The M26 and its children

A thread about the evolution of American Armor.

More specifically, it's about the M26 Pershing and her daughters, a great series of tanks.  Perhaps the best series of tanks every made.

M26 being ferried across the Rhine at Remagen.  It's odd to see it in this photograph as it does not appear to be a large tank by today's standard, even though it was at the time.  It's very modern suspension is quite visible in this photograph.

 The M26 Pershing

We just posted about the M4 Sherman, noting that it was a much better tank than its many naysayers would have us believe.  Those naysayers often decry that "the US never developed a tank as good as the Tiger or Panther".

Those critics are flat out wrong.  The US developed a tank better than the Tiger or the Panther.  It just didn't get very many of them overseas during World War Two and it couldn't have, unless we were planning on fighting the war into 1946, which would have been pretty bad planning.

But that doesn't mean that we didn't get M26s into action, and that they weren't better than any of the German tanks they contested.  And they did contest them.

The M26 Pershing was the best, if imperfect, American tank of World War Two and, accepting that it was deployed only in very small numbers, perhaps the best tank of World War Two fielded by any nation (and noting that I'd otherwise give that position to the T-34/85). 

The record of the Pershing in World War Two combat speaks for itself, limited thought it is. It also shows that the era of modern tank combat had arrived.  And that's important to recall.

People who like to dump on the M4 Sherman are accidental fans of the M26, as they essentially argue that the US blew it by not focusing on the M26 earlier than it did and that it didn't get them into action sooner.  We've' addressed that in our other thread and we'll simply note that this is just flat out unrealistic.  

The M26 wasn't a fully developed design, in part because we were focusing on the Sherman, by the time it was fielded in  1945 and in fact it still bore the experimental designation of "T26" at that time. That it was fielded was due to the shock of the Battle of the Bulge in which an earlier, in theater, decision not to deploy Sherman's with the 76mm high velocity gun, even though they were available,m proved to be a mistake.  That mistake resulted in the U.S. Army in the Europe immediately reversing that decision and it also lead to an immediate desire that T26s be made available.  They were, but only in very small numbers.  The US's decision to concentrate on the M4 meant that the M26, while still being developed as its developers believed in it, wasn't really as far along as it could have been.

In spite of what M4 naysayers may think, the US actually never stopped trying to advance its tank designs during World War Two. As we've already discussed, the US went rapidly through tank series during the war. While I didn't cover it in the M4 Sherman thread (and I should have) the Sherman was the "M4" as it was the fourth model of medium tank to be adopted by the United States following the outbreak of the crisis.  The M3, which came before the M4, and which was built in large numbers and fielded well into 1943 in North Africa, and at least as late as 1944 on the Eastern Front (by the Soviets, of course) actually replaced the M2, of which there had only been eighteen built since it had been adopted in 1939.

The officially adopted, but barely produced, M2 medium tank.  Note that this tank fielded the type of drive and suspension associated with teh M4 Sherman.

While conditions and demands meant that the M3 quickly yielded to the M4, and the M4 remained the main American tank throughout World War Two, the US actually did begin to design a replacement for it nearly as soon as it was fielded. That resulted in the T20, T21, T22 and T23 experimental modes, all of which leaned on the now well established M2/M3/M4 type suspensions and all of which featured high velocity 76 mm guns.  While any one of them was probably a little better than the M4, none of them were all that much better.

 T20.

T23

The T23, while never adopted, was significant in that it began to have features, in smaller scale, that the M26 would later have, including a significant cast hull.  Following work on the T23 a new design was worked on keeping some of its features, and throwing away others, that resulted in the T25 and the T26.

Almost a M26, the T25, which retrained the older suspension design.

Both the T25 and the T26 recognized the reality of the new German cat tanks and the need for a heavier tank with a larger gun.  While coming out of a "medium" tank design program which was designed to replace the M4, both were considered heavy tanks at the time and sported a massive 90mm gun, a gun much larger than anything any western tank had used before. Fans of the M26 and enemies of the M4 point to this as proof of what the US could have done late war with tanks, and to some degree they're correct.

That puts me on both sides of an argument, of course, but those who claim the US was ignoring the larger new German tanks are flatly wrong.  The US had by late 1943 recognized the need for a tank with a heavier gun. But that was late 1943 and frankly the ability to field such a tank during the war itself was doubtful.  The Army pressed on with development of the T25 and T26, coming to focus on the T26 which had a completely new suspension, but that was done with the knowledge that fielding such a tank during the war was likely going to be unnecessary and difficult to accomplish.

Nonetheless, it was in fact done.  The T26, as the T26, was fielded late war following the Battle of the Bulge during the general panic over German cat tanks.

People who aren't impressed with this should keep in mind that the US went from the M2, depicted above, to the M26 in six years.  That is, the US went from adopting an inadequate medium tank at the start of the war too a good one, to its effective intended replacement, a fully modern tank, in just that short of time.  That's frankly amazing. Some other countries, it should be noted, also rocketed along in tank development, the Germans being the only really comparable example, but no other nation faced the daunting task of trying to do this while supplying its other principal allies and shipping everything it made over the oceans.

Following the Battle of the Bulge, about twenty T26s were shipped to Europe.  Not many, but they wold see action.  Interestingly, twelve were sent to the Pacific where they were deployed to Okinawa for the battle there, but were not offloaded until after the fighting was over. As a result, those twelve Pacific M26s were the last deployed in the war (and after the official adoption of the tank as the M26) but they didn't see combat. the ones deployed to Europe, however, did, including the one single "Super Pershing" that was deployed.

The very first M26, or rather T26, to see action against a German tank was a tank nicknamed Fireball.  It was overseeing a roadblock with it was ambushed by a Tiger.  The encounter went very badly for the M26 which was hit three times and put out of action by the first shot, which had been fired from only 100 yards away.

Two of the Pershing's crewmen were killed in the encounter, with the Tiger's first shot going through the machinegun port in the mantlet.  The second actually hit the gun barrel causing the round in the barrel to go off and distort it.  The third shot bounced off the tank.  After that, and perhaps emblematic of the problems the German's faced, the Tiger backed up and became entangled in debris, putting it self out of action. The Pershing was repaired and put back in action in just a few days.

 The unfortunate M26 "Fireball", which was hit and put out of action by a Tiger on February 26, 1945, to the loss of two crewmen. The tank was hit three times by the Tiger, being put out of commission with the first shot.  The third shot bounced off the M26. The Tiger put itself out of commission due to mechanical failure immediately thereafter.  Fireball was returned to service on March 7, having been repaired.

Disabled Tiger I that had the distinction of knocking out a M26 Pershing, the first Pershing to be knocked out in combat, even though the M26 was a better tank. After achieving that, this tank became disabled and had to be abandoned.  German tanks were frequently disabled.

