The Wyoming Tribune for December 20, 1916: Troops Rush to Forestall Border Raid (and a truly bizarre comparison made in the case of a Mexican American militia)

A story of a near raid in the Yuma era with a rather bizarre comparison between a claimed Mexican American militia and the KKK.   Apparently the authors there had taken their history from D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation rather than reality.

It's rather difficult, to say the least, to grasp a comparison between a Mexican militia of any kind and the KKK which wouldn't exactly be in the category of people sympathetic to Mexican Americans.  And it's even more difficult to see the KKK used as a favorable comparison.  Cheyenne had a not insignificant African American, Hispanic, and otherwise ethic population associated with the Union Pacific railroad and I imagine they weren't thrilled when they saw that article.

Apparently the "war babies" referred to in the headline were stocks that were associated with Great War production, which logically fell following the recent exchange of notes on peace. As we saw yesterday, the Allies weren't receptive to them, so I'd imagine they those stocks rose again.

David Lloyd George addresses the German Peace Proposal and Ambassador Page telegrams the text.

 British Prime Minister David Lloyd George.

Later that same day, the U.S. Ambassador to the UK telegramed the Prime Minster's speech on the same topic to Secretary Lansing:

London, December 19, 1916.

5344. The Prime Minister made the following statement in the House of Commons to-day:

The new government had hardly been formed when there came the declaration of the German Chancellor. I propose to deal with this at once. The statement made by the German Chancellor in the Reichstag has been followed by a note presented to us by the United States of America without any note or comment. The answer that will be given by the Government will be given in full accord with our brave Allies. Naturally there has been an interchange of views not upon the note, because it only recently arrived, but upon the spirit which propelled it, inasmuch as the note itself is practically only a reproduction of the speech.

 

The discussions have been informal but I am glad to say we have each of us separately and independently arrived at identical conclusions.

I am very glad the first answer to the statement of the German Chancellor was given by France and by Russia.

They have an unquestionable right to give the first answer to such an invitation—the enemy is still on their soil; their sacrifices have been greater. The answer they have given has already appeared in the papers, and I, on behalf of the Government, give a clear and definite support to the statements which have already been made.

Any man or set of men who abandoned the struggle without achieving the high purpose for which they had entered into the war would be guilty of the costliest act of foolery ever perpetrated by any statesman. I should like to quote the words of Abraham Lincoln under similar conditions: “ We accepted this war for an object—a worthy object—and the war will end when that object is attained. Under God, I hope it will never end until that time.”

Are we likely to achieve that object by accepting the invitation of the German Chancellor? That is the only question that we have to put to ourselves.

There has been some talk about proposals of peace. What are the proposals? There are none.

To enter on the invitation of Germany, proclaiming herself victorious, without any knowledge of the proposals she proposes to make, into a conference, is to put our heads into a noose with the rope in the hands of Germany—and this country is not altogether without experience in these matters.

It is not the first time we have fought against Military despotism in Europe and it will not be the first time we have helped to overthrow such a despotism. We feel we ought to know before we give consideration to the offer of the German Chancellor that Germany is prepared for peace to be obtained and maintained in Europe, and these terms which have been stated by all the leading statesmen of the Allies are: complete restitution; full reparation; and effectual guaranties for the future.

Page

The UK response to the German peace proposal is communicated to the US.

The U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Walter Hines Page, telegrammed Secretary Lansing on this day about the British response to the recent German peace feeler.

London, December 19, 1916, 6 p. m.

5343. Your circular December 16, 5 p. m.Lord Robert Cecil has just informed me that the British Government will decline the German proposal to discuss peace because it contains no concrete terms with which such a discussion might begin and for other reasons; and that the Prime Minister will set forth the Government’s position in full in the speech which he is now delivering in the House of Commons.

I will telegraph the text of what the Prime Minister says at the earliest hour possible.

Lord Robert informed me that the British Government had requested the French Government to draw up the reply of the Allies to the note of the Central powers.

Page

An increase in creepy crimes?

I've come to the conclusion, I think, that something really creepy is going on in society.  Truly creepy.

Now, let me note that I started this post weeks and weeks ago.  So long ago that I can't remember, actually, when I started it.  Sometime in 2016, but I'm not sure when.  I revived it when the creepy story about Brock Turner, the Stamford University student and swimmer who was hardly sentenced for his horrific assault on a young woman following a party came up.  But then I let it sit again and getting back to posting it was inspired by that.  Frankly, that event takes this to such a horrific level that it almost stands to wipe out my point, so I'll start where I was going to start in just a moment.  I most recently returned to this story when a 19 year old man was sentenced in the last couple of days for sexual assault, that crime involving having impregnated a 12 year old girl, when he was 17, in a closet at a home in which he was staying with that girls family. That crime came to light, apparently, through the girl having reported to a physician pregnant and then revealing the story.

That guy got something like two to six years (I forget the exact sentence, but it was something like that).  The prosecutor wanted more.  His defense attorney wanted less on the basis that he was the sole support for his mother and sister.

Hm.

Hardly a day goes by anymore where I don't read of some hideous assault by a man upon a female victim, and frankly usually they're are young women, i.e., teenage girls.  This would be bad enough if I was reading of these events every few months, worse if it was every month, but frankly now its darned near every day.  Yes, almost every day here there's an assault by a male upon some teenage girl, or even girls.  Indeed just this past week there was a story that broke here of a family that had groomed a family friend's daughter for sadomasochistic acts.  Creeps.

Now, that should make it clear, I suppose, that we're sometimes speaking of crimes that may have an element, or not, of consent by the victims.  The  17 year old impregnating a 12 year old apparently did, as they exchanged texts about sex before they engaged in the activity. Looking for trends or commonalities in the crimes, I'd note that one that shows up in more than a few is enticement by drugs or alcohol. But that's far from the rule.  Quite a few are just outright assaults.   The victims report them nearly immediately, quite often, thank goodness, and they perpetrators are arrested quickly, and usually tried and convicted.

Beyond the drugs and alcohol there seems to be little in common save for that the perpetrators are often vagabonds or nearly so, although not always.  Almost all of them are on the bottom end of the economic scale, to say the least, although not all are.  A not un-appreicable number, no matter what a person believes stating this means, are Mexicans. I'm not claiming that all Mexican immigrants are perpetrators of this sort of stuff by any means, but if a person is honest you cannot help but note that the perpetrators who are Mexican who show up in this category here exceed their percentage of the population.  If a person reads between the lines, its usually clear that those who fit that category are actually from Mexico, FWIW, not people of Mexican heritage from the US (and no, I'm not claiming by a long shot that all Mexican men are perpetrators waiting to happen).  Not that this is uniform, indeed several years ago one of the fellows who was enticing young teenagers in this fashion was a local lawyer.

Added to this, I'd note, that hardly a week goes buy in which somebody isn't busted for the illegal downloading of icky photos in the above referenced category, and they aren't usually immigrant Mexicans, I'd note. Again, I'd not be surprised if this happened occasionally, but its freaking constant.

So what's going on?

Something is.

I suppose maybe this sort of stuff (well. . . not the downloading obviously, as you couldn't download anything forty years ago) may have always happened, but it just didn't get reported, or the victims didn't report it.   Maybe, but I doubt it.  There's just way too much of this for this all have to been kept quiet years ago, and frankly the perpetrators are largely in the class that doesn't get much legal slack.  So I think there really is more.

