Yeoman on April 12, 2022 at 5:10 pm
Friday, May 27, 2022
Connect Grousing
Geez, sometimes you just can't win for losing.
This year in baseball every team is revealing a "Connect" uniform which is supposed to display something about the nature of their location. Here's the Rockies:
Already there's all sorts of bitching about it.
Well, I like it.
Maybe the discontent is explained by this:
Which MLB Fans Drink The Most?
Wednesday, May 27, 1942. Dorie Miller receives the Navy Cross. Reinhard Heydrich attacked.
Dores "Dorie" Miller became the first African American to receive the Navy Cross, which he received for manning
For distinguished devotion to duty, extraordinary courage and disregard for his own personal safety during the attack on the Fleet in Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii, by Japanese forces on December 7, 1941. While at the side of his Captain on the bridge, Miller, despite enemy strafing and bombing and in the face of a serious fire, assisted in moving his Captain, who had been mortally wounded, to a place of greater safety, and later manned and operated a machine gun directed at enemy Japanese attacking aircraft until ordered to leave the bridge.
Miller grew up on his parent's farm in Texas and had joined the Navy at age 20 in 1939. He would not survive the war, being killed when a ship he was later assigned to was hit by a torpedo in 1943, setting off the ship's munition's stores.
His curious legal name was the result of a midwife being convinced he'd be born a girl, although even at that the family decision to stick with the name is odd. It didn't fit him at all, as Miller grew to be a giant of a man. His nickname is a matter of dispute, and may not have actually come about at all until press reports misstated his name, although there are other explanations for the name.
Reinhard Heydrich, one of the architects of the "Final Solution", was badly wounded in an assassination exercise by Czech operatives in an SOE planned operation. He'd die on June 4. Heydrich was drenched in evil, but the assassination did not in any way stop the Holocaust, and it resulted in massive German reprisals.
Heydrich vehicle following the attack.
Jews in Belgium were ordered to wear the yellow Star of David.
As with almost any day in this period, the Battle of the Atlantic raged, with submarines taking their toll.
Toasters?
The Trump folks have released a list of items that attendees at the 5/28 Hageman rally are prohibited from bringing. That list includes toasters.
Toasters?
It's been noted that President Obama never banned toasters from his rallies.
Thursday, May 26, 2022
Tuesday, May 26, 1942. Operation Venice commences, The Anglo Soviet Treaty of 1942 entered into, Armed Forces Radio Service starts.
The Armed Forces Radio Service, predecessor of the Armed Forces Network, was formed.
More on the AFN:
AFN - 80 Years of History
AFN: Keeping Military Troops, Families Informed Since 1942
The Soviet Union and the United Kingdom entered into a twenty year treaty of friendship. It stated:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, IRELAND AND BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA, AND THE PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS:
Desiring to confirm the stipulations of the agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for joint action in the war against Germany signed at Moscow, July 12, 1941, and to replace them by formal treaty:
Desiring to contribute after the war to the maintenance of peace and to the prevention of further aggression by Germany or the States associated with her in acts of aggression in Europe;
Desiring, moreover, to give expression to their intention to collaborate closely with one another as well as with the other United Nations at the peace settlement and during the ensuing period of reconstruction on a basis of the principles enunciated in the <declaration made Aug. 14, 1941, by the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to which the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has adhered;
Desiring finally to provide for mutual assistance in the event of attack upon either high contracting party by Germany or any of the States associated with her in acts of aggression in Europe;
Have decided to conclude a treaty for that purpose and have appointed as their plenipotentiaries:
His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions Beyond Seas, Emperor of India, for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
The Right Hon. Anthony Eden, M. P., His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs;
The Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:
M. Vyacheslaff Mikhailovitch Molotoff, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs,
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:
PART ONE
ARTICLE I
In virtue of the alliance established between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the high contracting parties mutually undertake to afford one another military and other assistance and support of all kinds in war against Germany and all those States which are associated with her in acts of aggression in Europe.
ARTICLE II
The high contracting parties undertake not to enter into any negotiations with the Hitlerite Government or any other government in Germany that does not clearly renounce all aggression intentions, and not to negotiate or conclude, except by mutual consent, any armistice or peace treaty with Germany or any other State associated with her in acts of aggression in Europe.
PART TWO
ARTICLE III
1. The high contracting parties declare their desire to unite with other like-minded States in adopting proposals for common action to preserve peace and resist aggression in the post-war period.