Almost at the same time, however, one M26 put one Tiger and two Panzer IVs out of commission in the same town.  Unlike the first encounter, the victorious M26 was not put out of action by mechanical failure and the loss to the Germans of their armor was permanent.

The most famous M26 action came on March 6 in a heavily filmed encounter in Cologne in which a M26 engaged a Panther in a tank duel.  In that instance, the Panther had been laying in ambush and destroyed a M4 Sherman's when the M26 was called over from a street over.  The following then occurred as recalled by the M26's gunner:

We were told to just move into the intersection far enough to fire into the side of the enemy tank, which had its gun facing up the other street. However, as we entered the intersection, our driver had his periscope turned toward the Panther and saw their gun turning to meet us. When I turned our turret, I was looking into the Panther's gun tube; so instead of stopping to fire, our driver drove into the middle of the intersection so we wouldn't be a sitting target. As we were moving, I fired once. Then we stopped and I fired two more shells to make sure they wouldn't fire at our side. All three of our shells penetrated, one under the gun shield and two on the side. The two side hits went completely through and out the other side.

The same day, however, a M26 was put out of action by a German 88mm self propelled anti tank gun, a type of tank destroyer, at Niehl, which was near Cologne.  Following this event, near Cologne, M26s knocked out a Tiger and a Panzer IV.

Sent overseas as a "heavy tank" the M26s next saw action at Remagen, where they were used for artillery support.  Their large size presented a problem in getting them over the river, however, and they ultimately had to be ferried across. They did not see action against enemy armor in that battle.

M26 acting as artillery support at Remagen.

Even as the M26 was proving itself in action in Germany, a new variant of it was introduced, in a single example, in the theater, that being the "Super Pershing".  This new variant of the T26 featured a more powerful 90mm gun and additional armor.  This new variant was actually designated to replace the M26 even thought the M26 had only just started to see service.  Only a single example made it to Europe, however, and only twenty five were made prior to the order being cancelled due to the war's end.

 M26 "Super Pershing"

The T26E4 Super Pershing was clearly a more advanced tank than the  T26, although part of this recoil system was external on the turret and therefore vulnerable.  Interestingly once it arrived in Europe it was actually up armored in theater, making it an even more heavily armored tank than it was designed to be.  The single Super Pershing destroyed three tanks before the war ended, with one claimed to be a Tiger by the crew.

Following this, twelve were shipped to be used in the battle for Okinawa, but none of them were landed prior to the battle ending.

The results of armored development in World War Two demonstrated that what the original concept for the M26 had been was correct.  Following the war, it was reclassified as a medium tank, which it had always really been. The concept of it as a heavy tank was due to tanks like the Tiger being conceived of that way, but in reality, the Tiger and the Panther were simply the next generation of tank.  A person can debate it, but we'd regarded the T-34 as the first modern tank.  If it wasn't, then the Tiger was.  The M26 was the first American modern tank, and it was a good one as further developments would show.

It's common to take the position that the U.S. Army did nothing but sit on its hands between World War Two and the Korean War, but as we've already shown, this just wasn't true.  If it was, there wold have been no tank development by the US at all following the war, but in fact the opposite was the case.  The results of late war fighting had shown that tanks had entered a new phase. The US had a tank in that class, the M26, but it set about working on an improvement. In the meantime, the US withdrew from service all of the M4s that were not equipped with high velocity 76mm guns and US armor consisted of M4s so equipped along with the M26.  The US had just over 2,000 M26s at that time.

The M46 Patton

The designed replacement for the M26 was the M46 Patton.

M46 Patton in Marine Corps Service in Korea, Korean War.

The M46 Patton was in fact the M26 Pershing with improved engine and transmission.  Originally it was classified as the M26E2, but ultimately re-designated as a new tank entirely, even though it was clearly an improved M26.  As the improvements, which included a new bore evacuator, were principally designed to address mobility problems with the M26, the M46 would in fact replace the M26 in combat in the Korean War.

The service of the M26 and the M46 in the Korean War is very much worth noting.  The tank proved nearly completely invulnerable to the T-34/85, the most modern of the Soviet made T-34s.  The projectiles fired by the M26/M46 proved so potent that they would go completely through T-34s.  In fact, the M26 and M46 proved to be overkill for the T-34, which was remarkable as the same design had never met that fate with any German tank.  By and large the Patton's and Pershing's were withdrawn from service in Korea after the war became a static fight there in part because they simply weren't needed.  Indeed, while it's surprising, the M4 with the 76mm gun proved to be a match for the T-34/85 in Korea.

So, from the 1945 to 1955 time frame, the U.S. had fielded a tank that was better than the best of the late war German tanks and, as it turned out, better than the best Soviet tank, the T-34/85, which is arguably the best tank of World War Two.  The M26 and M46 never had the opportunity to take on the Soviet heavy tanks, which were in a truly very heavy class, and its not known how they would have done against them, but there's reason to suspect that they would have done well.

Of course, the Soviets hadn't stood still in this period.  By the late 1940s they were working on what would become the T-55, a tank they introduced in the mid 1950s. Bet that as it may, throughout the 1950s the T-34/85 accounted for 88% of Soviet tank production. The US was far ahead.

 Soviet T-55. The design had been standardized by 1946, and it went into service in 1949, but the tank still made up only a small part of Soviet tank production in the 1950s. The Soviets ceased production of the tank in 1981 and it remains in service in large numbers around the world today.

M47 Patton

Even as M26s were rebuilt to the M46 standard, another development was occurring to the tank which would see the turret of the M26/M46 replaced with a new design, which was fielded as the M47 Patton.  Closely based on the Pershing and featuring its chassis, the tank was in fact a new design with a new turret and therefore differing appearance.  The turret design would be one familiar to later American tankers.

M47

Still called the Patton in honor of General George S. Patton of World War Two, the M47 was the first US tank to be designed since the interwar period and it was introduced in 1951.  It was supposed to replace the M4, the M26 and the M46.  Over 8,000 were built, but developments were happening quickly and it was in fact soon supplanted in U.S. service by the M48 Patton.

M48 Patton

 

South Korean Army M48, March 1987.

The third US tank in a row to be named in honor of Gen. Patton, the M48 featured the new familiar Pershing chassis but omitted the bow machinegun, the first main U.S. tank to make that omission.  It was in fact an entirely new design, obviously based on the old M26 lineage, and was an enormously successful tank.

M48 Patton in South Vietnam.

