Saturday, November 12, 2016
Friday, November 11, 2016
Brats
There has been protests, some of which have turned violent, about the election of Donald Trump.
Now, I didn't vote for Trump and frankly I don't care for him. I didn't vote for Clinton either, and I think the Democratic Party received a huge wake up call on Tuesday.
And I also think we might have seen some of this had Clinton won.
But we are seeing it now that Trump has won.
Well, it was an election under the Democratic process. People who are protesting, and who sympathize with the protests, essentially stand, intellectually, with Southern successionist in 1860. I.e., if I can't be quarterback I'm taking my football and going home. Time for them to grow up.
And yes Clinton took, albeit only barely, the popular vote, but the American process, designed to govern a spread out nation, places executive power in the hands of an individual who is chosen in a combined state/popular vote, combination. This gives the people most of the say, but filtered through their home states. This is what keeps every President from being a Californian or a Texas.
So they need to grow up.
And, on a final note, Liberals, who have changed their name recently to "Progressives", have become terribly anti democratic, which should give everyone pause. A lot of the social change that they've been boosting in recently years, well. . . . all the way back to 1973, has come through the courts and is being foisted upon people. A lot of the reason they have to deal with a President Trump now is because of the judicial coup given voice by Anthony Kennedy last year, which sparked a massive shift in the election demographics that's hardly been noted and is being misinterpreted. The lesson there is that Liberals might actually have to try to convince voters that their ideas are sound, rather than simply sue their way into nirvana. Pouting won't do it.
Now, I didn't vote for Trump and frankly I don't care for him. I didn't vote for Clinton either, and I think the Democratic Party received a huge wake up call on Tuesday.
And I also think we might have seen some of this had Clinton won.
But we are seeing it now that Trump has won.
Well, it was an election under the Democratic process. People who are protesting, and who sympathize with the protests, essentially stand, intellectually, with Southern successionist in 1860. I.e., if I can't be quarterback I'm taking my football and going home. Time for them to grow up.
And yes Clinton took, albeit only barely, the popular vote, but the American process, designed to govern a spread out nation, places executive power in the hands of an individual who is chosen in a combined state/popular vote, combination. This gives the people most of the say, but filtered through their home states. This is what keeps every President from being a Californian or a Texas.
So they need to grow up.
And, on a final note, Liberals, who have changed their name recently to "Progressives", have become terribly anti democratic, which should give everyone pause. A lot of the social change that they've been boosting in recently years, well. . . . all the way back to 1973, has come through the courts and is being foisted upon people. A lot of the reason they have to deal with a President Trump now is because of the judicial coup given voice by Anthony Kennedy last year, which sparked a massive shift in the election demographics that's hardly been noted and is being misinterpreted. The lesson there is that Liberals might actually have to try to convince voters that their ideas are sound, rather than simply sue their way into nirvana. Pouting won't do it.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Lex Anteinternet: The 2016 Election
Lex Anteinternet: The 2016 Election: I didn't see that coming. . . like all of the rest of the pundits. It's been a wild election year. Yesterday, Donald Trum...The popular vote:
Trump: 47%: 59,611,678
Clinton: 48% 59,814,018
Johnson: 3% 4,058,500
Stein: 1% 1,213,103
Others: .07% 802,119
A disappointing performance for Stein, given that she was trying to riff of the popular Sanders. Not very impressive for Johnson either, whom some thought would do well. That's probably at least 3,000,000 votes off of Trump, however.
Trump becomes President with a minority of votes cast. Clinton took more, albeit only 200,000 more. An example, perhaps, of every vote counting, or not, depending upon your view.
What's it mean?
I'll likely do a series of posts on what the recent election means, and lessons learned.
Of course, given my poor performance as a prognosticator in this election, the value of such articles may be fairly questionable.
Be that as it may, I think its interesting to note that fully vested organs of the hard left and hard right have already rushed to print with analysis that amounts to "we were right all along". Right now, right wing comments of that type necessarily have more credence than those of the left, but the basic gist of some of these is "nope, nope, we've been right all along and don't have to listen to anyone" Suffice it to say they aren't rushing out to buy Thomas Frank's book "Listen, LIberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People.". Put another way, simply reassuring yourself that you are right and everyone else is an idiot is an effective analytical tool
Anyhow, I'll put in my two cents, from the outside, here in coming posts.
For the meantime I'll merely note that one thing this election means is that relying upon people like Miley Cyrus to bring you voters is not a sound campaign strategy.
Of course, given my poor performance as a prognosticator in this election, the value of such articles may be fairly questionable.
Be that as it may, I think its interesting to note that fully vested organs of the hard left and hard right have already rushed to print with analysis that amounts to "we were right all along". Right now, right wing comments of that type necessarily have more credence than those of the left, but the basic gist of some of these is "nope, nope, we've been right all along and don't have to listen to anyone" Suffice it to say they aren't rushing out to buy Thomas Frank's book "Listen, LIberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People.". Put another way, simply reassuring yourself that you are right and everyone else is an idiot is an effective analytical tool
Anyhow, I'll put in my two cents, from the outside, here in coming posts.
