Friday, October 7, 2016
The Wyoming Tribune for October 7, 1916: Boston takes game one of the world series
Note, this is the 3:30 pm edition of the Tribune.
Active at the time and in the region. Frank A. Meanea
Frank A. Meanea is one of the most famous of the late 19th and early 20th Century saddlemakers.
Meanea started off his career by working with his uncle, the also famous (in this topic) saddlemaker E. L. Gallatin. They located in Cheyenne in the very late 1860s, a period in which Cheyenne was in its infancy. In 1881 Meanea had become sufficiently well known as a maker that the company began to make leather items under Meanea's name as F. A. Meanea Saddlery. It would continue to operate under that name until 1928, Meanea's death. It would retain its Cheyenne base that entire time, although oddly enough there was a period of time in which it had a presence in the Yukon, reflecting that Canadian Territory's pioneering days.
Meanea's is very famous for the Cheyenne style of Western stock saddle, some features of which we still see today. The Cheyenne Roll was a Meanea innovation. His shop was also associated with a type of Mexican Loop holster and it was Meanea who introduced the Cheyenne Plug (closed bottom) to that type of very widely used Frontier Era holster.
Meanea's shop was substantial, employing over 20 people at the height of its production He operated not only by direct sales, but by mail order, something that was fairly common at the time.
Meanea started off his career by working with his uncle, the also famous (in this topic) saddlemaker E. L. Gallatin. They located in Cheyenne in the very late 1860s, a period in which Cheyenne was in its infancy. In 1881 Meanea had become sufficiently well known as a maker that the company began to make leather items under Meanea's name as F. A. Meanea Saddlery. It would continue to operate under that name until 1928, Meanea's death. It would retain its Cheyenne base that entire time, although oddly enough there was a period of time in which it had a presence in the Yukon, reflecting that Canadian Territory's pioneering days.
Meanea's is very famous for the Cheyenne style of Western stock saddle, some features of which we still see today. The Cheyenne Roll was a Meanea innovation. His shop was also associated with a type of Mexican Loop holster and it was Meanea who introduced the Cheyenne Plug (closed bottom) to that type of very widely used Frontier Era holster.
Meanea's shop was substantial, employing over 20 people at the height of its production He operated not only by direct sales, but by mail order, something that was fairly common at the time.
One Sided. Georgia Tech v. Cumberland College, October 7, 1916.
As difficult as it is to grasp, this day is the anniversary of a 1916 football game in which Georgia Tech defeated Cumberland College in football game with a final score of 222 to 0.
Something questions the sportsmanship of something here.
Something questions the sportsmanship of something here.
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Illinois Guardsmen return home to warm welcome
Illinois welcomed its Guardsmen back home, just as Wyoming had just sent its off. Courtesy of 100 Years Ago Today Subreddit.
Bass Pro Shop swallows Cabelas. . . a Distributist Sportsman's Lament
This past week the news broke that Bass Pro Shop bought its rival, Sidney Nebraska based Cabelas.
Ah, pooh.
News, truly, I wish hadn't come.
Now, why, doggone it, as a red blooded American, am I lamenting the time honored business model of one company swallowing another? Geez Louise man, aren't I for motherhood, apple pie, and unrestrained acquisition?
Well, I'm for motherhood and I like apple pie, but. . . .
I'm also for subsidiarity.
Now, before I go on to explain that, I should note that Missouri based Bass Pro Shop says it'll keep the Cabelaas flag flying, so there will be, they say,in some form, a Cabelas and a Bass Pro.
Well, I'm skeptical.
Generally, quite frankly, that's not how these thing go long term. Bass Pro Shop and Cabelas are competitors. While they likely do not perfectly overlap, they do to a large extent, and long term, it won't make sense for both of them to keep on. At some point, I suspect, Bass Pro Shop will figure it makes more sense to just have all of those stores be Bass Pro Shops.
But I suspect it won't be the best for them, for the same reason.
Which brings me to subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity, according to Wikipedia, is defined as follows:
Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.
Put another way:
It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry. Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, pg.79
Now, there's a lot to this, but the basic gist of it is as noted above. The concept is that needs are best met at the local level, and for that matter, the market is best met at the local level. This isn't always true, but it tend to be. It's best, generally, for the local employees, and its often best for the local market, or consumer.
As an example of that, I'd note, big chain sporting goods stores (and Cabelas is one, but I'm not pointing at them) often stock weird items for the local market. We see that here on odd occasion when we'll have a big national chain that stocks something like gigantic fishing poles, or deer stands, neither of which are used here. One Canadian based sporting goods store that has an outlet here stocks the gigantic fishing poles, and while they're interesting, I'll be they hardly ever sell one.
Which is why I favor a local sporting goods store here that is part of a chain, but just a statewide one. It's the best store in town, in my view, and this is likely because it knows its market.
Indeed, occasionally there were rumors that Cabelas would come in here and I always hoped they wouldn't. So far they haven't. But I'd rather have Sidney Nebraska based Cabelas around here than Missouri based Bass Pro.
Which goes to the fact that I tend to still look at Cabelas and Bass Pro as types of mail order outfits that were pioneered by Herters years ago. That is, while they have expanded to have retail outlets, it was really mail order that made them what they were and, in that sense, they occupied a different category than brick and mortar stores. At least as to Cabelas it wasn't that they were cheaper, as they often were not, but rather that you could order stuff from them that you couldn't otherwise get locally. So they were like a smaller singular entity in a certain fashion. When they started to have multiple outlets that sort of changed and while I certainly stopped in some of those outlets here and there, I was never really comfortable with it.
Which goes to the fact that I tend to still look at Cabelas and Bass Pro as types of mail order outfits that were pioneered by Herters years ago. That is, while they have expanded to have retail outlets, it was really mail order that made them what they were and, in that sense, they occupied a different category than brick and mortar stores. At least as to Cabelas it wasn't that they were cheaper, as they often were not, but rather that you could order stuff from them that you couldn't otherwise get locally. So they were like a smaller singular entity in a certain fashion. When they started to have multiple outlets that sort of changed and while I certainly stopped in some of those outlets here and there, I was never really comfortable with it.
The consolidation of these companies always seem to be a market trend and its something that can only occur because of the corporate structure that all large companies adopt. This gives them the ability to expand to giant size but that also works, at some point, to cause them to absorb their competition. If corporate business forms didn't work the way that they do, retail operations could not expand like this. And the absorption doesn't always go that well. Bass Pro never impressed me that much, for example, as it seemed focused, to my mind, on a certain southern style of fishing that doesn't exist here. Cabelas seemed more Mid Western to me.
Well, as noted immediately above, if corporate business forms didn't work the way that they do, retail operations could not expand like this.
And perhaps its sad that they can.
And perhaps its sad that they can.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Crime in France and the United States. Rates, cause and effect.
News comes to us that Kim Khardashian was robbed at gun point in France. Now, while I don't admire the Khardashians, who seemingly have made a living out of being famous for being famous and for wearing clothing that's basically indecent, or sometimes no clothing at all, being robbed is bad, and being robbed at gun point no doubt very traumatic. May she recover from the trauma soon, and perhaps, in addition, take a lesson away about being famous for flashing. . . jewels or whatever.
Anyhow, this shocker, in the US, no doubt comes with the added shock for some that, surely, France being a European nation, and (while its not true) Europe being a big gun free zone (again, not true) surely there's very little robbery in France.
Hmmmm
Gee, this would suggests, um, no prove that the robbery rate in the United is declining to just about half of France's rate.
Well, lets just talk about theft in general.
Here's the burglary rate for the US:
Here it is for France:
Hmm, actually just about the same.
Not that all crimes are equal in both countries.
Here's one of the worst:
And in the US. We come out the worst here by far:
Well, what about murder:
The lesson?
I don't know if there is one, but the simple conclusions some like to draw about implements doesn't seem born out.
Anyhow, this shocker, in the US, no doubt comes with the added shock for some that, surely, France being a European nation, and (while its not true) Europe being a big gun free zone (again, not true) surely there's very little robbery in France.
Hmmmm
Gee, this would suggests, um, no prove that the robbery rate in the United is declining to just about half of France's rate.
Well, lets just talk about theft in general.
Here's the burglary rate for the US:
Here it is for France:
Hmm, actually just about the same.