The M48 would be the principal US tank in the late 1950s and go on to see heavy use by the US and its allies for many years.  It was the tank the US principally used in Vietnam.  The last variant of it, the M48A5, was sufficiently close to its successor, the M60, that it was up-gunned to the 105mm gun the M60 used and it can be very difficult to tell the two apart.  Indeed, the M48A5s actually replaced the M60 in service with the US Army and South Korean army in Korea in the late 1970s, showing how close they really were.

M48A5, equipped with a 105mm gun and much resembling its successor, the M60.

Before we can go on to the M60, and why it came about, and what its story is, we have to first, however, deal with the M103.

The M103

M103

Following World War Two a lingering feature of tank design was the heavy tank.  The modern heavy tank was really something that entered into combat in a serious way with the Tiger.

Heavy tanks certainly preexisted the Tiger, but the Tiger was really the first heavy tank to feature prominently in a serious way on the battlefield.  While the Soviets had prior heavy tanks, the Tiger was something that they immediately began to design to counter, resulting in the "Joseph Stalin", i.e., the "IS" series of tanks, starting with the IS 1.

IS 1 prototype.

Following the IS 1 the Soviets rapidly upgraded their heavy tanks.  The IS 1, with an 85mm gun, was very quickly replaced by the IS 2 which was similar but which fielded a 122mm gun.  The 85mm gun was instead used in the T-34/85.  The IS 2 was made in significant quantities during World War Two and was supplied to the Red Chinese following the war.  However, even by the war's end the IS 3, a new heavy tank, had been introduced.

IS 3, which featured the archetypal sauce pan turret that would be featured on generations of post war Soviet tanks.

The IS 3 was introduced in 1945. Following this the Soviets continually upgraded their heavy tanks until introducing the last variant of it, the T-10 (originally the IS 8) in 1952.  The T-10 had the characteristic appearance of post war Soviet tanks and was distinguishable in appearance only by its large size.  Like its predecessors, it featured a 122mm gun.

Concerned about the Soviet heavy tanks, the US set about designing its own heavy tank to counter it and came up with the M103.  The M103 was essentially a super sized tank in the M26 lineage.  It had heavy armor and a 120mm gun.  While it had mechanical reliability problems, it was competitive with the T-10.  It never saw action.

The M60 "Patton".

 

M60s at Ft. Carson, 1986.

During the 1950s and 1960s it increasingly became obvious to the United States and the Soviets that the era of heavy tanks was really over and that armies were better off just fielding a main battle tank. The US, in keeping with this development, went to working on an improvement of its existing medium tank line and introduced the M60 in 1960.  It went on to replace the M103 and mostly replace the M48, but as can be seen final variants of the M60 were very close to it in design and remained in use along side of it.  The M60 remains in use around the globe today, although not by t he United States.

M60 in Germany.

The M60 featured a 105mm gun, replacing the 90mm used on the M48s, and featured a larger turret resembling that which had been used on the M103.  It proved to be a very capable tank and was widely used in combat by armies supplied by the United States, as well as by the US.  It remains a front line tank in many of the world's armies today, although not in the US Army which replaced it, over a long period of time, with the M1 Abrams

M60 in Germany in 1985.

The Soviets in this period were not standing still, and in 1961, the same year the M60 was introduced, they introduced the T-62.  The -T-62 was an improvement on the T-55 which had never been able to supplant the T-34/85 in the 50s and which remained in production along with the T-62. The T-64 was soon augmented by the T-64. Both of these tanks featured larger guns than their predecessors.

 T-62 at Nellis Air Force Base

T-55s, T62s, and T-64s have all seen action against M60s and M48s around the globe.  Their good tanks to be sure, but the American tanks have more than stood their design ground against them.

The Leopard I

The Leopard I?  That's a post war German tank.

 Later variants of the Leopard I in Germany.  This one has been up armored. The original Leopard Is were fairly lightly armored.  Let's see, six wheels that look remarkably like the six on all of the Pershing descendants. .. rear sprocket drive like the Pershing and its descendants, roller wheels to support the treads up on top (not visible here. . . . hmmm.

Yep, it is.

Inclusion of the Leopard I here is going to make its fans angry, but the Leopard I resembles the M48 more than it does any German tank of World War Two, something that isn't true of all post war German equipment.

One of the most famous of the post war tanks, the Leopard I came in after West Germany had been equipped with M47s and M48s.  Wanting to field its own design, West Germany first worked with France to come up with a tank design and then abandoned the pursuit. Going on its own, it came up with the Leopard I.

 Earlier variant of the Leopard I with a cast turret that looks remarkably like that on a M46/M47/M48.

You will not be able to find (or at least I couldn't) anything that will claim that the Leopard I was based on part on the Pershing tank chassis and the M47 and M48 tanks.  But the similarities are remarkable.  Most notably the chassis is nearly identical. something that departed enormously from all prior German tanks.  The original turrets were also remarkably like those of the period M48s.  Perhaps, just perhaps, there was no influence, but that would certainly counter they way they looked at the time of their introduction.

The M88

While the M60 is now gone from U.S. service, the Pershing's story nonetheless lingers on in the form of the M88 tank retriever, an armored crane designed for recovering disabled combat vehicles.  It continues to feature the original M26 chassis and there's no sign of replacing it anytime soon.

Conclusion. . . a real armored success.

For some reason, not only does the M4 Sherman get no love, American armor, save for the M1 Abrams, tends not to either.  It's odd.  It's been consistently good from the very onset.

Certainly the M26 was.  It's basic design was reworked and reworked from 1945 onward and it was always better than its opponents.  A real unacknowledged success.

Roads to the Great War: Halifax: A Tragedy with a Unique Dimension

Roads to the Great War: Halifax: A Tragedy with a Unique Dimension: By most measures, the greatest non-nuclear explosion in history occurred in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in December 1917. The approximate casual...

The bicycles strike back. . .

Painted Bricks: Bicycle Path, Casper Wyoming:

Invasion directions for the Corporal of Bicycles?  I know what it means. . . but for all the world it looks like an insignia for Corporal of Bicycles.

I posted this on one of our companion blogs here awhile back.  This is, of course, a symbol painted in the road to mark a bicycle lane. And in this case, the lane is the entire side of the road.

I used to ride a bicycle to work quite a bit during the summer.  Indeed, starting in the late spring and carrying on to late fall.  For whatever reason, I did it only once this year.  I meant to do it more, but I was too lazy or something.  I probably could benefit more from riding now than I used to as well.  Not that I'm getting large or anything, but being in my mid 50s, I could use the exercise.

Anyhow, this isn't the most friendly place in the world for bicyclist, although there are a lot of us here.  When I used to ride a bike a lot I always had to be pretty careful as automobiles definitely rule the road here.  Up until just recently there haven't been any real bike lanes

Well, that changed downtown just the year before last.  We have real bike lanes down there now.  And now there's a bike path that runs quite a ways along one of the county highways. And to add to that, now this is a designated bicycle route, and it's a pretty major road.