But why?

I've noted before on this site that statistically the amount of violence, including violent crime, is way down in the US.  And killings are certainly quite uncommon here. So are examples of violent physical assault, or mayhem, or things like that. But these sort of creepy crimes have to be way, way up.  I just can't ever recall a prior era in which they showed up in the press nearly daily.  Indeed, in a lot of prior eras here, when we were fairly acclimated to fights going awry, we would have been horrified by something of this nature.

And I think that has to do something with the decline in morals, i.e., the emphasis on personal virtue in regards to your own conduct in this area.

Maybe that's a leap, but I do.

I think our culture, at this point, is so awash in images and projections suggesting that all women are available to any man, that a certain class of men now believes that.  And beyond that, the line of what is acceptable or not, on a societal basis, is now so faded that unless a person has picked up a line from outside of the cultural mainstream its extremely difficult to tell where that line may be.

A look at any of the popular television shows (yes, I know, television is stupid, but maybe its a type of mirror  also) is illuminating in these regards.  A show like, for example, Friends shows the young engaged in constant libertine activity.  The Big Bang Theory is the same way.  The "reality" show Vanderpump Rules depicts a group of people whose morals are so far in the sewer it would take a rotorooter to find them (did we really need to import these people from the UK, seriously?).  A recent pop song celebrates Blurred Lines. Singer who originally made acquired their fame as cute child stars appear naked darned near anywhere they can.  Any sexual act or inclination is celebrated as being normal, irrespective of the evidence.  The examples are nearly endless.

I do not mean to excuse any of this conduct, as its reprehensible.  But seriously, if you take a society and simply endlessly bathe it in sexual content, and sexual content, and then argue in its courts and solons that any act at all is normal, is going to produce this result.  And it has.

So, the biggest criminal of all turns out, in some ways, to be our current culture itself.  And we end up all being the victims.

The Wyoming Federal Natural Resource Management Committee tells the voters it knows better.

The Wyoming Federal Natural Resource Management Committee met on December 14 in Cheyenne.  It was a public hearing.  Not that the public was really going to be listed to.  This committee decided to ignore the public with finality, apparently, back in November and is now only willing to consider amendments to a proposed Wyoming Constitutional Amendment that has received widespread public opposition.

The Committee was meeting on the language of a proposed amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that's basically in aid of the some in the state's effort to grab the Federal Domain against the wishes of the residents of the state and contrary to the oaths the Legislators took when they signed on to do their jobs.  The legislators were surprised that public opposition to a proposal that's quite popular amongst Wyoming's politicians received such widespread opposition from the public.  At least, to their credit, they have tried to do something about that, as opposed to our Congressional representation in the House and Senate which has supported it and simply flat out ignored the voting public.

The concept that transferring the public lands would benefit the state in any fashion is completely erroneous. The state would, sooner or later, and likely much sooner rather than later, sell the lands to the highest bidders that would invariably be rich out of state interests.  When this occurred we'd simply become a rural version of Ohio in which the residents of the state would have to be content with whatever the towns have to offer unless they were willing to pay a sufficient tribute to what would ultimately become out of state landlords.  To try to ease the fears of those who know that this amendment is being pushed.

The idea that a Constitutional Amendment would prevent this is delusional, as that would, at best, keep the Legislature from such an attempt for a single session or so, until a way around it was found.  Indeed, the Legislature right now does not seem to be able to recall  Article 21, Section 26 of the Wyoming Constitution which provides:

The people inhabiting this state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States and that said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to the citizens of the United States residing without this state shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents of this state; that no taxes shall be imposed by this state on lands or property therein, belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States, or reserved for its use. But nothing in this article shall preclude this state from taxing as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations, and has obtained from the United States or from any person, a title thereto, by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any acts of congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation, which last mentioned lands shall be exempt from taxation so long, and to such an extent, as is, or may be provided in the act of congress granting the same.

There's actually no proposal to repeal this section, so it would remain in effect, essentially saying "you can't get any more Federal Domain but if you do. . ."  Ah. . . a Constitutional Amendment that only courtroom lawyers will benefit from. . .

As Legislators, those on the present committee should recall that they swore an oath to uphold the Wyoming Constitution, and in these regards, efforts contrary to this provision seem to fairly clearly violate it.  Not that this has been something that's restrained the Legislature in recent years.  This doesn't seem to bother them much as only one single committee member cast a "no" vote on November 8 to approve the amendment even though nearly everyone who gathered at the November hearing spoke against it.  But we need to keep in mind that this body has seemingly been fairly comfortable with voting on unconstitutional acts in recent years and very recently got into a fair amount of trouble for just that.

Several nights ago in Cheyenne, 100% of the speakers from a large crowed spoke against the amendment again.  This time, however, the committee informed the speakers that it was already a done deal, they'd already voted against the wishes of the state's residents and they were only there to consider amendments.  They apparently agreed to a few. But its hard not to view this as being rather insulting to the voting public.  The committee well knew that a large crowed would be in attendance.  It also knew, of course, it had already voted for approval. But it is not the case, as these bodies will want to believe, that they can't unring the bell. They could have.  It just wouldn't suit the views out of four of the five people on the committee.

Now the whole thing goes on to the State Senate and, should it survive there, the House.  If it passes two thirds of both bodies then it must be voted on by the voters in the next election.  The Governor, for what it is worth, who has already spoken as to the illegality of acquiring the Federal Domain, has no role in this.

If this passes our legislature, at least from my prospective, the voters nearly have to pass the bill to try to protect the lands from these same people. Everyone well knows that this amendment is mere camouflage for an effort to violate the state's organic act and to violate the state's constitution and grab the Federal domain.  The amendment will be the only way to protect the land, even though this entire issue shouldn't even be on the plate.  That ironically argues for and against it at the same time.  We practically need it as our representation in Cheyenne has shown a determination to vote against the will of the citizens', but at the same time this simply aids their effort.

Here's the proposed amendment, before the apparent and anticipated amendments to it.  Note that this wold not take effect until 2019, giving a land transfer plenty of time to take first well before it, and for this thing to accordingly mean nothing whatsoever.  That's a bit odd.  And also note that this does nothing to preserve the lands the state already holds.

Note also that it appears in Article 18. Article 21 above remains in effect. So the net result of that is that this would make a mess out of the state's constitution, which is one of the few of the same that's actually survived the test of time.  Most state's have been trough several by now.  What would a court do with this?  Nobody knows.  But both sections clearly cannot stand together.  It would be equivalent to the U.S. Congress proposing an amendment to legalize banning speech in a clause separate from the First Amendment. 

Article 18, Section 7
Public lands management and access

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution and when in accordance with the purposes of a grant of land to the State of Wyoming from the United States, lands granted to the state after January 1, 2019 shall be managed for multiple use and sustained yield, including public access for hunting, fishing and other recreation, as prescribed by the legislature.

(b) The legislature may provide for the exchange of state lands acquired pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. The legislature shall ensure that any exchanges of lands acquired pursuant to subsection (a) of this section collectively cause no more than a de minimis loss or gain of the state lands, either in value or size.

