Milk, Big Lunches, and Coffee

Milk, it does a body good. . . or not.

The ability of some, but not all, human populations to drink milk is supposedly only about 6,000 years old.

I am not a huge milk fan, frankly.  Some people really are.  There are adults who like milk so much that they'll buy it and regularly consume it, although people seem to mostly do that at home, and with adults it seems to really drop off.

It's not that I detest it either.  I just quit drinking it pretty much as a teenager and I don't like it enough to resume drinking it. . . if I could.  I don't recall the last time I simply drank a glass of milk, but it would be a long time ago.  The last time I regularly did it, I"m pretty sure, was in basic training, as they served it in little pint cartons, just like schools used to do.

Milk has to be digested.

Our species is supposedly about 300,000 or so years old, which probably means its closure to 500,000 years old if not 600,000 or more.  We only got around, they say, and as noted above, to drinking cows milk about 6,000 years ago, supposedly, which probably means its a little longer than that.

Now, if you are a mammal, you are evolved to drink milk. . . as a baby.  Milk, all milk, contains lactose, a sort of sugar, and babies produce lactase in order to be able to digest it.  But human adults, in our default state of nature, don't.

In fact, no adult mammal does.  Not even cats, which will drink milk for the fat in it. Cats can't taste sweet, by the way, so they're not experiencing milk like you do when they drink it.  It's more like gulping down a liquid bratwurst for them.

About 6,000 or so ago a mutation started showing up in European genetics for lactase persistence.  In reality, lactose intolerance isn't so much a genetic deficiency as lactase persistence is a genetic advantage.  What was pretty clearly going on is people were keeping cattle, so they didn't have to go out and hunt them (wild cattle in Europe still existed. . .indeed they existed on much of the globe) and at some point, either out of desperation or something, they started drinking their milk.  That was probably a bold move, but we'd note that the only pastoral people on earth who remain lactose intolerant are African pastoralist, who will if things get desperate bleed cattle for protein, which is sort of similiar in a way.

According to the BBC, the first humans to take up drinking milk probably were rather flatulent, but if my own experience means anything, they probably felt a little sick to their stomach.

I.e., as an adult I've become somewhat lactose intolerant.

It's a bummer.

It just happened over the last couple of years, which surprises me.  My lactase production as an adult must have always been somewhat weak, but only very recently has this become a problem.  But it has now.

It's breakfast where the problem really shows up.

As best as  I can determine, in my amateur but scientific fashion, I still produce some lactase.  I can and do eat cheese, for example. And usually things cook with milk in them, which I frankly don't eat a lot of, don't bother me.  I'll note that I'm also mildly allergic to eggs, and this is true of them as well.

But putting milk on cereal has become a sufficient enough problem that I have to use it very sparingly, and even then sometimes that's a problem.  And there's one egg/milk casserole dish that my wife occasionally makes that is practically a no-go for me.  Just too darned much.

Pass the cheese slathered leftovers please. .  F=m(a).

I'm not much of a breakfast eater anyway now that I'm in my older years.  I tend to eat it, as I don't eat lunch hardly at all, and that way I don't get too hungry during the day if I’m doing something, although truthfully if I don't eat at all, it usually doesn't matter.

That's probably because I have an office job most days, and sitting around on your butt isn't expending much in the way of calories.

That's self-evident, I think, but to a lot of people it doesn't seem to be, or it is in sort of a chasing the tail fashion.  

I note that as it seems that about 100% of the European American population in the United States is on some sort of a "diet".  I just commented on this.  This affliction doesn't seem to wander into other ethnicities, in so far as I’m aware, but for European Americans, at least middle class and upper class Americans, this is true.

Americans have long had a problem with magical thinking about diet and medicine as it's earlier than actually accepting the science of things.  I.e, rather than think "yikes, I'm getting sick and might need to see the doctor" it's easier to buy "essential oils" or some other crap off the Internet.  If you don't die, you can proclaim it cured you, and if you die, you won't be around to make that point.

Diet works the same way.

The basic biology of diet is pretty simple.  You expend so many calories just existing, and if you work beyond that, you'll expend more.  Sitting around in an office doesn't expend many calories.  So if you don't want to gain weight, the first principal would be not to eat too much.

The second one would be not to eat an unnatural diet.  If it comes prepackaged in cardboard, it's probably unnatural.

Anyhow, that's simple enough, but that means you'd have to eat less, and for a lot of people, that's a real bummer.  Most people like food, and most people like some food that is way high calorie.

The big problem is, however, that most people don't work for their food in the physical sense, the most class definition (but not the only one) being that W=m(a), that is work is equivalent to mass times acceleration.  No, most people don't do that.

Take even the period just prior to World War One, which wasn't that long ago in real terms.  There was some prepackaged food in the form of canned goods, and there was food that people canned themselves. And there were salted and brined meats as well. But by and large, what most married people experienced involved quite a bit of work. 

A Canning Club Girl, May 26, 1920.

If you lived where I do, for example, there's a strong chance that you walked to work, if you were a man or one of the minority of women who were employed outside the home.  Some were driving by 1921, but a lot were still walking, and it was 1911, most were walking. That's work under the physics definition.

Married women, or women in a married household who were adults, typically went to the grocers and the meat market every day during the day. So that was more work. 

In contrast, now most people simply drive to the grocery store and get what they need, which involves work for the car, but not for the eater.

Added to that, in addition, quite a few people worked to some degree, at least by having a garden, for their food.

Some of this still goes on, but by and large people are highly acclimated to doing very little physical work for their food.

This isn't really new. Since the mid 20th Century this has been an increasing trend, and by the late 20th Century, when it might be noted people really started putting on the weight, it was much like it is now.  The odd thing is, however, that people have never really gotten away from large-scale food consumption.

Eating three full meals a day makes sense if you are a farm hand in 1910, but not much if you are an office worker in 2021.  For that matter, even aboriginal people rarely eat that much, and that's what our bodies mostly think we are, with some regional evolutionary adaptations for agriculture.  If you don't have those adaptations at all, what your body thinks is that you might not eat today. . . or tomorrow, but you'll be okay when you kill that deer the day after.  But pass on that milk . . .

Or if your ancestors, let's say, lived in the Mediterranean, your body probably thinks you'll get three squares with lots of grains and cheese, but you're also going to be spending almost all day hiking around with your goats.

Your body never thinks that you are going to eat a hearty breakfast, drive to work, and eat a lunch as big as most people's dinners in prior eras, then drive home and eat an even bigger dinner.

That's what a lot of people actually do, but very few people are ready to admit it.

I'm 5'6" tall and I weight 165 lbs (normally).  

I did a post on this quite a while back, from an historical prospective.  That post is here:

Am I overweight? Well, that might depend on the century.

I realize now that I actually messed up on that post, as the linked in chart involved only women.  In that my weight, 165, would have been overweight for a woman, barely, but my  guess is that it wouldn't have been for a man.  According to current figures, however, I'm overweight to the tune of 10 lbs.

Now, a lot goes into that, and I'll admit that I should lose some weight, even though I don't think I'm really all that much overweight.  Be that as it may, if I ate breakfast every day, and then followed up with a full meal at noon, and went home to eat dinner, I'd be very much overweight.  I'd guess at least another 20 lbs higher.

It's a matter of physics and metabolism.

On this, being overweight is not a sign of some moral failing.  I'm continually surprised when people assume it is.  Indeed, when Chesterton had a pending cause for canonization, there were some who noted that he was overweight.