2. Pending adoption of such proposals, they will after termination of hostilities take all measures in their power to render impossible the repetition of aggression and violation of peace by Germany or any of the States associated with her in acts of aggression in Europe.
ARTICLE IV
Should either of the high contracting parties during the postwar period become involved in hostilities with Germany or any of the States mentioned in Article III, Section 2, in consequence of the attack by that State against that party, the other high contracting party will at once give to the contracting party so involved in hostilities all military and other support and assistance in his power.
This article shall remain in force until the high contracting parties, by mutual agreement, shall recognize that it is superseded by adoption of proposals contemplated in Article III, Section 1. In default of adoption of such proposals, it shall remain in force for a period of twenty years and thereafter until terminated by either high contracting party as provided in Article VIII.
ARTICLE V
The high contracting parties, having regard to the interests of security of each of them, agree to work together in close and friendly collaboration after re-establishment of peace for the organization of security and economic prosperity in Europe.
They will take into account the interests of the United Nations in these objects and they will act in accordance with the two principles of not seeking territorial aggrandizement for themselves and of non-interference in the internal affairs of other States.
ARTICLE VI
The high contracting parties agree to render one another all possible economic assistance after the war.
ARTICLE VII
Each contracting party undertakes not to conclude any alliance and not to take part in any coalition directed against the other high contracting party.
ARTICLE VIII
The present treaty is subject to ratification in the shortest possible time and instruments of ratification shall be exchanged in Moscow as soon as possible.
It comes into force immediately on the exchange of instruments of ratification and shall thereupon replace the agreement between the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom signed at Moscow July 12, 1941.
Part One of the present treaty shall remain in force until the re-establishment of peace between the high contracting parties and Germany and the powers associated with her in acts of aggression in Europe.
Part Two of the present treaty shall remain in force for a period of twenty years. Thereafter, unless twelve months' notice has been given by either party to terminate the treaty at the end of the said period of twenty years, it shall continue in force until twelve months after either high contracting party shall have given notice to the other in writing of his intention to terminate it.
In witness whereof the above-named plenipotentiaries have signed the present treaty and have affixed thereto their seals.
Done in duplicate in London on the twenty-sixth day of May, 1942, in the Russian and English language, both texts being equally authentic.
Axis forces in North Africa commenced an offensive operation, Operation Venice, with the goal of taking Tobruk.
On this war torn Tuesday of 1942 my father had his 13th birthday. He would have gone to Mass.
Not because it was his birthday, but because this is the Feast of the Ascension, a Holy Day of Obligation for Catholics.
In most diocese in the United States, this Holy Day has been transferred to a Sunday. But in Nebraska it has not. At this time, he would have been living principally in Scottsbluff, and therefore it would have been a Holy Day. My guess is that his family would have caught an early morning Mass.
Replacing old weapons where they don't need to be, and making a choice for a new one that's long overdue. Part 3
And here's our final installment of this overlong and probably boring series we started in April.
Canada is working on replacing its military handgun, and has run into a glitch.
Tribunal ruling causes pistol reboot
As readers of that article will learn, Canadian servicemen who have been waiting;
for their vintage nine-millimetre Browning Hi-Power semi-automatic pistols to be replaced will have to wait a while longer.
M'eh.
Now, how can I say that when I just approved of the replacement of the less vintage M16/M4 in the U.S. Army, sort of, and the much less vintage M249?
Well, because the Hi-Power isn't really going to be replaced by anything that needs to replace it.
The Hi-Power was a pistol that John Browning was working on at the time of his death in November 1926. Browning never really finished designing his automatic pistols even though various version of them had been in production by that time for over 25 years, and one of them, the Colt M1911, was a hugely successful military pistol already. In spite of that, a perfectionist, he kept working on the design and was doing so at the time of his death.
Upon his death, FN employee Dieudonné Saive took the design up and completed work on the handgun, which is frankly extremely similar to the M1911, in 1935. People can argue which is better and never reach upon a conclusion. At any rate, the gun went into immediate military use at the time, and in one of the strange ironies of the Second World War, it was used by both sides. The Germans, who used a lot of pistols, kept them under production in Belgium. The Allies were already producing them in Canada for Chinese contacts and took over those. It became the handgun used by Commonwealth paratroopers, although M1911s also were. After the war, it became the standard handgun of Commonwealth countries, in the same fashion that the FAL became their standard battle rifle.
They are still used by Australia and Canada, among others. Canadian ones were manufactured by the Canadian John Inglis plant.
Who?
The John Inglis Company.
