolutely true. Indeed, one of the great lies about law school, which this thread is not about, is that "with a law degree you can do anything." No, you cannot. With a law degree you can practice law, or teach it. The fable that you can "do anything" with a law degree came about in the day when you could "do anything" with a liberal arts degree, and get a decent middle class income even if you'd dropped out of school in the 10th Grade. None of that is any longer the case, and it hasn't been for a long time. Some law school profs still circulate that comforting bit of propaganda to their students, who apparently must be wondering about their course of study at the time, but like most of that type of slop, it just isn't true, and the people who circulate it, while they should know better, do not.
Lawyer, 1940, doing exactly what a law degree trains you to do.
I mention that not to pop that balloon. Presumably (but perhaps I shouldn't presume), most people who go to law school do not do so in the hopes of never using their degrees to pursue law. If they are, they're making a rather odd choice, sort of like "I got on this train that goes only to Duluth, but I have no desire to go to Duluth." Rather, I note that as I'm doing one of those things that I shouldn't, and I'm offering a bit of career advice. And that advice is get a good educational broad base, but don't major in anything that can't be employed, unless you are rich.
Okay, what do I mean by that?
Well, whether we like it or not, because of the increasing automation of technology, anyone entering the workplace in anything today should not count on that field really still being around, in its present form, in ten to fifteen years. Yes, I hope it really is, but you can't count on it. Some fields, law being one, definitely will not be really recognizable in their present form within twenty years. Yes, there will still be lawyers, but they'll all be poorer and there will be fewer of them, and a good deal of what they do in some fields will have been farmed out overseas to equally well versed and trained individuals, who work for a lot less. This isn't unique to law, and is already happening in a lot of fields (some doctor's offices, for example, have their records handled by firms in India..
Because of these changes, in my view, a person's educational base and training base should be broad enough to hopefully give them something to fall back on, or move to, should they need to.
Using law as a model again, there are those who take undergraduate courses of studies in something that can not be used for gainful employment in and of itself. If it can't, it won't, and in a pinch, that education was wasted.
For that matter, there are entire institutions that focus on this sort of training. There is, for example, a private university in Wyoming that focuses on a classical education centered on the "great books." That's fine, except that education will not put food on the table. It might get you access to a law school, or a seminary, but that means you are really locked in. When you get that law degree, for example, your bolt is really shot as you don't get endless chances and you sure better darned well like it. Nobody is going to hire you in a corporation at this point, or in business, or whatever, to head their Duluth widget making branch. Shoot, they won't even hire you to work on the factory floor at Duluth Widgets and Cat Grooming Supplies.. You are a lawyer, with a degree in something that only prepared you for that, and that's what you are.
Now, any one of those degrees may be fine if you can work it into a teaching career. But you had better have had some plans for that and be capable of moving on it, and it better really be one of those. A degree in History, or English, or Math, and not a degree in "I wanna be something else so I'm taking this now." After you get pretty far along this path, it is the path, and there's not an easy way to turn around and walk back down it.
Moreover, at least in the professional fields, I really feel a professional is better off having a broader base of knowledge. I've known a lot of lawyers whose undergraduate degree was focused on being a "pre law" degree, and frankly they missed out. Their education was so focused on a path, they don't know what's off of it. And this isn't limited to just lawyers by any means.
And I don't mean this post to be. Wanting to be a pilot? Great, study something else in school too. We don't know where that field will be headed in 20 or 30 years. Wanting to be a welder? Great, but why don't you take those welding class as a community college and maybe take some accounting as well. Could be useful. Want to be an accountant? Fantastic, but why not also round that out with some other field as well.
Now, a lot of this can only be taken so far. Students only have so much time, and so much money. But, be that as it may, ideally a person would be better off having some manual skill they can at least do, and some field that requires a college education, if they're pursing a college education. Stuff happens. I've known two lawyers who, due to circumstances, had to work construction jobs after years of being in the law, but at least they could. One reemerged and another disappeared, but at least they were able to do that.
Now, as I can already sense the hackles raising, let me note what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that any field outside the engineering department is worthless, and that a university should be a species of trade school. I've seen those arguments countering that trend made, and I agree with them. But that doesn't have so much to do with a person's major, as it does with the failure of the modern university and the evolution of the modern economy. I fully agree the classic liberal arts majors should remain, although I'd fully dump some, like political science, that have little real utility. But the problem we see here is that any university education is, in and of itself, supposed to be "liberal". A student shouldn't be able to get out of university without a foreign language that they've studied, without a solid foundation in history, and without exposure to the various arts. If the hard sciences and engineering have become trade schools, that's because the schools have let that happen. And that's because we have an erroneous concept that everyone, everywhere, needs a college education.