Not that all crimes are equal in both countries.
Here's one of the worst:
And in the US. We come out the worst here by far:
Well, what about murder:
The lesson?
I don't know if there is one, but the simple conclusions some like to draw about implements doesn't seem born out.
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
The Wyoming National Guard and the Punitive Expedition
I'll confess, in making this post, that I have a soft spot for the National Guard. In no small part that may be because I was in the Army National Guard for six years. From 1981 to 1987, I was a member of the HHB 3d Bn 49th FA. It is, in my view, one of the unqualified smart things I did after turning 18 years old, i.e., in my adult life.
I've repeated this photograph of mustered Wyoming National Guardsmen from Powell several times, but its' the only such photo I have ready access to. There are other photos of the Wyoming National Guard from this period, but not which I'm certain as to the rights to publish to. This photo is quite interesting. The Guardsmen are dressed in the what appears to be the current pattern of Army uniform including the newly adopted M1911 campaign hat. They carry M1903 Springfield rifles which were then quite new (and in this case probably almost brand new manufacture). They carry bed rolls rather than back packs, however, showing the retention of a Frontier Army method of carrying personal equipment.
Having been in a Guard unit, however, does make you cognizant of how unfairly they are sometimes viewed. My unit, the 3d Bn 49th FA, was rated as combat ready the entire time I was in it and it often had the highest combat rating that the Army recognized, higher than many Regular Army units. That it was highly rated isn't a surprise when it is considered that everyone who was in the unit wanted to be there. Moreover, in the early to mid 1980s the unit was really still in the wake of the Vietnam War and it was full of Vietnam War combat veterans. The unit even had some Korean War combat veterans still in it, including a couple who had served with the Guard in the Korean War, and there was one remaining World War Two veteran, although he wasn't a combat vet. Suffice it to say, the depth of knowledge in the unit was vast. If we were, on average, older than a comparable Regular Army unit, we were also a lot more experienced as a unit as well. Not too many Regular Army artillery units had men who wore Combat Infantry Badges nor did very many Regular Army units have NCOs who had been officers in the Marine Corps or Navy. We did.
So, in that context its hard not to feel a little insulted by the term "weekend warrior", although admittedly you don't hear that much anymore given that so many Guard units have served overseas in our recent wars. Even so, its definitely the case that the Guard hasn't received its due over the years, sometimes simply by default, but sometimes because its been unfairly slighted.
Anyhow, given as we've been posting nearly daily here for awhile on the Wyoming National Guard in 1916, it might be nice to fill that story out a bit. What was the unit? What was it like? What became of it? It's a story we haven't really told here. And for that matter, it's a story we haven't told on our companion site on Wyoming history, This Day In Wyoming's History. We really should.
Indeed, we thought about posting this as a sidebar there, and we in fact will, but we will post it first here, as this blog is the one that's really been looking into 1916.
But in order to do that we need to go back a bit further, indeed, all the way back. Prior, that is, to 1776. If we don't, we can't really understand the story of the National Guard in any context.
For most of this nation's history the bulk of our military manpower hasn't been in the Regular Army, it's been in the militia. And that was both by accident and design. Few now realize it, but every American had a militia obligation prior to the 20th Century, an obligation that has been transferred over to the Federal government by statute but which many state's still retain as an uncalled upon obligation as well. Prior to at least the Civil War, however, the obligation was very real indeed.
In the Colonial era all men of military age, which was generally men over 16 up until age 60, were members of the militia. The militia mustered at least once a year to drill; not much training, but it was an era when not much training time was available and such training as there was often took little time. Failure to make muster was a crime, but then generally most people somewhat looked forward to the muster as it was the occasion for a community party as a rule. Colonial militias, early on, did a lot of fighting however, almost all of it in brutal Indian wars the nation has more or less forgotten. Some spectacularly violent Colonial wars, such as King Philips War, were entirely fought, on the colonist side, by militias.
When the Revolution broke out it was militia that really filled the ranks of the American forces, keeping in mind that state units were little removed from militia even if purpose raised for the conflict. This would be the pattern all the way through the Civil War. A Continental, i.e., regular, Army was raised, but it was state units that formed the ranks everywhere. Units raised by the individual thirteen colonies and dedicated to the conflict alongside the national army, and local militias called out for individual fights. Indeed, the term "Continental Army" doesn't even make sense until a person stops to consider that it was drawn from, and fought for, the entire continent (ignoring the fact that the Spanish on the continent and the French, and well even 1/3d of the English colonist in the thirteen colonies didn't agree with that suggestion). This army defeated the British army on the continent although its worth noting that the British also used a militia system, although they did not attempt to deploy mustered English militiamen beyond their shores, at least not until World War One. They did deploy colonial militia, however, during the Revolution themselves, something that's often somewhat forgotten, and some Minute Men mustered for the Crown, not the Congress.
American troops evacuating New York, 1783.
Following the Revolution, Congress sought to avoid having a large Regular Army, so it didn't. The founding fathers were well aware that standing armies were a threat to a democratic government, and indeed to any government. They all knew the example of the Praetorian Guards in Rome well. And if, in hindsight, that example seems remote, France reminded us of how current it remained when the French Army deposed the Republic and ultimately put a new Emperor, Napoleon, on the thrown of allegedly Republican France. The US didn't want a big standing Army. It needed a standing Navy, but navies, being deployed or deployable at sea, rarely pose a threat to their government. So a small army it would be. The land forces of the United States would be principally vested in the state militias with it being acknowledged that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." In the event of war Congress would rely mostly on state troops, was the thinking, and state part time troops wouldn't pose a threat to the republic and might even form its guardian in the event of undemocratic impulses somewhere.
Only in really big wars was it necessary to go much beyond that. It proved necessary to do so during the War of 1812, although the Federalized militias formed the bulk of the US forces then. Ironically, in Canada, it would be mustered Canadian militias that would toss the American forces back out, proving that a force nearly entirely made up of militias, the Canadian one, was adequate to defeat a force made up mostly of militias, the American one. The Mexican War also saw the mustering of state troops, some raised just for the war, the latter of which were nearly a species of militia.
This latter example was the rule for the Civil War in which both sides fought with regular armies, but which also saw both sides commit the bulk of their forces in the form of state forces. That's forgotten by some but the Union and Confederate armies were not simply national armies by quite some measure. The Confederate regular army was actually quite small. The Union one was bigger, but the bulk of the Union forces were state troops raised for the conflict, a type of mustered militia. Pre war militias also fought as Federalized units during the war, and quite often non Federalized militias, in both the North and the South, were mustered when the war came to their areas. The Battle of Gettysburg, for example, provides a classic. The Union forces included units that were Regular Army units as well as many state units, but even the militia from Gettysburg itself fought on the first day (successfully, it might be noted).
New York militia in camp, Harper's Ferry.
The Civil War was the high water mark of the old militia system. By that time war was becoming increasingly more complicated and hence required increasingly more formal training. Pre Civil War militia varied enormously in every measurable respect, although Congress had sought to provide some uniformity, and some equipment, right from the onset. After the war the United States government sought to impose more uniformity on state militias so that they would match more closely the United States Army. Generally, state militias were happy to cooperate and conform to Federal requirements wherever they could, with Federal assistance. In some rare instances, however, state units would actually exceed the Army in some respect, such as the New York National Guard, which was equipped with better arms than the U.S. Army was in the late 19th Century.
Rhode Island Zouave, Civil War. Popular with some New England states (and there being at least even one Confederate such unit) these units were regarded as elite and patterned their dress after French North African troops. In Union service they tended to be issued the M1863 .58 variant of what had been the M1841 .54 rifle which ad the advantage, if it was one, of taking a huge sword bayonet.
By the Spanish American War most states had a National Guard that was equipped with Federal equipment, although it was often the case that the Guard's equipment was older than the Army's. Federalized National Guard units in the Spanish American War, for example, often had old Army uniforms rather than the current ones. Nonetheless they were brought up to Army standards for the war and the following Philippine Insurrection.
8th Illinois, 1899. This was a black Illinois militia unit. The uniforms are correct for the period but are a pattern that was being phased out of the Army at that time and wouldn't be around much longer.