For the meantime I'll merely note that one thing this election means is that relying upon people like Miley Cyrus to bring you voters is not a sound campaign strategy.
The 2016 Election
I didn't see that coming. . . like all of the rest of the pundits.
It's been a wild election year.
Yesterday, Donald Trump won the Presidency. I frankly thought that impossible.
As I noted here yesterday, I figured that the coronation of Hillary Clinton meant that her enthronement as President would merely need to be ratified yesterday. I was sure off the mark, and badly so.
So was about 100% of the national press, I'd note ,which was discussing the inevitable Clinton victory as late ago as early last night. What happened?
Well, a massive working class revolt against both parties happened. After well over a decade of being lied to, they poked both parties in the eye.
When this became inevitable or even probable is hard to say, but the Democrats deserve a lot of the blame or credit, depending upon your view, for trying to coronate a 1970s throwback that was widely despised. Frankly, had Bernie Sanders been nominated by the Democrats he'd likely be yesterday's victor. But rather than do that, they went solidly with a candidate that nobody loved and who was consumed her entire life with politics. Most people aren't consumed with politics and are disgusted with it right now. So the disgust flowed over onto her.
And the disgust was deserved. Clinton had spent her entire life in politics in one way or another. Her role in the Senate may have made sense to the people who voted for her, but to a lot of Americans elsewhere her relocation to New York appeared purely opportunistic. Her association with her husband, who I never felt to be a bad President, left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people who recalled how she defended some of his bad personal conduct, and it further left people suspecting that her marriage had become a political wagon with a certain direction, whether that was right or wrong. The Trump comment "such a nasty woman" struck the upper middle class and upper class elements of society as incredibly rude and sexists, but it sort of defined the way a lot of average people already viewed her.
Beyond that, and perhaps more significantly, she defined a certain 1970s view of the world that the Beltway Democrats have and which they deeply believe in, but which is not the same view held by huge segments of the Democratic base, let alone average Americans. Existing as long ago as the 1920s, but coming up in the world following the disaster of Watergate, this world view virtually defines the Democratic Party's official outlook and has all but killed it off in rural areas which can find nothing to identify with in it. This even translated to younger Democratic women who did not see a modern American female ideal that they felt any commonality with. In turn, the old entrenched feminist in the Democratic Party were outright hostile to younger Democratic women whom they felt should shut up and take orders.
Everything combined meant that the Democratic Party nominated somebody who was deeply out of sync with the electorate. The GOP nominated one that was deeply despised indeed, but not in the same way that Clinton was. We learned yesterday that there were a lot of Democrats and independents who had supported Sanders and detested Trump and Clinton, but forced into a choice, the populist message of Trump called more than the 1970s vision of Clinton.
But that also tells us that a large amount of the vote was based on absolute disgust.
And the disgust was deserved. Clinton had spent her entire life in politics in one way or another. Her role in the Senate may have made sense to the people who voted for her, but to a lot of Americans elsewhere her relocation to New York appeared purely opportunistic. Her association with her husband, who I never felt to be a bad President, left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people who recalled how she defended some of his bad personal conduct, and it further left people suspecting that her marriage had become a political wagon with a certain direction, whether that was right or wrong. The Trump comment "such a nasty woman" struck the upper middle class and upper class elements of society as incredibly rude and sexists, but it sort of defined the way a lot of average people already viewed her.
Beyond that, and perhaps more significantly, she defined a certain 1970s view of the world that the Beltway Democrats have and which they deeply believe in, but which is not the same view held by huge segments of the Democratic base, let alone average Americans. Existing as long ago as the 1920s, but coming up in the world following the disaster of Watergate, this world view virtually defines the Democratic Party's official outlook and has all but killed it off in rural areas which can find nothing to identify with in it. This even translated to younger Democratic women who did not see a modern American female ideal that they felt any commonality with. In turn, the old entrenched feminist in the Democratic Party were outright hostile to younger Democratic women whom they felt should shut up and take orders.
Everything combined meant that the Democratic Party nominated somebody who was deeply out of sync with the electorate. The GOP nominated one that was deeply despised indeed, but not in the same way that Clinton was. We learned yesterday that there were a lot of Democrats and independents who had supported Sanders and detested Trump and Clinton, but forced into a choice, the populist message of Trump called more than the 1970s vision of Clinton.
But that also tells us that a large amount of the vote was based on absolute disgust.
And on to the entire system, quite frankly.