But many will needs such an education, and it should be "liberal" in the classical sense. But, the realities of the world being what they are, the education should also have a practical application, or the student should have a goal in mind. Just hoping it works out isn't a good goal. The institution needs to inform the student of the chances of applying the education, after which it is up to the student to go forward or not. For some, that education will not really fully work out immediately, and for others it will fail sooner or later.
And that's the point really. As nobody is that accurate at predicting the future (indeed, according to those who have studied this topic, most such prognostications are in error) it's better to have something to fall back on, in some ways. The more education you have, the broader that education can be, and the better your chances, maybe, of having something going disastrously wrong.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Related Posts:
Commentary on Career Advice: Caveat Auctor.
But many will needs such an education, and it should be "liberal" in the classical sense. But, the realities of the world being what they are, the education should also have a practical application, or the student should have a goal in mind. Just hoping it works out isn't a good goal. The institution needs to inform the student of the chances of applying the education, after which it is up to the student to go forward or not. For some, that education will not really fully work out immediately, and for others it will fail sooner or later.
And that's the point really. As nobody is that accurate at predicting the future (indeed, according to those who have studied this topic, most such prognostications are in error) it's better to have something to fall back on, in some ways. The more education you have, the broader that education can be, and the better your chances, maybe, of having something going disastrously wrong.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Related Posts:
Commentary on Career Advice: Caveat Auctor.
Thursday, October 8, 1914. An Air Raid.
Sopwith Tabloids destroyed the Zeppelin Z IX in a bombing raid, the first time aircraft had destroyed an airship, albeit on the ground. The raid was carried out by the Royal Navy over the Zeppelin sheds at Düsseldorf and the Cologne railway station.
.jpg)
Keep the Home Fires Burning was published.
An odd and perhaps miscaptioned photograph. The World Series started on October 9.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Monday at the Bar: 19th Century Courts Martial
A 19th Century U.S. Army courts martial. Unlikely that there would have been lawyers actually at it, as a regular JAG Corps was a post World War One creation. Before that, all legal matters were handled by officers and enlisted men detailed to the task.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
A questionable monetary message.
Other than my recent posts on the wars in the Middle East, I generally have abstained from any religious commentary in terms of religious messages themselves. This blog isn't a forum for that.
However, I just can't help myself on this one.
This morning, I turned on the television and found a televangelist on whose message basically was that if you gave him money (no matter how much you might be hurting yourself) God was going to reward you with more money.
I know that there's a certain group of folks who believe this, but that message just isn't there in the Gospels. Indeed, while I can't claim to be an expert, that message isn't in any of the three major monotheistic religions.
That definitely isn't the message of Christianity. Far from it. At best, a person might receive such a blessing, but Christianity's message is you reward is in the next world, not in this one, although aid in this one isn't impossible. But take the lives of the Saints. None of the Apostles got rich and died wealthy. Quite the contrary. They lived poor and died by violence. Or take the Roman Martyrology, those saints whom Catholics remember at Mass at least in part. A long list of men and women whose ends were brutal.
I don't know why this offended me sufficiently to post about it here, but it does. I've seen this guy on television before, and his message is always "send me money" and God will send you more. I don't know what the guy does with this money, but a message always focused on the concept that God is some sort of reverse bank where you give money and get more in return is pretty far from the Christian Gospel.
However, I just can't help myself on this one.
This morning, I turned on the television and found a televangelist on whose message basically was that if you gave him money (no matter how much you might be hurting yourself) God was going to reward you with more money.
I know that there's a certain group of folks who believe this, but that message just isn't there in the Gospels. Indeed, while I can't claim to be an expert, that message isn't in any of the three major monotheistic religions.
That definitely isn't the message of Christianity. Far from it. At best, a person might receive such a blessing, but Christianity's message is you reward is in the next world, not in this one, although aid in this one isn't impossible. But take the lives of the Saints. None of the Apostles got rich and died wealthy. Quite the contrary. They lived poor and died by violence. Or take the Roman Martyrology, those saints whom Catholics remember at Mass at least in part. A long list of men and women whose ends were brutal.
I don't know why this offended me sufficiently to post about it here, but it does. I've seen this guy on television before, and his message is always "send me money" and God will send you more. I don't know what the guy does with this money, but a message always focused on the concept that God is some sort of reverse bank where you give money and get more in return is pretty far from the Christian Gospel.