It appears that the bicycles are staging a real primary mode of transportation comeback. . .

__________________________________________________________________________________

Related threads:

Bike to Work Week in Bike Month

Lex Anteinternet: Riding Bicycles

Riding Bicycles

On Riding A Bicycle

The high tech alternative to horses. . . . the bicycle

112th Engineers, Col. J. R. McGuigg, commanding, Camp Sheridan, Ala., Dec. 5th, 1917

December 4. Predictions and Predicaments old new.

I'm not putting this copy of The Wyoming Tribune up for the story about President Wilson's speech, although that was an important story.  No, rather I'm putting this one up because a story that appears here recalls one on the front page of this paper ran this weekend in the Casper Star Tribune, that being; "Says Oil In Backyard Of Cheyenne".  This weekend there was a story in the Tribune about people who live just north of Cheyenne and who are worried about oil production north of the town.

I'm not commenting on that specifically.  There is oil north of Cheyenne and that doesn't seem like a surprise to me.  It's a bit surprising that it took so long to start developing it, but then the technology has developed to where that is easier to do. Just south of Cheyenne the Denver Basin has been in production for decades.  Anyhow, I'm only noting it as L. D. Thompson proved to be absolutely right in his prediction, although he didn't live to see that prediction come true.

Russia's backing out of the war, which wouldn't really bring peace to Russia which went into a civil war, made the headlines.  People reading it had to be worried what that would mean for the war in the west.

Wilson's State of the Union address read as follows:

Gentlemen of the Congress:

Eight months have elapsed since I last had the honor of addressing you. They have been months crowded with events of immense and grave significance for us. I shall not undertake to retail or even to summarize those events. The practical particulars of the part we have played in them will be laid before you in the reports of the Executive Departments. I shall discuss only our present outlook upon these vast affairs, our present duties, and the immediate means of accomplishing the objects we shall hold always in view.

I shall not go back to debate the causes of the war. The intolerable wrongs done and planned against us by the sinister masters of Germany have long since become too grossly obvious and odious to every true American to need to be rehearsed. But I shall ask you to consider again and with a very grave scrutiny our objectives and the measures by which we mean to attain them; for the purpose of discussion here in this place is action, and our action must move straight towards definite ends. Our object is, of course, to win the war; and we shall not slacken or suffer ourselves to be diverted until it is won. But it is worth while asking and answering the question, When shall we consider the war won?

From one point of view it is not necessary to broach this fundamental matter. I do not doubt that the American people know what the war is about and what sort of an outcome they will regard as a realization of their purpose in it. As a nation we are united in spirit and intention. I pay little heed to those who tell me otherwise. I hear the voices of dissent; who does not? I hear the criticism and the clamor of the noisily thoughtless and troublesome. I also see men here and there fling themselves in impotent disloyalty against the calm, indomitable power of the nation. I hear men debate peace who understand neither its nature not the way in which we may attain it with uplifted eyes and unbroken spirits. But I know that none of these speaks for the nation. They do not touch the heart of anything. They may safely be left to strut their uneasy hour and be forgotten.
But from another point of view I believe that it is necessary to say plainly what we here at the seat of action consider the war to be for and what part we mean to play in the settlement of its searching issues. We are the spokesmen of the American people and they have a right to know whether their purpose is ours. They desire peace by the overcoming of evil, by the defeat once for all of the sinister forces that interrupt peace and render it impossible, and they wish to know how closely our thought runs with theirs and what action we propose. They are impatient with those who desire peace by any sort of compromise--deeply and indignantly impatient--but they will be equally impatient with us if we do not make it plain to them what our objectives are and what we are planning for in seeking to make conquest of peace by arms.

I believe that I speak for them when I say two things: First, that this intolerable Thing of which the masters of Germany have shown us the ugly face, this menace of combined intrigue and force which we now see so clearly as the German power, a Thing without conscience or honor or capacity for covenanted peace, must be crushed and, if it be not utterly brought to an end, at least shut out from the friendly intercourse of the nations; and, second, that when this Thing and its power are indeed defeated and the time comes that we can discuss peace--when the German people have spokesmen whose word we can believe and when those spokesmen are ready in the name of their people to accept the common judgment of the nations as to what shall henceforth be the bases of law and of covenant for the life of the world--we shall be willing and glad to pay the full price for peace, and pay it ungrudgingly. We know what that price will be. It will be full, impartial justice--justice done at every point and to every nation that the final settlement must affect, our enemies as well as our friends.

You catch, with me, the voices of humanity that are in the air. They grow daily more audible, more articulate, more persuasive, and they come from the hearts of men everywhere. They insist that the war shall not end in vindictive action of any kind; that no nation or people shall be robbed or punished because the irresponsible rulers of a single country have themselves done deep and abominable wrong. It is this thought that has been expressed in the formula "No annexations, no contributions, no punitive indemnities." Just because this crude formula expresses the instinctive judgment as to right of plain men everywhere it has been made diligent use of by the masters of German intrigue to lead the people of Russia astray, and the people of every other country their agents could reach, in order that a premature peace might be brought about before autocracy has been taught its final and convincing lesson, and the people of the world put in control of their own destinies.

But the fact that a wrong use has been made of a just idea is no reason why a right use should not be made of it. It ought to be brought under the patronage of its real friends. Let it be said again that autocracy must first be shown the utter futility of its claims to power or leadership in the modern world. It is impossible to apply any standard of justice so long as such forces are unchecked and undefeated as the present masters of Germany command. Not until that has been done can Right be set up as arbiter and peace-maker among the nations. But when that has been done--as, God willing, it assuredly will be--we shall at last be free to do an unprecedented thing, and this is the time to avow our purpose to do it. We shall be free to base peace on generosity and justice, to the exclusion of all selfish claims to advantage even on the part of the victors.

Let there be no misunderstanding. Our present and immediate task is to win the war, and nothing shall turn us aside from it until it is accomplished. Every power and resource we possess, whether of men, of money, or of materials, is being devoted and will continue to be devoted to that purpose until it is achieved. Those who desire to bring peace about before that purpose is achieved I counsel to carry their advice elsewhere. We will not entertain it. We shall regard the war as won only when the German people say to us, through properly accredited representatives, that they are ready to agree to a settlement based upon justice and the reparation of the wrongs their rulers have done. They have done a wrong to Belgium which must be repaired. They have established a power over other lands and peoples than their own--over the great Empire of Austria-Hungary, over hitherto free Balkan states, over Turkey, and within Asia--which must be relinquished.