The Spanish American War and the Philippine Insurrection were the last instances in which states raised forces specifically for the war, although this was done within the context of mustering the National Guard. Wyoming, for example, sent over 1400 men to those wars which was far more than served in its very small pre war National Guard. Indeed, while Wyoming had a National Guard dating back to territorial days, it had been minuscule and the ranks of its state units, raised just for the war, swelled during the Philippine Insurrection.
By the Spanish American War and Philippine Insurrection war photography had begun to take on a more modern appearance. California and Idaho troops in churchyard at San Pedro Macati, Philippines.
During the Philippine Insurrection Wyoming contributed the 1st Wyoming Infantry Battalion and the Wyoming Light Battery to the war, units that were formed principally from mustered Wyoming National Guard units. This is complicated, however, by the fact that the Army was authorized (or more properly instructed) to raise volunteer cavalry units and these units were in fact organized on a regional basis. In Wyoming's case Wyoming volunteers to these units went to the 2nd United States Volunteer Cavalry and the 36th United States Volunteer Infantry. While units within the Army's establishments, these were not really Regular Army units in practice, existed only during the conflicts and were really basically an extension, or perhaps more accurately an evolution, of the Civil War state forces system. The Wyoming Army National Guard today still uses a unit patch for some units of a cavalryman of the 2nd United States Volunteer Cavalry, showing how close the connection was.
.jpg)
After the Civil War a struggle broke out between backers of the National Guard and the Army over incorporating the Guard officially into the Army as its reserve. While this is fairly clearly an aspect of what the Guard was, up until that time that last formal link had not been established and some in the Army establishment resisted it even giving thought to forming a separate Army reserve. The reasons that can be debated but there were individuals who were quite partisan on either side of the debate They failed in their effort, however, and the Dick Act, named after a Congressman who supported it and who served in the National Guard, became law in 1903 and the Guard was officially made the reserve of the Army, bringing the ties even closer. By 1908 Congress authorized deploying the Guard outside of the United States although Woodrow Wilson's Attorney General would opine that to be illegal, which resulted in a Congressional act providing for simply conscripting Guardsmen into the Army should that be necessary.
This is the Guard that existed in 1916 when Columbus New Mexico was attacked in Villa's raid. It was officially a reserve of the Army, but its quality varied by state. In some rare instances small units were still very much the province of a local community or even individual, who contributed funding to the unit and who sometimes even purchased non standard arms. Some units were social units, made up of social elites, who actually spent more money being National Guardsmen than they received back in the form of drill pay. Others were made up of rough and tumble locals who needed the drill pay, in an era when drills tended to be weekly, on a week night. Pay was provided, as noted, but retirement, which is now a feature of long Guard service, was not.
The Wyoming National Guard (there was no "Army" National Guard at the time, Army units were National Guard, states with Naval units had them Naval Militia) between the Spanish American War and World War One were infantry. This often surprises people but there are real reasons for it. People want to believe that a state like Wyoming must have had cavalry but even by the Spanish American War that was not true.
Early on, even before statehood, Wyoming had militia units that were in fact cavalry, but that was in the context of contemplating deploying them against highly mobile Indians. After statehood the expense, probably, and difficulty, of keeping mounts for cavalry would likely have made that impractical. Infantry was much easier to keep. Indeed, while I do not know a great deal about the early cavalry units chances are very high that the horses used by those units belonged to the individual troopers and not to the state.
Early on, even before statehood, Wyoming had militia units that were in fact cavalry, but that was in the context of contemplating deploying them against highly mobile Indians. After statehood the expense, probably, and difficulty, of keeping mounts for cavalry would likely have made that impractical. Infantry was much easier to keep. Indeed, while I do not know a great deal about the early cavalry units chances are very high that the horses used by those units belonged to the individual troopers and not to the state.
The forces committed by the state to the border in the Punitive Expedition were to be eight companies of infantry. Wyoming had nine on paper. One was to be kept home, something fairly typical for big deployments. But that didn't mean that nine full strength companies actually existed. They did not. So, after the Guard was called up the state spent weeks recruiting to bring the unit up to full strength. We've read about that in the newspaper articles that have been posted on this site.
The mustered Guard assembled at Cheyenne but it wasn't allowed by the Army to to use Ft. D. A. Russell as a training ground, a raw deal really that was fairly inexcusable as the post's training range was enormous. Instead, the state formed Camp Kendrick which is where Cheyenne's Frontier Park is today. The Guard trained there all summer long. By late summer there were constant rumors about immediate deployments, and as we have seen, when the official orders came it was at first thought the unit would be deployed to San Antonio, but it was instead sent to Deming New Mexico.
At Camp Cody outside of Deming it trained further and took up the role of patrolling and garrisoning as infantry. By the time the Wyoming Guard was deployed other Guard units had been on duty on the border for quite some time and were rotating back home. Principally the unit trained, however, until the Regular Army returned from Mexico and the Guard was released on January 17, 1917, to return home. In a real sense its mere presence was its mission as it served as a ready force, along with many other units, if Villa became fully resurgent or if war broke out with Mexico.
Their return in January 1917 would be brief. The United States would enter World War One in April of that year and the recently mustered out National Guard would be called back into service. In 1917, prior to the call up, the strength of the active Army was 200,000 men, 80,000 of which were still serving Guardsmen. During the Great War 40% of the combat soldiers in the U.S. Army were Guardsmen who were formed into nineteen divisions. While the U.S. Army balked at relying heavily on the Guard at the start of the formation of the Allied Expeditionary Force in 1917 the truth of the matter is that the Army would have been incapable of deploying when it did but for the Guard. This didn't keep the Army from looking down on Guardsmen, particularly on National Guard officers, but during the war the Guard proved its mettle and served very ably.
The Punitive Expedition service, therefore had served as a nearly year long training period for the Guard that would serve it well. In Wyoming's case that service would not be as infantry, however, and the Guard would experience a phenomenon that's not atypical for Guard units of being re-formed into some other type of unit at the start of war. The Wyoming National Guard was converted into heavy artillery, predicting a role that it would resume after World War Two. That conversion is a bit surprising, really as conversion into artillery during the Great War was common for cavalry, but not really infantry. However, the Wyoming National Guard was not a large unit and the Army created for World War One was an enormous Army, so the conversion of a unit about 600 men in strength into artillery made some sense. The bucking horse symbol came into military use at that time, as the Wyoming National Guard painted that symbol on its artillery pieces, something that they would do again during the Korean War.
After being re-formed following World War One; the Wyoming Guard would in fact become cavalry during the the 1920s, and remain so until converted into Horse-Mechanized Cavalry just before World War Two, and then armored cavalry during the war, and finally to artillery after World War Two. Various designations have come and gone, but its been the Wyoming Guard all along. Just recently, infantry returned to the Wyoming Army National Guard in the form of a small infantry unit; the first one the state has had since the 1920s.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Further reading and partial sources:
___________________________________________________________________________________
Further reading and partial sources:
Monday, October 3, 2016
A grim prognosis from George F. Will.
Conservatives might be well advised to read George F. Will's most recent pessimistic column, which starts out:
Looking on the bright side, perhaps this election can teach conservatives to look on the dark side. They need a talent for pessimism, recognizing the signs that whatever remains of American exceptionalism does not immunize this nation from decay, to which all regimes are susceptible.
Will goes on to discuss his point at length, noting, I think, of interest:
Nothing lasts. If Trump wins, the GOP ends as a vehicle for conservatism. And a political idea without a political party is an orphan in an indifferent world.
Grim.
I'd note that, at least in my view, the situation for liberalism, in a true sense, isn't much better.
One Reservation, two tribes, and two courts
I've written several times recently about the breakdown over the Tribal Court at Ft. Washakie. This past week, things seemed to move along towards where they were seemingly headed.
The BIA determined to set up a new CFR Court for the Shoshone nation. Therefore the Wind River Reservation Tribal Court will no longer have jurisdiction over members of the Shoshone nation. The Court will retain, however, jurisdiction over Shoshone tribal members who had cases pending in the court prior to the establishment of the CFR Court, which has now been established. Otherwise, the Tribal Court will have jurisdiction only over members of the Arapaho nation.
The Court, it should be noted, has under advisement penalties for members of the Joint Business Council, all Shoshone right now, who were recently found in contempt due to trying to dissolve the court. A hearing was recently held and, according to the Casper Star Tribune, those individuals did not appear but lawyers for the Arapaho tribe did and they urged jail sentences for those found in contempt.