Okay, you've probably never heard of Inglis, unless you are a history student. John Inglis and Company was a Canaidan manufacturing company that started firearms manufacturing just before World War Two, when the Commonwealth forces were rearming. It started off with Bren Guns and ended up making 60% of them for the Commonwealth forces. They also made Hi Power pistols for Commonwealth forces.
And then after World War Two, they stopped and went into appliances. In 1987 they were acquired by Whirlpool.
Canada's adopted the Hi Power pistol as its sidearm after the war, or sort of during the war, ultimately replacing a vareity of other things. They've apparently (although I somewhat question this) been using Hi Powers made during World War Two ever since.
If that sounds fantastical, keep in mind that there are still M1911s in use in the U.S. military, albeit rebuilt more than once, that were built during World War Two. Moreover, in 2020 a Browning M2HB .50 machinegun went into Anniston for refurbishing that had been built in 1933.
These things can last.
Which is actually a good argument for keeping them.
Canada wants to replace theirs.
Why?
Well, that's what armies do.
Okay, in fairness, they're old. And most of the nations that did use them no longer do. But that's more than a little bit because that's what armies do.
But not all.
Australian soldier firing a Hi Power. Australia still uses them as well.
It has something to do with handguns.
In most armies, handguns play a marginal role. There are some exceptions. In the U.S. Army handguns are sort of a big deal, which reflects their historical role in the U.S. Army, which is unique. But in most armies they aren't used a lot.
Given that, the fact of the matter is that they last a very long time and their actual role, while marginal, can be filled by about any modern handgun that's a good one.
And by modern handgun, we mean a handgun that came after 1910, more or less.
Semiautomatic handguns were perfected by John Browning at that point in time, and absolutely any of the good semiautomatic handguns made after that fit the bill. The bigger question, really, is cartridge.
Every theoretical development in handguns that has come after World War Two has been marginal at best. Making the bodies out of synthetics? M'eh. For really long-lasting handguns, the jury is still out on that. Striker fired? Yep, that's a good feature. . . albeit one that's been around since before 1910, but it's not such a big deal in a military handgun that it really actually matters.
Optical sights?
Military handguns are used so little, by most who carry them, that this would actually be a detriment. For special operators, sure. But their needs are unique, and they've always had unique supply chains. And most automatic pistols can be retrofitted for this anyhow.
So is there no argument for replacing them?
Well, maybe. But a person sure shouldn't leap to that conclusion.
The linked in article provides one reason:
This is even though Hi-Power parts are no longer available – production of the 1930s design ended in 2017. When Colt Canada, the government’s Strategic Source and Centre of Excellence for Small Arms, receives a batch for repairs, it generally cannibalizes nearly a third to salvage the rest.
The problem with that argument is that its wrong.
It was right at one time, but no longer is. As an erudite commenter on the article noted:
- Editor on April 12, 2022 at 7:50 pm
Thank you for the correction.
Reply- Yeoman on April 13, 2022 at 11:56 am
I actually learned since posting that there are now three, not two, companies making the Hi Power now. At least two of the three are making them in the US, including FN. I’m not sure about the third. Those used by the Canadian Army were originally made in Canada, but most of them are almost certainly FN made from Belgium, where production was once centered.
Again, none of this suggests that the Canadian armed forces must stick with the Hi Power, but rather notes that replacement parts should be available, fwiw.
Indeed, Hi Power's have come roaring back into production.
Almost like the M1911 did when something similar happened with it.
And that's worth noting.
Truth be known, the HI Power is an incredibly durable handgun, which its long service in multiple armies proves, and the advantages of its supposed successors is largely theoretical. By going to a newer handgun, the Canadian Army achieves. . . nothing.
Well, nothing in a "this is way better sense". Maybe some other advantage. . . although the experience of the U.S. Army would suggest not. If the advantage is that they now have a source of spare parts, well, they do already.
Last Prior Edition:
Replacing old weapons where they don't need to be, and making a choice for a new one that's long overdue. Part 2
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
Thursday, May 25, 1922. The mysterious death of Anna Richey.
The headlines in the paper in Casper dealt with the mysterious death of Anna Richey, the only woman to ever have been convicted of rustling in Wyoming.
You can read more about her here:
The Strange Life and Death of Anna Richey
Richey had died several days prior. Her ranch hand had been sickened in the same incident, attributed to poisoned coffee, and had only just sufficiently recovered to provide a statement. What ultimately basically transpired is that the two had worked that morning until about 10:00, when the mysterious stranger discussed in the article arrived, and then they'd gone into eat. Whomever the man in corduroy was, Richey had said nothing about her encounter with him at all.