Germany's success by skill, by industry, by knowledge, by enterprise we did not grudge or oppose, but admired, rather. She had built up for herself a real empire of trade and influence, secured by the peace of the world. We were content to abide the rivalries of manufacture, science, and commerce that were involved for us in her success and stand or fall as we had or did not have the brains and the initiative to surpass her. But at the moment when she had conspicuously won her triumphs of peace she threw them away, to establish in their stead what the world will no longer permit to be established, military and political domination by arms, by which to oust where she could not excel the rivals she most feared and hated. The peace we make must remedy that wrong. It must deliver the once fair lands and happy peoples of Belgium and northern France from the Prussian conquest and the Prussian menace, but it must also deliver the peoples of Austria-Hungary, the peoples of the Balkans, and the peoples of Turkey, alike in Europe and in Asia, from the impudent and alien dominion of the Prussian military and commercial autocracy.

We owe it, however, to ourselves to say that we do not wish in any way to impair or to rearrange the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It is no affair of ours what they do with their own life, either industrially or politically. We do not purpose or desire to dictate to them in any way. We only desire to see that their affairs are left in their own hands, in all matters, great or small. We shall hope to secure for the peoples of the Balkan peninsula and for the people of the Turkish Empire the right and opportunity to make their own lives safe, their own fortunes secure against oppression or injustice and from the dictation of foreign courts or parties.

And our attitude and purpose with regard to Germany herself are of a like kind. We intend no wrong against the German Empire, no interference with her internal affairs. We should deem either the one or the other absolutely unjustifiable, absolutely contrary to the principles we have professed to live by and to hold most sacred throughout our life as a nation.

The people of Germany are being told by the men whom they now permit to deceive them and to act as their masters that they are fighting for the very life and existence of their Empire, a war of desperate self-defense against deliberate aggression. Nothing could be more grossly or wantonly false, and we must seek by the utmost openness and candor as to our real aims to convince them of its falseness. We are in fact fighting for their emancipation from fear, along with our own--from the fear as well as from the fact of unjust attack by neighbors or rivals or schemers after world empire. No one is threatening the existence or the independence or the peaceful enterprise of the German Empire.

The worst that can happen to the detriment of the German people is this, that if they should still, after the war is over, continue to be obliged to live under ambitious and intriguing masters interested to disturb the peace of the world, men or classes of men whom the other peoples of the world could not trust, it might be impossible to admit them to the partnership of nations which must henceforth guarantee the world's peace. That partnership must be a partnership of peoples, not a mere partnership of governments. It might be impossible, also, in such untoward circumstances, to admit Germany to the free economic intercourse which must inevitably spring out of the other partnerships of a real peace. But there would be no aggression in that; and such a situation, inevitable because of distrust, would in the very nature of things sooner or later cure itself, by processes which would assuredly set in.

The wrongs, the very deep wrongs, committed in this war will have to be righted. That of course. But they cannot and must not be righted by the commission of similar wrongs against Germany and her allies. The world will not permit the commission of similar wrongs as a means of reparation and settlement. Statesmen must by this time have learned that the opinion of the world is everywhere wide awake and fully comprehends the issues involved. No representative of any self-governed nation will dare disregard it by attempting any such covenants of selfishness and compromise as were entered into at the Congress of Vienna. The thought of the plain people here and everywhere throughout the world, the people who enjoy no privilege and have very simple and unsophisticated standards of right and wrong, is the air all governments must henceforth breathe if they would live. It is in the full disclosing light of that thought that all policies must be conceived and executed in this midday hour of the world's life. German rulers have been able to upset the peace of the world only because the German people were not suffered under their tutelage to share the comradeship of the other peoples of the world either in thought or in purpose. They were allowed to have no opinion of their own which might be set up as a rule of conduct for those who exercised authority over them. But the congress that concludes this war will feel the full strength of the tides that run now in the hearts and consciences of free men everywhere. Its conclusions will run with those tides.
All these things have been true from the very beginning of this stupendous war; and I cannot help thinking that if they had been made plain at the very outset the sympathy and enthusiasm of the Russian people might have been once for all enlisted on the side of the Allies, suspicion and distrust swept away, and a real and lasting union of purpose effected. Had they believed these things at the very moment of their revolution and had they been confirmed in that belief since, the sad reverses which have recently marked the progress of their affairs towards an ordered and stable government of free men might have been avoided. The Russian people have been poisoned by the very same falsehoods that have kept the German people in the dark, and the poison has been administered by the very same hands. The only possible antidote is the truth. It cannot be uttered too plainly or too often.

From every point of view, therefore, it has seemed to be my duty to speak these declarations of purpose, to add these specific interpretations to what I took the liberty of saying to the Senate in January. Our entrance into the war has not altered our attitude towards the settlement that must come when it is over. When I said in January that the nations of the world were entitled not only to free pathways upon the sea but also to assured and unmolested access to those pathways I was thinking, and I am thinking now, not of the smaller and weaker nations alone, which need our countenance and support, but also of the great and powerful nations, and of our present enemies as well as our present associates in the war. I was thinking, and am thinking now, of Austria herself, among the rest, as well as of Serbia and of Poland. Justice and equality of rights can be had only at a great price. We are seeking permanent, not temporary, foundations for the peace of the world and must seek them candidly and fearlessly. As always, the right will prove to be the expedient.

What shall we do, then, to push this great war of freedom and justice to its righteous conclusion? We must clear away with a thorough hand all impediments to success and we must make every adjustment of law that will facilitate the full and free use of our whole capacity and force as a fighting unit.

One very embarrassing obstacle that stands in our way is that we are at war with Germany but not with her allies. I therefore very earnestly recommend that the Congress immediately declare the United States in a state of war with Austria-Hungary. Does it seem strange to you that this should be the conclusion of the argument I have just addressed to you? It is not. It is in fact the inevitable logic of what I have said. Austria-Hungary is for the time being not her own mistress but simply the vassal of the German Government. We must face the facts as they are and act upon them without sentiment in this stern business. The government of Austria-Hungary is not acting upon its own initiative or in response to the wishes and feelings of its own peoples but as the instrument of another nation. We must meet its force with our own and regard the Central Powers as but one. The war can be successfully conducted in no other way. The same logic would lead also to a declaration of war against Turkey and Bulgaria. They also are the tools of Germany. But they are mere tools and do not yet stand in the direct path of our necessary action. We shall go wherever the necessities of this war carry us, but it seems to me that we should go only where immediate and practical considerations lead us and not heed any others.

The financial and military measures which must be adopted will suggest themselves as the war and its undertakings develop, but I will take the liberty of proposing to you certain other acts of legislation which seem to me to be needed for the support of the war and for the release of our whole force and energy.