(c) Any exchange of the lands acquired pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall maintain or increase public access to those lands.

And of course this doesn't consider that in addition to the State's constitution the State's organic act also disclaimed the public lands.

Here are the names of the Committee members.  In Cheyenne earlier this week they'd said they'd already voted, but that doesn't mean that voicing your opinion, should you have one (either way) won't suddenly cause that to magically reverse.  Over a long period of time I've learned that governmental entities of any type which state "we can't do that" can and will "do that" when it becomes too uncomfortable not to.  I've even heard one agency officer tell me something was illegal and then approve it as not illegal in less than 30 seconds.

Eli Bebout

Gerald Geis

Larry Hicks

Norine Kasperik

JoAnn Dayton

Tim Stubson

Dayton is the only one who voted no on the November 8 vote to ignore the voters.  She apparently listened to her constituency.

She's also the only Democrat on the body, and this is why I think we'll see an increase in Democratic fortunes in the upcoming election. The last unconstitutional bill passed by the legislature caused a revolt in the GOP amongst its hard right/libertarian wing which is still smoldering.  The Public Lands issue is in fact causing some long time Republicans I  know to vote Democratic.  Alienating both sides of the GOP locally is not really a very good idea.

Of those mentioned I should note that Stubson is on his way out, having run for Congress and lost.  He actually won't take his seat in January as Jerry Obermuller will instead, Stubson having determined not to run in order to run for Congress.  This is presumably his swan song as a legislator, assuming of course that he doesn't run again and obtain a seat at a later date.

Bebout is the only one who responded to my email the last time, to his real credit, with a well stated letter, albeit one I disagree with.  It takes guts and dignity to write somebody who is opposed to you, and I respect him for that.  Geis' email bounces back so I can't comment regarding him.  They're all likely getting hundreds of emails, as they well should be.

Stuff like this, I should note, really creates a distrust of democracy.  The concept always is that the people who go to the state house and Congress will uphold our views.  But here they aren't, and aren't coming close to it.  They're upholding a view that regards Washington as our enemy, a view that's really been stoked in recent years, and they also clearly believe that if we just get "Washington off our backs" the money will really flow.  But all the studies of this show that the state can't afford to administer the lands.  Ironically, moreover, transferring the Federal Domain doesn't make all regulation evaporate by any means and the Federal Government is not necessarily any harder to deal with than the state can be.  And at the end of the day this is poking the sleeping giant of the American urban population right in the eye, which isn't such a good idea.  A change in political fortunes can easily go from "give us the land" here in Wyoming to "it's all park land now" back in D.C.

If there's a silver lining in any of this it would be that Secretary of the Interior nominee Zinke is a very strong opponent of the transfer the lands movement and so is Donald Trump, Jr. who apparently had his father's ear on this one.

Lost

Man has often lost his way, but modern man has lost his address.

G.K. Chesterton

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: First Baptist Church, Tulsa Oklahoma

Churches of the West: First Baptist Church, Tulsa Oklahoma:

First Baptist Church in Tulsa Oklahoma, demonstrating an unusual combination of Romanesque styling and modern office building styling.

France signals that its going to say "non" to the German peace proposal.

Earlier in the day, and set out just below here, Secretary of State Robert Lansing telegramed his ambassadors.  Before the day was out he had information, albeit in the form of a reply to a telegram of December 16, 2016, from the American Counselor of the Embassy in France, Robert Woods Bliss indicating how things were likely to go.

 Robert Woods Bliss.  Note the sharp spats.

Paris, December 18, 1916, 11 p. m.

1750. Your circular telegram December 16, 5 p. m. With the Ambassador’s approval, in his temporary absence, I handed communication to Monsieur Cambon at Foreign Office this evening embodying text of note from German Government, and read the latter part of your telegram, leaving with him at his request copy thereof, calling his attention to your desire to receive confidential intimation as to the reply the French Government would make. He answered that he would be glad to comply as soon as possible although he could make no answer at this time. The inference was that the proposal of the Central powers would not be accepted. It is probable that the President of the Council will refer to the subject when presenting the new ministry to-morrow before the Senate, when he is expected to be strongly attacked by the opposition led by Monsieur Clemenceau, former President of the Council.

Bliss

The United States instructs its Ambassadors to approach the Belligerent Countries with a a suggestion.

The newspapers we've been posting the past few days have been full of stories about the Central Powers sending peace feelers through the US.  There was some suggestion that the US was not acting on them, but in fact it was.  On this date, Monday December 18, 1916, Secretary of State  Robert Lansing communicated the following message to ambassadors in the "Belligerent Countries"

Robert Lansing

It's interesting to note how the nation's official focus was switching very much to the war in Europe even while the US had not managed to extract itself from near war in Mexico.

The Secretary of State to the Ambassadors and Ministers in Belligerent Countries

Washington, December 18, 1916, 9.30 p. m.

The President directs me to send you the following communication to be presented immediately to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the government to which you are accredited, and he requests that you present it with the utmost earnestness of support. He wishes the impression clearly conveyed that it would be very hard for the Government of the United States to understand a negative reply. After yourself reading it to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and making the oral representations suggested, please leave a copy of this paper with him:

The President of the United States has instructed me to suggest to (substitute name of government to which you are accredited) a course of action with regard to the present war which he hopes that the (substitute name of government to which you are accredited) will take under consideration as suggested in the most friendly spirit and as coming not only from a friend but also as coming from the representative of a neutral nation whose interests have been most seriously affected by the war and whose concern for its early conclusion arises out of a manifest necessity to determine how best to safeguard those interests if the war is to continue.

The suggestion which I am instructed to make the President has long had it in mind to offer. He is somewhat embarrassed to offer it at this particular time because it may now seem to have been prompted by the recent overtures of the Central powers. It is in fact in no way associated with them in its origin, and the President would have delayed offering it until those overtures had been answered but for the fact that it also concerns the question of peace and may best be considered in connection with other proposals which have the same end in view.1 The President can only beg that his suggestion be considered entirely on its own merits and as if it had been made in other circumstances.

The President suggests that an early occasion be sought to call out from all the nations now at war such an avowal of their respective views as to the terms upon which the war might be concluded and the arrangements which would be deemed satisfactory as a guaranty against its renewal or the kindling of any similar conflict in the future as would make it possible frankly to compare them. He is indifferent as to the means taken to accomplish this. He would be happy himself to serve or even to take the initiative in its accomplishment in any way that might prove acceptable, but he has no desire to determine the method or the instrumentality. One way will be as acceptable to him as another if only the great object he has in mind be attained.

He takes the liberty of calling attention to the fact that the objects which the statesmen of the belligerents on both sides have in mind in this war are virtually the same, as stated in general terms to their own people and to the world. Each side desires to make the rights and privileges of weak peoples and small states as secure against aggression or denial in the future as the rights and privileges of the great and powerful states now at war. Each wishes itself to be made secure in the future, along with all other nations and peoples, against the recurrence of wars like this and against aggression or selfish interference of any kind. Each would be jealous of the formation of any more rival leagues to preserve an uncertain balance of power amidst multiplying suspicions; but each is ready to consider the formation of a league of nations to insure peace and justice throughout the world. Before that final step can be taken, however, each deems it necessary first to settle the issues of the present war upon terms which will certainly safeguard the independence, the territorial integrity, and the political and commercial freedom of the nations involved.