Bea Arthur in an advertisement for Maud. Arthur played the brash, loud, pants suit wearing feminist in two 1970s era television series. For those who recalled it, Clinton tended to come across rather unfortunately as a character from Maud or at least from the era. Younger women never warmed up to her at all, and indeed people who weren't voting by the 1970s were left fairly cold.
Additionally, the late Democratic administration and things associated with it combined with things that have been brewing for a long time overwhelmed both parties. It turns out that you cannot take in 1,000,000 immigrants a year and tell rust belt voters that they just need to adjust to the new economy, you can't tolerate shipping endless employers overseas and tell those voters that new better jobs will come, you can't tell people who can tell what gender they are actually in that people can determine their "own gender identify", and you can't threaten to reverse course on firearms possession when people have pretty much determined how they feel about that.
The voters who revolted are, no doubt, going to be accused of being racist. But to desire the America they grew up in, which was more Christian, more employed, and more rural, doesn't make them that way. The Democrats have been offering them Greenwich Village, the Republicans the Houston suburbs. It turns out they like the old Port Arthur, Kansas City or Lincoln Nebraska better, and want to go back. That's not irrational.
Port Arthur Texas. I listed to people discuss the upcoming election two weeks ago at the Port Arthur Starbucks and thought they'd really be surprised when Clinton was elected. Turns out, they were much more on the mark than I was. And it turns out that people in Port Arthur like Port Arthur the way it was twenty or thirty years ago, and they don't like a lot of big, hip trendy urban areas that they're supposed to.
Will Trump be able to do that?
Well, any way you look at it, it's going to be an interesting four years.
Trump will have to act on his populist world view. I'm certain that it will be only momentarily before the pundits will start opining about how Trump, now that he is the President Elect, will moderate his views, etc., but there is no reason whatsoever to believe that. So far, his entire behavior has been true to what appears to be his basic character. We can anticipate that he will continue to act that way. And an electorate that, essentially, voted to rip everything down wants it down. I suspect, therefore, that's what we will get.
I also, quite frankly don't think that this is universally bad. As noted, I never supported Trump, and I did not vote for him yesterday. I'm in the camp so disgusted by both political parties and their candidates that I could not bring myself to hold my note and vote like so many others did. But I do think that Trump will listen to the blue collar element of American society, and somebody needs to. I do not think that this segment, which knows its being forced out of work by a combination of forces that are not of its own making, but which are more than a little the fault of policies favoring the wealthy, will be quiet. Clinton would not really have done anything for those people other than to lament their status, Trump will have to do something. And I also think that Trump will actually nominate justices to the Supreme Court who do not feel compelled to stick to it, such as Justice Anthony Kennedy or who have a social agenda that colors and informs their decisions. Justices who decide the law are needed on the Court and I think they'll actually be appointed.
Who knows what else shall occur, however.
Trump will have to act on his populist world view. I'm certain that it will be only momentarily before the pundits will start opining about how Trump, now that he is the President Elect, will moderate his views, etc., but there is no reason whatsoever to believe that. So far, his entire behavior has been true to what appears to be his basic character. We can anticipate that he will continue to act that way. And an electorate that, essentially, voted to rip everything down wants it down. I suspect, therefore, that's what we will get.
I also, quite frankly don't think that this is universally bad. As noted, I never supported Trump, and I did not vote for him yesterday. I'm in the camp so disgusted by both political parties and their candidates that I could not bring myself to hold my note and vote like so many others did. But I do think that Trump will listen to the blue collar element of American society, and somebody needs to. I do not think that this segment, which knows its being forced out of work by a combination of forces that are not of its own making, but which are more than a little the fault of policies favoring the wealthy, will be quiet. Clinton would not really have done anything for those people other than to lament their status, Trump will have to do something. And I also think that Trump will actually nominate justices to the Supreme Court who do not feel compelled to stick to it, such as Justice Anthony Kennedy or who have a social agenda that colors and informs their decisions. Justices who decide the law are needed on the Court and I think they'll actually be appointed.
Who knows what else shall occur, however.
Locally, 818 Natrona County voters went for write in candidates, myself included, for President and Vice President. That has to be a record.
And a warning.
If even here, in solidly Republican Natrona County, 818 voters said no to all the recognized parties, and that doesn't include those who voted for Johnson or Stein, something is really wrong with the system.
And a warning.
If even here, in solidly Republican Natrona County, 818 voters said no to all the recognized parties, and that doesn't include those who voted for Johnson or Stein, something is really wrong with the system.
Locally, Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney's locally repatriated Virginia daughter beat out Greene and has probably taken Wyoming's House seat in Congress for life, or at least until she wedges that into something else, which she almost certainly will. The seat is the gift of two other candidates who were really from Wyoming and who destroyed each other, but who jointly took more votes in the primary than she did. Hopefully she'll grow into her position and learn the lesson that the Democratic and Republican establishments did not on the national stage, that people love their local lives more than they do the big issues of any kind. A local revolt with populist elements is brewing on these issues and it is not impossible that this will turn out to be a pain for politicians from this state who do not know which way the wind is blowing. While Cheney likely will hold her office no matter what, t his year did see a surprisingly resurgent Democratic Party in Wyoming and there is a growing and very active movement that's focused on public lands that isn't afraid of being very vocal.