Seriously?  That's why he shouldn't be canonized?

Coffee, it does a mind good

Some recent reports hold that drinking coffee significantly reduces the risks of dementia later in life, by which they presumably mean drinking a caffeinated beverage. The headlines were on coffee, however.  That's good news for me, as I drink a full post of coffee before I go to work.

I've witnessed dementia up close and personal as my mother acquired it.  I'll be frank, it worries me, but then you have to play the cards you are dealt.  It doesn't occur on my father's side of the family at all.  Having said that, for the most part, most of the men in my family haven't tended to live much past. . . my current age. Once again, you play the cards you are dealt.

Having said that, it's probably the case that not too much can be drawn from the latter.  My father acquired a persistent internal infection that we don't really know the origin of, but which was probably related to his gal bladder and some ineffective early medical treatment (he knew what he had, but his physician didn't seem to really grasp what was going on completely).  He inherited late in life gall bladder problems, by all appearances, from his mother, who also had them, and died from them.  However, they both had a bit of a fondness for certain foods that didn't help that, and I don't really have the same sort of sweet tooth they did.  My father's father died in his late 40s, but he had high blood pressure, which I don't.  My father's brother is in his late 80s and doing great, so hopefully. . . 

Anyhow, I drink a lot of coffee and I'm glad for the news.

Laramie Audubon: 122nd Annual Christmas Bird Count - December 18

Laramie Audubon: 122nd Annual Christmas Bird Count - December 18: The Laramie Audubon Society will again take part in a 100+year-old tradition: the annual "Christmas Bird Count."  Volunteers are w...

The 2022 Election Part IV. The Ring

And once again, things have changed in the 2022 general election contest, at least in so far as Wyoming is concerned.

September 9, 2021

And of course, the big focus remains on the race for the U.S. House, with incumbent Congressman Liz Cheney fighting off far right challengers who have been fairly singularly focused, with one exception, on her vote to impeach Donald Trump over his connections with the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

To Trump loyalist, any act against Trump is such an offense to their world view that it's regarded as intolerable on an existential level.  There's a lot going into that, but what this aspect of the contest boils down to is fairly simple. You are either loyal to Trump, in which case his actions are not to be questioned or challenged, or you are an independent thinker in some fashion, in which case you feel that you have the right to question anyone.  Liz Cheney had turned out to be a conservative independent thinker.  Her backers admire that.  Trump loyalists regard it as treason.

Political aspirants, whatever they believe, sense an opportunity.

So, up until now, who did we have. The list follows.

Liz Cheney.  She's the incumbent.

Robin Belinsky:  Belinsky is a businesswoman from Sheridan who is billing herself as Wyoming's Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Anthony Bouchard:  Bouchard is a member of the legislature from Goshen County who has been in a lot of local political spats and who is a far right firebrand in the legislature.  Most recently, however, he's been in the news for the revelation that when he was 18, he got a 14-year-old girl pregnant, and the drama that ultimately followed that.  This also revealed that he's originally from Florida, something that was pretty vague before.

Chuck Gray:  Gray is a hard right member of the legislature whose first appearance in the Wyoming political scene was an unsuccessful run at the seat he now occupies in the House.  He was appointed to that seat upon his predecessor's death and is a Natrona County radio personality.  Recent revelations have demonstrated that most of his campaign money is either his, or from his father.

Bryan Eugene Keller:  He's a resident of Laramie County who has registered, but I don't know anything else about him.

Denton Knapp:  Knapp is a retired U.S. Army Colonel and a current Brig. Gen. in the California National Guard.  He's from Gillette originally and claims to be generally fond of the Cheney and to respect her past role in Congress.

Bryan Miller:  Miller is the retired USAF lieutenant colonel who has twice run for Senate and lost.  Now he's trying the House against a candidate who is presumed to be embattled.

Marissa Selvig: Mayor of Pavilion.  Selvig announced early and has a website, but has received very little attention thereafter.

Darin Smith:  Smith is a businessman and lawyer in Cheyenne, according to the information he's put out.  He was the campaign manager for the failed Foster Freiss Gubernatorial run and his views reflect that.  

And now we have Harriet Hageman.

Hageman is a far right Republican candidate, and a lawyer, from Wyoming's wheat belt. She ran against Gordon in the GOP primary he won, splitting the far right vote with Foster Freiss.  She took the wheat belt rural counties, but didn't go as well elsewhere.  Her father was a well known highly conservative farmer member of the legislature many years ago.  In short, she'll be popular in the wheat belt, but outside of it more center of the road Republicans will likely be pretty distrustful of her.

What does she have that the other GOP candidates don't?

Donald Trump.

And name recognition, I suppose. She had far right cred, without being quite as far right as Bouchard.  She isn't soiled by an icky scandal like Bouchard, and she's not from Natrona County, like Gray.  

Hageman came out of the chute, following the endorsement, full on with Trump, placing herself squarely in the camp that holds Trump is not to be questioned.  Seeking to distance herself from the canddiate whom she's running against, but once backed she also stated about that former support: “But then she betrayed Wyoming, she betrayed this country, and she betrayed me.”

Betrayal of the country, let alone Wyoming, is a pretty bold claim.  Quite a few people quietly hold that the January 6 insurrection was a betrayal and support Cheney's vote to impeach.  Cheney, who hasn't backed down at all reacted with "Bring It" to Hageman's announcement and Trump's endorsement.

My guess is the contest narrows from here, and frankly it has become a lot more dangerous for Cheney.  Hageman will appeal to a lot of the base that originally got Cheney elected, and Hageman was once a Cheney backer.  She's well-connected and not a gadfly.  And she has, thanks to her prior run, good name recognition.

It's a long ways until the primary, but my guess is that at this point, were going to see people dropping out or disappearing.  The only viable campaigns right now are hers, Cheney's, Gray's, Bouchard's and Smith's. Everyone else is just noise in the background at this point.  Smith won't last.  Bouchard will run until the end.  Gray?  My guess is he won't.

Bouchard, for his part, has already reacted, stating; "Harriet has never been elected.  She doesn’t have a voting record, and now the voters should trust a party operative that is a long time close friend of Cheney? Trump has once again surrounded himself with the wrong advisors, and he’s endorsed the same candidate that Liz Cheney would endorse to replace her in her congressional seat."

Assuming that Cheney would have endorsed Hageman is assuming an awful lot.  But this does signal that Bouchard won't back down in the race. Gray and Smith haven't commented so far and are probably trying to figure out how to react.  Ironically, given the pounding he took following the news breaking about his early scandal, Hageman's announcement might somewhat restore Bouchard's pull in the poles as his outcast status does set him apart from Hageman, whereas it will be much more difficult for Smith and Gray to do the same.

On everyone's chances at the polls, I was confident that Cheney would win this race handily and that in the end none of the prior contenders would really touch her.  I'm not that confident about it now.  I still think she'll win, but Hageman has more than a chance.

Other races? Here's the Governor's Race.

Mark Gordon:  Gordon is the incumbent.

Interestingly, Hageman's announcement for Congress puts Gordon in a little better position than he was in, although he was in a good position.  There's been some lingering discontent on the far right about Gordon's election, but with Friess now departed, and Hageman diverted, there's no real threat from the far right.

Harold Bjork.  Who Bjork isn't really clear, but he's started a Facebook and internet campaign for Governor.  From what little y ou can tell about him, he's a self-declared "conservative" who is running pretty far to the right of Gordon and who is strongly opposed to the now expired mask mandate.