No, Seriously, How Contagious Is Ebola? : Shots - Health News : NPR
No, Seriously, How Contagious Is Ebola? : Shots - Health News : NPR
Not very, as it turns out (and as I already knew).
In order for Ebola to become the disease that the panicky wish to make, it would have to become airborne, like influenza. The chances of that are next no nil.
But what about west Africa then?
Well, poor living conditions, poor health infrastructure, poor resources. That explains it. The disease is deadly, to be sure, and every person who dies from it is a tragedy. But this is the 1918 Flu Epidemic back a century later, or the Black Plague.
Not very, as it turns out (and as I already knew).
In order for Ebola to become the disease that the panicky wish to make, it would have to become airborne, like influenza. The chances of that are next no nil.
But what about west Africa then?
Well, poor living conditions, poor health infrastructure, poor resources. That explains it. The disease is deadly, to be sure, and every person who dies from it is a tragedy. But this is the 1918 Flu Epidemic back a century later, or the Black Plague.
Narrative and the Grace of God: The New 'True Grit' - NYTimes.com
Narrative and the Grace of God: The New 'True Grit' - NYTimes.com
I see that I'm not the only one whose noticed this interesting aspect of this film. This is also the case, very intentionally so of course, of the Coen's A Serious Man, although I find that to be a rather odd movie.
I see that I'm not the only one whose noticed this interesting aspect of this film. This is also the case, very intentionally so of course, of the Coen's A Serious Man, although I find that to be a rather odd movie.
The Big Speech: Chief Joseph's Surrender Speech
Chief Joseph, October 5, 1877
Tell General Howard I know his Heart.
What He told me before I have in my heart. I am tired of fighting,
Looking Glass is dead. too-Hul-hul-sote is dead. The old men are all
dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men
is dead. It is cold and we have no blankets. The little children are
freezing to death. My people, some of them have run away to the hills,
and have no blankets, no food; no one knows where they are -- perhpas
freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children and see
how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead.
Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the
sun now stands I will fight no more forever.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
The French President addresss his Parliament, August 4, 1914
Gentlemen:
France has just been the object of a violent and premeditated attack, which is an insolent defiance of the law of nations. Before any declaration of war had been sent to us, even before the German Ambassador had asked for his passports, our territory has been violated. The German Empire has waited till yesterday evening to give at this late stage the true name to a state of things which it had already created.
For more than forty years the French, in sincere love of peace, have buried at the bottom of their heart the desire for legitimate reparation.
They have given to the world the example of a great nation which, definitely raised from defeat by the exercise of will, patience, and labour, has only used its renewed and rejuvenated strength in the interest of progress and for the good of humanity.
Since the ultimatum of Austria opened a crisis which threatened the whole of Europe, France has persisted in following and in recommending on all sides a policy of prudence, wisdom, and moderation.
To her there can be imputed no act, no movement, no word, which has not been peaceful and conciliatory.
At the hour when the struggle is beginning, she has the right, in justice to herself, of solemnly declaring that she has made, up to the last moment, supreme efforts to avert the war now about to break out, the crushing responsibility for which the German Empire will have to bear before history. Our fine and courageous army, which France today accompanies with her maternal thought has risen eager to defend the honour of the flag and the soil of the country.
The President of the Republic interpreting the unanimous feeling of the country, expresses to our troops by land and sea the admiration and confidence of every Frenchman.
Closely united in a common feeling, the nation will persevere with the cool self-restraint of which, since the beginning of the crisis, she has given daily proof. Now, as always, she will know how to harmonise the most noble daring and most ardent enthusiasm with that self-control which is the sign of enduring energy and is the best guarantee of victory.
In the war which is beginning, France will have Right on her side, the eternal power of which cannot with impunity be disregarded by nations any more than by individuals.
She will be heroically defended by all her sons; nothing will break their sacred union before the enemy; today they are joined together as brothers in a common indignation against the aggressor, and in a common patriotic faith.
She is faithfully helped by Russia, her ally; she is supported by the loyal friendship of Great Britain.
And already from every part of the civilised world sympathy and good wishes are coming to her. For today once again she stands before the universe for Liberty, Justice, and Reason.
'Haut les coeurs et vive la France!'