More locally, Gerald Gay went down in defeat, a victim of statements he could not explain about women. Gay was controversial in any event as he had sued fellow legislators and the Governor over matters recently and he may have been more set up to topple than people might have supposed. His comments were inexplicable and did him in. Dan Neal, whose campaign literature arrived in my mailbox every day for awhile, lost to Republican Jerry Obermuller. In some ways, I think Neal may have been a victim of his supporters as his own mailings concentrated on public lands while his recent backers mailings urged support of him because of his support of abortion, LBGT rights and "reproductive health", which probably served to turn votes away from him. Being hugged enthusiastically by somebody who people doubt doesn't engender their support for you but Neal probably couldn't, maybe, have told them to shut up and go away, he was doing fine on his own. Anyhow, at the close of his campaign the enthusiastic embrace by clearly left of center elements was probably just about as welcome as a big hug at your wedding reception from that lush of a girlfriend you never mentioned to your just married spouse. Maybe he didn't know that. Chuck Gray, young radio mouthpiece of the far libertarian right did get in, but the Democratic campaign against him was anemic. I suspect that if Neal had contested with Gray, Neal would have won. Todd Murphy, whose Facebook ravings brought attention to him in the press, did survive the sort of attention that Gay did not and ended up on the city council, to my enormous surprise.
The county commission was less surprising, with incumbents generally doing well. A stable race, it seems.
Stripping Tobacco, 1916
Ah yes, the good old days. . . missing school to strip tobacco.
Enrico Caruso, November 9, 1916. They also work who sing.
Enrico Caruso, November 9, 1916. That cigarette couldn't have been good for that famous voice.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Pundit Fail
The election is far from over tonight, but I can't help but note that tonight, when I turned on the news, and only a couple of states were in, the pundits on the news channel I was watching had all but wrapped up the election in favor of Clinton, in spite of Trump being ahead.
Now, at 7:30 Mountain Time, they're stumbling all over themselves to explain why their predictions aren't turning out the way they thought.
I don't like either of these candidates. But its very hard not to feel that the press is very much a Clinton fan club in some ways.
Either candidate of the two major parties could win tonight. But the press has failed the nation, in my view.
Now, at 7:30 Mountain Time, they're stumbling all over themselves to explain why their predictions aren't turning out the way they thought.
I don't like either of these candidates. But its very hard not to feel that the press is very much a Clinton fan club in some ways.
Either candidate of the two major parties could win tonight. But the press has failed the nation, in my view.
The tumult and the shouting
I wonder if there's any chance that Facebook shall return to normal tomorrow or later this week. . . . to the extent it was normal.
Hmmm.
I guess that question answers itself.
Hmmm.
I guess that question answers itself.
The Laramie Republican for November 8, 1916. Results Uncertain
The Laramie Republican, however, was only will ing to go with "uncertain".
The Wyoming Tribune, the 3:30 edition. . not so sure now.
By 3:30 the Tribune was less certain, but still thought it was Hughes, probably.
And other news had crept back onto the front page.
Cheyenne State Leader for November 8, 1916. Getting the election right
The less dramatic leader, however, called the election correctly.
The first edition of the Wyoming Tribune for November 8, 1916: HUGHES WINS
Except he didn't. The Tribune had been hoping for Hughes. . . perhaps a little too much?
Monday, November 7, 2016
Monday at the Bar and other things: Troubled Lawyers, Troubled Tribal Court, Deluded Law Students and Troubled Trials.
A veritable Monday morning cornucopia of legal stuff.
None of it particularly cheery, however.
And none of it having anything to do with tomorrow's election. So maybe it's not as bad as it could be. Indeed, all of the
election stuff on this site today (which has been frankly over posting
recently) pertains to the election of 1916.
At least that is one which we know how the story unfolds.
At least that is one which we know how the story unfolds.
The November issue of the Wyoming Lawyer, or maybe it was the October issue (I don't tend to read them right away) recently arrived and I finally got around to perusing it. It often takes me awhile, as I frequently do not find the articles to be terribly interesting, other than the new case synopsis. I can usually read anything it that I find interesting in about five minutes, which perhaps I should be embarrassed to admit. This time, however, I was surprised by a couple of items.
The Wyoming State Bar has been really trying to draw attention to its Lawyers Assistance program. It goes by an acronym I ought to remember, but I don't. Anyhow, it has been doing this. I guess a lot of states now have these. These are all designed to try to aid lawyers that are having troubles in one fashion or another. And by trouble I mean addictions or depression, and things of that type.