Rex Rammell:  Rammell is a perennial and unelectable candidate who ran last time and will again.  His views can be characterized as being on the fringe right/libertarian side.

Cont:

And now Bryan Miller has dropped out from the Congressional GOP contest.

September 10, 2021

And yesterday, Darin Smith also dropped out of the race.

Interestingly, pressure really mounted, almost instantly, for the other non Cheney candidates to drop out.  Denton Knapp, whose campaign has generated little interest so far, indicated that he wouldn't be right away, but his statement was less than a battle cry.  An advisor to Knapp, however, released a text from a Trump advisor to the Trib which stated "People who don’t clear the field will pay a heavy price" showing that the Trump organization is paying more than a little attention in its effort to unseat Cheney.

That comment was interesting and frankly more than a little disconcerting.  The individual who made the statement declined to comment on it what it meant.  It brought a negative reaction from the Knapp advisor, who commented, according to the Trib, "Who are they to say ‘You’re gonna pay a heavy price’? Who are these people? They aren’t in Wyoming."

As noted, Bouchard stated he's remaining in the race.  Belinsky has stated that she is too, although there's been little attention gained by her campaign so far.

Cheney remained fully defiant, stating:

I look forward to an extended public debate about the importance of the rule of law and the solemn duty of elected officials to uphold their oath to the Constitution, It is tragic that some in this race have sacrificed those principles, and their duty to the people of Wyoming, out of fear and in favor of loyalty to a former president who deliberately misled the American people about the 2020 election, provoked an attack on the U.S. Capitol, and failed to perform his duties as president as the violence ensued.

There's some chortling already that a Hageman victory is inevitable, but while it seems likely she will become the primary opponent to Cheney, her positions in the Governor race put her in the known far right category that's likely to cause average GOP voters outside the wheat belt to face her with real hesitance.  I'd still regard Cheney as the favorite.

It might be noted that this stands to be a political career ending race for every GOP candidate, no matter what happens, other than Cheney.  Right now, Cheney remains likely to win, although her race is now much tighter than it was, but no matter what happens, she's positioned for a 2024 race for the Oval Office.  This race, however, likely will terminate the future political aspirations for Gray and Bouchard, and if Hageman loses, Hageman as well.

September 11, 2021

The two principal candidates for the House, Cheney and Hageman, traded jabs immediately following Hageman's announcement, with Cheney accusing Hageman of "tragic opportunism".

Anthony Bouchard, whose campaign lost signficant steam following the breaking of the news of his early Flordia years, was back in the news for posting a meme on his campaign site urging that Dr. Fauci be tried, convicted and executed.  Bouchard is accusing him of lies, and has been an opponent of the COVID 19 vaccine.

September 15, 2011

And now far right candidate, State House member Chuck Gray, has dropped out.

Gray announced after Bouchard and was competing for the demographic  His campaign interestingly never really took off, with his primary funders being himself and an organization funded by his father.  That would suggest that his support was much thinner than he supposed it would be, and of course its notable that he originally was defeated for the seat he now holds, acquiring it by appointment, the first time, upon its prior occupants death.

Gray would have been highly unlikley to unseat Cheney, but he did stand to take votes away from Bouchard.  With Hageman in the race he had no chance of success and his staying in the race would have meant that he would have give up his House seat, potentially effectively ending his elective office career.

With Gray's depature, the race is now a three way race, with Hageman contesting Cheney only on the extreme right, and Hageman and Cheney otherwise contesting for the rest of the GOP vote.

September 22, 2022

The thing about modern times is that it's easy for people to catch up with what you said and did.

Earlier in the 2022 Wyoming Congressional race Anthony Bouchard found that out when he raced to get ahead of an English newspaper that was set to break the news about a teenage trist with an underaged teenage girl, and the result of the same.

Now it's Harriet Hageman's turn.

Now, Hageman has no scandals to discredit her.  She's lived an honorable life as a lawyer for over thirty years. But she's also from a right wing political famly, some of her legal work has really reflected that, and her prior stances have as well.

And the New York Times caught up with that record.

In 2016, Hageman opposed Trump's bid for the Republican nomination.  She's excused that in part by saying that she was supporting Ted Cruz at the time, which has its own defects.  But she also stated, apparently, that Trump was "racist and xenophobic."

Now she has the endorsement of a former President that she accused of being a racist xenophobe.

Trump probably didn't know that when he endorsed Hageman and my guess is that he doesn't know Hageman at all.  Hageman has long standing Republican establishment connections in Wyoming and she's really an establishment candidate from the far right who is taking the Trump line.

Cheney has accused her of "tragic opportunism" and now you do have to at least wonder about that.  In 2016 she held that Trump was a bad guy, in essence.  Now she doesn't.  What changed?

Well, other than the political atmosphere, not much.  A person could claim, of course, that Trump's records changed your mind.  Some have done that.  Hageman, however, blamed Democrats and Cheney supporters.

The fact is, I heard and believed the lies the Democrats and Liz Cheney’s friends in the media were telling at the time, but that is ancient history as I quickly realized their allegations against President Trump were untrue. They lied about him before he was elected and continue to lie about him to this day.

So she stated.

This may have been a spur of the moment sort of reply, but in 2016 Cheney was running for her first term, and against, in the primary, two solid Wyoming candidates.  One was from Natrona County and one from Teton County. Both had been in the legislature. Their positions were nearly indentical which is probably why they wiped out each other and Cheney in turn survived.  Be that as it may, it's difficult to see how somebody as well connected politically could have been really fooled by "friends" of Cheney.  I know that her backers came to my front door and were uncomfortalbe with my questions for them.  Maybe I'm just less easily fooled as I have a contrarian streak and I'm not in the political mainstream.  And a person would have to ask why the fooling set in so hard that it's only now, after Trump's defeat and the surrounding controversy, that a person would realize it.

And for the Democrats, well they couldn't have been Wyoming Democrats as there's only about five of them in the first place. That's probably not what she meant, however.

The truth of the matter is that in 2016 most establishment Republicans, and Hageman is an establishment Republican, were horrified by the Trump canidacy.  What the amazing thing is, is the degree to which they later accomodated themselves to it.  That started to come unraveled in 2020, following the election, but it hasn't fully. And it hasn't fully as the Trump base became the party base.  Candidates running now have to deal with that, and most deal with it either by not addressing it at all, or appealing to the base.

Indeed, that's the issue in the Wyoming race.  Nobody can claim that Cheney hasn't been a solid right wing Wyoming Congressman. What she isn't, is in lock step with Trump, particularly in regard to the January 6 insurrection.

Hageman, it might be noted, is on record in a recent CNN interview saying their were "questions about the election" and she wouldn't acknowledge Joe Biden as the President.

In other somewhat related news, the recent audit of Arizona's race shows that Biden won there by a bigger margin that had been previously reported.  One now dropped out candidate, Chuch Gray, had been making auditing a bit of an issue in his race even though there were no indications whatsoever of a problem with the election in Wyoming.

September 30, 2021

Liz Cheney, whose departure from the Trump camp seems to have freed her from any self imposed need to take the GOP line at any one time, went on record praising Gen. Milley for his fidelity to the U.S. Constitution during the hearings this past week on Afghanistan.  