France has just been the object of a violent and premeditated attack, which is an insolent defiance of the law of nations. Before any declaration of war had been sent to us, even before the German Ambassador had asked for his passports, our territory has been violated. The German Empire has waited till yesterday evening to give at this late stage the true name to a state of things which it had already created.
For more than forty years the French, in sincere love of peace, have buried at the bottom of their heart the desire for legitimate reparation.
They have given to the world the example of a great nation which, definitely raised from defeat by the exercise of will, patience, and labour, has only used its renewed and rejuvenated strength in the interest of progress and for the good of humanity.
Since the ultimatum of Austria opened a crisis which threatened the whole of Europe, France has persisted in following and in recommending on all sides a policy of prudence, wisdom, and moderation.
To her there can be imputed no act, no movement, no word, which has not been peaceful and conciliatory.
At the hour when the struggle is beginning, she has the right, in justice to herself, of solemnly declaring that she has made, up to the last moment, supreme efforts to avert the war now about to break out, the crushing responsibility for which the German Empire will have to bear before history. Our fine and courageous army, which France today accompanies with her maternal thought has risen eager to defend the honour of the flag and the soil of the country.
The President of the Republic interpreting the unanimous feeling of the country, expresses to our troops by land and sea the admiration and confidence of every Frenchman.
Closely united in a common feeling, the nation will persevere with the cool self-restraint of which, since the beginning of the crisis, she has given daily proof. Now, as always, she will know how to harmonise the most noble daring and most ardent enthusiasm with that self-control which is the sign of enduring energy and is the best guarantee of victory.
In the war which is beginning, France will have Right on her side, the eternal power of which cannot with impunity be disregarded by nations any more than by individuals.
She will be heroically defended by all her sons; nothing will break their sacred union before the enemy; today they are joined together as brothers in a common indignation against the aggressor, and in a common patriotic faith.
She is faithfully helped by Russia, her ally; she is supported by the loyal friendship of Great Britain.
And already from every part of the civilised world sympathy and good wishes are coming to her. For today once again she stands before the universe for Liberty, Justice, and Reason.
'Haut les coeurs et vive la France!'
The Big Speech: Germany Declares War Against France, August 3, 1914.
M. Le President,
The German administrative and military authorities have established a certain number of flagrantly hostile acts committed on German territory by French military aviators.
Several of these have openly violated the neutrality of Belgium by flying over the territory of that country; one has attempted to destroy buildings near Wesel; others have been seen in the district of the Eifel; one has thrown bombs on the railway near Carlsruhe and Nuremberg.
I am instructed, and I have the honour to inform your Excellency, that in the presence of these acts of aggression the German Empire considers itself in a state of war with France in consequence of the acts of this latter Power.
At the same time, I have the honour to bring to the knowledge of your Excellency that the German authorities will retain French mercantile vessels in German ports, but they will release them if, within forty-eight hours, they are assured of complete reciprocity.
My diplomatic mission having thus come to an end, it only remains for me to request your Excellency to be good enough to furnish me with my passports, and to take the steps you consider suitable to assure my return to Germany, with the staff of the Embassy, as well as, with the Staff of the Bavarian Legation and of the German Consulate General in Paris.
Be good enough, M. le President, to receive the assurances of my deepest respect.
The German administrative and military authorities have established a certain number of flagrantly hostile acts committed on German territory by French military aviators.
Several of these have openly violated the neutrality of Belgium by flying over the territory of that country; one has attempted to destroy buildings near Wesel; others have been seen in the district of the Eifel; one has thrown bombs on the railway near Carlsruhe and Nuremberg.
I am instructed, and I have the honour to inform your Excellency, that in the presence of these acts of aggression the German Empire considers itself in a state of war with France in consequence of the acts of this latter Power.
At the same time, I have the honour to bring to the knowledge of your Excellency that the German authorities will retain French mercantile vessels in German ports, but they will release them if, within forty-eight hours, they are assured of complete reciprocity.
My diplomatic mission having thus come to an end, it only remains for me to request your Excellency to be good enough to furnish me with my passports, and to take the steps you consider suitable to assure my return to Germany, with the staff of the Embassy, as well as, with the Staff of the Bavarian Legation and of the German Consulate General in Paris.
Be good enough, M. le President, to receive the assurances of my deepest respect.
The Big Speech: Germany joins in, August 1, 1914
The Imperial German
Government have used every effort since the beginning of the crisis to bring
about a peaceful settlement. In compliance with a wish expressed to
him by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, the German Emperor had undertaken,
in concert with Great Britain, the part of mediator between the Cabinets of
Vienna and St. Petersburg; but Russia, without waiting for any result,
proceeded to a general mobilisation of her forces both on land and sea.