Richey was out on a gentlemanly bond, having been given six months to get her affairs in order before being required to present herself for incarceration due to her conviction. She would have served time in the Colorado State Penitentiary, which was more suitable for her gender. She was poisoned, however, in what remains an unsolved mystery. Prior to the poisoning, as noted, and according to the herald, she was visited by a man who rode in on horseback and who was dressed in a corduroy suit, and wearing a "large" sombrero. It should be noted that, at the time, "sombrero" often simply meant a large cowboy hat.
The information from Richey's ranch hand on the mysterious stranger led to the release of Richey's brother-in-law, who had at first been arrested on suspicion of being the culprit in her murder. Whatever led to that suspicion, however, really isn't addressed by the arrival of the stranger. Whoever poisoned the coffee had done so prior to their consuming it. That it was not suicide seems evident by the fact that both Richey and her ranch hand drank the coffee, not just Richey.
Old and young soldiers were on the parade grounds at Ft. Meyers.
Gen. Nelson A. Miles and Anson Mills at Fort Meyer. May 25, 1922
One Year
Or actually even six months.
Or, if looked at another way, three years. . . or six, or seven, or eleven.
M'eh. Okay pre Boomer.
Henry Kissinger, age 98, is of the opinion that we need to make sure Russia gets some land out of its assault on Ukraine.
And we care what Kissinger's opinion is. . . why?
Maybe it was his role in the Paris peace process, by which we sold the Republic of Vietnam down the river. He got the Nobel Peace Prize for that, along with his Vietnamese colleague. The latter refused to accept it.
Kissinger did.
We know, of course, that Nixon had already confided in Kissinger that all he was looking for was a way to leave Vietnam without acknowledging defeat. The Republic of Vietnam would collapse, he knew, but that was okay as long it didn't happen too quickly.
Gee, that was great.
George Soros, age 91, warns us that this may be the start of a Third World War.
Oh, bull.
The logic that the world's toughest army turns out not to be able to fight its way out of a wet paper sack doesn't mean that it's going to use the only shell card it has left. That'd be stupid.
But for that matter, who cares what George Soros thinks?
No, I don't think Soros is super uber powerful super baddie like some seem to think. I just think he's a really rich dude and that doesn't make him the Dungeon Master of Dungeon and Dragons, Collapsed Russian Empire Edition.
By the way, Noam Chomsky, age 93, agrees with Kissinger.
I've never been able to figure out why anyone cares what Chomsky thinks on politics. He's a left wing red remnant, whose been wrong on these topics forever. Chomsky figures that the US is at fault for the war in Ukraine as we "pressured" Ukraine to join NATO, provoking a reaction justified reaction by the darling Supreme Soviet, um Putin by the Red, um Russian, Army.
How on earth do you get six weeks of trial time for a defamantion case?
I can't see any court giving six weeks of trial time for darned near anything, no matter how serious, in most instances. Somehow, if it involves celebrities, there seems to be piles of trial time.
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
The Wyoming Board of Geographic Names turns down a bad idea.
In a vote for art integrity, the Wyoming Board of Geographic Names refused Gregory Constatine's petition to name a bluff near Cody "Mount Jackson Pollack".
Pollack, as no doubt will be recalled, was the troubled artist who was born in Cody but who moved away with his family while an infant. His "artwork", which might be better defined as complete crap, has no association with the state and, as noted, is complete crap. It was boosted to some degree because of goofball Central Intelligence Agency sponsorship, unknown to Pollack at the time, based on the loony theory that if art that was complete crap was known to circulate in the United States Soviet citizens would somehow learn that and be impressed with freedom in the US.
The thesis was stupid, and Pollack's "artwork" is complete crap.
Constantine's artwork, which isn't much better than Pollack, features the bluff. He earlier proposed naming it after himself.
Monday, May 23, 2022
Saturday, May 23, 1942. Site for Heart Mountain Internment Camp chosen.
Today In Wyoming's History: May 23: 1942 Site for Heart Mountain, Wyoming, Internment camp selected.
Sunday, May 22, 2022
Friday, May 22, 1942. Selective Service Registration reaches down to 18.
Today In Wyoming's History: May 22:
1942 President Roosevelt orders the Selective Service registration of all male Americans residents who reach the age of 18 or 19 before June 30th or has reached the age of 20 since December 31, 1941.
Friday, May 22, 1942 Mexico Declares War on the Axis.