All of this, while it may be a temporary resolution, is hardly a satisfactory one. Two tribes, one shared reservation, two courts. This seems to be guaranteed to be problematic.
The BIA determined to set up a new CFR Court for the Shoshone nation. Therefore the Wind River Reservation Tribal Court will no longer have jurisdiction over members of the Shoshone nation. The Court will retain, however, jurisdiction over Shoshone tribal members who had cases pending in the court prior to the establishment of the CFR Court, which has now been established. Otherwise, the Tribal Court will have jurisdiction only over members of the Arapaho nation.
The Court, it should be noted, has under advisement penalties for members of the Joint Business Council, all Shoshone right now, who were recently found in contempt due to trying to dissolve the court. A hearing was recently held and, according to the Casper Star Tribune, those individuals did not appear but lawyers for the Arapaho tribe did and they urged jail sentences for those found in contempt.
All of this, while it may be a temporary resolution, is hardly a satisfactory one. Two tribes, one shared reservation, two courts. This seems to be guaranteed to be problematic.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Chapel, Ft. Phil Kearny, Wyoming
Churches of the West: Chapel, Ft. Phil Kearny, Wyoming:
This will, undoubtedly, be an unusual entry here. Where's the church?
Well, this is where it was. This was the location of Ft. Phil Kearny's post chapel. The entire post was destroyed after the Army evacuated this post as a result of the settlement that resulted ending Red Cloud's War. The destruction of the post left the locations of fort structures, and even the dimensions of the fort, a mystery up until quite recently.
This was an Army chapel, so I don't know if we can say if it had a denomination, but the Army chaplain stationed here, who also taught at the post grade school, was a Methodist minister.
Ft. Phil Kearny was constructed in 1866.
Saturday, October 1, 2016
Harley and the Davidsons
Having recently finished all the episodes of Foyles War, and seeing that this historical drama was running on the the Discovery Channel, and liking Harley Davidson motorcycles, I decided to watch it.
Now, let me note, I like Harley Davidson motorcycles. I don't own one. And I don't really know all that much about the company's history or those who founded the company. So, this review is an odd one in that I'm reviewing a topic I really don't know very much about. That's important as I understand that this television drama takes liberties with its story, but I'll miss a lot of them (other than to be suspecting that I'm seeing them). However, the concluding snippets at the end would suggest that some things I thought were liberties were not, so again, for a review of its accuracy, a person probably can't rely on this.
This drama follows the company and its founders from the creation of their very first motorcycle until the introduction of its 1934 model which more or less introduced the motorcycle we recognize today. In other words from 1903 to 1934. FWIW, I know enough about the company to know that the film was accurate in these regards. The first Harley was built in the shed behind one of the founder's parents home, and in 34 Harley did introduce what was then a radical new motorcycle in spite of the ongoing Great Depression.
Beyond that, I think that the drama takes a huge number of liberties. Harley was their engineer, but the story doesn't make it clear that he graduated as an engineer from the University of Wisconsin before the company truly took off. Harley is shown getting married, which he did, but the fact that he and his wife had several children is oddly omitted. His wife, Anna Jachthuber (nee) is shown being critically ill for a time, and I don't know if that's correct or not. Arthur Davidson is correctly depicted as the company's marketing genius. That he had several children is also omitted. Arthur Davidson and William Harley were really the two main designers of the motorcycles, so what role Walter Davidson senior or junior had I don't know, other than that they had some.
Indian Motorcycles and its business leadership is depicted as evil in the film, which doesn't reflect reality. It was just a slightly older (two years) competitor with Harley for a long time. Apparently the makes of the film thought they needed some sort of long lasting rivalry as a plot device.
So, while there are accurate details (the relationship with a Japanese company, albeit brief, did occur) there are a lot of departures from the truth as well.
Well, on to material details.
I understand that the makes of this film studied the early motorcycles at Harley's museum and I believe they are accurately depicted. It is neat to see these (scary) early bikes depicted in such large numbers. Various details like that are well depicted. Clothing is predicted accurately, although the wearing of it isn't always. Walter Davidson, for example, is shown often wearing an open collar banded collar shirt with no starched collar attached and no tie. That just wouldn't have happened in that era. An early female motorcycle club racer is inserted in the plot for the 1930s, which is unlikely. The frequent insertion of horses, however, is accurate and nicely done.
All in all, it's entertaining, but probably not very accurate history.
The founders of Harley Davidson Motor Cycle Company, William A. Davidson, Walter Davidson, Sr., Arthur Davidson and William S. Harley
Now, let me note, I like Harley Davidson motorcycles. I don't own one. And I don't really know all that much about the company's history or those who founded the company. So, this review is an odd one in that I'm reviewing a topic I really don't know very much about. That's important as I understand that this television drama takes liberties with its story, but I'll miss a lot of them (other than to be suspecting that I'm seeing them). However, the concluding snippets at the end would suggest that some things I thought were liberties were not, so again, for a review of its accuracy, a person probably can't rely on this.
Harley Davidson motorcycle on flat track, 1919.
This drama follows the company and its founders from the creation of their very first motorcycle until the introduction of its 1934 model which more or less introduced the motorcycle we recognize today. In other words from 1903 to 1934. FWIW, I know enough about the company to know that the film was accurate in these regards. The first Harley was built in the shed behind one of the founder's parents home, and in 34 Harley did introduce what was then a radical new motorcycle in spite of the ongoing Great Depression.
Beyond that, I think that the drama takes a huge number of liberties. Harley was their engineer, but the story doesn't make it clear that he graduated as an engineer from the University of Wisconsin before the company truly took off. Harley is shown getting married, which he did, but the fact that he and his wife had several children is oddly omitted. His wife, Anna Jachthuber (nee) is shown being critically ill for a time, and I don't know if that's correct or not. Arthur Davidson is correctly depicted as the company's marketing genius. That he had several children is also omitted. Arthur Davidson and William Harley were really the two main designers of the motorcycles, so what role Walter Davidson senior or junior had I don't know, other than that they had some.
Indian Motorcycles and its business leadership is depicted as evil in the film, which doesn't reflect reality. It was just a slightly older (two years) competitor with Harley for a long time. Apparently the makes of the film thought they needed some sort of long lasting rivalry as a plot device.
So, while there are accurate details (the relationship with a Japanese company, albeit brief, did occur) there are a lot of departures from the truth as well.
Well, on to material details.
I understand that the makes of this film studied the early motorcycles at Harley's museum and I believe they are accurately depicted. It is neat to see these (scary) early bikes depicted in such large numbers. Various details like that are well depicted. Clothing is predicted accurately, although the wearing of it isn't always. Walter Davidson, for example, is shown often wearing an open collar banded collar shirt with no starched collar attached and no tie. That just wouldn't have happened in that era. An early female motorcycle club racer is inserted in the plot for the 1930s, which is unlikely. The frequent insertion of horses, however, is accurate and nicely done.
All in all, it's entertaining, but probably not very accurate history.
Lessons?
Idaho, like Wyoming, went for Ted Cruz in the GOP primary.
Idaho, like Wyoming, has a lot of public land that the public likes to use. Cruz during the primary espoused the toxic idea that the public lands should go to the states.
Well, a large Idaho ranch bought by two extremely rich Texans, at least one of whom was a Cruz supporter, just locked up access, right in front of elk season in the area, through his lands, effectively eliminating the ability of Idaho hunters who hunt there.
I feel sorry for them, truly, . . .unless they voted for Cruz, in which case they are getting exactly what they deserve.
And Wyomingites who don't challenge our candidates who make such statements are setting this exact scenario up on a massive scale.
Idaho, like Wyoming, has a lot of public land that the public likes to use. Cruz during the primary espoused the toxic idea that the public lands should go to the states.
Well, a large Idaho ranch bought by two extremely rich Texans, at least one of whom was a Cruz supporter, just locked up access, right in front of elk season in the area, through his lands, effectively eliminating the ability of Idaho hunters who hunt there.
I feel sorry for them, truly, . . .unless they voted for Cruz, in which case they are getting exactly what they deserve.