In consequence of this threatening step, which was not justified by any military proceedings on the part of Germany, the German Empire was faced by a grave and imminent danger. If the German Government had failed to guard against this peril, they would have compromised the safety and the very existence of Germany.
The German Government were, therefore, obliged to make representations to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and to insist upon a cessation of the aforesaid military acts. Russia having refused to comply with this demand, and having shown by this refusal that her action was directed against Germany, I have the honour, on the instructions of my Government, to inform your Excellency as follows:
His Majesty the Emperor, my august Sovereign, in the name of the German Empire, accepts the challenge, and considers himself at war with Russia.
In consequence of this threatening step, which was not justified by any military proceedings on the part of Germany, the German Empire was faced by a grave and imminent danger. If the German Government had failed to guard against this peril, they would have compromised the safety and the very existence of Germany.
The German Government were, therefore, obliged to make representations to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and to insist upon a cessation of the aforesaid military acts. Russia having refused to comply with this demand, and having shown by this refusal that her action was directed against Germany, I have the honour, on the instructions of my Government, to inform your Excellency as follows:
His Majesty the Emperor, my august Sovereign, in the name of the German Empire, accepts the challenge, and considers himself at war with Russia.
The Big Speech: Austria Declares War on Serbia, thereby starting the mass slaughter. July 28, 1914
The Royal Serbian
Government not having answered in a satisfactory manner the note of July 23,
1914, presented by the Austro-Hungarian Minister at Belgrade, the Imperial
and Royal Government are themselves compelled to see to the safeguarding of
their rights and interests, and, with this object, to have recourse to force
of arms.
Austria-Hungary consequently considers herself henceforward in state of war with Serbia.
Austria-Hungary consequently considers herself henceforward in state of war with Serbia.
Sunday, October 4, 1914. Declaring a Day of Prayer.
President Wilson declared a national day of prayer for the end of World War One.
PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT WILSON FOR DAY OF PRAYER. By the President of the United States of America. A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas great nations of the world have taken up arms against one another and war now draws millions of men into battle whom the counsel of statesmen have not been able to save from the terrible sacrifice; And whereas in this as in all things it is our privilege and duty to seek counsel and succor of Almighty God, humbling ourselves before Him, confessing our weakness and our lack of any wisdom equal to these things; And whereas it is the especial wish and longing of the people of the United States, in prayer and counsel and all friendliness, to serve the cause of peace :
Therefore, I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, do designate Sunday, the 4th day of October next, a day of prayer and supplication and do request all God-fearing persons to repair on that day to their places of worship there to unite their petitions to Almighty God that, overruling the counsel of men, setting straight the things they can not govern or alter, taking pity on the nations now in the throes of conflict, in His mercy and goodness, showing a way where, men can see none, He vouchsafe His children healing peace again and restore once more that concord among men and nations without which there can be neither happiness nor true friendship nor any wholesome fruit of toil or thought in the world; praying also to this end that He forgive us our sins, our ignorance of His holy will, our willfulness and many errors, and lead us in the paths of obedience to places of vision and to thoughts and counsels that purge and make wise.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, and of the independence of the United States of America the one hundred and thirty-ninth.
Woodrow Wilson. By the President: William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State.
Ninety Three German scientists signed a proclamation in support of Germany and the war. The document was met with consternation outside of Germany.
Last edition:
Saturday, October 3, 1914. The French hold at Arras.
Labels: 1910s, 1914, Arras, Art, British Commonwealth, British Empire, Canadian Army, J. C. Leyendecker, World War One
The Big Speech: President Wilson's Address to Congress, April 20, 2014
Gentlemen
of the Congress:
It is my
duty to call to your attention to a situation which has arisen in our
dealings with the General Victoriano Huerta at Mexico City which calls for
action , and to ask your advice and cooperation in acting upon it.
On the
9th of April a paymaster of the U.S.S. Dolphin landed at the Iturbide Bridge
landing at Tampico with a whaleboat and boats' crew to take off certain
supplies needed by his ship , and while engaged in loading the boat was
arrested by an officer and squad of men of the army of General Huerta....
Admiral Mayo regarded the arrest as so serious an affront that he was not
satisfied with the flag of the United States be saluted with special
ceremony by the military commander of the port.
The
incident can not be regarded as a trivial one, especially as two of the men
arrested were taken from the boat itself - that is to say, from the
territory of the United States - but had it stood by itself it might have
been attributed to the ignorance or arrogance of a single officer.