In the measures to be taken to secure the future peace of the world the people and Government of the United States are as vitally and as directly interested as the Governments now at war. Their interest, moreover, in the means to be adopted to relieve the smaller and weaker peoples of the world of the peril of wrong and violence is as quick and ardent as that of any other people or government. They stand ready, and even eager, to cooperate in the accomplishment of these ends, when the war is over, with every influence and resource at their command. But the war must first be concluded. The terms upon which it is to be concluded they are not at liberty to suggest; but the President does feel that it is his right and his duty to point out their intimate interest in its conclusion, lest it should presently be too late to accomplish the greater things which lie beyond its conclusion, lest the situation of neutral nations, now exceedingly hard to endure, be rendered altogether intolerable, and lest, more than all, an injury be done civilization itself which can never be atoned for or repaired.

The President, therefore, feels altogether justified in suggesting an immediate opportunity for a comparison of views as to the terms which must precede those ultimate arrangements for the peace of the world, which all desire and in which the neutral nations, as well as those at war, are ready to play their full responsible part. If the contest must continue to proceed towards undefined ends by slow attrition until the one group of belligerents or the other is exhausted, if million after million of human lives must continue to be offered up until on the one side or the other there are no more to offer, if resentments must be kindled that can never cool and despairs engendered from which there can be no recovery, hopes of peace and of the willing concert of free peoples will be rendered vain and idle.

The life of the entire world has been profoundly affected. Every part of the great family of mankind has felt the burden and terror of this unprecedented contest of arms. No nation in the civilized world can be said in truth to stand outside its influence or to be safe against its disturbing effects. And yet the concrete objects for which it is being waged have never been definitively stated.

The leaders of the several belligerents have, as has been said, stated those objects in general terms. But, stated in general terms, they seem the same on both sides. Never yet have the authoritative spokesmen of either side avowed the precise objects which would, if attained, satisfy them and their people that the war had been fought out. The world has been left to conjecture what definitive results, what actual exchange of guaranties, what political or territorial changes or readjustments, what stage of military success even would bring the war to an end.

It may be that peace is nearer than we know; that the terms which the belligerents on the one side and on the other would deem it necessary to insist upon are not so irreconcilable as some have feared; that an interchange of views would clear the way at least for conference and make the permanent concord of the nations a hope of the immediate future, a concert of nations immediately practicable.

The President is not proposing peace; he is not even offering mediation. He is merely proposing that soundings be taken in order that we may learn, the neutral nations with the belligerent, how near the haven of peace may be for which all mankind longs with an intense and increasing longing. He believes that the spirit in which he speaks and the objects which he seeks will be understood by all concerned, and he confidently hopes for a response which will bring a new light into the affairs of the world.

Lansing

Boston Newsies. December 18, 1916.

LOC Title:  Group of newsies (youngest 10 years) selling Boston papers at noon. In Barre and Montpelier newsies are excused from school a little early at noon and at night in order to get to their papers earlier. December 18, 1916.

Movies In History: The Company

Coincidentally I've been reading a lot about espionage recently so it was timely when I saw that this entire mini series was being run back to back on television the other day.  I'd seen part of it before, but I'd never had the chance to see the entire series.

This series is an examination of the Central Intelligence Agency from its founding in the wake of the wartime Office of Strategic Services up until the 1990s.  It tracks the major events of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and on into the 70s in the context of one of the central characters manic devotion to revealing a mole inside the CIA.

If that sounds far fetched, many of the main characters in the series, which is based upon a book by the same name, are based on real characters and the manically devoted character, James Angleton, was in fact a real individual within the CIA who was in fact fully convinced that there was a mole inside the organization, which is referred to as "The Company" by people within it.  While I know little about the real Angleton, his portray as an unpopular, chain smoking, singularly minded and fanatic CIA agent appears to be quite correct. 

Leaping back and forth from field operations to the drama inside the CIA, the plot involves real events such as the 1958 Hungarian uprising and the Bay of Pigs invasion and weaves it with the story of a possible mole.  The story also leaps back in time to the 1930s when several of the central characters are in Yale University. 

The story is very well developed and fascinating.  The plot is, if anything, subdued in the context of what we now actually know about Soviet penetration of the US government in the 1930s and 1940s, including the OSS, although there is no actual evidence that CIA was ever penetrated by the Soviets.

Sunday State Leader for December 17, 1916: Measles killing Guardsmen at Deming.

Not the only news of the day, but two Arkansas Guardsmen died from the measles at Deming, New Mexico, news that surely worried Wyomingites with family members serving in the Guard at Deming.

William F. Cody  was reported very ill at his sister's house in Denver.

And death claimed the life of a former Rough Rider living in the state as well.

The State Health Officer reported, in cheerier news, on the state's healthful climate.

Carranza rejects the protocol

We've run a lot of newspaper articles on the negotiations between the United States and Mexico, or perhaps more accurately between the United States and the Constitutionalist government of Mexico lead by Venustiano Carranza

 Carranza

On this day he ended the doubt, he refused to sign it.

Carranza was a tough minded individual.  He never liked Woodrow Wilson and he had a grudge against the United States.  Irrespective of what may seem to be the advantages of the proposals that were made, he wouldn't agree.

And he never did.  Carranza never executed a protocol with the United States.

By this point the United States clearly wanted out of Mexico.  The intervention had bogged down to an uneasy occupation since the summer and was going nowhere.  Carranza guessed correctly that the United States would be leaving no matter what, although that did not mean that the US would be passive in protecting its interests.

Today In Wyoming's History: December 17, 1916. Inter Ocean destroyed by fire.

Today In Wyoming's History: December 17:

The Inter-Ocean

1916   Inter-Ocean Hotel in Cheyenne destroyed by fire.  Attribution; Wyoming State Historical Society.

The Inter-Ocean was one of several Cheyenne hotels that were big deals and major watering holes, something very common in that era and for decades thereafter (and still somewhat true in larger cities today).  It's remembered to Western History for being the location referenced by Tom Horn in his famous conversation with  Joe LeFors.

If you go to the Inter-Ocean to sit down and talk a few minutes some one comes in and says, 'Let us have a drink,' and before you know it you are standing up talking, and my feet get so *&^*&^^  tired it almost kills me. I am 44 years, 3 months, and 27 days old, and if I get killed now I have the satisfaction of knowing I have lived about fifteen ordinary lives.

Horn was in fact arrested outside of the Inter-Ocean.

The hotel had been built by Barney Ford, a businessman who had been born a slave, a status that he escaped from.  His father was the white plantation owners where his black mother was enslaved.  After escaping he lived an adventuresome life and rose to great wealth in Colorado.

He apparently liked the name "Inter-Ocean" as he built another hotel in Denver's 16th Street by that name.  Like the Cheyenne hotel, it is no longer there, which is a real shame as funky buildings like this are all the rage in Denver now..

Denver's Inter-Ocean

Morris Levine, newsboy. December 17, 1916.

LOC Title:  Morris Levine, 212 Park Street. 11 years old and sells papers every day--been selling five years. Makes 50 cents Sundays and 30 cents other days. Location: Burlington, Vermont / Lewis W. Hine. December 17, 1916.