Milley's telephone call with his Chinese counterpart has caused some Republican figures to argue he should resign or be removed.  Included in these figures is Matt Gaetz, who speant his five minutes of alloted time engaging in an accusative set of questions.  Other GOP figures, but certainly not all, also stated that Milley should resign.  At least one such example I saw on C-Span was an embarrassingly awkward one by a Congresswoman or Senator I was not otherwise familiar with and whose name I failed to make note to remember.

October 12, 2021

Liz Cheney just cmpleted a record setting fund raising quarter.

Cheney is on the House commission investigating the January 6, insurrection. A bipartisan comittee that has been investigating the Justice Department just released some findings showing that Trump sought to appoint a new Attorney General insider specifically as he was expected to be loyal in overturning the election, but did not when a mass resignation from the department was to occur.  The information makes Trump's involvement in an effort to overtrun the election at all costs manifest.  The House committee is now pondering criminal referrals.  It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out by the next election.

October 14, 2021

Harriet Hageman has raised $300,000 in her first quarter of fund raising.  This included funds from Timothy Mellon, a highy wealthy Wyoming resident who earlier was reproted to have donated the maximum amount allowable, $2,900, to Anthony Bouchard.

October 23, 2021

The Tribune is reporting that only 6% of Cheney's campaign funds have been raised from inside of Wyoming.

While she's pulled in a vast amount of donations, and all money spends the same, that fact can't be taken as a positive sign for her campaign.

October 27, 2021

Rex Rammell, perennial candidate, has officially announced to run against Mark Gordon for Governor.  Rammell's campaign is doomed, like his prior ones, but he's running again.

Liz Cheney has now raised $5,100,000 for her reelection campaign, and unprecedented amount.  In response, Harriet Harriman has termed her a "Goliath."

Given as signficant amounts of money have come from outside of the state, there's some reason to be concerned that at some point the substantial amounts may actually harm the Cheney campaign.

Novmber 9, 2021

Harriet Hageman is part of a right wing legal entity bringing lawsuits from that prospective and, in that capacity, will be one of several counsel who are bringing a class action on behalf of Federal employees who do not wish to be subject to the Federal vaccination mandate for COVID 19.  The suit terms this as being brought on behalf of those who have "natural immunity', which of course we know does not exist as immunity from having had the disease is temporary.

November 10, 2021

Trump has endorsed Idaho Lt. Governor Janice McGeachin against incumbant Republican Governor Brad Little in another example of how loyalty to Trump, in Trump's view, is more signficant than other aspects of being a Republican.

It's not as dramatic as the Cheney rift with Trump that lead to his endorsement of Harriet Hageman, but it is intersting, particularly in light of the recent 2021 off year election in wihch the Governor Elect of Virginia accepted Trump's nomination but otherwise distanced himself from Trump.  These 2022 pirmaries may demonstrate the extent to which Trump's influence has any staying power.

November 16, 2021

The GOP Central Committee in the state narrowly voted to no longer "recognize" Liz Cheney as a Republican.  The vote passed 29 to 31.

It has no impact.  A person becomes a Republican by registering as a Republican at their county seat.

November 17, 2021

The Republican Central Committee, which determined yesterday that Republican Liz Cheney is not a Republican, voted to chastise Legislators Harshman and Hicks, but not Park County Precint Committeeman Bray.

Bray, as readers will recall, wrote an email to Republican Legislator Tara Nethercott which included the following:

If I were as despicable a person as you, I would kill myself to rid the world of myself. You sicken me. Thank you for ensuring that the people of Wyoming are subjected to tyranny once again. FUCK YOU CUNT.

Earlier, Park County declined to do anything regarding Bray.

Hicks got "chastised" due to Bray.  He received an email from a constituent of that last name, from an email list, and thought it was the offensive Bray, when it was not.  He replied:

Please remove me from your email list. Given your pass (sic) history of obscenity laced unwanted attacks on members of the legislature there is absolutely nothing of any value that you have to say that I am interested in hearing, I do not represent you and I sure as hell do not have any respect for your past despicable behavior.

This was shared by Anthony Bouchard.

Harshman got in trouble in an open session of the legislature when he reacted to a motion by Chuck Gray to take a headcount on an amendment to a bill, which the legislature never does.  Apparently he said something like: "Chuck Gray, fucking asshole,” and then "Little fucker."   This is somewhat unclear in print, as the Tribune edits out the nastys, which we obviously are not.

Putting this together, the common thread would appear to be. . .well there isn't one.  If we took out the Hicks example it would be that calling somebody diminutive is beyond the pale, which of course would be, from the prospective of a shorter person myself, fully justified.  But, if we consider Hicks again, that can't be it.

A cynic might say that what is really being "chastised" is criticizing a populist.  I can't really see what Hicks did otherwise, other than to engage in a case of mistaken identity, which seems like a thing chastising somebody for would be a bit much. But the committee noted that the Park County figure, who hasn't been chastised by the Park County committee, had been visited by a "cowboy gentleman" and that took care of things. As the gentleman was actually a figure of the Park County committee, who only notes that he asked for an apology and not a latter-day Tom Horn, that seems a pretty low bar.  Bray hasn't apologized, although apparently Park County expects him too. . . which is taking quite awhile.  Harshman did apologize to Gray.

The resolution passed by the Central Committee asks for Harshman to be removed or resign.  It's clear the Natrona County committee isn't going to ask him to resign and isn't going to remove him, which brings us back to Hicks.  He commented, according to the Tribune:

Clearly, there’s a different moral imperative applied to the different cases,I do believe that the people in the state of Wyoming will figure that one out for themselves. It also diminishes the importance and the belief of the party itself when there’s gross inconsistencies.

This referred to the emails from and about Bray, but Hicks may as well have been commenting on the entire flap itself.  While it will undoubtedly be noted that the Committee was disciplining its legislators, and a precinct committeeman is much less than that, it does essentially send a message that picking on a populist is not to be allowed.

Which  gets back to this. Things coming out of the committee meeting have been a right wing populist tour de force. Cheney is claimed to be a non Republican, when she clearly is one, Hicks is disciplined for reacting to an email which in its contents is laudable, but which was sent to the wrong person and then sent to the entire legislature by extreme right-wing populist Anthony Bouchard, who is a candidate for the House but whose chances were never great, but now are dead, but who still remains close to the hearts of some populists.  Harshman's conduct was genuinely appalling but it doesn't help that he criticized Gray, who likewise failed in his run against Cheney but who is also close to the hearts of some populists.  Meanwhile Bray used misogynistic profanities against Naracott and nothing happened.

Of course, at the end of the day, all this means next to nothing. The committee is a committee of committees and reflects the states' Republican committees, but it's really questionable to what extent that they represent actual Republicans.  The same political demographic in the state has been worrying that the party is packed with closet Democrats, which bring up this point.

A resolution chastising a member and even asking for their resignation has just as much actual impact as declaring him to be a Lemon Meringue Pie.  I.e, none.  That's the same impact declaring Cheney to be a non Republican has.  A person can go into the county clerk's office wearing their Che Guevara t-shit, a black beret with the hammer and sickle on it, while singing The Internationale and register as a Republican and then they are.

At the end of the day, the final votes are what matters.  Lots of people are openly declaring views that match the committees, but in back rooms and in private conversations, more than a few are saying the opposite.

A Brief Comment About The Language

This will be the last entry on this installment, so I'll do this as regular text rather than a footnote.

I've quoted here, I'll note, what these figures actually said.  The Tribune and other media outlets editedt hat out.  They should have.

