History | ***Dave Does the Blog

Nikki Haley tries to dance around Slavery and the Civil War

Because the only acceptable answer in the GOP is that the Civil War was about Big Government!

It makes little difference what Nikki Haley actually believes. She simply cannot be trusted. She has shown herself adept at saying things that sound relatively sane one sentence, and then making appeals to the MAGA Right with the next.

She is either a fanatic herself, or (my belief) disingenuously willing to glibly court the fanatics.

And she is still arguably the least-worst of the folk at-all-possibly-getting-the-GOP-nomination-for-President .

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/27/haley-slavery-cause-of-civil-war-00133254

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

UPDATE:

Aaaand … Nikki Haley backtracks, admits that, yeah, slavery was the cause of the Civil War … which will doubtless draw more criticism from both sides.

She then deflects and says the person who asked the original question was a “Democratic plant” … which is altogether possible, but doesn’t address her inability to give the answer she knows is true in the first place.

So Haley is willing to tell the truth about the Civil War when forced to, but not when she isn’t. Got it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/12/28/nikki-haley-backtracks-on-civil-war-comments-says-of-course-slavery-was-the-cause/?sh=41062d6c622a

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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″]

Death by Willful Ignorance

Defiance of science leading to unnecessary death is not unique to COVID-era America.

James Garfield was a really cool guy.

He didn’t aspire to the presidency — he became an unexpected compromise candidate. But his Civil War record, and the high respect he had garnered in Congress for his modesty, integrity, intelligence, and dedication to the nation, made him a clear choice in 1880.

He was a strong but compassionate self-made man. He was deeply invested in opposing corruption, in protecting the civil rights of blacks, and in unifying a post-Civil War nation. He stood against the spoils system of governmental appointments, preferring a civil service that protected government from favoritism and partisan politics.

garfield assassination — James Garfield being shot in the back.

On July 2, 1881, four short months after he took office, he was shot by a disgruntled office-seeker, Charles Guiteau. One wound hittin his shoulder was relatively trival. The key gunshot, deep into his back … still didn’t kill him outright, missing any of his major organs.

Instead, he lingered on for over two months as sepsis slowly, agonizingly, claimed his body with “tunnels” of pus and blood and infection.

And that didn’t have to be the case.

Germ theory was something relatively new, the mid-19th Century work of European scientists like Semmelweis, Snow, Pasteur and Lister. But the demonstrable results of its recommendations had been widely adopted by doctors.

Doctors in Europe.

Louis Pasteur — Surely you don’t expect us to take seriously theories from some guy with a foreign name like “Pasteur” (or “Fauci”) do you?

In America, it was a fancy, newfangled, high-fallutin’, furrin’, totally nonsensical, un-American theory. Invisible creatures causing disease? We all know that’s due to bad air. After all, American doctors were the best there were, trained and hardened of the fields of the Civil War. There was nothing Europe had to teach us.

Besides … the idea of requiring doctors — professionals — to wash their hands before touching their patients? To not wear around their bloodied clothing, which demonstrated their dedication to their manly profession by the “robust stink of the surgery”? To clean their surgical instruments between uses? What sort of creepy, unbelievable, freedom-infringing, effeminate crap was that supposed to be?

So, yeah, Garfield had a serious bullet wound. But he had the finest physicians in the land coming to aid him, to investigate, to treat, to be part of the quest to save the great man’s life.

Exploratory surgery as we know it was out of the question. Doctors knew what to do if the wanted to find out what was going on inside someone, or find a bullet that was lodged within them.

You just stuck your fingers up inside of the body.

Your unwashed fingers, of course.

We know what we’re doing. We know better than those creepy Europeans with their “science” and know-it-all attitudes. They say we’re doing something unsafe. How dare they impose their standards on us? This nation is the greatest on Earth, and we stand for liberty!

Washing hands whenever you touched someone was bothersome. Washing surgical instruments equally so. Using disinfectants like carbolic acid was messy. American doctors treating Garfield declined to follow such namby-pamby recommendations, the so-called scientific discoveries of those Europeans be damned.

And so Garfield died a long, lingering, awful, unnecessary death.

* * *

Today there are still people insisting, against all evidence, that COVID-19 is a triviality, nothing worse than the flu. That not that many people get sick from it, that not that many who get sick actually die. That masks don’t limit the spread of the disease but are a tyrannical infringement on freedom. That vaccines are a conspiracy of foreigners and un-American people trying to force us to do things.

How many James Garfields have there been over the past twenty months, cut down before they could achieve their promise, due to the willful ignorance, stubborn stupidity, and misplaced nationalistic pride of people who reject science for what is convenient or soothing or politically comfortable?

How many more will die?

James Garfield death — What more could we have possibly done? It must have been a Chinese plot!

Do you want to know more?

Some late thoughts on MLK Day

Quotations from the man himself.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), was eminently quotable (though his tendency to re-use key phrases in multiple sermons, speeches, and writings, sometimes drives a quotation collector to distraction). Here are a few thoughts from him from my quotation collection that I find germane even today, over fifty years after King’s killing.

We must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means.

“A Christmas Sermon on Peace,” radio broadcast, CBC (Canada) (24 Dec 1967)

King’s focus on peaceful protest and civil disobedience remains a challenge to this day.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

“Beyond Vietnam,” speech, Clergy and Laity Concerned, Riverside Church, New York City (4 Apr 1967)

King was writing during the Vietnam War, but the issue is just as real today.