Last day of the season.

What I meant to be doing yesterday.

What I was doing.

Oh well.  I'd forgotten when I planned on making a last attempt on Thursday that I'd scheduled a meeting that day last week.

The Cheyenne State Leader for December 16, 1916: Villa proposes deal with US?

Rumors were circulating that Villa had proposed a deal with the US, and Pershing stood to be promoted.

The Wyoming Tribune for December 16, 1916: Home folks send boxes to border

Care packages were being sent to Wyoming National Guardsmen in New Mexico.

The mysterious apperance of John J. Hawes

The national press was reporting this day that John J. Hawes, an American businessman with connections in Mexico, had announced himself as a emissary from Villa with proposals for peace.

Hawes is an enigmatic figure.  He was a legitimate, but apparently somewhat slick, businessman who operated to make money on the war in Mexico.  His connections with Villa were vague at the time and remain that way.

Still, his assertions that Villa was resurgent were not without some credit, given that Villa had gone from desperate back in March to a serious opponent, once again, of Carranza with an army in the field that had to be taken seriously by November.

This wouldn't be Hawes sole appearance in the Mexican drama and as matters progressed, while he gathered skepticism, he also seems to have gathered some support here and there from American business interests and even a few political figures.  In the short term, we can expect his name to appear in the local papers the next few days as the Press continued to attempt to follow what was going on south of the border.  Suffice it to say, while the drama seemed to be concluding in some ways, it would become all the odder in others.

2ième Bataille Offensive de Verdun

The 2ième Bataille Offensive de Verdun, a second French offensive at Verdun, a battle that had been running for months, commenced at 10:00 on this day in 1916.  A German barrage designed to halt a ground attack commenced too late to stop it.

Map depicting french gains from December 15 (15/12), 1916 to December 18 (18/12), 1916.

The artillery phase of the offensive preceded the ground assault by several days, with artillery duels occurring as a result.  

The offensive would run until the 18th and gain up to about five miles in some locations, taking some very strategic position in its course and resulting in significant German losses.  The French would take 11,000 Germans as prisoners alone.  The halt of their advance on the 18th marked the end of the siege of Verdun.  In the total siege the French sustained about 400,000 casualties and the Germans about 300,000.

Lex Anteinternet: And then the shoe dropped. (But not when thought). Ryan Zinke nominated to the Interior

Just recently I reported on Cathy McMorris Rodgers being nominated, in anticipation style, to be Secretary of the Interior by President Elect Donald Trump:

Lex Anteinternet: And then the shoe dropped.: Yesterday I published this item: Lex Anteinternet: Whining, crying, panic in the editorial room of th... : Following the flood of analys...

I don't know what happened, but in the end, she wasn't.

When the announcement was made it turned out to be Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke.

And I think that's a good thing.

I know very little about Zinke, but I do know that the Republican Montanan is opposed to the transfer of Federal lands, which was something that was much less certain about Rodgers.  And I also know that as he comes from Montana, he'll be familiar with the situation and conditions down here in Wyoming, which are very similar.  Moreover the former Navy SEAL is a lifelong hunter and fisherman.  He's drawn some initial praise from sporting quarters.

A good turn of events.  In some ways, I feel like we may have dodged a bit of  a bullet on this one.

The Submarine H3 runs aground, leading to the ultimate loss of the USS Milwaukee.

The U.S. submarine the H3, operating off of Eureka California with the H1 and H2, and their tender the USS Cheyenne, went off course in heavy fog and ran aground on this date (although some sources say it was December 16, this seems the better date however).

The H3 during one of the recovery attempts.

She'd be recovered and put back in service, although it was a difficult effort and would not be accomplished until April 20, 1917.  In the process, the USS Milwaukee, a cruiser, was beached and wrecked on January 13, 1917, making the relaunching of the H3 somewhat of a Pyrrhic victory.

The wrecked USS Milwaukee.

USS Cheyenne, which had been originally commissioned as the monitor USS Wyoming.  Truly an odd looking ship to modern eyes.

 The USS Cheyenne with the H1 and H2.  The Cheyenne had been decommissioned in 1905, after having served since only 1900, but she was recommissioned in 1908.  She was the first fuel oil burning ship in the U.S. Navy after having been refitted prior to recommissioning.  She was refitted as a U.S. Navy submarine tender, as a brief stint in the Washington Naval Militia, in 1913.

Today In Wyoming's History: December 14: Quebec prohibits women from practicing law.

Today In Wyoming's History: December 14:

Elsewhere:  1916:  In strong contrast to the State of Wyoming,  Quebec bans women from entering the legal profession.

This was in contrast with progress in suffrage elsewhere in Canada that year, but it wasn't terribly unusual for the time.  Note that the first Woman admitted to the bar in Wyoming had only been admitted two years earlier in spite of suffrage dating back to the late 19th Century and in spite of women already having served as justices of the peace and jurors. Having said that, every US state would have admitted at least one woman to the bar by the early 20th Century and many in the late 19th Century

Clara Brett Martin, the first female lawyer in the British Empire.

In these regards the entire British Empire trailed somewhat behind as the first female lawyer in the Empire, Ontario's Clara Brett Martin, wasn't admitted until 1897 after a protracted struggle to obtain that goal.

Today In Wyoming's History: December 14: Former Governor John Osborne steps down as Assistant Secretary of State for the Wilson Administration.

Today In Wyoming's History: December 14:

John E. Osborne at the start of his service as Assistant Secretary of State.

1916  Former Governor John Osborne concludes his service as Assistant Secretary of State for the Wilson Administration.

It had been rumored for weeks that the former Democratic Governor would step down, with motivations being various cited as an intent to run for the U.S. Senate and a desire to return his Western holdings.   All of that may have been partial motivators.  He did retain agricultural and business holdings in Wyoming and a 1918 run for the Senate showed he had not lost interest in politics.  However, he also found himself in increasing disagreement with his employer on Wilson's policies in regards to the war in Europe.  So, at this point, prior to Wilson's second term commencing, he stepped down and returned to Wyoming with his wife Selina, who was twenty years his junior.

Osborne would live the rest of his life out in the Rawlins area, ranching and as a banker.  While twenty years older than his wife, he would out live her by a year, dying in 1943 at age 84.  She died the prior year at age 59.  Their only daughter would pass away in 1951.  In spite of a largely Wyoming life, he was buried with his wife in their family plot in Kentucky.

First American Board Certified Physicians, December 14, 1916.

The American Board of Ophthalmology certifies a group of physicians after an examination at the University of Tennessee.  This is the first time a board has certified a group of physicians in the US, making those doctors the first "board certified" American physicians.

Mid Week At Work: Big Metal Bird: Episode 4 – Network Operations

Blog Mirror: Matthew Wright: Where did the commercial Christmas zombie frenzy start?

Where did the commercial Christmas zombie frenzy start?

One of my pet irritations about Christmas is the zombie mall frenzy, when shoppers go into a kind of trance amidst the glitz and glitter of the mall and start shelling out cash for chintzy consumer items made of cheap plastic. Most of these gee-gaws break 28 seconds after being unwrapped, and by 29 December they’ve been packed off to the landfill.