It will be necessary to extend in certain particulars the legislation of the last session with regard to alien enemies; and also necessary, I believe, to create a very definite and particular control over the entrance and departure of all persons into and from the United States.

Legislation should be enacted defining as a criminal offense every willful violation of the presidential proclamations relating to alien enemies promulgated under section 4067 of the Revised Statutes and providing appropriate punishments; and women as well as men should be included under the terms of the acts placing restraints upon alien enemies. It is likely that as time goes on many alien enemies will be willing to be fed and housed at the expense of the Government in the detention camps and it would be the purpose of the legislation I have suggested to confine offenders among them in penitentiaries and other similar institutions where they could be made to work as other criminals do.

Recent experience has convinced me that the Congress must go further in authorizing the Government to set limits to prices. The law of supply and demand, I am sorry to say, has been replaced by the law of unrestrained selfishness. While we have eliminated profiteering in several branches of industry it still runs impudently rampant in others. The farmers, for example, complain with a great deal of justice that, while the regulation of food prices restricts their incomes, no restraints are placed upon the prices of most of the things they must themselves purchase; and similar inequities obtain on all sides.

It is imperatively necessary that the consideration of the full use of the water power of the country and also the consideration of the systematic and yet economical development of such of the natural resources of the country as are still under the control of the federal government should be immediately resumed and affirmatively and constructively dealt with at the earliest possible moment. The pressing need of such legislation is daily becoming more obvious.

The legislation proposed at the last session with regard to regulated combinations among our exporters, in order to provide for our foreign trade a more effective organization and method of cooperation, ought by all means to be completed at this session.

And I beg that the members of the House of Representatives will permit me to express the opinion that it will be impossible to deal in any but a very wasteful and extravagant fashion with the enormous appropriations of the public moneys which must continue to be made, if the war is to be properly sustained, unless the House will consent to return to its former practice of initiating and preparing all appropriation bills through a single committee, in order that responsibility may be centered, expenditures standardized and made uniform, and waste and duplication as much as possible avoided.

Additional legislation may also become necessary before the present Congress again adjourns in order to effect the most efficient coordination and operation of the railway and other transportation systems of the country; but to that I shall, if circumstances should demand, call the attention of the Congress upon another occasion.

If I have overlooked anything that ought to be done for the more effective conduct of the war, your own counsels will supply the omission. What I am perfectly clear about is that in the present session of the Congress our whole attention and energy should be concentrated on the vigorous, rapid, and successful prosecution of the great task of winning the war.

We can do this with all the greater zeal and enthusiasm because we know that for us this is a war of high principle, debased by no selfish ambition of conquest or spoliation; because we know, and all the world knows, that we have been forced into it to save the very institutions we live under from corruption and destruction. The purposes of the Central Powers strike straight at the very heart of everything we believe in; their methods of warfare outrage every principle of humanity and of knightly honor; their intrigue has corrupted the very thought and spirit of many of our people; their sinister and secret diplomacy has sought to take our very territory away from us and disrupt the Union of the States. Our safety would be at an end, our honor forever sullied and brought into contempt were we to permit their triumph. They are striking at the very existence of democracy and liberty.

It is because it is for us a war of high, disinterested purpose, in which all the free peoples of the world are banded together for the vindication of right, a war for the preservation of our nation and of all that it has held dear of principle and of purpose, that we feel ourselves doubly constrained to propose for its outcome only that which is righteous and of irreproachable intention, for our foes as well as for our friends. The cause being just and holy, the settlement must be of like motive and quality. For this we can fight, but for nothing less noble or less worthy of our traditions. For this cause we entered the war and for this cause will we battle until the last gun is fired.

I have spoken plainly because this seems to me the time when it is most necessary to speak plainly, in order that all the world may know that even in the heat and ardor of the struggle and when our whole thought is of carrying the war through to its end we have not forgotten any ideal or principle for which the name of America has been held in honor among the nations and for which it has been our glory to contend in the great generations that went before us. A supreme moment of history has come. The eyes of the people have been opened and they see. The hand of God is laid upon the nations. He will show them favor, I devoutly believe, only if they rise to the clear heights of His own justice and mercy.

Those concerns probably motivated the large headline in the Cheyenne State Leader, but that is also not the reason I'm putting this one up.  Rather, even though it had happened a couple of days prior, the news of the border skirmish on the border with Mexico had finally made it to the front page. Again, with the nation engaged in sending men to Europe, renewed clashed on the Mexican border couldn't have been welcome news.

Gibberish

The key word in today’s argument in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund was “gibberish” – the characterization by several of the justices of the text Congress provided in the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. The argument revealed the justices’ frustration at the statute’s sloppy craftsmanship.

Oh my.

Why was this blog turned off for awhile?

And I may again.

This blog gets, normally, about 250 hits a day.

The past couple of days its been getting thousands of hits.

Mostly from Russia and the Ukraine.

Hmmmmm. . . .

That's odd.

I suspect bots, but I don't want this appropriated for any reason, so I turned it off for awhile today to try to check out what the heck is up.  And as I'm cautions, I may do that again.

I like blogging, obviously, but this isn't going to serve as a target or a platform.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Lahuiokalani Kaanapali Congregational Church, Kaanapali, Maui, Hawawii

Churches of the West: Lahuiokalani Kaanapali Congregational Church, Kaanapali, Maui, Hawaii

This is the Lahuiokalani Kaanapali Congregational Church in Kaanapali, Maui. Located just off the beach, the church dates back to 1840, indicating early missionary activity. 

Communism, Mary, and 1917 | Catholic Answers

We discussed the Fatima apparitions here:

Lex Anteinternet: The Miracle of the Sun, October 13, 1917.

Our Lady Derzhavnaya, Icon, found in Kolomenskoye, Russia after having been lost during Napoleanic invasion.

The Miracle of the Sun, October 13, 1917.

July 13, 1917. Columbus in the News Again, Conscription, and something going on at Fatima

Roads to the Great War: The Great War's Most Memorable Religious Event The Apparitions at Fatima

This interesting podcast doesn't go into them in depth, but discusses some other interesting aspects of this story:

Communism, Mary, and 1917 | Catholic Answers

The Yawn Generation?

Generation Y discovers everything old is new again

Today’s young adults, trying to cope with life’s pressures, are finding relief in the slow cooking, arts and crafts, and old-fashioned leisure of their grandparents

From the Boston Globe.

A real trend?

Poster Saturday: Victory Waits On Your Fingers

Best Posts of the Week of November 26, 2017

The best posts of the week of November 26, 2017.

A few big items of note this week, and one small one.

The M4 Sherman gets no love. . . but it should.