Unfortunately, it was not an isolated case.
A series
of incidents have recently occurred which can not but create the impression
that the representatives of General Huerta were willing to go out of their
way to show disregard for the dignity and rights of this Government and felt
perfectly safe in doing what they pleased, making free to show in many ways
their irritation and contempt...
The
manifest danger of such a situation was that such offences might grow from
bad to worse until something happened of so gross and intolerable a sort as
to lead directly and inevitably to armed conflict. It was necessary
that the apologies of General Huerta and his representatives should go much
further, that they should be such as to attract the attention of the whole
population to their significance, and such as to impress upon General Huerta
himself the necessity of seeing to it that no further occasion for
explanations and professed regrets should arise.
I,
therefore, felt it my duty to sustain Admiral Mayo in the whole of his
demand and to insist that the flag of the United States should be saluted in
such a way as to indicate a new spirit and attitude on the part of the
Huertistas.
Such a
salute, General Huerta has refused and I have come to ask your approval and
support in the course I now propose to pursue. This Government can, I
earnestly hope, in no circumstances be forced into war with the people of
Mexico. Mexico is torn by civil strife. If we are to accept the
tests of its own constitution, it has no government. General Huerta
has set his power up in the City of Mexico, such as it is, without right and
by methods for which there can be no justification.
Only part
of the country is under his control. If armed conflict should
unhappily come as a result of his attitude of personal resentment toward
this Government, we should be fighting only General Huerta and those who
adhere to him and give him their support, and our object would be only to
restore to the people of the distracted Republic the opportunity to set up
again their own laws and their own government.
But I
earnestly hope that war is not now in question. I believe I speak for
the American people when I say that we do not desire to control in any
degree the affairs of our sister Republic. Our feeling for the people
of Mexico is one of deep and genuine friendship, and every thing that we
have so far done or refrained from doing has proceeded from our desire to
help them, not to hinder or embarrass them.
We would
not wish even to exercise the good offices of friendship without their
welcome and consent. The people of Mexico are entitled to settle their
own domestic affairs in their own way, and we sincerely desire to respect
their right. The present situation need have none of the grave
implications of interference if we deal with it promptly, firmly, and
wisely.
No doubt
I could do what is necessary the circumstances to enforce respect for our
Government without recourse to the Congress, and yet not exceed my
constitution powers as President; but I do not wish to a in a manner
possibly of so grave consequence except in close conference and cooperation
with both the Senate and House.
I,
therefore l come to ask your approval that I should use the armed forces of
the United States in such ways and to such an extent as may be necessary to
obtain from General Huerta and adherents the fullest recognition of the
rights and dignity of the United States, even admit the distressing
conditions now unhappily obtaining in Mexico.
There can
in what we do be no thought of aggression or of selfish aggrandizement.
We seek to maintain the dignity and authority of the United States only
because we wish always to keep our great influence unimpaired for the uses
of liberty, both in United States and wherever else it may employed for the
benefit of mankind.
Preventing being spotted by U-boats?
My old Hamilton field watch, being worn "upside down".
Recently I scratched the top of my wrist where it contacts my watch, and so as a result I've been wearing my watch face down, or upside down compared to the way most people normally wear it. To my surprise, while it seems strange to wear it that way, it's fairly comfortable.
Anyhow, a colleague of mind who normally wears his watch this way told me that he was trained to do that during World War Two, when he was in the Navy. The thought was that the luminescent faces of watches might be seen by U-boats scanning the seas at night, and if the watches were worn that way they'd be less likely to be facing outwards.
I wonder if that training was widespread, and if it was really based on a real danger? The faces of these watches aren't really all that bright, and I'd think the risk pretty small. Not that the Navy wouldn't seek to prevent the danger.
Friday, October 3, 2014
Saturday, October 3, 1914. The French hold at Arras.
It was Saturday, and J. C. Leyendecker painted a worrying Uncle Sam reading the newspaper.
The French line held the Germans at Arras.
The first Canadian troops set sail for the United Kingdom.
Last edition:
Friday, October 2, 1914. The Sultan of Swat.
Ranchers v. the U.S. Army and what it revealed.
My mother in law loaned me a copy of Cowboy magazine, which had been loaned to her, and asked me to read an article in it. The article concerned efforts of southern Colorado ranchers to resist an effort by the Army to expand the training ranges associated with Ft. Carson, following up on a successful Army effort to do that earlier. The net result of the effort would have made approximately 10% of Colorado a training range.