Today in World War II History—May 22, 1942: Mexico declares war on Germany, Japan, and Italy after many ships are lost to German U-boats. United Steel Workers of America is formed.
So notes Sarah Sundin on her blog.
Something little noted by most historians today, the Mexican declaration of war was significant to the United States, as it ended up releasing forces stationed on the border, which included two cavalry regiments from the Texas National Guard. The US had frankly been concerned about what side of the war Mexico would favor, with the single part state favoring strong central rule and having a wing that favored fascism. Having said that, the sympathies of the ruling party, the PRI, fell more heavily on the left, and indeed Mexico had teetered on the edge of outright Communism for a time during the 1930s. A change in leadership in 1940 brought in Manuel Ávila Camacho, the last general to serve as President of Mexico, who was a political moderate.
Camacho took a much more conciliatory view towards relations with the United States than his predecessors since the revolution, even though he had been an officer in revolutionary armies since 1914. Perhaps ironically, his opponent in the 1940 Mexican election was the retired right wing Mexican officer Juan Andreu Almazán, who traveled to the United States thereafter to seek support from the Roosevelt Administration for an intended revolution against Camacho. In this context, the US actually did favor Almazán over Camacho. Almazán's friendship with far right figures in the United States however doomed any support from the US.
In addition to starting the repair of relations with the US, Camacho, who was a practicing Catholic, ended the official PRI suppression of the Catholic Church.
Mexico would play a small role in the war militarily, but strategically its location made a difference to the allies in regard to shipping and control of the seas. Additionally, the Bracero Program brought Mexican farm laborers in, in a shift in US agricultural practices, that became more or less permanent.
Mexican fighter pilot and maintenance crew of the 201st Fighter Squadron.
In terms of combat units, Mexico contributed a fighter squadron, equipped with US aircraft, in the fight against Japan. 15,000 Mexican nationals joined the American armed forces, something that's rarely noted.
Also on this day, Pan Am initiated the use of corrugated cardboard cartons for cargo, a massive weight saving innovation.
Sparrow Force on Timor ambushes a patrol led by the Japanese "Tiger of Singapore", who was leading the patrol mounted on a white horse. He was killed.
Saturday, May 21, 2022
Thursday, May 21, 1942. Odd Fellows suspend conventions
Today In Wyoming's History: May 21: 1942 The Odd Fellows suspended their conventions and put money for the same into war bonds.
Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist Part XXXIII (Maybe) overruling Roe v. Wade. Let the misstated arguments, bad analogies, and outright lies begin. .
When in trouble, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.
Unknown.
Everyone has heard the news, of course, a leaked draft of a United States Supreme Court opinion would, if it becomes the final opinion, definitively overrule Roe v. Wade.
Which means that the Supreme Court has not overruled Roe v. Wade yet, and it very well may not, and if it does, it frankly likely will not in the form of the draft opinion, even though the draft is a good draft and this is the approach, absent one based on natural law, that they should take, in context.
Well, anyhow, a firestorm of predictable protests has broken out. So let's look at the controversy, such as it is, and the supposed issues and features of it.
A surprise that isn't a surprise.
Let's start with an obvious one.
Every legal analyst in the universe has known that Roe v. Wade was going to be overruled, so this is no surprise whatsoever. The huge surprise would be if it wasn't. This has been suspected for years.
So why the shock and amazement?
. . . a Lander resident, said she wasn’t surprised by the leaked draft, which was publicized Monday. But she was “a little surprised at the audacity of the claims that (Roe v. Wade) has been so wrong all along,” she said.
Casper Star Tribune.
Well, I really don't know, quite frankly, but part of it is simply manufactured. Indeed, for that reason I think the leaker is most likely from the political left, not the right. Since the leak, the press has taken up the theory that surely the leaker is from the right, and this is an effort to keep doubtful judges from straying. Knowing that protests would result with Roe was overruled, no matter what, the opposite is much more likely. The release was likely from the left, as part of a last ditch effort to keep Roe in place.
As part of that, quite frankly legal scholars have found the text of Roe to be wanting right from day one. Hardly noticed now, quite a few on the left questioned it for decades, and even such figures as Justice Ginsberg stated that the text was pretty much crap. The Court nearly overruled it at the time of the Casey decision, and apparently was set to until Justice Kennedy changed his mind out of a fear of what it would do to the court. Kennedy is my least favorite modern justice so that he'd become a limp noodle at this point only cements my opinion of him, quite frankly, but as he's done on to retirement, and the justices appointed after him were not of his mindset, that Roe would be reversed isn't a surprise at all.