 M4 (not M4A1) version of the Sherman tank prior to the elimination of the dual forward firing machineguns that are very rarely sen in photographs.

Thanksgiving 1917

Coffee

Coffee rationing began in on this day in 1942.

Smiling soldier.  I think he's drinking coffee.  I may have had to volunteer for service (which I likely would have done anyway) just in order to get a cup of coffee.

Mid Week At Work: Railhead: Sunrise Train, Torrington Wyoming

Railhead: Sunrise Train, Torrington Wyoming

The early risers.

The Amazing Density of the Reaction to the Abusers and the fellow traveling of Cosmopolitan and Playboy.

More on old standards and what the tell us. Bad behavior. Inappropriate behavior. Mischaracterization and Overreaction

More on old standards and what the tell us. Bad behavior. Inappropriate behavior. Mischaracterization and Overreaction

The concept for this post came due to a discussion following the first accusation, which at that time was unspecified against Matt Lauer.  Some of the denizens of the house spoke up defending him, noting that there can be false accusers.  Others said he had to go.

And, to break it down further, Lauer's defenders were the female residents of the house. Those who said he had to go were the male resident.

I need to note here, right from the onset, that I'm not trying to excuse caddish, brutish, rapine,  or generally bad behavior.  But I'm trying to refocus the discussion a bit on some things that have been missed and give it a degree or proportionality.

Anyhow, the female expression of doubt might say something about this matter having perhaps gone too far.

I'd like to fully claim that this is one of my "you heard it hear first times" but the stellar blawg Above The Law got to part of this topic first, before I had a chance, quoting from A Man For All Seasons when it did.  Specifically, it quoted from this oft quoted scene:

More: And go he should if he was the Devil himself until he broke the law.
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.

This was in reaction to the story on Garrison Keillor, although Lauer was noted in the text of  the entry, where the author of that blawg entry noted, after setting apart examples such as Harvey Weinstein's, that:

Perhaps the best recent example of this overreaction occurred just yesterday, when Minnesota Public Radio not only severed all ties with Garrison Keillor, but took extraordinary efforts to basically erase him and his work from public existence. And it did this based on an allegation that, although it has not been made public, seems to have been made by a single person, and, if you credit Keillor’s explanation at all, does not appear to have actually involved sex.

And so now we have the stories of Matt Lauer and Garrison Keillor.

After pondering this most recent set of accusations, I think I'm with Above The Law, although my reasons depart somewhat from his.  His is set out mostly in terms of overreaction and the defense of the accused, and they're well worth reading.  He raises really good points.  I'll leave those points to his blog and instead to my frequent theme of what these events teach us about standards.

To expand out a bit in other areas, however, the reaction to Keillor's incident, if there even is one, seems to be a gross overreaction.  Keillor himself put it well in a comment he at first posted and then later withdrew, that being:

It’s astonishing that 50 years of hard work can be trashed in a morning by an accusation,” he said in a Facebook post Wednesday evening. “I always believed in hard work and now it feels sort of meaningless. Only a friend can hurt you this badly. I think I have to leave the country in order to walk around in public and not feel accusing glances.

There's never been any suggestion that Keillor is a Harvey Weinstein and there isn't now.  Nonetheless Minnesota Public Radio is going so far as to actually change the name of the radio show that Keillor once hosted and founded.  Truly, that's extreme, and particularly so given that the supposed incident seems to be truly innocent, and indeed the fact that it has become an incident suggest that we're now at the outer limits of what can suddenly be used to publicly trash a person.  Apparently he only went to pat somebody on the back and his hand slipped, a long time ago, to the embarrassment of both Keillor and the subject, who he claims remained his friend right up until the lawyer's letter came.

That's punishing somebody for an accident.  Merely contacting a female in some forbidden zone doesn't make the contact an act of hostile sexual aggression.  Indeed, if it is, there are now certain occupations and endeavors that will have to be segregated by gender, as indeed, they once were.  In our state, for example, there's was a high school stand out wrestler who could never place in state wrestling as he felt that his Mormon faith precluded him from wrestling girls, and there are a few girl wrestlers.  Frankly, I admired him for the courage of his convictions.  But if this is now the standard, i.e., if we have a new Keillor Rule, don't we have to re-segregate all sports?

Indeed, we'd practically have to re-segregate all education.  Passing in the halls, for example, now takes on a new aspect of hazard, at least for me.  And I'm absolutely convinced that its' going to be a very short passage of time in this current atmosphere until we get a "he looked at me" as the claimed assault.  Sounds extreme, I know, but it's coming.

There might be a lot of Keillor level accusations going around right now.  Truly, is an incident of such low weight really worth hiring a lawyer over, let alone firing somebody for in this context?

Keillor, I'd note, had issued a written statement somewhat defending, in a way, Al Franken.  His comment was that it would be absurd for Al Franken to resign over what was basically sophomoric gross humor, referring to the Tweeden incident (alone, I believe).  I'm not so sure that Keillor isn't right, taking at least that singular event,even though I noted the disparity in treatment he was at first receiving in the press as compared to others from the political right.  That seems to have stopped.

Note that this doesn't condone the behavior. But the question is whether or not its really a sexual assault, the way most people would view it if not engaged in a frenzy of public condemnation.  I don't really think so.  Actually, its the sort of gross humor we'd expect out of Saturday Night Live, from which Franken hails.   And it might make him a personal creep. But would you fire him for it?  Maybe. But if he's essentially self employed, or the employee of the electorate, should he have to resign?  I don't think so.  If voters of his district are sufficiently angered, well they can fire him next go around.

Which raises a certain irony we'll briefly divert from the main point of this essay to note.  Franken comes up from a comedy medium which is pretty far left wing and not very funny.  It's long used gross humor, and now he's being hung for gross humor.  Keillor, whose writing I like and whose radio show I also liked, is a figure of the political left and now he's sort of ironically a victim of a political standard that's from the political left that's groping for the the standard that he romanticized about in his radio shows and writings but didn't really adhere to himself. There's some sort of weird irony at work in this. Franken, now that his crudeness is revealed, can only retreat to a standard upheld by people he's generally socially opposed.  Keillor would really be better off visiting with Father Wilmer from his show.  Not that Keillor is justly accused (I don't think he is) or that Franken is some sort of sexual monster, he doesn't appear to be.

This gets into something I noted just the other day, but it's now being addressed by syndicated columnist Mona Charen.  At least a little bit of the male bad behavior problem here has been preserved and amplified by the feminist movement having been co-opted by the Sexual Revolution, which did it, and women, no favors.  It's been bizarre.