As has been noted here before, lawyers are far more prone to these things than other professions. Perhaps we always have been, but I doubt it. I think the profession has evolved in that direction and frankly I think the forces that have created the conditions that give rise to these things are not going away soon.
Indeed, it's a bit disturbing to realize that the profession is basically running what amounts to field hospitals for its wounded.
Indeed, it's a bit disturbing to realize that the profession is basically running what amounts to field hospitals for its wounded.
Medics in training, World War Two. . . analogy for the State Bar?
So once again, maybe, we have the unfortunate analogy between practicing law, and fighting in wars. I know that seems a stretch, but when we start seeing an institution that is setting up crisis entities to deal with its own psychologically wounded. . .. hmm.
Anyway, the issue had articles by two lawyers I've worked in cases with. I don't know either of them very well, but I do know them,. In their articles they noted they had problems in the past and detailed them a bit. One had problems years ago, and related taking them on when there was no help available. I was, frankly, shocked as he's in the category of people I'd regard as a "big success". This fellow wasn't specific, but it sounds like he was struggling with anxiety issues or depression and ultimately sought help from his physician for it, who didn't really know what to do and sent him to a counselor. Apparently that helped him out of that swamp. He was recently, it was reported, an expert in a case and donated the fees for that to the State Bar's program. Pretty darned admirable. . . both to do that and to be willing to write about it.
The other article was by a lawyer younger than me who spoke of his battle with alcohol. He related that this problem predated his entry into law school, so the law I suppose can't be blamed for that, but the program did help him in overcoming it. He was apparently the first graduate of the Bar's program on that, and apparently it helped him where other programs hadn't. Having worked with him, I was frankly shocked to learn that he had a problem. I'd never have guessed it. Of course, maybe his story diverts a bit here as he didn't become an alcoholic, it should be noted, due to the practice of law, but entered it as one. I sure have to say that I never realized that, but maybe being a lawyer sort of saved his life I guess, in a way.
Pretty brave of those guys to write those articles.
But, I think we have to confess that if even the big guns in the law, whom have what seem to be hugely successful practices, are driven into periods of despair there's something at work here and its not just the individuals. Something bad. And whatever it is, probably requires fundamental reform of a deep nature. A line of work shouldn't be destructive to its practitioners. Something here seems to be. We lawyers like to claim that we have the best justice system in the world (something I frankly do not believe is true), but a system that destroys its own in surprising numbers isn't the "best".
Shortly after I read the article noted above, I was spending a tired morning working on something outside the office when a lawyer I know suddenly went off on the profession. It shocked me as he's always seemed to be one of the happiest practitioners I've ever known, although recently he has seemed troubled and not himself. Anyhow, in a totally unsolicited outburst, he really came down hard on the practice. I'll not be able to think of him the same way again.
This is the second time I've had this happen in recent weeks. The first time was during a deposition in front of a subpoenaed office. Here too, I was really surprised as I didn't expect this from these quarters. In that case, I only know the lawyer as an opponent in cases and I don't even really know him personally at all, although he's extremely gregarious. Again he seems a super happy
And that oddly led me to consider Law School.
This is the second time I've had this happen in recent weeks. The first time was during a deposition in front of a subpoenaed office. Here too, I was really surprised as I didn't expect this from these quarters. In that case, I only know the lawyer as an opponent in cases and I don't even really know him personally at all, although he's extremely gregarious. Again he seems a super happy
And that oddly led me to consider Law School.
Before I note that, I'll also note, fwiw, even though its completely unrelated, that the same lawyer mentioned last related a story about a really well known lawyer that was truly foul. I don't think he thought of that way, but I note this as we've been hearing a lot about the comments Donald Trump made (let's set aside the accusations of conduct) that shocked many people. Well, I was shocked about these as they were vile and also involved comments of a vulgar nature, although not about acts of any kind against other people, other than they sounded downright abusive to the lawyer relating the story, which was from when he was a young lawyer.
I note this, as I wonder how common such vulgar comments are in some context. Probably a lot more than I care to know.
Anyhow, law school and delusion.
I read yesterday, in the Casper Star Tribune, an article about a Vietnam veteran who returned home and briefly went to law school before returning to work on his family's ranch in LaGrange. It was an interesting article. Just two days ago I was working cattle, when an old rancher I know mentioned to me "it seems like you are busier and busier (with the law) all the time". I said yes, and then he said "well, I guess that's okay if you enjoy it."
That might be right.
But I think almost every rancher enjoys his work. Statistically, in the US, a lot of people do not. According to what state bars and the ABA puts out, a fairly high percentage of lawyers don't, but then I have seen the reliability of those statistics questioned as well. Maybe we really don't know the answer. But it's interesting to hear work put in the context of being worthwhile if, but only if, "you enjoy it."
And that gets me back to law school.