The start of what came to be known as White Friday (although it apparently was a Wednesday), 1916

 Mount Marmolata vom Sellajoch, in the Dolomites before World War One.  The disaster commenced on this mountain where Austrian troops were garrisoned on the summit.  A local officer, Rudolf Schmid, had asked for permission to withdraw prior to the disaster, recognizing the danger, but had been denied.  He survived the disaster.

On this day in 1916 nature and war combined to eventually kill over 10,000 Italian and Austrian soldiers in the Italian Dolomites.  The day featured a catastrophic series of avalanches which would continue to carry on the rest of the week.  The majority of the casualties were Austrian with only 300 Italians loosing their lives in the disaster, if "only" is an appropriate word for death on such a colossal scale.

Austrian recruiting poster omitting, curiously, death.

An oddity of this event is that it is recalled as "White Friday", but it didn't solely or even principally occur on a Friday. The disaster was the start of a series of such events that would apparently culminate in some fashion on Friday.  Given this, it's often reported as if the full disaster occurred on a single day and a significant number of deaths occurred on the first day, but they did not end that day, and the day they first occurred on did not lend itself to the title of the day in history.

By any measure, however, it was a horrific event.

The Wyoming Tribune for December 13, 1916. Maybe Carranza isn't in a hurry to sign.

Just two days ago Carranza was reported as going to sign the protocol for sure.  Now, accurately, he didn't appear to be likely to do so.

Otherwise, the disaster of World War One dominated the headlines along with the disastrous fire in Chugwater.

A rational and honest voice from the Governor's office

Governor Mead, according to the Casper Star Tribune:

Mead said in an interview Wednesday with the Star-Tribune that two state attorneys general have advised him that Wyoming is not legally structured, through an enabling act that began the process of statehood in the late 1800s, to obtain federal land. States such as Utah have enabling acts that provide a stronger case for transfer, but even they are battling to obtain the land, he said.

“Then you get into the policy,” the Republican said. “And I reflect back to 2012. We spent as a state $45 million fighting fires… If the federal lands that had fires on them would have been state lands, we would have spent another $45 million – in one summer. That’s a significant amount.”

The Non Inevitability of Inevitability

When I was in college I was in a class that was required to read a book, by my memory, called Republic of Grass.

The gist of the book, which was then a really hot item, is that the arms race between the US and the USSR, which was getting really ramped up at that time, was going to inevitably lead to a nuclear war destroying the United States. The solution, the author held, was to enter into a treaty with the USSR giving them everything they wanted.  Complete surrender in the Cold War, basically.  Better Red than Dead, more or less.

A few years later the Soviet Union collapsed.

In the 1920s and the 1930s the rise of Communist was held, in "Progressive" circles, to be inevitable and progressive.  The outcome would be a world wide triumph of Marxism, which the arrival of the Communist in the Soviet Union made plain.  About the only ones in radical circles, and even less than radical circles, who didn't hold that held the view that fascism held essentially the same future.

By 1950 it was plain that Communism was a hideous monster and we'd contest it.  Lots of old Communist had dropped out of the movement forever, many when the Communist and the Nazis made common cause in 1939 and 1940.

All sorts of inevitable triumphs have been predicted, only to fade.

The only thing that's really inevitable is that nature wins in the end.  You can act contrary to nature, physical or human, but you cannot disregard it.  If you disregard it too much, nature ultimately gives you the dope slap.

This is something that is routinely ignored by politicians and movements. And of the right and the left.

We really can't do too much damage to the natural world before it gets even.  This is science, and that has to be taken into account one way or another.  To some extent you can take care of that through engineering.  I.e., the river wants to flood here, I will build a levee.  But you have to be careful.  To nature, it still wants to flood there and it will work, for years, decades centuries and millennia, to do just that.

And so true with human movement.  People can pretend there aren't men and women and that there isn't a reason for long lasting universal human institutions. But there is. Alter them too much, and human nature will decree you to be miserable in your alteration.  Justice Kennedy can pretend whatever he wants, but declarations to the contrary produce misery, not bliss.

All of which is why nature wins.

Which is why philosophies contrary to nature loose.

Which is why political groups adopting falsehoods contrary to nature can sit and declare that something "is on the wrong side of history" only to find out that whatever they espoused was on the wrong side of nature.

It wasn't a pendulum swinging the other way.  It was the hand of nature.

Today In Wyoming's History: December 12, 1916: Chugwater's business district destroyed by fire.

Today In Wyoming's History: December 12:

1916  Chugwater's business district destroyed by fire.  Attribution. Wyoming State Historical Society.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Trinity Episcopal Church, Tulsa Oklahoma

Churches of the West: Trinity Episcopal Church, Tulsa Oklahoma: 

 

This is Trinity Episcopal Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  It's a downtown church of classic Gothic styling, but otherwise I don't know any of the details on it.

Cold Work: December 11, 1916

LOC Title:  VIEW OF REINFORCEMENT WORK AT THE REAR OF THE POWER HOUSE, DECEMBER 11, 1916. SEVERAL WORKING CYLINDERS CAN BE SEEN IN PLACE, AS CAN SEVERAL OF THE FORMS WHICH WERE PREPARED FOR POURING CONCRETE TO EXTEND THE TAIL RACE WALLS OVER ALREADY INSTALLED REINFORCEMENT BUTTRESSES. (779) - Michigan Lake Superior Power Company, Portage Street, Sault Ste. Marie, Chippewa County, MI

And then the shoe dropped.

Yesterday I published this item:

Lex Anteinternet: Whining, crying, panic in the editorial room of th...: Following the flood of analysis following the recent election of Donald Trump I stopped doing my after action reports.  There's just to...

Which included this item:

Gritting my teeth and waiting for the shoe to drop.  All this might lead some to think I'm a Trump supporter.  For regular Democrats, they probably have concluded I am, and for the Greewhich village crowd that seemingly runs the party they're probably hiding under their cafe tables with their tofu sandwiches and free trade coffee by now, crying.  But actually, I'm not.  As noted way back during the election, I voted for a third party candidate, and an obscure one at
that.

Which means even though, unlike the NYT I accept the election, and unlike the Democratic Party, I actually know it occurred, I'm not a Trumpite now or before. And I'm gritting my teeth on the upcoming  Secretary of the Interior nomination. . .

Well, I didn't have to wait long.

 Secretary of the Interior nominee Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Yesterday it was announced that Trump will announce  U.S. Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers as his Secretary of the Interior.

Well, I'm not shouting for joy, that's for sure.  But it could have, maybe, been worse.

We'll have to see about her.  She signed on to the bad idea bills leaking out of Utah and Alaska to transfer public lands to the state, as did of course all of Wyoming's folks in D.C., thereby betraying the will of the people who elected them.  Rodgers' district includes Seattle so my guess is that her constituency wasn't universally thrilled either.  But what she really seems to be is an industry advocate, with most of that having been for nuclear and hydroelectric.

It's really clear that Trump's focus is on industry and big industry at that.  I'm really skeptical that the concept of "cutting red tape" and all of that does anything for American industry in 2016.  The ship sailed on that long ago and the idea that American industry, to include the extractive industries, is really hamstrung by regulation is questionable.  But what this may do, maybe, is to take the steam out of the Utah Delusion that all that has to happen for money to rain down out of the sky is to get regulation out of the way, because it looks like it will be getting out of the way.  If the gutters of Main Streets in Salt Lake, Juneau and Cheyenne aren't flowing with cash we'll soon know better.