I noted this in my screed of earlier this week entitled  The Amazing Density of the Reaction to the Abusers and the fellow traveling of Cosmopolitan and Playboy. I don't intend to repeat that here, but what that pointed out is that the feminist movement went from one that was really in favor of full political and social rights for women, and which worried about their workplace safety, to one that adopted the position, or was co-opted into it, that sexual libertinism was somehow essential for womanhood.  That is, the movement went from trying to require men to live up to their declared standards of conduct and afford equal treatment to women, to one which went to demanding that women be regarded as routinely acting every bit as bad, sexually, as men at their worst. That made meaningless sex, backed by up free access to lethal redress for the natural byproducts of it, the feminine standard.  Now, to some degree, some of the women (but not all by any means) who are now complaining are victims of that decreace of the standards into the mud. Some, almost certainly most, are innocent victims of the changed standard, although some have participated in it, and some are complaining of the natural results of a standard they embraced.

Charlen states in  her article:

Like the new left they emerged out of, feminists joined hands with sexual revolutionaries in rejecting all of the old sexual mores — including marriage. "Destroy the patriarchy," they chanted. They agreed with the Playboy Foundation (a contributor to the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund) that linking sex with morality at all was an outdated idea.

I pointed out this link just the other day.  I'd go on to note that Charen is blunter about what I've been somewhat subtle about.  A lot of the current complaints we're hearing range from "ungentlemanly conduct" to a complaint that the woman didn't feel right about sex outside of marriage and felt that the man vaguely forced her into it.

Charen went on:

And so professional feminists actually helped midwife the loose sexual culture we have today. Arguably, this culture has permitted men to behave even more shabbily toward women than the old mores did. This may sound odd, but I think it's true. Even the sexual harassment has become grosser than it was a few decades ago. I know of a few women who faced harassment in the 1970s and 1980s (myself included), but honestly, it was practically as polite as a Victorian drawing room compared with the stories we are hearing now about Louis C.K. or Harvey Weinstein or Mark Halperin. Womanizers used to at least make an effort at seduction. Now they seem to act out repellent narratives from porn movies.

There's an extremely important aspect of this that seems to have been missed in all the recent discussions.  Prior to the Sexual Revolution and the feminist movement's unholy alliance with libertinism, men and women knew where the lines were.  The lines were crossed, but they were definitely there.  Married men instantly crossed a line if they did anything untoward with a woman who was not their spouse and adultery, a word that now seems old fashioned, was totally disapproved of.  It happened, but that these were line crossing events were clear without question.  Women who did the same were also across that line.

Moreover, a woman, and it was more often women than men, who had sex or even came on to a married man were regarded as dirt by society at large and by other women most particularly.

But it went further than that.  Sex outside of marriage was frowned upon society wide.  It happened, to be sure, and males were more likely to engage in it than females.  That was the double standard so widely talked about, but what's important to note there is that in neither gender was it really approved of.  It may have been somewhat winked at in regards to men (but not if they were in some demographics, such as the Catholic, Orthodox, Orthodox Jewish, etc, demographics), and it was universally condemned in women, but that the line existed is clear.  Indeed, had the original direction of the feminist movement been adhered to, the logical result would have been to condemn men as much for this conduct as women.

Moreover, there was a fairly clear "keep your hands to yourself" rule that operated amongst unmarried men and women and most definitely in regards to married men and women. That some people violated this in one fashion or another is also clear, but there were reputational consequences.  men who were "grabby" were marked by women in that fashion.  Close boyfriends or girlfriends had more license, under consent, but only if they were fairly close.  There was not an expectation of anything more.  Once again, what is important here is that there were fairly clear lines that existed, and for which there were no good reasons whatsoever for departure from, which operated to protect women more than they protected men.

Charen further notes;

Our 50-year excursion into sexual excess may yet provoke a counter-revolution. Women are clearly finding their voices, and men (at least many men) are recognizing how dishonorable and grubby this behavior is.

But, it should be noted, both genders are groping back to find where the lines are. And what turns out to be the case is that the desired line seems to b e the old line that was there in the first place.

And Charen further importantly noted in her article:

Women are often victims, but they are not angels. Yes, powerful men abuse their positions to get sex. But any serious reckoning with sexual misbehavior has to take account of the women who use their sexuality to gain advantage, too. Just as everyone knows men who have harassed, they also know women who have slept their way to the top.

Indeed, that's true, and we'll get to Matt Lauer now in this context.

Lauer has come out admitting inappropriate behavior, but already one of the accusers has revealed that the inappropriate behavior was when she was called to his office and had sex with him, she claims. If that's right, that's not rape under the classic definition and might be only under the current frenzied definition. That's a two way consensual immoral act.

At least its not rape in the classic sense.  In the modern sense there will be a lot of discussion about "she was afraid of her job" and the like, and the accuser has already claimed this. But this has never been an excuse for an immoral act. A person can't claim that they went along with other bad acts as they were afraid for their job.  Probably a lot of people do, but that's not a justification for the act, unless we're willing to really broadly excuse a lot of conduct we never have in the past.

And less it come up, this shows how this is not "about power".  Using power is one thing, but that doesn't make the use of it about it.  It's not surprising that creeps like Weinstein used their position to pressure women for sex.  Maybe Lauer did as well. That makes them creeps.  It doesn't necessarily make them rapists however. Force makes a person a rapist.

All of which takes us back to the old standard.  Knowing when to say no goes a long way, even if you are afraid to, and even if you don't.. And knowing that demanding sex is wrong goes a long way too.  What appears clear is that Lauer is accused of immorality, but if that's the new standard, let's remember it was the old one.  Where is the line drawn?  You can't draw it retroactively and you can't apply it to some if not all.

And so all the old standards that existed for a reason suddenly reappear as shadows.  Those shadows existed for a real reason.  Standards laughed at by "progressives' that argued they were mere relics of an unenlightened age suddenly are taken back off the shelf and applied by people who can't remember where the standards came from or how they were to be applied.  Adultery turns out to be actually wrong.  Keeping your hands to yourself once again is the rule to be applied.  Hefner and Brown should be revealed for the perverted agents of immorality and decay they were.  But we likely wont' get quite that far. 

If we did, it'd clear up where the lines are. But it would also impose responsibility where it is now lacking, in the individual. Are we going to go back to go forward. We should, but that would require us to admit that we were wrong in the first place.

Well, perhaps, not so much we.  Actually.  Fallout from the 1960s and 1970s again.

Mexican raid at Indio Camp

On this day in 1917 unidentified Mexican forces crossed the border near Buena Vista, Chihuahua and engaged elements of the 8th Cavalry for five hours.  American troops crossed the border in the fight and burned Buena Vista to the ground.

The event is one of those specifically referenced as qualifying the U.S. participants to receive the Mexican Service Medal, although the event is much less well known that one that would occur later that month, on Christmas Day.