This blog runs between 200 to 500 hits on an average day.  Probably a lot of those don't read every entry. We have a limited audience, in other words.  So I don't really have to worry about children reading the text and starting to use "potty language".

But it's clear some of our public figures do. 

Some of this is locker room talk, which has always been foul, particularly in largely male societies, which coaching, Harshman's actual profession, is.  That doesn't excuse it, but that's the case.  But beyond that, American speech has become incredibly foul.  The question may be why.

Part of the reason for that is that the oral skills of Americans have really declined.  Most Americans, I suspect, couldn't grasp an insult levied by Winston Churchill now days as they're too advanced to decipher.  And that's not good.  It leaves us with stuff like this, and when stuff like this gets circulated, it becomes common and soon is part of the average vernacular.

Having said that, what Harshman said was simply locker room talk. He shouldn't have done it, but is apology should have been enough.

Bray's comments, however, used a term that demonstrates absolute contempt for women and were violent. They were not only beyond the pale, they were truly hateful and in an ancient, disturbing, way. They were reducing, demeaning, and aggressively violent.

And yet nothing was done about that.

November 21, 2021

Well, I don't have the next entry ready yet, so we sill will have at least this post here.

Todays' Trib has an op-ed from a member of a well known local Republican family which is a blistering rebuke of the state of the state's GOP.  The article warns of Republican extinction if its current direction continues and strongly attacks the current denialism and actions of the state's party.  It also claims that the recent action regarded Cheney was pushed over the top by members of Hageman's family, although it doesn't detail that.

December 4, 2021

The next edition of this isn't quite ready, and as it starts off with a specific theme, this wouldn't be a good introductory post for it anyhow.

Donald Trump, who seems to despise Elizabeth Cheney for her having the courage of her convictions, has been apparently invited or decided to come to Wyoming and appear here on May 28, 2022, at a rally in support of Harriet Hageman.

Former legislator Tom Lubnau, who is supporting the now almost silent campaign of Denton Knapp objected to the spending of GOP funds on this as it is illegal for the party to spend money, apparently, in support of one primary candidate against another.  Others present at the meeting that resulted in this have stated that Hageman's name was never mentioned, but this is pretty obviously going to be a Trump bashes Cheney event and restraining Trump from mentioning Hageman, whom he has endorsed, will be impossible.  My predictions is that this will end up in legal action before it's over.

While it's obviously trying to look down the lane quite away, I also suspect that by May the former President's legal troubles may be mounting significantly.

We'll see, of course, if any of these predictions prove correct.

Prior Threads:

The 2022 Election Part IV. The Film Noir Edition

The 2022 Election, Part III. Everyone throws their hat in the ring.

The GOP. What in the world is going on?

The 2022 Election, Part II. Liz Cheney, the future of the Republican Party, and the GOP candidate for the Oval Office in 2024.

The 2022 Election, Part I

Catch and Release

Catch and release fishing is illegal in Germany and Switzerland.

December 4, 1971. Smoke On the Water

Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention.

This day in history is recalled for a tragedy, that being the destruction of the Montreux Casino in Switzerland during a Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention concert. 

The event was the topic of Deep Purple's song, Smoke on the Water.

We all came out to Montreux
On the Lake Geneva shoreline
To make records with a mobile
We didn't have much time
Frank Zappa and the Mothers
Were at the best place around
But some stupid with a flare gun
Burned the place to the ground

Smoke on the water
A fire in the sky
Smoke on the water

They burned down the gambling house
It died with an awful sound
Uh, Funky Claude was running in and out
Pulling kids on the ground
When it all was over
We had to find another place
But Swiss time was running out
It seemed that we would lose the race

Deep Purple in 1968.

Deep Purple had planned to record there, but had to find another venue.

On the same day, McGurk's Bar, a Catholic tavern in Belfast, was bombed, killing fifteen people, including two children.  And the Indian Navy attacked the Pakistani Navy at Karachi.

Thursday December 4, 1941. Rainbow 5.

The U.S. military plans for war with Germany, Rainbow 5, were leaked and appeared in two major newspapers. The spectacular leak, the source of which has never been determined, showed an intent to build a 10,000,000 man Army and deploy 5,000,000 men to Europe to defeat the Germans by 1943.  The resulting furor was enormous.

Naval trainees, 1941.

The Germans ridiculed the plans as impossible, but the German General Staff took it seriously and argued for a hiatus of offensive operations in the East in order to attempt to take the United Kingdom out of the war before Britain could be used as a staging area for American troops. Hitler rejected the idea.  Rainbow 5 did in fact become the basic plan adopted by the United States during the war.

Japanese tasks forces set out for destinations in Malaya and Thailand.  Japanese aircraft scouted Wake Island undetected.

December 4, 1921. Stalled

The Irish delegation rejected British proposals for dominion status for Ireland, partition of Ulster away from southern Ireland, and administration of an oath of allegiance to Irish governmental employees and members of the Irish parliament.

And it looked like the Arbuckle jury was having trouble reaching a decision.

Ataturk was reviewing his army.

Ataturk, December 4, 1921.

I'll be frank that I don't put much credence in diets. . .

and think that a lot of them are basically bunkus.*  And history has demonstrated that a lot of the current thought in any one era on diet in general is probably wrong.

Ice Cream cake, 1937.  I frankly didn't know ice cream cakes existed in 1937, but they obviously did.  Most Americans weren't overweight at this time, for reasons that will be noted below.

There's constantly some new diet fad going around as well as some new theory about what people should eat.  Almost every study on diets demonstrates that people will lose weight on the at first and then regain it.  Up until something I will link in below explored that, the latter was not obvious to me, but what seems to be fairly obvious is that most diet theories are pure bull.

And yet Americans are absolutely fascinated about diets.  No matter where you live or work, you are going to hear constantly from people about some new diet they are on.  Not only are they on it, but now it's popular to combine the diets with the latest pseudo-science about taking this and that, which sound more like solutions to difficult plumbing or automotive problems than they do to losing weight and eating healthy.

A lot of dieting advice and dietary advice is amazingly similar to the same sort of stuff that people used to spout about automobiles all the time.  Car worn out and tired?  No problem, just pour a quart of Amazing Berserkoil into your engine!  It'll detoxify, clarify and contains essential oils that your car will love and admire!

I'm not a nutritionist and have no training in this area at all, but what has always seemed completely obvious to me is that dietary topics ought to be governed by evolutionary biology.  I.e, you are evolved to eat in a certain way, and if you don't eat that way, you're going to have some negative consequence develop.  You are also evolved to engage in certain activities, and if you do them and eat the way that you were evolved to, you'll probably be just fine, health wise, in so far as your health is governed by food intake, and quite a bit of it is.

But that doesn't fit the most recent buy this, eat that, craze.

So it'd be rare indeed for me to link in anything regarding diet. But having recently heard this, this makes scientific sense to me (which very few diets, including the currently popular "Keto" diet do):

Akin, who is known principally as a Catholic Apologist, but who also has a keen interest in a very large range of topics and a command of a blistering number of them, discusses diets and weight loss in general, but as this video makes plain, he's an advocate of what has come to be known as "Intermittent Fasting" and an opponent of processed foods. There's more to it than that, but that's basically what I want to point out by linking this in. To at least that extent (and I'd disagree with him on a few things mentioned in here), I think he's right.

The reason for this has to do with science.

Basically, it seems to me, you are most likely evolved to eat fairly lean meat and simple vegetables and grains because that's what your ancestors did for thousands upon thousands of years.  Do that, and dietary wise, I suspect you'll be just fine.