And Wyomingites who don't challenge our candidates who make such statements are setting this exact scenario up on a massive scale.
Sunday State Leader for October 1, 1916: Guard arrives at border and placed under command of a Regular
The news broke that the Wyoming National Guard made it to the border; Deming New Mexico to be exact.
And UW went down to defeat against the Colorado Aggies in football.
Wilson apparently warned that voting in the GOP risked war, an ironic statement, given what we knew would happen in a few short monts.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Re-imagining the Wyoming Election System. Making it fair and democratic
Right now, for state elections, Wyoming has a system that many states have.
Here's the way it works.
Republicans who want to run for office file to run in the primary against other Republicans.
Democrats who want to run for office file to run in the primary against other Democrats.
And Libertarians, which are a recognized party in Wyoming, do the same.
At the primary, people who have registered ad Republicans get to vote for the Republicans.
And people who have registered as Democrats get to vote for the Democrats.
And the same for the Libertarians.
And then the county clerks tally up the vote.
So a party election, in effect, is held on the county dime.
That, in spite of my just going off on it, generally works okay, but its not really fully democratic. And it gives us the situation we currently have in which we have Democrats who are probably actually middle of the road Republicans running against other Republicans, and then Republicans who actually are some sort of radical Libertarian running as though they are Republicans, and whom might even think they actually are.
This is a poor system.
Here would be a better one.
Let anyone who registers to run in the primary run, irrespective of party.
Let everyone who is a registered voter vote in the primary. Don't even take their party affiliation down, or let it be taken down (why should I have to register my party with the county?). At the primary election the top vote getters will be determined.
Let the top two vote getters run against each other in the general election, and the winner of that election gets the office. If, in the primary, the top five positions are within 100 votes of each other, let them all go on to the general.
If we did that, we'd have a better chance of getting an office holder who people actually supported. Most people don't really fit into either party, and frankly the parties aren't real parties anyway as each party has a huge division within itself. And if we're voting for the man, rather than the party, anyhow, who cares what party they are in?
This would avoid, I'd note, a situation like we have seen this year in House District 57, in which Chuck Gray was running against Ray Pacheco in order to go on to run against Audrey Cotherman (the Democrat). Part of that race was taken up by Gray accusing Pacheco of not being a real Republican because he used to be a Democrat. Pacheco perhaps should have accused Gray of not being a real Republican, or at least not a Wyoming Republican, but rather being a Libertarian, but he didn't. But, as there were only three contenders anyhow, why waste all this goofball time and effort about which party any of them are in and, instead, discuss what they actually think?
For that matter, if we had a similar system for hte U.S. House I wonder what the race we now have would be? I doubt it would be Cheney against Greene, and while I think Cheney would be in it, I don't think she's likely be the winner as chances are that one of the other popular Republicans would be.
Here's the way it works.
Republicans who want to run for office file to run in the primary against other Republicans.
Democrats who want to run for office file to run in the primary against other Democrats.
And Libertarians, which are a recognized party in Wyoming, do the same.
At the primary, people who have registered ad Republicans get to vote for the Republicans.
And people who have registered as Democrats get to vote for the Democrats.
And the same for the Libertarians.
And then the county clerks tally up the vote.
So a party election, in effect, is held on the county dime.
That, in spite of my just going off on it, generally works okay, but its not really fully democratic. And it gives us the situation we currently have in which we have Democrats who are probably actually middle of the road Republicans running against other Republicans, and then Republicans who actually are some sort of radical Libertarian running as though they are Republicans, and whom might even think they actually are.
This is a poor system.
Here would be a better one.
Let anyone who registers to run in the primary run, irrespective of party.
Let everyone who is a registered voter vote in the primary. Don't even take their party affiliation down, or let it be taken down (why should I have to register my party with the county?). At the primary election the top vote getters will be determined.
Let the top two vote getters run against each other in the general election, and the winner of that election gets the office. If, in the primary, the top five positions are within 100 votes of each other, let them all go on to the general.
If we did that, we'd have a better chance of getting an office holder who people actually supported. Most people don't really fit into either party, and frankly the parties aren't real parties anyway as each party has a huge division within itself. And if we're voting for the man, rather than the party, anyhow, who cares what party they are in?
This would avoid, I'd note, a situation like we have seen this year in House District 57, in which Chuck Gray was running against Ray Pacheco in order to go on to run against Audrey Cotherman (the Democrat). Part of that race was taken up by Gray accusing Pacheco of not being a real Republican because he used to be a Democrat. Pacheco perhaps should have accused Gray of not being a real Republican, or at least not a Wyoming Republican, but rather being a Libertarian, but he didn't. But, as there were only three contenders anyhow, why waste all this goofball time and effort about which party any of them are in and, instead, discuss what they actually think?
For that matter, if we had a similar system for hte U.S. House I wonder what the race we now have would be? I doubt it would be Cheney against Greene, and while I think Cheney would be in it, I don't think she's likely be the winner as chances are that one of the other popular Republicans would be.
The Two Party System is broken, stupid, and anti democratic. Would that we could ditch it. . .
rather than institutionalize it, the way we have.
It'd dumb beyond belief.
Nationally, its insanity has given us the two distasteful candidates, one of whom is going to become a massively unpopular President by default. Locally, it's bolted a rational traditional Wyoming GOP with a radical GOP that's out of tune with Wyoming's people. The Democratic party is the same way, with some solid middle of the road, Wyoming, candidates, and some who seem to think they're sitting a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet in 1917.
It's pathetic.
And the two party system is to blame.
Time to dump this decrepit system.
Let us consider it carefully.
The essence of the two party political system is a stunning conclusion that all human opinions can be categorized into two groups. It's the ultimate "there are two kinds of people" statement on human nature.
Well, dear reader, there are not "two kinds of people". Not hardly.
And the fact that both parties are split into more than one group themselves is ample proof of that.
But let us move on to the categories that a two party system supposed.
We have two parties, the Grand Old Party (the Republicans) and the Democratic Party, which is supposedly the oldest standing political party in the world (true only if you accept that the same Democratic Party which was such a huge fan of slavery is the same one we have today. . . which isn't the case).
The GOP is the "conservative" party. The Democrats are, at least sometimes, the "liberal" party, or the "progressive" party (an odd term in and of itself, as progressive means we're progressing towards something, . . . but what is that something?).
Okay, on this, we are to believe, for example, that the conservative GOP is the party that's opposed to abortion, in favor of the free market, opposed to high taxation, and for a strong defense. It's also, we are told, opposed to gun control. It's for law and order, we're told. And its for a strong defense, but not an activist foreign policy.
The Democrats are the opposite of these things. They're for abortion and euthanasia (and they truly are) as a rule. They're supposedly opposed to using force but for engaging the world. They are big on inclusiveness and diversity.
This, of course, all on the national level. We'll get to the local level soon enough.
Now, if these statements are taken no further than what I just stated, they are in fact true. But let's take them further.
Let's start with a really divisive issue. Abortion. And let's not mince words and claim its about choice. Bull. It's about abortion.
Generally, the GOP is opposed to abortion . . .with qualifiers. It's opposed to abortion because its members, or at least a fair number of them, are pro life or at least feel queasy about defining what lives are worth preserving and which are not. Indeed, that's generally it, and that's a position I agree with. All human life is, in my view, valuable and indeed sacred, and I don't really care if letting that life come into existence means it wrecks your nifty career plans, is inconvenient, expensive or something (although it wouldn't, what with adoption and the like). And I don't feel that there are any qualifiers to this. Those who would come into the world unwanted, for any reason, or into a traumatic situation, for any reason, or sick, for any reason, have just as much of a right to live than those who come into the world under normal circumstances. That's the GOP position, right?
Well, not really. Generally, the GOP nationally will put qualifiers on it of some sort, but they're better at any rate than the Democrats on this issue, which always values the life of the adult or near adult, well, the fully functional adult, or maybe some sort of adult, over the infant.
And that is a conservative position, as it conserves life.
So, then, if that's our view and our goal, or rather if that's the GOP view and goal, then the GOP must likewise feel that way about every life and death issue.
Not so much.
Generally the GOP is okay with the death penalty.
Now, the death penalty is something that has widespread support, and historically it made sense. It really doesn't in the current world, however, and given that its intellectually inconsistent with preserving life in general. It just doesn't make sense to oppose abortion, as a political party, and support the death penalty.