Scary democracy.
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.
From the draft opinion.
So, after the tulmet and shouting, what does that draft, if it becomes the law, really do?
Well, if you listen to folks like Chuck Todd, Cossacks will be arriving at your house next Thursday to rifle through your drawers, steal your children, eat your lunch, and shave your cats.
Not so.
It does one thing, really, and only one. It returns the issue of legislating and regulating on the topic of abortion, to the voters, through their legislators.
That's it.
Basher: All right chaps. Hang on to your knickers. [He triggers the bomb, and the safe door cracks open.] [Laughing, Basher dances into the vault – and the alarm goes off] Basher: Oh leave it out! You tossers! You had one job to do!
Ocean's Eleven
And everybody loves democracy, and therefore the left in particular is excited about that, right?
Obviously not. So much so, that even legally trained Democratic politicians are willing to tell some huge whoppers about it.
The court's decision does one thing and one thing only. It returns this issue to the states, which means it returns it to the voters.
That doesn't deprive anyone of anything, if the concept of deprivation is even operable here. It doesn't tell women what to do about anything whatsoever.
Our nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.
* * *
Our decision returns the issue to those legislative bodies and it allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting and running for office. Women are not without electoral or political power
Justice Samuel Alito.
Well, that's just a sham, right because men control the vote, right?
Not so at all.
Women are registered to vote in the U.S. at higher rates than men. In recent years, the number of women registered to vote in the U.S. has typically been about 10 million more than the number of men registered to vote.
Rutgers.
And here's the thing, it's been shown that in states that will act to restrict abortion, like Oklahoma for example, the female electorate in those states supports those moves. That is, more women favor restricting abortion than not.
That's the way democratic societies are supposed to work.
Indeed, while there are indeed rights enshrined in the Constitution to protect minorities against majorities, they are few in number, and they should be. They must be limited to essentials to guard against demonstrated abuses, or they inflict abuses, or, and here's the thing, they can also address essential existential rights to protect them.
Well, that's what Roe did, right?
Not so much. Indeed, right at all.
What a conservative court could do, and didn't.
To listed to the press, you'd think that what the Supreme Court determined was that abortions should be illegal, which is completely false. But that's why this decision is not a "conservative" one, it's a libertarian one.
We've noted before that there are no real "conservatives" on the Supreme Court. If there were, a much different result could be reached.
At one time, the Supreme Court openly took the position that there was a natural law, and that the natural law deserved consideration in matters. It didn't always dominate, however, and a really good example of that is a case we've discussed here before, The Antelope. In that pre Civil War case the Supreme Court outright held that slavery was against the natural law, but not against the law of the United States, and therefore the law of the United States won out.
As abortion, however, involves the killing of a human being, no matter how a person may wish to camouflage that, a very different result could be reached.
Indeed, perhaps one thing the long build up to this debate may have served to do is to destroy the bogus arguments about the topic of abortion that had existed at one time. Early on there were plenty of people who claimed to not know when human life began, but hardly anyone takes that position anymore. Current abortion supporters either just don't address this at all, or are outright in their view that a mother has the right to off her child up to a certain point.
In order to take that position, except in the case of the life of the mother, a person is really limited, if they think it through, to a position of atheistic conveyance. That is, there's nothing beyond us and our immediate goals dominate. That argues, we'd note, not only for abortion, but also pretty widespread killing in general. Certainly euthanasia should be allowed, if we believe that, but we probably ought to kill most felons too, as it would be a lot cheaper and convenient if we did that, rather than warehouse them in prisons. And for that matter we probably ought to do in those with serious mental defects.
That very few really are for mass killing tends to demonstrate that few have really thought this through. It's much easier, frankly, just not to. If you do, this is the only place to go. Once we start killing for convenience, the old phrase "well. . he needed killing" begins to have pretty wide application.
Anyhow, a contrary natural law position is that all humans have a right to life that can only be forfitted to protect a person or society from the putative decedent inflicting bodily harm. Ie., generally, there's a right to self-defense, but that's where the line is drawn in an individual killing another person. And there's no reason that a really conservative court couldn't hold that the infant's rights and the mother's are co-equal, and therefore at a bare minimum she could not kill the infant save in the instance of the infant being set to inflict certain grave bodily injury.
And indeed, frankly, in the history of our laws, and in keeping with the concept of being secure in our persons, that's the opinion that would make the most sense.
That isn't the one the court decided. Not even close.
The Supreme Court has never taken away a right
This argument is based solely on the idea that the unborn child has no rights at all, that's the only way you can get the argument to work.