Illustration of Lapps hunting from 1565, the same way they hunted in 565, and in 1565BC, and so on.  Everyone, in one form or another, lived this way, and you are still supposed to.

I'll credit that in some instances this is a bit altered beyond the very simple (but perhaps hard to apply) extent that it may seem when putting it forth in that fashion.  Evolution does occur, and there are people who are very, very long associated with agriculture. . . although not to the extent you may think and indeed all people are more associated with agriculture than some believe.  People were making bread out of simple grains before they cultivated wheat, it turns out, for example.  And Mediterranean people who cultivated wheat very early on also were big on fish hunting (or, yes fishing).  Pastoral people who took up raising livestock continued hunting and even in Palestine during Christ's time it's known that the Jewish people and their neighbors not only raised livestock, they hunted and fish hunted (yep, fishing).

Now, what additionally also seems to me to be pretty self-evident is that it's usually been the case that the "three squares a day" combined with sitting on your butt all day is not the historic norm.  Nor is "processed food" at all.  You aren't actually evolved to eat a lot of processed food and three big meals a day.  Nor are you evolved to even eat two big meals a day.

Take all of this into account, diet wise, and you are likely good to go, diet wise.

Now, depending upon your individual metabolism you may be able to get away with it, even if you have a sedentary job.  But most people won't be.  And perhaps that's where I depart from Akin.  Akin's commentary in the video states that exercise doesn't matter much in terms of weight loss or gain (he doesn't say that exercise isn't otherwise important), but I frankly very much disagree.  Indeed, I think the lack of exercise that modern American life entails, combined with the advance of processed food, and combined with the constant presence of food, and further combined with the giant proportions that served food now features, combines to make people rather large.  I.e., lack of exercise is an element of that, but a pretty important one.

Indeed, I come by all of these opinions not only because I tend to look at a lot of such things through an evolutionary biology lens, but because I also have some personal experience with all of this, making me a bit of a control set.  So I'm pretty convinced as to all of this.

I've never been obese, but when I was a kid and an early teen I was on the chubby end of things.  I was always pretty active, but I also lived in an environment in which there were three meals a day (as a kid should get) and deserts and soda were also pretty much always available.  My mother never drank soda, but she did drink a lot of sweet tea.  She was an awful cook, but both of my parents liked ice cream quite a bit so we always had ice cream on hand.  My mother had a nearly hyperactive constitution but my father was inclined to carry a slight bit of extra weight as here both of his parents, and myself by extension and genetic inheritance.

One summer when I was 16/17 years old, however, I obtained a job in which I drove for a city garage chasing parts every day.  This was in the pre air-conditioned era, and what that meant was that I reported to work really early and worked a full day.  As a result, I wasn't eating much before I left the door and by and large I simply quit eating at noon.  I was Intermittent Fasting before it had a name and without any particular intent.  I was also pretty active in this role as a parts chaser.

By the end of the summer I'd lost a lot of weight.  Indeed, going into the summer I was at or near my current weight, which is 165 lbs more or less (I slide up and down a bit).  By modern standards that puts me right at the upper level of an "ideal weight" for my height or slightly overweight.  As I've explored before, by the standards of a century ago, that's overweight.  At any rate, however, going into that summer the extra pounds I was carrying included some flab, which isn't good.  By the end of the summer, however, I'd lost ten to fifteen pounds through no effort of my own.  By that time, as I'd lost the desire to eat lunch anymore, I kept loosing until I was around 140 lbs, maybe (probably) less.  When I went into basic training the next year, I likely reported around 135lbs.

In basic training I gained weight up until I came down with pneumonia, at which time I really lost weight as I couldn't eat but was still active.  When I came home from Ft. Sill I weighed 123 lbs, which is really light.  Having said that, photographs of me early in basic training suggest I was getting pretty light at first anyhow.  But, that 123 lbs actually reflected a late Advanced Training weight gain after I got out of the hospital.

Significantly, however, after that first summer the weight I put on or retained was muscle and not fat.  In college, I came up to 145 lbs, the weight I was at when I got married, but again I was really active and my gain in that time came on in muscle.  Since then, through having a sedentary job and what not, I've gained the extra fifteen pounds, or perhaps less on a day-to-day basis, but I'm much more heavily muscled than I was when I was 16.

Now, from time to time for one reason or another, I've gotten to where I'll skip breakfast or lunch, or both.  Doing this on odd occasion is pretty routine for me, but I'll sometimes do it for days in a row.  I just don't always feel like eating breakfast for no particular reason, and I've never regained the desire to eat much lunch.  After I left for college I lost my taste for sweets and I never buy candy for the house, although my wife is the opposite, and she does.  When I left college, I also quit buying soda.

Indeed, in my college years, as I already noted, I lived on a very primitive diet. All wild game and mostly vegetables, for much of the year, that had come from my parents garden.  On that diet, you won't put on weight.  And as noted after I married beef came back into our diet (which I do like), but some desserts, which I very rarely bought or made for myself when single (cherry and apple pies, from our own cherries and apples excepted, and when in season), reappeared.  So its no wonder that I added fifteen pounds, and within a few years.  But I'll drop down to 155 fairly readily when I don't eat lunch for days in a row.

All of which gets to this point.

This time of year is a dietary nightmare.  It's a nightmare in part because the people who are the Keto Schmeato All Bean Burrito Diet are going to be bothering you about that, or whatever the latest dietary fad is, and it's a nightmare as there's a constant flood of food that you don't need to eat going by you constantly.

Indeed, this thread was started some time ago, and I'm just finishing it off now because of this.  I'm hearing about the diets. And this will mean, in part, I'll hear about people who claim to be "fasting" but still eat enough at noon to put me out for the rest of the day, but it's also the case that in my office its freakishly the case that seemingly 3/4s of the office has late in the year birthdays. That means that in November and December there's enough cake going through the office to feed all of Europe for a year, at least calorie wise.

And to add to that, people just start bringing in food at random.  Indeed, there's one person who seemingly does this constantly from their home, and it's all sugary food.  This is surplus from that person's own larders which means that the same is buying, but not eating, lots of cake, candy and the like.  All of which makes it pretty hard to resist, as it's simply there.

And then for some reason cake like cookies, from a newer cookie company, are showing up in the house here.  We're tiny people, and we can't really eat cookies the size of large pizzas, and particularly not sugary ones.  My wife and my daughter love these cookies, but my daughter is so active that she'll burn through the calories no matter what.  Like most modern Americans, however, my job principally entails, active lifestyle wise, sitting on my butt.

Of course, some would say "go to the gym", but I hate that sort of public display.  And frankly, I don't have the time or don't imagine that I do.  And that's the sort of urban Cow's Revenge activity that I really don't like.

All of which caused me, when I got on the scale last night, to be shocked that I've ballooned up to 170 lbs. 

Well, it's not like I don't know what to do.  And it doesn't involve Keto or the Orange Blossom Special Cleanse or something like that.

But it would be a lot easier on a "natural diet", but which I mean one that I shot, caught and grew myself.

Saturday December 3, 1921. Treaty offers.

 The Saturday magazines were out, with a skunk family on the cover of The Country Gentleman, and a female gold panner on the cover of Colliers.

Irish delegates to the peace conference in London rejected the British offer of Dominion status as it still required an oath of allegiance to the British crown for government officials and members of the Irish parliament, as well as partitioning Ulster away from southern Ireland.