This might, therefore, be like the Reagan Administration in these regards.  The Sagebrush Rebellion was on fire at the time Reagan became President but his Secretary of the Interior, James Watt was undoubtedly the most pro industry individual to ever occupy that position and most of the fire accordingly died down.

As a total aside, around 1993 or 1994 I was present on the highway just outside of Dubois Wyoming when I was a witness to a motor vehicle accident Mr. Watt was in. The road conditions were awful at the time.

Sunday State Leader for December 10, 1916: Osborne resigns as Assistant Secretary of State, Carranza will sign protocol, Funston explains ban of rivals.

December 10, 1916, was a peculiar newspaper day as the Cheyenne State Leader published three editions, only one of which was regular news. The others were holiday features.

In this one, the straight news one, we are told that Carranza will sign the protocol with the US. But will he really?

We also learn that Assistant Secretary of State Osborne resigned that position in order to return to Wyoming.

The news also featured a story on why U.S. Commander in the Southwest, Frederick Funston, banned religious revivals in his region of authority.

And girls from Chicago were looking for husbands.

Field Marshall Prince Ōyama Iwao, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and founder of the Imperial Japanese Army died at 74.

Field Marshall Prince Ōyama Iwao, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and founder of the Imperial Japanese Army died at 74.

He was a major figure in the Meji Restoration and went on to study the military art outside of Japan.  He commanded Japanese land forces during most of the Russo Japanese War.  He was occupying the noted cabinet position at the time of his death.

Whining, crying, panic in the editorial room of the New York Times, and waiting for that shoe to drop

Following the flood of analysis following the recent election of Donald Trump I stopped doing my after action reports.  There's just too much writing on the topic and I'm sure everyone is sick of it. Still, some things do and will call out for commentary and I can't help myself.  So, a collection of things will be posted here.

The Delusional Whining.  Not a day goes by, it seems, where one of the large newspaper organizations doesn't seemingly confirm what Republicans claimed about them, they're relationship to the Democratic Party equates with Pravda's relationship with the Communist Party.  It's absurd.

The New York Times and similar organs are just screaming with "Trump Not A Democrat?  Will he appoint the ghost of William Jennings Bryan to the Supreme Court?"  Get real.

The absolutely babyish reaction to a President who isn't a Democrat and who isn't an establishment Republican has just been fantastically juvenile.  And it probably is serving to cement the views of somebody who seemed to relish taking them on.

The irony, I suppose, is that the NYT and print media has been in a decline of disastrous proportions for a long time, so for the most part, its message is not only not getting through, it's symptomatic of a big city Democratic Party that things everyone in the world lives in a big city and is a Democrat.

Nope, nothing wrong here.  The item in the last paragraph is very nicely demonstrated by the Democratic reaction to the election, now that it has time to absorb it.

It isn't absorbing it.

The Democrats failed to gain either house in Congress.

They lost the Presidency.

They now control only 18, yes that's right, 18, of the State Legislatures.

18.

And they now hold 17 of the 50 Governorships.

Yes, 17.

The Democrats have been sort of smugly sitting back for years thinking "demographics is history", which assumes a linear demographic trend (very much in doubt) while the actual trend was a decline into extinction.

A party normally experiencing this would really clean house. The Democrats are doing the polar opposite.

And in the Senate, they're going with Chuck Schumer as a spokesman constantly.  You know, the New York Democrat who sounds just as abrasive to people who don't live in New York as all the other New York politicians (yes, including Trump). Good idea that. After running one ersatz New Yorker, Clinton, against an expat New Yorker, Sanders, and getting beat by a Manhattanite, sticking with annoying Schumer is the obvious choice.

Couldn't they even perhaps have considered Amy Schumer?  She's at least as left wing and isn't annoying.

Nancy Pelosi is actually retaining her position in the House.  Schumer hasn't been sent packing.  Amazing.  By comparison the GOP cycled over last year in the House. . . and its in control. Problem with losing the House and Senate again?  Apparently not.  "We'll just keep on keeping on with the leader whose been so freaking successful so far.  Go Team!"

This has caused one on line journal to state:

What does a professional sports team do after 6 straight losing seasons? Among other things, it usually fires the coach and looks for new blood, new leadership, and new strategies.

But not if you’re the minority House and Senate democratic leadership... Or the Politburo of the Soviet Communist Party shortly before the collapse of communism.

Instead, the failed, and increasingly geriatric leadership holds onto its fading power with increasing tenacity.

The highest ranking elected Democrats are now... drum roll... Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (who has served in Congress for 35 years since 1981) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (who has served in Congress for 30 years since 1986. 

Some conservative cyber screed?  No, that was the very liberal Huffington Post.

The Washington Post recently ran a headline that stated:

The next generation of Democratic leaders is, um, nonexistent

Well, as they say, you don't want to abandon a gasping drowning horse as it sinks under the waives in the middle of a stream. . . oh wait, it's a river. . .

Well there's more hope at the Democratic National Committee, right?

Actually there is.  And if they were smart about this one, they'd choose the guy who made sort of a pitch sub silentio for it the other day . . .Barack Obama.

President Obama didn't come out swinging for the fences for it, but he did sort of express some interest, for those paying attention, and he'd be a really good choice. A widely liked politician (he'd have beat Trump if he could have run for a third term), who isn't 150 years old.  But he won't get it

There are some other good choices however.

One of them isn't Keith Ellison, however.

I know very little about Ellison personally but he's the wrong choice.  In interviews he sounds like he's straight out of the party circa 1973. Another one of those guys.

He is younger, young even in Democratic political terms, as he's only 53 (hey! now suddenly I'm young too, go Keith!).  But he's the wrong choice.

Why?  Well his 1973 rhetoric for one thing, and the principal thing. It's not 1973 anymore.

And then there's the fact that he's drawing flak for having represented the Nation of Islam as a lawyer years ago.  Ellison is a convert to Islam from Catholicism, which is quite rare and a bit odd, but he's never been a member of the Nation of Islam which isn't conventionally Islamic.  Nonetheless he's drawing some flak from some Jewish groups. And oddly, he's now getting flak from Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam, whom he's denounced for years, who is calling him a coward.  This is the sort of stuff the DNC doesn't need.  Close attention to religious affiliation hasn't been a factor, supposedly, since 1963 but I'd question if that's fully true now (I doubt it) and picking somebody whose drawing these odd problems so early on may not be a really good idea.  Chances are some Democrats will feel that it has a "look. . .see how diverse we are" feel to it but it isn't likely to come across the way that they think, particularly when the GOP looks at least as diverse anymore. The Democrats look 1973 diverse. . the GOP looks 2016 diverse. Diversity isn't necessarily liberal.

Speaking of 1963, I see where television is going to run something on Jackie Kennedy, with Jackie played by Natalie Portman.  I'll not watch it, but apparently it touches on Jack's personal behavior only barely, or so I read.  When we're talking about guys with unsuitable behavior for the Presidency, how come JFK keeps getting a pass?  Seriously.