Even then it's a bad argument, although its the stare decisis argument. Essentially it holds that no matter how badly the Supreme Court messes something up, once they totally screw it up, it must be preserved as a screw-up for all time and eternity.
If this was the case, the Dred Scott decision, which held that a slave owner had a right to the return of his slave even if they crossed into a free state, would still be admired as a brilliant legal decision. Indeed, it should be noted, that holding wasn't much different than Roe. One party had a right, and the other didn't.
The Civil War and the post-war amendments took care of that situation, of course, not the Supreme Court itself. But the point is obvious. If some people had a right, for example, to a "separate but equal" education, and then that was changed, yes, you were taking away a right that had previously been extended, but one that needed to be because the prior decision was wrong.
This decision doesn't even go that far, of course. It just tosses things back to the states.
It jeopardizes other "rights"
This is the one argument, and the only one, that actually makes some sense, although only somewhat.
Because the fanciful creation of a fictional right by Roe utilized a discovery of a right that didn't actually exist within the "penumbra" of the Constitution, it created a method to extend such rights where they also didn't really exist in print. That created a frankly dangerous situation in that Roe was easy to cite as a basis for finding those rights existed.
Having said that, the impact here is much more limited than might be claimed. The claim that it's going to lead to a lot of state legislation regarding marriage, for example, is constrained by Loving v. Virginia, which predates Roe. So no matter what may be claimed, it's not the case that states can now outlaw interracial marriage, as some have suggested might now occur. That wouldn't occur anyhow, but the holding in Loving and what it means is in no way impacted.
What it might mean for same-sex marriage, however, is in fact much less clear. The reason for that is that the holding in Obergefell was frankly made up just like the holding in Roe, and everyone pretty much knows that. Indeed, Obergefell may be the last of the post 1970s decisions that really simply invented something out of whole cloth, and the process used to arrive upon it was nearly identical to that of Roe's.
Indeed, the near term history of it was as well. Like Roe, following it gained widespread acceptance while, at the same time, it was clear that it wasn't universally accepted, and it had the impact of simply preserving a debate rather than deciding one. Long term, therefore, it might very well be expected to have the same history. Given that, its frankly the case that it would be better if Obergefell was in fact overruled and this returned to the states right now. That won't occur, however, as it would be too traumatic for the court.
This likely might mean, however, that coming attacks on state's rights to regulate marriage, which has always been the legal norm, might be arrested. I.e., we may not see any polygamy challenges soon, which we could have expected otherwise.
The other thing we keep hearing is that this may mean that the Supreme Court will send the issue of the regulation of contraceptives back to the states. This is also unlikely.
The Court determined this issue before Roe as well, in 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut. The raising of the issue is a stalking horse, but it's not a wholly illogical thing to bring up. Rather than Roe being a foundation for Griswold, it's actually the other way around.
The thing here that's of interest is that contraceptives have become so accepted that their health hazards, known to a much better degree in 2022 than they were in 1965. That's not really on point, but it's interesting in that if the same pharmaceuticals were being released for the first time today, as they were then, I'm not sure the FDA would actually approve them for public safety reasons. At any rate, this decision, if it becomes law, has no impact on the 1965 opinion and no matter what the arguments on this topic are, or may have been, its doubtful this will change in any fashion, even if legally it probably really ought to revisit the topic.
That brings up "abortion pills". It's been claimed that this may mean, and it very well might, that states will outlaw these, or outlaw them coming by mail.
On the last item, that's a curious one, and particularly creepy one, which will simply note.
The thing here is whether or not court's will rule that this is simply an area dominated by the Federal Government through the Commerce Clause. Generally that's the case with pharmaceuticals and state's don't, and probably can't, regulate them at all. That issue is sure to come up, and the direction even the Supreme Court takes on this may very well be surprising to those panicking now. It should be noted, as will be below, that the entire concepts of abortion pills as legitimate pharmaceuticals is more than a little Orwellian and not much different than imagining small arms ammunition to be the same thing, but nonetheless, this is not nearly as predicable as some may imagine.
But what about. . .
Because so much of this is patently obvious, supporters of abortion resort rapidly to stalking horse arguments, the classic one being "well what about instances of rape or incest".
No normal person even wants to discuss rape and incest, so this argument sends a person into silence as a rule, but we'll point out here that at least as to rape, ever single living human being on the planet is undoubtedly a descendant from that event at some point. I know one very gentle soul who knows for a fact that, in his case, he is, his grandmother having been employed as a maid and suffering a rape from her employer. His "grandfather" was not, but rather a man who married her while she was still pregnant.