Okay, so I'm saying this one position doesn't make sense within the GOP. And the reverse of it, the Democratic position, which basically never saw a baby that it didn't think was a target for death in the womb, and as its coming to develop never saw an old person who it didn't think should be wheeled into a the lethal injection chamber, but opposes the death penalty, is even odder. Truly, if the Democrats can generally think its okay to off infants in the womb and old people in the nursing home, why not prisoners in the jail? If inconvenience and quality of life are the standards, which are the Democratic standard, well, life in jail is the pits.. . . why not kill them all?
Clearly, these positions make no sense within the parties themselves, although the GOP position makes more sense than the Democratic one.
Taking this out, however, if preserving life is the GOP conservative position, why isn't it massively pro environment in a radical sense? It isn't. It would seem that a party whose first priority is life, would err on the side of caution in every way in regards to the environment, which ultimately is a life issue. Indeed, the GOP candidate ought to make Jill Stein look like a slacker in these regards. But, no, the GOP basically discounts many environmental concerns, weighing contemporary economic concerns higher. That's intellectually inconsistent. The Democrats generally support economic causes them, but that's inconsistent as well, given that their standard for everything else seems to be the mere convenience of the presently living, as long as they think like. . . well, you know. . um. And the Democrats claim to have the interest of the working man as a paramount concern, but they conversely seem to have little concern for policies such as we're discussing here, i.e., environmental ones, even if they hurt the working man. As pragmatic as the Democrats are life issues you'd think that they'd be equally as pragmatic on economic ones over other issues. But that's not true either.
Indeed, carrying that out yet further, if preservation of life is a prime concern in the GOP, we'd think that it'd be for a foreign policy that emphasized the prevention of war and the party would almost be pacifistic.. I'm not sure what the GOP policy really is. I know that the Democrats, in recent years, have been really willing to use drones in undeclared wars which is problematic to some degree, although I guess you can rationalize that, although traditionally they claim to be the party that's opposed to war.
My point is that whatever your own views are, it's clearly the case that you can be pro life, anti death penalty, anti euthanasia, but not otherwise be very keen on the GOP's economic and environmental views. Conversely, you can be deeply concerned about the environment but have no place at all in the Democratic Party unless you are willing to live with blood implicitly on your hands. Its just not the case that all these issues fit into one party or another. I'm sure there are homosexuals who are opposed to abortion deeply, for example. Or radical conservationist who are deeply in favor of the Second Amendment. Or those who deeply espouse the traditional view of marriage while being deeply in favor of gun control.
Why isn't, therefore, a party that reflects the life issues the way I've set them out, as one mere example?
Well, there actually is (the American Solidarity Party) but it's hard for a party like that to get anyone on the ballot in our first past the post system, let alone a system that is so institutionalized that states actually run, free of cost, party elections for the parties. That's what primary elections are. Primary elections shouldn't even exist, really, as all they are is the party picking its choices, but that's somehow forgotten.
Now, least this be read as if I'm campaigning here for the ASP and that 's the purpose of my post, this is true of all sorts of things.
I have a left wing Democratic friend running for office whom I'm sure has never seen a left wing cause the candidate didn't love. The candidate would likely be for killing infants in the delivery room if it was an option, and putting a bullet in the back of the head of anyone over 60 years of age if they caught the sniffles. They're for redefining marriage in any way imaginable irrespective of the historic norms and the reasons for them without considering them (they'd simply dismiss them), and probably would support polygamy and any other "progressive" social change you could think of, even if that position would have once been regarded as regressive (prohibition of polygamy and formality to marriages would originally have been "progressive" positions). They are of course in favor of legalizing marijuana and probably other drugs but for banning guns. That person deserves a different party than the Democratic Party, and indeed people like that make the Democrats here look nutty.
Conversely, we have running here locally at least three "constitutional" conservatives who apparently have a double secret copy of the constitution that requires the Federal government to give land to the states so that it can be sold to the super rich owners of football franchises in some other state, as, doggone, that's what the hallowed founders of our brave republic required. Some of these candidates appear to downright hate the Federal government and everyone who works for it. They deserve their own party as well, and frankly right now they're driving Wyomingites who have long been in the GOP out of it.
And all of this even assumes that everyone's world outlook is based on logic, which it clearly is not. I can see no reason, for example, why there would not be some people who care mostly about there being no gun control but who want a Sanders send my kids to college at government expense bill. By the same token I know that there are gun owners who are fanatic about the Second Amendment and who are pacifist, and that there are businessmen who are socialist at heart but conceive of themselves as pro business otherwise. There are no doubt radical fee marketeers who never saw a public construction project they didn't love and want to fund. And I know that there are coal miners who really believe there's a war on coal but who care deeply about the preservation of the land and access to public lands.
All this would be easy solvable if we had more than one viable political party. But the two parties have so entrenched themselves that it's nearly impossible for a third party, or a person with no party at all, to make a run at things. That's why the biggest growing "party" in the United States are the Independents. I.e,. a pox on all of your houses. Indeed, I'm set to join them once again (I've been an independent in the recent past, and I'm seriously thinking of going down and registering as an Independent as soon as I get the time).
The first part of addressing this is to break the parties hold on the election system itself. Do away with the nonsensical commission on Presidential debates which keeps third party candidates from debating (the old League of Women's Voters debates let them in when they had less support than the commission does).
Wipe out primary elections as party of the system. Let any party that can muster up at least 250 signatures for a single candidate be on the ballot on that state and if it does it once, it should be allowed to simply present its certified candidate for the next decade. And require, if you are going to have party elections at public expense, that the parties certify that the voters are party members, not the county clerk. If you are going to vote in a party election, you should have gone to the trouble of actually signing up with the party.
Or, better yet, if we are to have primaries, don't have party names on the ballot at all and don't have party restrictions on the ballot. Make them real primaries in which every single person who has filed to run is on the ballot against everyone else, and in the general election the top two, or four, compete to see who gets the seat, irrespective of their party affiliation. Why should the system favor one party against another. If the voters narrow their choices to two people they think qualified, or perhaps four, let them square off irrespective of what party they are in, or indeed irrespective if they are in no party at all.
If we had that system, we'd not have the Presidential race we do right now. The reason we have this weird mess is, in part, as we have a system that unnaturally groups people into one of two groups. If you see yourself in any of the described groups above, don't get mad at me, get mad at the system, because unless you are a very unusual person, you don't have a candidate this year you really like, and this system is why that is.
And we wouldn't have local election in which what are effectively four parties are pretending to be two.
It'd dumb beyond belief.
Nationally, its insanity has given us the two distasteful candidates, one of whom is going to become a massively unpopular President by default. Locally, it's bolted a rational traditional Wyoming GOP with a radical GOP that's out of tune with Wyoming's people. The Democratic party is the same way, with some solid middle of the road, Wyoming, candidates, and some who seem to think they're sitting a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet in 1917.
It's pathetic.
And the two party system is to blame.
Time to dump this decrepit system.
Let us consider it carefully.
The essence of the two party political system is a stunning conclusion that all human opinions can be categorized into two groups. It's the ultimate "there are two kinds of people" statement on human nature.
Well, dear reader, there are not "two kinds of people". Not hardly.
And the fact that both parties are split into more than one group themselves is ample proof of that.
But let us move on to the categories that a two party system supposed.
We have two parties, the Grand Old Party (the Republicans) and the Democratic Party, which is supposedly the oldest standing political party in the world (true only if you accept that the same Democratic Party which was such a huge fan of slavery is the same one we have today. . . which isn't the case).
The GOP is the "conservative" party. The Democrats are, at least sometimes, the "liberal" party, or the "progressive" party (an odd term in and of itself, as progressive means we're progressing towards something, . . . but what is that something?).
Okay, on this, we are to believe, for example, that the conservative GOP is the party that's opposed to abortion, in favor of the free market, opposed to high taxation, and for a strong defense. It's also, we are told, opposed to gun control. It's for law and order, we're told. And its for a strong defense, but not an activist foreign policy.
The Democrats are the opposite of these things. They're for abortion and euthanasia (and they truly are) as a rule. They're supposedly opposed to using force but for engaging the world. They are big on inclusiveness and diversity.