Law schools teaches people nothing at all about the actual practice of law. Nothing. Most law professors at this time don't know anything about the practice of law themselves. As Judge Posner recently noted, law schools tend to be refuges from the actual practice of law and populated by people who fled it. And yet law schools put out propaganda about how nifty the practice of law is, and how nifty a law degree is. They still even occasionally put out the complete crap that "you can do anything with a law degree", which is bull.
That relates to the above, quite frankly, as I think that we now have an environment where a lot of people enter a field that they don't, to put it in the rancher's frame of reference, "enjoy". Its apparently making a lot of lawyers miserable, if the statistics are to be believed. Law schools are culpable in that in that they're doing nothing to educate their young charges in that fact. Indeed, law schools, being populated by professors that are only dimly connected, quite often, with real work, are complicit in creating an illusion for the young that law is a happy, exciting, morally upstanding, profession. Maybe that's inevitable, as who would emphasize that it's really hard work with a high dissatisfaction and psychological problem rate, with lots of substance abuse problems (apparently, if we believe the stats). But I think law professors are largely clueless, or worse yet, they're early refugees from the profession and aren't clueless, but complicit.
Maybe some firms are, however, educating their young charges on these topics, even if accidentally. One of the firms I know of had a young woman who graduated high school with my son. She was a valedictorian for her class last year. She seemed very nice and pleasant and apparently had a life long dream, I'm told, of becoming a lawyer. And she planned her future education that way. Well, according to what I heard, the members of her firm slowly came to her before she departed the state to further her education and mostly warned her not to become a lawyer. Again, I was amazed. I guess that's to their credit, but what an indictment of the profession. Rather than encourage her they set out to crush her plans, one by one, but in the apparent hope of saving her from what they worried would be a mistake. Apparently it worked and she's abandoned that career plan, even if she doesn't, I'm told have a replacement. That's remarkable, and disturbing.
But, back to the rancher's comment, if it seems a high percentage of lawyers don't "enjoy" their profession, but are seeming to endure (a scary thought, really), maybe that's the American norm? Some time ago I ran an article from one of the statistics outfits that revealed a majority of Americans actually dislike their jobs, and it was a high percentage. According to news outfits, which may be somewhat exaggerating the way the poll put it, "70%" of Americans "hate" their jobs. Even if that's not quite right, that's a sad statistic. And perhaps, therefore, lawyers aren't that unusual.
Which takes me back to Saturday's public lands rally.
One of the speakers at that rally was Chris Madson, formerly the editor of Wyoming Wildlife.
I think Madson, fwiw, was a good editor, but his writings tended to be very gloomy, more I thought than deserved. Reading him tended to be a bit like watching The Seventh Seal and The Last Emperor in a double feature. But, he served a purpose.
Well, at the rally he was predictably gloomy, but had this interesting observation, which he repeated in an article (as he mentioned) on his website:
On the "best justice system in the world" and on public lands, that justice system, let the Bundy wildlife refuge occupiers off the hook. This has to be a case of jury nullification, and the jury should be ashamed.
I almost always ask for juries, but I have to wonder in a thing like this if a jury serves justice. I suppose there will always be guys who drop the ball on juries, but this is an OJ jury like fumble. They should be ashamed of themselves and I hope they come to be. As another speaker noted at the rally, the local ranchers hadn't wanted them there and it wasn't the occupiers who missed duck season on that refuge that year, members of the public that they were, but rather local duck hunters. People like the Bundys are a threat to local agriculture and a threat to public land use. The sooner they bear the just implications of their actions the better, so perhaps in their upcoming trial they'll actually get justice from the best justice system in the world.
But, back to the rancher's comment, if it seems a high percentage of lawyers don't "enjoy" their profession, but are seeming to endure (a scary thought, really), maybe that's the American norm? Some time ago I ran an article from one of the statistics outfits that revealed a majority of Americans actually dislike their jobs, and it was a high percentage. According to news outfits, which may be somewhat exaggerating the way the poll put it, "70%" of Americans "hate" their jobs. Even if that's not quite right, that's a sad statistic. And perhaps, therefore, lawyers aren't that unusual.
Which takes me back to Saturday's public lands rally.
One of the speakers at that rally was Chris Madson, formerly the editor of Wyoming Wildlife.
I think Madson, fwiw, was a good editor, but his writings tended to be very gloomy, more I thought than deserved. Reading him tended to be a bit like watching The Seventh Seal and The Last Emperor in a double feature. But, he served a purpose.