Anyway, if you want to send a message that the election meant nothing, picking the same old crew in Congress and a guy who sounds like he's from 1973 as the DNC chairman would be a really good approach to that.  "Let's run the same winning team with the same winning message we have since 1973, team, because demographics his history. . . hey. . . why isn't there anyone in the stands?"

The Post Clue Era.  Amongst those on the liberal left who are recreating, Weimar Republic style ("we didn't loose the war with the Allies, we were stabbed in the back. . . let's try it again") the recent election is the press itself about the press.

Recently, for anyone paying attention, there's been a news story about there being fake news on Facebook.

Gee, really.  What a shock.

This isn't news.

Everyone with a critical eye knows this. This as been known from approximately 30 seconds after Facebook came into being.

This does allow, however, comfort to the liberal downtrodden, as in "Oh, they don't disagree with me, they were befuddled by fake news. . . I need not change".

No doubt some votes were changed by fake news, but I'll bet not much.  Most of the fake news I saw, and it was from the left and the right, was obviously pitched to the already committed.  And its still going on.  News like that just goes to those whose minds are made up already.

And speaking of made up minds. . .

Picking up the loaded gun.  Speaking of not getting the point, one lesson the Democrats really should have taken from this election was to knock off the talk about gun control.

President Obama wisely basically didn't talk about gun control. 

That's because he is smart.

This didn't keep the NRA from picking on him anyhow, which I was convinced was a poor strategy.  Perhaps Clinton did as well, as she went gun control in the primaries and stuck with it, in an oatmeal fashion, in the general election. Well, the NRA put in an all out effort and it can take big time credit for the results, whether you like them or not, this past season.

Which is likely to mean a big roll back on what gun control there is.

Indeed, the NRA must push on this.  It would have anyhow, but as a practical matter, it must.  The NRA was consistent on Obama being the worst thing ever, second only to Hillary Clinton, for years.  Having assisted in getting in a Republican President when many, including  me, thought that was a mistake, and there being a GOP House and Senate, it it rest on its laurels its doomed.  In truth, Obama did nothing much on gun control until the very end of his presidency, at which time there was no point in him not trying to do something, as he was never going to get any NRA love anyway.  But, for the NRA, you cannot decry a person for eight years as hideously awful and then allow his successor to pretty much do nothing, which is pretty much what Obama was doing. So the NRA has to argue for roll back on gun control and national right to carry.  It has to.

One of the reasons that the Democrats should stay away from this entire topic as they don't know what they are talking about. Voters who vote on gun issues do know what they are talking about.  Democrats, when they speak about gun control, come across as ignorant or liars.

They probably don't know that. But when they speak about guns, if they do at all, as opposed to gun control, they generally demonstrate a profound ignorance on the topic.  And when they speak of gun control they tend to speak about stuff like "common sense gun safety" which means, to anyone listening, "I don't know anything about guns, but I'm going to assume that you will agree to me that we can make all guns Nerf Guns and that this makes sense".  When they do that, they come across like somebody who is trying to lie.

Most of this is, again, because the Democratic Party is heavily urban and it thinks of all guns being snubnosed revolvers from the movie Shaft, that early 70s things again, or it thinks of every gun being a true, selective fire, assault rifle (which are exceedingly rare and heavily regulated in civilian hands).  Most firearms users, and the numbers are growing, don't see firearm that way at all.

Anyhow, if the Democrats had brains, they'd not try to talk about "common sense" gun control or "gun safety" or any of that baloney.  They'd be a lot better off taking some other approach, if they really want to discuss this at all.  If they must discuss it, frankly, they'd be a lot better off just stating the truth, which his "I don't ever get outside of Greenwich Village and I think the only legitimate activity of a decent person is reading Vanity Fair".

No matter, I'm sure they won't listen.  Indeed the NYT (remember that journal, its noted above?) just published an article about lawyers and law firms volunteering their time on gun control.

Yawn.

That's not going to do diddly except make lawyers look even more like left wing weenies than they already do.  Indeed, just recently I heard a young person disparage the entire profession of the law in a way that was graphic, but suggested that all lawyers were a bunch of wimps in the most dramatic fashion.  Some people don't credit the opinions of the young, but I do.  People's opinions on professions and activities change over time.  A lot of older lawyers even now imagine that they're Al Pacino in With Justice For All, just as an older generation yet thought all lawyers were Atticus Finch.  Apparently we're now looking more like Zippy the Pinhead however and the smiling firm portraits in the article do sort of come across like "look at us. . . we're afraid to go outdoors!"

Gritting my teeth and waiting for the shoe to drop.  All this might lead some to think I'm a Trump supporter.  For regular Democrats, they probably have concluded I am, and for the Greewhich village crowd that seemingly runs the party they're probably hiding under their cafe tables with their tofu sandwiches and free trade coffee by now, crying.  But actually, I'm not.  As noted way back during the election, I voted for a third party candidate, and an obscure one at that. 

Which means even though, unlike the NYT I accept the election, and unlike the Democratic Party, I actually know it occurred, I'm not a Trumpite now or before. And I'm gritting my teeth on the upcoming Secretary of the Interior nomination.

So far, I've seen Trump's picks for various posts as mixed.  People crying in their free range, free trade, buttermilk about picking various generals about things haven't impressed me.  I haven't thought those picks bad.  I'm okay with his pick for Secretary of Defense.  That position used to be called the Secretary of War, and a former Marine Corps general who probably isn't impressed by the attempt to ignore physics and nature in the military is plenty okay by me. Likewise I'm okay with Kelly for Homeland Security, although I wonder why we need a Department of Defense and a Department of Homeland Security (I know, let's have a. . .um. . War Department!)

And I'm not going to freak out, or even get particularly excited, or even interested, with Nikki Haley at the UN.

I'm also okay with Jeff Sessions for Attorney General.  I know he's taken flak, but Trump would have had to pick the Barrista at the 9th and Centre Metro Station in Greenwich Village to please his opponents on this one, so why bother?

Betsy DeVos at the Department of Education bothers me a bit, but I'll wait to see how that plays out.  It wouldn't surprise me if some corrective actions are needed there, but that isn't a department I pay much attention to.

And picking Ben Carson to anything strikes me as a really poor idea.  I guess we'll see.

Scott Puritt at the EPA, strikes me as a poor choice.  No surprise, but a poor choice.  I'm worried about what that will mean.

And I'm really worried about the Interior.

So far, for potential Interior picks, the only one I liked was Matt Mead and he's taken his name out. And yes that does mean I don't want Cynthia Loomis, who is another Wyoming politician who turned her backs on the views of her constituents on public lands.  Boo.

Frankly, the pick I may be most comfortable with is Donald Trump, Jr.  I know that wold be a shocker, but he actually is the most measured of the potential candidates.  And he might be campaigning for it.

Now, I'm sure that people will say Trump can't pick his son, but why not?  That great American skirt chaser, um President, John F. Kennedy, made Bobby Kennedy the Attorney General and hardly anyone things that was improper. Appointing Bobby that is, not the skirt chasing.

Well, apparently the skirt chasing was okay as well.  The copy of People magazine wondered in here in the wife's grocery bag with an article on what Jackie "knew" reports that she grew up in a family where her father did that, and Jack's father did that, and '"that's what men did.'

Yes, that's bulls**t. But even now?

Anyhow, we're staying tuned.