What was so interesting about the article is what ranchers and those who spend a lot of time on ranches already know. Ranching is sustainable by its very nature, and by extension, it preserves wildlands. Opponents of ranching like to claim its destructive to the land, but in fact, as the article points out, profit margins in ranching are so low that a person has to be absolutely attune to the land to make it work, and by extension, that preserves it. This is particularly the case for multi-generational ranching, which in most places in the west, is what we have.
What the article also pointed out, and what is also true, is that even though ranchers know this, there's a deep sense of suspicion on their part that generally prevents scientist from coming in and studying this. That did happen here, but only because some dynamic organizers got it done. Otherwise, the story that the land was tired, the ranchers wanted out, and the Army would be better stewards of the land and cultural artifacts would have prevailed. Ranchers should take note of this everywhere.
Now, like the ranchers in this story themselves, I have to note that preserving the land for agriculture does not make a person unpatriotic. These guys weren't opposing national defense, they were preserving the land and their living, and that's what everyone is fighting for.
What was so interesting about the article is what ranchers and those who spend a lot of time on ranches already know. Ranching is sustainable by its very nature, and by extension, it preserves wildlands. Opponents of ranching like to claim its destructive to the land, but in fact, as the article points out, profit margins in ranching are so low that a person has to be absolutely attune to the land to make it work, and by extension, that preserves it. This is particularly the case for multi-generational ranching, which in most places in the west, is what we have.
What the article also pointed out, and what is also true, is that even though ranchers know this, there's a deep sense of suspicion on their part that generally prevents scientist from coming in and studying this. That did happen here, but only because some dynamic organizers got it done. Otherwise, the story that the land was tired, the ranchers wanted out, and the Army would be better stewards of the land and cultural artifacts would have prevailed. Ranchers should take note of this everywhere.
Now, like the ranchers in this story themselves, I have to note that preserving the land for agriculture does not make a person unpatriotic. These guys weren't opposing national defense, they were preserving the land and their living, and that's what everyone is fighting for.
Friday Farming: The Immigrant Farmer.
Italian immigrant in his field, about 1940. A scene truly of the past, as a poor immigrant today would be highly unlikely to ever have sufficient assets enough to purchase a farm. For that matter, most native born American citizens never will.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Friday, October 2, 1914. The Sultan of Swat.
The French withdrew from Douai.
Babe Ruth doubles for his first big-league hit.
Last edition:
Thursday, October 1, 1914. Carranza suggests a meeting and the Battle of Arras starts.
Labels: 1910s, 1914, Arras, Colorado Coalfield War, French Army, German Army, Ludlow Massacre, Mexican Revolution, Venustiano Carranza, World War One
The Jurisdictional Agony of the D. C. Circuit. Wolves
I'm really sick of the Federal District of Columbia judicial circuit.
What brings this comment about is the decision by Judge Amy Berman Jackson that the plan worked on seemingly forever by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the State of Wyoming allowing the state to assume control over the management of wolves in Wyoming failed as the reliance upon Wyoming's regulatory scheme was "arbitrary and capricious."
Now, to be fair to Judge Jackson, what is being missed in this decision is that the holding of the Court was very limited. The court upheld nearly everything that the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service did, and really the only thing that the Court found fault with was that, in its words:
.
The record reflects that the FWS specifically relied on the representations in the Addendum as the basis for its conclusion that Wyoming would do what the agency has determined it must do: manage above the 10/100 minimum. The Court finds that under those circumstances the reliance on mere assurances was inappropriate and it rendered the FWS decision arbitrary and capricious.
The rest of the opinion upholds everything that the Fish & Wildlife Service did. The judge's opinion, while I feel it is in error, isn't exactly hostile or shocking. The impact, however, of the opinion is enormous. A process that has taken years to develop, which allows the State of Wyoming to manage the wolf population, and which allows wolves to be taken as predators outside of their recovery area, and managed through hunting in the recovery era, has been upset for at least the second time. This now means that in the entire state stockmen are once again at the mercy of wolves, and cannot do anything really if wolves prey on their livestock. And it means the employees of the State who are working in this area are now surplus to their agencies (last time the new head of this project, for the state, who had been the head for the FWS, resigned his state position and took a position with the Federal government again), and the FWS must not involve itself and its personnel once again.
That's the impact, but if the judge's ruling isn't patently in error, what is my complaint?