The public was following the Arbuckle trial.

Wednesday December 3, 1941. Increased speed.

Cordell Hull, the longest serving Secretary of State.

The Japanese carrier task force assigned to attack Pearl Harbor increased their speed.  On the same day, Secretary of State Cordell Hull gave a press conference expressing a gloomy view of the prospects for peace.

The Chief of Naval Operations sent the following message:

Highly reliable information has been received that categoric and urgent instructions were sent yesterday to Japanese Consular posts at Hongkong, Singapore, Batavia, Manila, Washington and London to destroy most of their codes and ciphers at once and burn...confidential and secret documents

A flurry of telegrams were sent between Japanese diplomatic missions.

From: Tokyo

To: Washington

3 December, 1941

(Purple)

#876

Re your 1227* (Washington to Tokyo).

 

As you are well aware, during the tenure of the previous cabinet, a meeting between the leaders of the two countries was suggested by us but the proposal failed to materialize. It is felt that it would be inappropriate for us to propose such a meeting again at this time. Please be advised of this decision.

From: Tokyo

To: Washington 

3 December 1941 

(Purple) 

#875 Chief of Office routing

Re your #1232*.

 

Please explain the matter to the United States along the following lines:

 

There seem to be rumors to the effect that our military garrisons in French Indo-China are being strengthened. The fact is that recently there has been an unusual amount of activity by the Chinese forces in the vicinity of the Sino-French Indo-China border. In view of this, we have increased our forces in parts of northern French Indo-China. There would naturally be some movement of troops in the southern part as a result of this. We presume that the source of the rumors is in the exaggerated reports of these movements. In doing so, we have in no way violated the limitations contained in the Japanese-French joint defense agreement.

From: Tokyo.

To: Washington. 

3 December 1941 

(Purple) 

#878 (In 2 parts, complete)

 

Re your #1225*.

Chief of Office routing.

1. Apparently, the United States is making much of the statements issued by our governmental organs, the trend of the public opinion, as well as of our troop movements in the south. They have used these as an excuse to doubt our sincerity in wanting to bring about a successful settlement in the Japanese-U. S. negotiations.

 

We explained the truth behind the alleged Tojo statement in my message #866**. The English translation (this was done in the offices of the Domei News agency) of that statement was very different from the original, and that was responsible for the unexpected reactions.

 

With regard to guiding general public opinion, this Minister himself has made considerable effort.

 

The State Department should be in receipt of a report from the U. S. Ambassador in Tokyo regarding this point. As a matter of fact, as your report in your message #1148*** Secretary Hull has expressed his satisfaction over the change for the better along these lines.

 

In spite of this, the tone of some of the U. S. newspapers seem to be unduly ominous. Moreover, the radio (particularly those which are aired via short wave from San Francisco very recently) has been daily broadcasting in considerable detail, the progress being made in the negotiations. It is quite evident that persons who have access to the records of the meetings are acting as liaison agents for those broadcasts, for otherwise it would be impossible to obtain some of the information that is being aired. We feel that it is very inappropriate for the United States to criticize us without looking after her own house.

 

(Part 2)

 

2. Recently, Britain, the United States, and others have been making military preparations against Japan at an every increasing tempo. At the same time, they have been acting in a more and more antagonistic. manner of late. For example, on the 20th of last month, a U. S. plane made a reconnaissance flight over Garanpi in the southern part of Formosa. (We filed a protest with the U. S. Ambassador on the 27th regarding this matter). Since then, however, the British and the United States have shown no indication of ending such activities. In view of the very critical times, we cannot help but hope that such incidents would cease.

 

3. Our proposal which was submitted on 20 November was based on just principles. Will you please point out again that these principles undoubtedly offer the best chance of leading to an eventual settlement. (We assume that when the United States says in their counter proposal that our terms are not in sympathy with the existing principles, they refer to the contents of Article 4 in which it is stated that the peace between Japan and China shall not be disturbed. We are insisting that all aid to Chiang cease as soon as Japanese-Chinese negotiations, at the instigation of the President of the United States, are launched. Hence, our proposal in no way conflicts with the spirit of the so-called fundamental principles being proclaimed by the United States. Please bear that in mind.

From: Washington

To: Tokyo

3 December 1941

(Purple)

#1244

 

Judging from all indications, we feel that some joint military action between Great Britain and the United States, with or without a declaration of war, is a definite certainty in the event of an occupation of Thailand.

From: Washington (Nomura)

To: Tokyo

December 3, 1941

Purple (Urgent)

#1256.

 

Re your #875 [a].

 

I received your reply immediately. I presume, of course, that this reply was a result of consultations and profound consideration. The United States Government is attaching a great deal of importance on this reply. Especially since the President issued his statement yesterday, it is being rumored among the journalists that this reply is to be the key deciding whether there will be war or peace between Japan and the United States. There is no saying but what the United States Government will take a bold step depending upon how our reply is made. If it is really the intention of our government to arrive at a settlement, the explanation you give, I am afraid, would neither satisfy them nor prevent them taking the bold step referred to—even if your reply is made for the mere purpose of keeping the negotiations going. Therefore, in view of what has been elucidated in our proposal which I submitted to the President on November 10th, I would like to get a reply which gives a clearer impression of our peaceful intentions. Will you, therefore, reconsider this question with this is mind and wire me at once. 

From: Rome

To: Tokyo

3 December 1941

(Purple—CA)

#985

Re your message #985* to Berlin.

 

On this day, at 11 o'clock in the morning, I, accompanied by Ando, called on Premier Mussolini, (Foreign Minister Ciano was also present). I described the developments in the Japanese-U. S. negotiations in accordance with the contents of your message #986** to Berlin.

 

Mussolini: "I have been carefully watching the progress of the Japanese-U. S. talks from the very beginning and therefore am not at all surprised to receive your report. As a matter of fact, in view of the utter bull-headedness of the United States and the meddlesome nature of President Roosevelt, I should say that the outcome was nothing but what should have been expected. One of the aims of the United States is to make the Far East her own, from an economic standpoint. I have felt from the beginning that if it was the intention of the United States to separate Japan from the Axis first and then intervene in Europe, the United States was doomed to fail because of Japan's loyal and sincere nature.

 

"As Your Excellency and Your Excellency's predecessor know, I wholeheartedly endorse Japan's policy of creating a New Order in East Asia. This has been true in the past, is true now and will be so in the future. I am one who is firmly convinced that Japan has every right to be the leader of the Great East Asia area."

 

I continued by relating to him the contents of your message referred to in the heading, (with regard to paragraph 3 of that message, said that I had been advised that some arrangements were being made between our Ambassador in Berlin and Ribbentrop).

 

With regard to paragraph 2, Mussolini said that should war break out, Italy would give every military aid she had at her disposal, i.e., that she would make every effort to keep the British navy checked in the Mediterranean.

 

Mussolini: "Recently, the formation of an Italian-German air force bloc was discussed so as to afford closer cooperation between the two to apply further pressure on the British in the Mediterranean. The negotiations on this proposal have progressed to a point where it may be signed any day now."

 

Regarding paragraph 2 again, should Japan declare war on the United States and Great Britain, I asked, would Italy do likewise immediately? Mussolini replied: "Of course. She is obligated to do so under the terms of the Tripartite Pact. Since Germany would also be obliged to follow suit, we would like to confer with Germany on this point."