Here's the thing, a person is no less a person because of a rape. That's a hard truth, but a truth nonetheless. Yes, carrying a child due to rape must be awful, but nonetheless, killing a person because of it doesn't make the event less awful.
Interestingly here, I'd note, rape is one of the original common law felonies and was in fact punishable by death at one time. Seemingly nobody makes the argument that rapist should be executed, but then that argument does not have an equivalency here.
Incest is an even more horrific crime against the individual and nature, but the same arguments pertain.
In both instances, however, it would be noted that the number of abortions due to these events is incredibly small, something like 1% at most. So the argument that widespread bloodshed should be allowed because of the 1% is knowingly disengenguine. It's much like the logic that allowed white communities to wipe out entire black ones in the South due to an allegation of rape. One person, that is, was accused, typically falsely, but the entire black section of town is torched.
That in fact gets to two other arguments, one involving distance and the other involving race.
Another argument that's revived in this debate is the old one about somebody having to travel for miles and miles to another state to procure an abortion. First of all, that assumes abortion is legitimate to start with. But just as an argument, it's a dog that doesn't hunt anymore.
By and large, in states that will outlaw abortion, it's already the case that it's fallen out of favor to such an extent that people already experience this. So that won't change much. The other thing is that an argument that made some sense as an argument in 1973 doesn't anymore.
Indeed, in 1979 the Nitty Gritty Dirt band issued a song about wistful thinking of traveling that included this line:
Voila! An American Dream Well,
we can travel girl, without any means
When it's as easy as closing your eyes
And dream Jamaica is a big neon sign
That song involved a person dreaming of travel, but the "we can travel . . . without any means" became pretty much true in later years and almost was then.
The truth is, in the modern United States, this is already a feature of the landscape of this issue and, while people really hesitate to note it, the American culture of 2022 is so much wealthier than that of 1972 that things like travel are much less an impediment to anything than they were then. Indeed, the concentration of poverty in some urban areas of the United States actually reflects that, as the urban poor have migrated to them, rather than being stuck in urban areas that they were previously in by default.
That bring up the odd "particularly minority women", by which pro abortion people fall back on one of their oldest arguments, which is that abortion is necessary to off African American babies.
This treads on being a racist argument on their part, and it at one time very much was. Early proponents of any type of birth control often based their arguments on controlling the black population.
There's no overt effort to do this now, but the racist nature of the argument nonetheless comes through. It suggests that there's just something different about blacks and for abortion . . .
An interesting aside to this is the degree to which the WASP culture in the US is sort of a post children culture in and of itself. There are a lot of cultural aspects of that which are outside this debate, but regarding children as almost sort of a virus is part of it. Which gets to this
"Healthcare"
There's suddenly all sorts of claims and for that matter press about abortion being "healthcare".
Something that frustrates a natural process isn't healthcare, and that's obvious. The natural process is what is seeking to be prevented. It's the antithesis of healthcare. This is no more healthcare than it would be if you stopped into your doctor, and he just suggested killing you if you had a cold. Yes, it'd stop the cold alright, but sure wouldn't be healthcare. Accelerating death or actually causing it never is.
It'll impact the fall election.
Finally, this is really a different topic, but it comes up again and again. How will this impact the fall election?
The hope of Democrats is that it brings out hordes of enraged Democratic voters who will help them keep slim majorities in the House and Senate.
It won't.
If anything, recent history has shown that no matter what the issue is, Democratic voters tend to stay home and watch reruns of Dawson's Creek or something rather than go vote.
Last Prior Thread:
Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist Part XXXII. The, public address, forgetting where you are, graduation speech, ⚥,part II, exhibitionist edition.
Enough with this aggressive early spring shed hunting
An opinion worth noting.
I’m an avid outdoorsman, and hunt and fish every opportunity I get, but I've never taken this up and haven't quite grasped it. Some important points here by somebody well placed to make them.
Enough with this aggressive early spring shed hunting, people. Especially w/dogs. Stop disturbing wildlife at their energy nadir & stop removing critical minerals from landscapes. The calcium, phosphorus & other minerals will be recycled. Eventually into your next big buck/bull.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
“This is even though Hi-Power parts are no longer available – production of the 1930s design ended in 2017.”
FWIW, Hi-Powers are back in production. FN has resumed production of them, and the US Springfield Armory company has commenced production of them. Not that this should govern the choice, but its an error in the article.