Well, what my compliant is that with the D. C. Circuit, the states, and their residents, have to put up with being judged by a jurist with no connection to the state at all, in a remote locality, where distance and conditions will never be favorable to a state, and where the jurists inherent knowledge is unlikely to exist on such topics. Federal courts were set up in individual states for a reason, and there's a reason that the system provides the judges are to be drawn from the states, except, of course as to the District of Columbia.
The D. C. Circuit was afforded with jurisdiction on suits against states because it was feared that plaintiff's would get "hometowned" if they were always required to file suit against a state, in the state. That may have reflected the conditions in the court system when the law was created, but it no longer does. Originally, any Federal Court was likely to be far from Washington D. C. That's still true, but it isn't true that Federal judges sit in remote vacuums in their states. Being appointed to the Federal bench is a difficult and arduous process, and it isn't the case, and hasn't been for decades, that the Federal judges, who sit for life and who cannot be removed by the states, are likely to be excessively partisan to their states. The entire Senate sits in review of these judges and its not unusual at all for the Senate to hold up an appointment it doesn't like or to just keep it from occurring. Wyoming has experienced that on one recent occasion, holding up an appointment for so long that ultimately the appointed lawyer withdrew his name and had to restart his process, basically because one party didn't like some things he had supported as a legislator. On the D. C. Circuit, however, it isn't the case that any state process exist to even get a name to the Senate. The states have no impact.
Its not an accident that groups and organizations that want to go after states invariably file suit in the District of Columbia. Every time they do, they are likely to draw a judge who has no connection, and therefore no life experience based knowledge, on the state they're suing. Take this judge for example.
This particularly judge graduated from Harvard Law in 1979, making her part of the group of Ivy League Federal jurists that have become so prominent in recent decades. She worked as a Federal law clear and in the Justice Department up until entering private practice in 1986, which she stayed with until appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2010. She probably was a really good lawyer, and she does have a fair amount of private practice experience, but not experience here, where her decision will have an impact on everyone.
And because of this background, Harvard Law, law clerk, U.S. Attorney, she's a member of a club that's insulated from the lives of most people most places, and even lawyers west of the Mississippi. Lawyers here, including the judges, and including the Federal judges, are not Harvard law graduates and most have had pretty conventional state careers before their appointments. Frankly, I'd rather have judges like that every time rather than those Harvard pros with rarefied careers. I'm already of the opinion that generally Ivy League lawyers are a different species of lawyer to start with, and less connected with the real world than the rest of us, and I don't think that's a good thing for a judge. In recent decades the U.S. Supreme Court has tended to be drawn from this class, which isn't a good thing in my view. This isn't to say that the Justices are all bad guys, but when people get frustrated as the opinions seem to be so rarefied, and the debate so ethereal, well they should consider the ultimate source of the legal training and experience involved in creating them. In some former instances some of the lawyers lived some pretty colorful lives, they'd been solders (one had even been a Confederate soldier), politicians (one had been a President), and even entertaining jurist (one carried a handgun frequently out of the concern a jealous husband would catch up with him). Now, they're less colorful and more remote.
They also aren't likely to be familiar with the hard efforts of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in any fashion, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
To add to this, D. C. does a lot of whining about not having the full rights that states do, often failing to realize that it is, after all, a Federal reservation and it isn't supposed to be a state. Here too, however, that shows how obsolete this system is. It's original purpose largely now gone, there's really no reason that the city can't just be absorbed by a neighboring state for voting purpose and the district completely abolished. It wouldn't be missed at all, and all of the legal causes and controversies that presently exist within it could just as easily be filed in the native circuit if they were local, or in the proper states if they were not. Want to sue Wyoming? Sue it in Wyoming. Want to sue the Federal government? Sue it where you live. Or sue where the controversy actually exists.
Year and years ago, while in law school I worked on an article with Professor Robert Keiter about Wolf Recovery. While doing that I interviewed the Wyoming's sitting Agriculture secretary, who was not only opposed to reintroduction, but thought it would be stopped. At that time, I was in favor, but with a caveat. It wasn't wolves I was worried about, as my thought that the reintroduction of a native species helped secure the ongoing preservation of wildlands, but it was the people that came with the wolves that I worried about. That is, their backers who didn't live here and who would make it impossible to live with the wolves. I was proved right on that, and some of those people are the Federal jurist an antiquated court structure provides jurisdiction to, far from the impact of their decisions.
In the U.S., it would be a sign of a pack of interest groups loose in the woods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)