This, of course, all on the national level. We'll get to the local level soon enough.
Now, if these statements are taken no further than what I just stated, they are in fact true. But let's take them further.
Let's start with a really divisive issue. Abortion. And let's not mince words and claim its about choice. Bull. It's about abortion.
Generally, the GOP is opposed to abortion . . .with qualifiers. It's opposed to abortion because its members, or at least a fair number of them, are pro life or at least feel queasy about defining what lives are worth preserving and which are not. Indeed, that's generally it, and that's a position I agree with. All human life is, in my view, valuable and indeed sacred, and I don't really care if letting that life come into existence means it wrecks your nifty career plans, is inconvenient, expensive or something (although it wouldn't, what with adoption and the like). And I don't feel that there are any qualifiers to this. Those who would come into the world unwanted, for any reason, or into a traumatic situation, for any reason, or sick, for any reason, have just as much of a right to live than those who come into the world under normal circumstances. That's the GOP position, right?
Well, not really. Generally, the GOP nationally will put qualifiers on it of some sort, but they're better at any rate than the Democrats on this issue, which always values the life of the adult or near adult, well, the fully functional adult, or maybe some sort of adult, over the infant.
And that is a conservative position, as it conserves life.
So, then, if that's our view and our goal, or rather if that's the GOP view and goal, then the GOP must likewise feel that way about every life and death issue.
Not so much.
Generally the GOP is okay with the death penalty.
Now, the death penalty is something that has widespread support, and historically it made sense. It really doesn't in the current world, however, and given that its intellectually inconsistent with preserving life in general. It just doesn't make sense to oppose abortion, as a political party, and support the death penalty.
Okay, so I'm saying this one position doesn't make sense within the GOP. And the reverse of it, the Democratic position, which basically never saw a baby that it didn't think was a target for death in the womb, and as its coming to develop never saw an old person who it didn't think should be wheeled into a the lethal injection chamber, but opposes the death penalty, is even odder. Truly, if the Democrats can generally think its okay to off infants in the womb and old people in the nursing home, why not prisoners in the jail? If inconvenience and quality of life are the standards, which are the Democratic standard, well, life in jail is the pits.. . . why not kill them all?
Clearly, these positions make no sense within the parties themselves, although the GOP position makes more sense than the Democratic one.
Taking this out, however, if preserving life is the GOP conservative position, why isn't it massively pro environment in a radical sense? It isn't. It would seem that a party whose first priority is life, would err on the side of caution in every way in regards to the environment, which ultimately is a life issue. Indeed, the GOP candidate ought to make Jill Stein look like a slacker in these regards. But, no, the GOP basically discounts many environmental concerns, weighing contemporary economic concerns higher. That's intellectually inconsistent. The Democrats generally support economic causes them, but that's inconsistent as well, given that their standard for everything else seems to be the mere convenience of the presently living, as long as they think like. . . well, you know. . um. And the Democrats claim to have the interest of the working man as a paramount concern, but they conversely seem to have little concern for policies such as we're discussing here, i.e., environmental ones, even if they hurt the working man. As pragmatic as the Democrats are life issues you'd think that they'd be equally as pragmatic on economic ones over other issues. But that's not true either.
Indeed, carrying that out yet further, if preservation of life is a prime concern in the GOP, we'd think that it'd be for a foreign policy that emphasized the prevention of war and the party would almost be pacifistic.. I'm not sure what the GOP policy really is. I know that the Democrats, in recent years, have been really willing to use drones in undeclared wars which is problematic to some degree, although I guess you can rationalize that, although traditionally they claim to be the party that's opposed to war.
My point is that whatever your own views are, it's clearly the case that you can be pro life, anti death penalty, anti euthanasia, but not otherwise be very keen on the GOP's economic and environmental views. Conversely, you can be deeply concerned about the environment but have no place at all in the Democratic Party unless you are willing to live with blood implicitly on your hands. Its just not the case that all these issues fit into one party or another. I'm sure there are homosexuals who are opposed to abortion deeply, for example. Or radical conservationist who are deeply in favor of the Second Amendment. Or those who deeply espouse the traditional view of marriage while being deeply in favor of gun control.
Why isn't, therefore, a party that reflects the life issues the way I've set them out, as one mere example?
Well, there actually is (the American Solidarity Party) but it's hard for a party like that to get anyone on the ballot in our first past the post system, let alone a system that is so institutionalized that states actually run, free of cost, party elections for the parties. That's what primary elections are. Primary elections shouldn't even exist, really, as all they are is the party picking its choices, but that's somehow forgotten.
Now, least this be read as if I'm campaigning here for the ASP and that 's the purpose of my post, this is true of all sorts of things.
I have a left wing Democratic friend running for office whom I'm sure has never seen a left wing cause the candidate didn't love. The candidate would likely be for killing infants in the delivery room if it was an option, and putting a bullet in the back of the head of anyone over 60 years of age if they caught the sniffles. They're for redefining marriage in any way imaginable irrespective of the historic norms and the reasons for them without considering them (they'd simply dismiss them), and probably would support polygamy and any other "progressive" social change you could think of, even if that position would have once been regarded as regressive (prohibition of polygamy and formality to marriages would originally have been "progressive" positions). They are of course in favor of legalizing marijuana and probably other drugs but for banning guns. That person deserves a different party than the Democratic Party, and indeed people like that make the Democrats here look nutty.
Conversely, we have running here locally at least three "constitutional" conservatives who apparently have a double secret copy of the constitution that requires the Federal government to give land to the states so that it can be sold to the super rich owners of football franchises in some other state, as, doggone, that's what the hallowed founders of our brave republic required. Some of these candidates appear to downright hate the Federal government and everyone who works for it. They deserve their own party as well, and frankly right now they're driving Wyomingites who have long been in the GOP out of it.
And all of this even assumes that everyone's world outlook is based on logic, which it clearly is not. I can see no reason, for example, why there would not be some people who care mostly about there being no gun control but who want a Sanders send my kids to college at government expense bill. By the same token I know that there are gun owners who are fanatic about the Second Amendment and who are pacifist, and that there are businessmen who are socialist at heart but conceive of themselves as pro business otherwise. There are no doubt radical fee marketeers who never saw a public construction project they didn't love and want to fund. And I know that there are coal miners who really believe there's a war on coal but who care deeply about the preservation of the land and access to public lands.
All this would be easy solvable if we had more than one viable political party. But the two parties have so entrenched themselves that it's nearly impossible for a third party, or a person with no party at all, to make a run at things. That's why the biggest growing "party" in the United States are the Independents. I.e,. a pox on all of your houses. Indeed, I'm set to join them once again (I've been an independent in the recent past, and I'm seriously thinking of going down and registering as an Independent as soon as I get the time).
The first part of addressing this is to break the parties hold on the election system itself. Do away with the nonsensical commission on Presidential debates which keeps third party candidates from debating (the old League of Women's Voters debates let them in when they had less support than the commission does).
Wipe out primary elections as party of the system. Let any party that can muster up at least 250 signatures for a single candidate be on the ballot on that state and if it does it once, it should be allowed to simply present its certified candidate for the next decade. And require, if you are going to have party elections at public expense, that the parties certify that the voters are party members, not the county clerk. If you are going to vote in a party election, you should have gone to the trouble of actually signing up with the party.
Or, better yet, if we are to have primaries, don't have party names on the ballot at all and don't have party restrictions on the ballot. Make them real primaries in which every single person who has filed to run is on the ballot against everyone else, and in the general election the top two, or four, compete to see who gets the seat, irrespective of their party affiliation. Why should the system favor one party against another. If the voters narrow their choices to two people they think qualified, or perhaps four, let them square off irrespective of what party they are in, or indeed irrespective if they are in no party at all.
If we had that system, we'd not have the Presidential race we do right now. The reason we have this weird mess is, in part, as we have a system that unnaturally groups people into one of two groups. If you see yourself in any of the described groups above, don't get mad at me, get mad at the system, because unless you are a very unusual person, you don't have a candidate this year you really like, and this system is why that is.
And we wouldn't have local election in which what are effectively four parties are pretending to be two.
Wyoming National Guardsmen arrive at Deming New Mexico: September 30, 1916
The 1st Wyoming Infantry arrived at Camp Cody, New Mexico, just outside of Deming, where it would be stationed for the next five months.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Our most signficant trading partner. . . Canada.