Well, at the rally he was predictably gloomy, but had this interesting observation, which he repeated in an article (as he mentioned) on his website:
These days, Americans are dispossessed, confined in our apartments, on our quarter-acre lots, estranged from the land that, in large part, has defined our character as a people and a nation. We are held prisoner by economics. One of the few physical expressions of freedom we have left is the public domain. Together, we can use it without destroying it; we can enjoy it without dividing it.I don't know that we're dispossessed, but could be, for the reasons that he noted. And I think, frankly, that the wholesale adoption of the modern global, everything is about consumption, we must have ever more crowded cities and every more cubicles economy, is causing a lot of the dissatisfaction in work mentioned above, legal or otherwise. We weren't made for four walls and big cities. But increasingly, we are left with fewer choices but to adopt those conditions. One more reason, as Madson noted, to preserve public lands as public.
On the "best justice system in the world" and on public lands, that justice system, let the Bundy wildlife refuge occupiers off the hook. This has to be a case of jury nullification, and the jury should be ashamed.
I almost always ask for juries, but I have to wonder in a thing like this if a jury serves justice. I suppose there will always be guys who drop the ball on juries, but this is an OJ jury like fumble. They should be ashamed of themselves and I hope they come to be. As another speaker noted at the rally, the local ranchers hadn't wanted them there and it wasn't the occupiers who missed duck season on that refuge that year, members of the public that they were, but rather local duck hunters. People like the Bundys are a threat to local agriculture and a threat to public land use. The sooner they bear the just implications of their actions the better, so perhaps in their upcoming trial they'll actually get justice from the best justice system in the world.
Among lawyers having a miserable time right now we'd have to include Tribal Court . . . well now Arapaho Tribal Court, Judge St. Clair. Apparently the CFR court that will take over for the Shoshones has told him to get out of the court he's occupying, as it belongs to the BIA. My goodness, what a horrible mess. Where will they go?
I think there was a building on the Reservation that was an Army court. And I think it's over by the parade ground on Ft. Washakie. I don't know what its used for now, but if that building contained a court (and I only vaguely believe that it did) it hasn't been used that way for decades. And how can one geographic space contain two courts based not on territorial jurisdiction, but on a combination of territory and race?
Poor photograph of the Wind River Indian Reservation Tribal Court. The BIA has told the (now Arapaho) Tribal Court to get out.
I think there was a building on the Reservation that was an Army court. And I think it's over by the parade ground on Ft. Washakie. I don't know what its used for now, but if that building contained a court (and I only vaguely believe that it did) it hasn't been used that way for decades. And how can one geographic space contain two courts based not on territorial jurisdiction, but on a combination of territory and race?
Addendum
As an addendum to this less that cheery entry, we note that Janet Reno, who was the first female Attorney General of the United States, died today at age 78. She had been suffering from Parkinson's Disease.
Her death, coming as it does, on the even of the 2016 General Election is likely to pass less noticed than it otherwise would. I'll simply note it here. She was appointed AG by Bill Clinton and held the post for a longer period than anyone in the prior 150 years had. Her occupancy of the position was not without controversy, if for no other reason than the Clinton era seems to be the commencement of the modern political period we are in which has featured controversy about everything.
Of some note, however, her first may have seemed to be a really significant first to a greater extent than the first which we're likely so see tomorrow, that being the first woman President. I still hear that first touted on the weekend news shows but I really think, at this point, nobody cares. What seems to have been missed on that is that by this point the acceptance of women and minorities in every walk of life is so general that a first woman President is truly an irrelevant statistic to most people. The election of Elizabeth Rankin to Congress a century ago was actually truly much more of a milestone.
General Election Day, 2016
We've looked at 1916. So now on to 2016.
So tomorrow is the General Election.
Likewise, many serious conservatives who otherwise detest Trump are left with no other option. Where are supports of the Second Amendment left to go? Nowhere, really. Where are those who have a serious philosophical view of a limited government to go? Well, they have no place at all to go, but they really can't go to Clinton.
This dismisses, of course, the third party choices.
If we did not have an anti democratic two party system neither of these poor choices would cross the bar. However, over the course of two centuries we've built a belief into our system that there can only be two parties, and have actually supported this legislatively, such that for most voters there doesn't seem to be more than two choices and for those in swing states, given the moral issues, there isn't.
But perhaps we can hope for more, and perhaps this election may serve to do that.
For those in swing states, their choice is between Trump and Clinton. The moral issues are too great to pretend otherwise. But for those in states that are going to go for one or the other with a certainty this is the election to register the protest. These voters, if they are not for Trump or Clinton can truly say enough. And they should.
And in doing so, they don't have to pick seemingly clueless Johnson or wacky Stein. Indeed, it's ironic that our two best known third parties are pretty repugnant in and of themselves. Libertarianism, in the form that exist in the Libertarian Party, is a political philosophy best left to the subreddits of the politically naive, who never really hope their ideas come into fruition. Stein's seems so far off the rails that she could be mistaken for somebody dedicated not to being elected.
These aren't the only third parties by any means. There's the highly conservative Constitution Party, which seems conservative on a national level, if wacky on a local level. There's the new Christian Democratic Party the American Solidarity Party. And there are others. In the age of Google, it's pretty easy to learn about them.