 

With reference to paragraph 3, I submitted the French text of your message #987***, as one proposal, and asked him whether he preferred it to be separately or jointly. He replied that as long as it was done simultaneously with Germany it did not make much difference to him, but if it were done jointly he thought it would give the impression of more strength. He said he would confer with Ambassador MAKKENZEN.

 

Mussolini failed to bring up the subject of Soviet Russia, so the matter was not brought up at all.

 

In the first part of this message, please correct "N-NEEN WA" to "KINKENSHA WA".

From: Peking

To: Net

3 December 1941

(Purple)

Circular #616 (In 3 parts, complete)

Peking to Tokyo #763 (Most secret outside the Ministry).

      Kitazawa, Commander Army of North China.

      Arisue, Vice Chief of Staff.

      Nishimura, 4th Section, Staff Headquarters.

      Kazayama, Chief of Staff.

      Shiozawa, Liaison Officer, Chinese Development Board.

 

At a meeting on December 1st and 2nd, of the above five, the following conclusions and decisions were reached:

 

"If this war does start, this will be a war which will decide the rise or fall of the Japanese Empire. For this reason it goes without saying, do not have small, or local, insignificant matters, occupy you. Instead quiet such things immediately and settle in a most advantageous way to us. In addition, all administrative control of these districts should be carefully planned anew with the above in view. For example, the fact that this war is one which is unavoidable for the existence of Japan and the maintenance of peace in East Asia' should be made very clear to all foreign nations and thus internally strengthen the unity of the people while guiding the world's public opinion in a direction beneficial to Japan. Thus both during the period of war and at the end of the war during the peace negotiations the greatest benefit will accrue to Japan.

 

"Especially on the minds of the southern native peoples we must make an impression so as to draw them towards us and against the United States and Britain. For this purpose, when this war starts all district and regional authorities must as much as possible adhere to existing international laws, etc. and under no condition should any action which would look like 'stealing while the house burns' to foreign countries be taken which might result in the loss of the main issue for a small immediate local profit.

 

(Part 2)

"In order to end this affair in a profitable note for Japan, one need but remember that in the Russo-Japan war it was necessary to have President Roosevelt act as peace mediator, to appreciate that for the expected coming war the only one who can be imagined as an intermediary is the Pope. This fact should be kept in mind in any step which is taken in the occupied territory. And for this reason too the enemy's position should be considered, and the handling of enemy churches etc. in China should be carefully studied.

 

"It is evident that Japan will have to put everything that they have in the coming war, and for this reason it is only natural that our burden in China be made as light as possible, so that our strength must be saved. For this reason matters other than political or economic, that can be handled by China should as much as possible be left to China to manage and thereby get credit for this from the Chinese, too.

 

"It can be imagined that the next war is to be a longer one than the China incident, so that in this region the main issue should be the obtaining of materials. For this reason the question of closed trade and methods of gathering material should again be thoroughly studied.

 

(Part 3)

 

II "The military will of course try to handle matters as much as possible according to the International code. They will increase even more their close cooperation with the Legations, especially regarding protection of churches. In this regard they have already planned a complete education of the soldier groups stationed in the occupied territories."

 

Arisue mentioned that he was on close terms with the Vatican here _ _ _ _ _ (2 lines garbled) _ _ _ _ _ .

 

(Arisue mentioned that he had always approved of allowing the Chinese to handle their own affairs and as a matter of fact he had been acting with that in mind. However, he was only worried that by handing over the management of things to the Chinese, that they might get the mistaken idea that the Japanese had become weakened. This point should be kept in mind and any action of this kind should be done in such a way as to not let them get such a mistaken idea.)

"It is of course important to obtain materials, but regarding easing the ban on free trade in enemy territory, this subject should be studied from various angles."

 

III Shiozawa expressed his agreement with most items mentioned and declared that very close touch has been kept with military forces and different methods of leading North China politically were being studied.

Rommel's offensive towards Bardia, Sallum and Halfaya Pass were repulsed by the British.

Hitler issues an order trying to streamline German wartime production, which is noted here:

Today in World War II History—December 3, 1941

Oh no. . .

From the Commissioner of Baseball:

To our Fans:

I first want to thank you for your continued support of the great game of baseball. This past season, we were reminded of how the national pastime can bring us together and restore our hope despite the difficult challenges of a global pandemic. As we began to emerge from one of the darkest periods in our history, our ballparks were filled with fans; the games were filled with excitement; and millions of families felt the joy of watching baseball together.

That is why I am so disappointed about the situation in which our game finds itself today. Despite the league’s best efforts to make a deal with the Players Association, we were unable to extend our 26 year-long history of labor peace and come to an agreement with the MLBPA before the current CBA expired. Therefore, we have been forced to commence a lockout of Major League players, effective at 12:01am ET on December 2.

I want to explain to you how we got here and why we have to take this action today. Simply put, we believe that an offseason lockout is the best mechanism to protect the 2022 season. We hope that the lockout will jumpstart the negotiations and get us to an agreement that will allow the season to start on time. This defensive lockout was necessary because the Players Association’s vision for Major League Baseball would threaten the ability of most teams to be competitive. It’s simply not a viable option. From the beginning, the MLBPA has been unwilling to move from their starting position, compromise, or collaborate on solutions.

When we began negotiations over a new agreement, the Players Association already had a contract that they wouldn’t trade for any other in sports. Baseball’s players have no salary cap and are not subjected to a maximum length or dollar amount on contracts. In fact, only MLB has guaranteed contracts that run 10 or more years, and in excess of $300 million. We have not proposed anything that would change these fundamentals. While we have heard repeatedly that free agency is “broken” – in the month of November $1.7 billion was committed to free agents, smashing the prior record by nearly 4x. By the end of the offseason, Clubs will have committed more money to players than in any offseason in MLB history.

We worked hard to find compromise while making the system even better for players, by addressing concerns raised by the Players Association. We offered to establish a minimum payroll for all clubs to meet for the first time in baseball history; to allow the majority of players to reach free agency earlier through an age-based system that would eliminate any claims of service time manipulation; and to increase compensation for all young players, including increases in the minimum salary. When negotiations lacked momentum, we tried to create some by offering to accept the universal Designated Hitter, to create a new draft system using a lottery similar to other leagues, and to increase the Competitive Balance Tax threshold that affects only a small number of teams.

We have had challenges before with respect to making labor agreements and have overcome those challenges every single time during my tenure. Regrettably, it appears the Players Association came to the bargaining table with a strategy of confrontation over compromise. They never wavered from collectively the most extreme set of proposals in their history, including significant cuts to the revenue-sharing system, a weakening of the competitive balance tax, and shortening the period of time that players play for their teams. All of these changes would make our game less competitive, not more.

To be clear: this hard but important step does not necessarily mean games will be cancelled. In fact, we are taking this step now because it accelerates the urgency for an agreement with as much runway as possible to avoid doing damage to the 2022 season. Delaying this process further would only put Spring Training, Opening Day, and the rest of the season further at risk – and we cannot allow an expired agreement to again cause an in-season strike and a missed World Series, like we experienced in 1994. We all owe you, our fans, better than that.

Today is a difficult day for baseball, but as I have said all year, there is a path to a fair agreement, and we will find it. I do not doubt the League and the Players share a fundamental appreciation for this game and a commitment to its fans. I remain optimistic that both sides will seize the opportunity to work together to grow, protect, and strengthen the game we love. MLB is ready to work around the clock to meet that goal. I urge the Players Association to join us at the table.