Yes, Canada.
Canada is by far our largest trading partner.
Why is this never noticed?
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Lex Anteinternet: Sign of the times? Casper Petroleum Club to close...
We ran this news recently:
The Club president, amongst other causes, noted the decline in private clubs nationwide, which no doubt has played a role. Once a club just for oilmen and then businessmen, it long ago opened to all for membership, but its membership was declining. Having weathered prior oilfield recessions, a declining base just wasn't sufficient this time.
Lex Anteinternet: Sign of the times? Casper Petroleum Club to close...: Founded in 1949 with the purpose to “aid the industrial and productive interests of the State of Wyoming" the Casper Petroleum Club, a...At that time the Club was going to try to stay open until December, but readers of the Tribune learned today that Saturday is going to be its last day. It just doesn't have the resources to carry on.
The Club president, amongst other causes, noted the decline in private clubs nationwide, which no doubt has played a role. Once a club just for oilmen and then businessmen, it long ago opened to all for membership, but its membership was declining. Having weathered prior oilfield recessions, a declining base just wasn't sufficient this time.
The Punitive Expedition: Addtional Wyoming National Guard units leave for the border, maybe. September 28, 1916.
New York (not Wyoming) Guardsmen entraining, June 1916. Similar scenes, however, would have taken place near Cheyenne. These troops, by the way, have a real mix of gear, as photos of Wyoming's troops do as well, as more modern canteens hadn't caught up with them yet and they were still using bedrolls, frontier campaign style, rather than backpacks. In terms of the scene, we see Guardsmen caught in the moment between the style of Frontier campaigning and modern warfar.
When I originally posted this item it read:
Two additional battalions of the Wyoming National Guard depart for the Mexican border.This might be right, but frankly what I think is may be the case is that the historians who suggest this have the departure dates confused. But maybe not.
These units had been under orders since June.
It's possible that the entraining took place on the 27th and 28th, but it seems possible that it took place all late in the night of the 27th. Still, the "two additional" battalions items does raise some questions and its not impossible that the Guard entrained over two days.
Raising more questions, 642 Wyoming National Guardsmen were mobilized in the Punitive Expedition. The first newspaper reports on their departure only indicated that a little under 150 left on the night of the 27th. Assuming that's correct, the bulk of the men were still encamped near Cheyenne. And if that's right, and it may well be, that means that is perfectly possible that more left over the next two days on additional trains, or at least that more left on a separate train on the 28th.
If you know, let us know.
The Wyoming Tribune for September 28, 1916: Guard leaves on 26 trailroad cars, revolt in Greece, and we're a sick soft nation in 1916, apparently
The always more dramatic Wyoming Tribune noted that the Guard was "finally" off for the Mexican border, but its the other headlines that really drew attention.
I'd hardly regard the US of 1916 as sick, soft and fat, but apparently somebody did.
Cheyenne State Leader for September 28, 1916: The troops have left
In today's edition of the Cheyenne State Leader we learn that the Wyoming Guard departed the prior night, after an apparently long day of delays.
The bottom entry, I'd note, reminds us to be careful out there.
Mid Week At Work: Auto body repair
This week I'm taking a bit of a different approach to this reoccurring topic to note that I really wish I knew how to do this.
I've been spending a lot of time recently in an auto body shop, given that I've had an entire series of automobile incidents recently. Indeed, I didn't even bother to post about the last couple of things that have gone mechanically wrong, I'm getting so used to it.
The whole experience has been aggravating, but not because of the shop, but rather because I've had up to three automobiles in shops of one kind or another at the same time. We have what I've always regarded as a surplus of vehicles. Four a household that had four drivers (now three, that my son is in college and not in the household) we have up to six vehicles, which just seems excessive. Well, right now, with one of those vehicles gone with my son, and three in the shop, I"m down to two. And of those two, one is a really heavy truck that, while I'm using it around town and for short trips into the country, I can't really use it in my day job if I have to go anywhere. It's been quite an experience.
But my experience with the automobile repair places hasn't been bad in any way.
Indeed, what it has done has sort of revived a long wish of mine that I knew how to do auto body work and really good mechanical work.
Yes, I know that's odd.
It's not that I'm going to take up a late career move from law to auto body repair. I just admire their work. And that of mechanics as well. And having a lot of old wheeled stuff, I really wish I knew how to do it.
Indeed, I looked at the Casper College course catalog and saw that the offer courses in this. But, of course, their courses are designed for the young who are educating themselves for their careers. So the cases last for hours, and are mostly during the day.
Even at that, if I were retired, I'd seriously think about taking them. By the time I retired, I'll be too darned old to do that. But it's something I can admire anyhow.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Check your facts, Chuck
A quote from candidate Chuck Gray:
We need to get serious about having the federal government fulfill its promise to return its federal land (which is around 50% of the state) back to the state of Wyoming, which is stated in Wyoming's Constitution and was acknowledged at the time of Wyoming's admission to the Union. When we cleared title to this land, it was acknowledged by both parties that the United States government would be a trustee which would then be disposed of in a reasonable time period. Judicial options need to be considered, as well as working with Congress--for example, Hawaii was able to convince the federal government to sell most of its lands in Hawaii. These lands should be managed effectively to help our people, rather than sitting there rotting.
Actually the polar opposite is the truth. Wyoming forever disclaimed any claim to the public domain and the Federal government never promised them to the state.
Check your facts Chuck.
Sitting there rotting?
No, providing public access, rather than being sold off to out of state interests.
Boo hiss.
Meanwhile in the Villista camp. . .
Pancho Villa attacked and apparently defeated a couple of Constitutionalist garrisons. Or so reported the Chicago newspaper, which I now know thanks to Reddit's 100 Years Ago Today subreddit.
Villa was getting quite active again.
Villa was getting quite active again.
Today In Wyoming's History: September 27. Disasters and ships.
From Today In Wyoming's History: September 27:
Such an awful disaster, you'd think there might be.
1923 Thirty railroad passengers were killed when a CB&Q train wrecked at the Cole Creek Bridge, which had been washed out due to a flood, in Natrona County. Attribution: Wyoming State Historical Society.There's something in the county memorializing the latter (the ship's wheel, in the old courthouse), but not the former.
1944 USS Natrona, a Haskell class attack transport, launched.
Such an awful disaster, you'd think there might be.
The Wyoming National Guard, what was it doing and where was it going?
I posted this item two years ago on the Mid Week at Work Thread. It occurs to me that it may very well be appropriate for the Wyoming National Guard was going through in Cheyenne these few days, a century ago:
As can be seen from my entry yesterday, there's some indication the Guard entrained on September 26, 1916. And I've reported that elsewhere, years ago. And maybe some did leave on September 26, but I now doubt it.Mid-Week at Work: U.S. Troops in Mexico.
All around the water tank, waiting for a train
A thousand miles away from home, sleeping in the rain
I walked up to a brakeman just to give him a line of talk
He said "If you got money, boy, I'll see that you don't walk
I haven't got a nickel, not a penny can I show
"Get off, get off, you railroad bum" and slammed the boxcar door
He put me off in Texas, a state I dearly love
The wide open spaces all around me, the moon and the stars up above
Nobody seems to want me, or lend me a helping hand
I'm on my way from Frisco, going back to Dixieland
My pocket book is empty and my heart is full of pain
I'm a thousand miles away from home just waiting for a train.
Jimmy Rodgers, "Waiting for a Train".
Rather, in looking at it more fully, the typical Army hurry up and wait seems to have been at work. The Guard was supposed to entrain on September 26, but the cars didn't show up or didn't in adequate numbers. It appears, also, that the Colorado National Guard was entraining at the same time, and that may have played a role in this. Be that as it may, I now think the September 26 date that I have used, and others do use, in in error.
What seems to have happened is that most of the Guardsmen entrained on the night of September 27, late.
But where were they going?
That will play out here as well, but original reports in these papers said they were going to San Antonio. Then it was reported that nobody knew where they were going.
Well, they went to Deming New Mexico, which isn't far from where this all started off, in Columbus.
Rodgers didn't record Waiting For A Train until 1928, and he wasn't recording in 1916. Too bad, this would have been a popular song with those troops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)