So, perhaps in the non swing states we will get a record "enough" vote that will have some impact.
And perhaps we can hope that whoever wins, Congress won't change much in the makeup, but will in its sense of responsibility. That would mean four years, basically, of "Tim, I don't think so" for whomever is President.
Which, sadly, is the best we can hope for.
So tomorrow is the General Election.
I thought about posting this as General Disaster Day, which his sort of how I feel about it. Perhaps that's too glum. But the nation, today, will pick, because it cannot seem to accept that more than two parties can compete in an election, and because years of lying to the electorate has created situation in which the Republican party was overtaken by the populist revolt lead by a person of questionable qualifications (to the say the least) and the Democratic party barely survived a hostile takeover to emerge with its 1970s Democratic Princess intact, but barely. The diehard supporters of Trump hope he'll burn everything down and the diehard supports of Clinton are hoping for the Coronation of Queen Maud. Everyone else is left wondering how we got here.
The results stand to be bad for the country, probably, no matter what happens.
If Princess Hillary is elected Queen Maud, the result will be the complete takeover of aggressively secular humanism in a liberal form in the United States Supreme Court. That will enshrine a version of the Constitution in Yoga Pants and Birkenstock's for at least a generation, if not permanently.
If Mogul Donald is elected, well who the heck knows? At least there would be reason to hope that the Supreme Court would be able to actual read the Constitution, as opposed to having more of the likes of Justice Kennedy who can't seem to find his copy.
This grim situation puts really conscientious votes into a pretty depressing place. For serious Catholic voters (as well as Orthodox voters, and others, for example) the situation is summed up by Monsignor Charles Pope pretty well:
Among the moral issues that have been most politicized are non-negotiable issues for any Catholic: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and same sex “marriage.” These are non-negotiable issues because there is no room for nuance or degree of support. You are either for them or against them. There is no middle ground. They are outright forbidden by Church teaching and no Catholic may agree with or support abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research or same-sex “marriage” in any degree whatsoever. This goes for every Catholic from the highest political officials to the lowliest and most unknown Catholic in the pew. This precedes politics, party loyalties, political leanings or any such thing.
But did I mention Satan is no idiot? Indeed, he has convinced many that Catholics who clearly articulate Catholic moral teaching on these non-negotiable issues are merely “talking about politics; and how dare they!” And cowed by this satanic trick and lie many clergy and other Catholics sadly cave and run for cover in speaking to these issues at all, not just in political seasons. Other dissenting Catholics buy Satan’s lie because it gives them cover and helps to silence foes.
To again be clear, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and same-sex “marriage” are moral issues, and the Church must teach against them no matter where the political lines fall.
The Catholic position on these matters currently coincides with one political party’s platform over another. But this not the intention or fault of the Catholic Church. These are matters that most Americans once agreed on and are now matters that have divided out along political lines.That effectively means that, for really the first time in decades, maybe well over a century, voters in this class basically are placed in the position of voting for somebody they might outright despise because moral issues leave them no other choice.
Likewise, many serious conservatives who otherwise detest Trump are left with no other option. Where are supports of the Second Amendment left to go? Nowhere, really. Where are those who have a serious philosophical view of a limited government to go? Well, they have no place at all to go, but they really can't go to Clinton.
This dismisses, of course, the third party choices.
If we did not have an anti democratic two party system neither of these poor choices would cross the bar. However, over the course of two centuries we've built a belief into our system that there can only be two parties, and have actually supported this legislatively, such that for most voters there doesn't seem to be more than two choices and for those in swing states, given the moral issues, there isn't.
But perhaps we can hope for more, and perhaps this election may serve to do that.
For those in swing states, their choice is between Trump and Clinton. The moral issues are too great to pretend otherwise. But for those in states that are going to go for one or the other with a certainty this is the election to register the protest. These voters, if they are not for Trump or Clinton can truly say enough. And they should.
And in doing so, they don't have to pick seemingly clueless Johnson or wacky Stein. Indeed, it's ironic that our two best known third parties are pretty repugnant in and of themselves. Libertarianism, in the form that exist in the Libertarian Party, is a political philosophy best left to the subreddits of the politically naive, who never really hope their ideas come into fruition. Stein's seems so far off the rails that she could be mistaken for somebody dedicated not to being elected.
These aren't the only third parties by any means. There's the highly conservative Constitution Party, which seems conservative on a national level, if wacky on a local level. There's the new Christian Democratic Party the American Solidarity Party. And there are others. In the age of Google, it's pretty easy to learn about them.
So, perhaps in the non swing states we will get a record "enough" vote that will have some impact.
And perhaps we can hope that whoever wins, Congress won't change much in the makeup, but will in its sense of responsibility. That would mean four years, basically, of "Tim, I don't think so" for whomever is President.
Which, sadly, is the best we can hope for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)