Now Jesus himself saw the power that competition holds over men. He did not ignore it. Yet he does something with the conception of competition that hadn’t been done before. He takes the conception which has been used for lower purposes and rescues it from many of its dangers, by suggesting a higher method of its use. This is how he applied the term to his disciples. He saw them in danger of using it for low purposes. They wanted to compete for reputation and position — “which of them should be accounted greatest?” Jesus says so, if you must use the power of competition, if you must compete with on another, make it as noble as you can by using it on noble things. Use it for a fine, unselfish thing. “He that is greatest among you shall serve.” Use it for human good. Who shall be the most useful. Compete with one another in humility. See which can be the truest servant. It seems that Christ says, “Use it, but use it for higher and holier purposes. Use it not to surpass one another in esteem, but use it to increase the amount of usefulness and brother-help.” Such conceptions of competition lead to the surprising and ennobling position that there can be competition without hate and jealousy. Behold! You can struggle to beat and yet rejoice to be beaten.

“Cooperative Competition / Noble Competition,” sermon outline

King had a repertoire of turning around familiar talking points — in this case, rejecting the idea of competition being necessarily bad, but noting that it depends on what one is competing for.

We must not seek to use our emerging freedom and our growing power to do the same thing to the white minority that has been done to us for so many centuries. Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man. We must not become victimized with a philosophy of black supremacy. God is not interested merely in freeing black men and brown men and yellow men, but God is interested in freeing the whole human race.

“Give Us the Ballot,” Speech, Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom, Washington, DC (1957)

King always made it clear that the struggle for equal rights for blacks was to the benefit of all Americans, not just blacks.

In the final analysis, love is not this sentimental something that we talk about. It’s not merely an emotional something. Love is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal to defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system.

“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (17 Nov 1957)

King saw the power of love going beyond sentiment to actual action.

We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws, because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail, and we shall still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you. But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer. One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.

“Loving Your Enemies,” sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (17 Nov 1957)

The summary of King’s teachings on peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. That’s why Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” Because if you hate your enemies, you have no way to redeem and to transform your enemies. But if you love your enemies, you will discover that at the very root of love is the power of redemption. You just keep loving people and keep loving them, even though they’re mistreating you. Here’s the person who is a neighbor, and this person is doing something wrong to you and all of that. Just keep being friendly to that person. Keep loving them. Don’t do anything to embarrass them. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with bitterness because they’re mad because you love them like that. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies.

“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (17 Nov 1957)

Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship. Forgiveness is a catalyst creating the atmosphere necessary for a fresh start and a new beginning. It is the lifting of a burden or the canceling of a debt. The words “I will forgive you, but I’ll never forget what you have done” never explain the real nature of forgiveness. Certainly one can never forget, if that means erasing it totally for his mind. But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a new relationship. Likewise, we can never say, “I will forgive you, but I won’t have anything further to do with you.” Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again. Without this, no man can love his enemies. The degree to which we are able to forgive determines the degree to which we are able to love our enemies.

“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (25 Dec 1957)

Forgiveness is hard.

This simply means that there is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies. When we look beneath the surface, beneath the impulsive evil deed, we see within our enemy-neighbor a measure of goodness and know that the viciousness and evilness of his acts are not quite representative of all that he is. We see him in a new light. We recognize that his hate grows out of fear, pride, ignorance, prejudice, and misunderstanding, but in spite of this, we know God’s image is ineffably etched in being. Then we love our enemies by realizing that they are not totally bad and that they are not beyond the reach of God’s redemptive love.

“Loving Your Enemies,” Sermon, Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery (25 Dec 1957)

In a time of division like today, words for thought.

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.

“On Being a Good Neighbor,” sec. 2, sermon, A Gift of Love (1963)

We sometime hear that the problems of poverty should be left to private charity. But even if that were adequate to meet the need (and it never has), it merely treats the symptoms.

The most dangerous type of atheism is not theoretical atheism, but practical atheism — that’s the most dangerous type. And the world, even the church, is filled up with people who pay lip service to God and not life service. And there is always a danger that we will make it appear externally that we believe in God when internally we don’t. We say with our mouths that we believe in him, but we live with our lives like he never existed. That is the ever-present danger confronting religion. That’s a dangerous type of atheism.

“Rediscovering Lost Values,” sermon, Second Baptist Church, Detroit (28 Feb 1954)

I have more respect for considered atheists than those who claim to follow a religion but, by their actions, do not.

As long as there is poverty in the world I can never be rich, even if I possess a billion dollars. As long as millions of people are inflicted with debilitating diseases and cannot expect to live more than thirty-five years, I can never be totally healthy even if I receive a perfect bill of health from Mayo Clinic. Strangely enough, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be.

“Remaining Awake through a Great Revolution,” Commencement Speech, Morehouse College, Atlanta (2 Jun 1959)

Empathy and compassion.

It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation. Not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say, “Wait on time.”

“Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution,” sermon, National Cathedral, Washington, DC (31 Mar 1968)

Sometimes waiting is appropriate. But sometimes it’s an easy excuse for not acting.

We need leaders not in love with money but in love with justice. Not in love with publicity but in love with humanity.

“The Birth of a New Age,” speech, Alpha Phi Alpha banquet, Buffalo (11 Aug 1956)

It may well be that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition is not the glaring noisiness of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. It may be that our generation will have repent not only for the diabolical actions and vitriolic words of the children of darkness, but also for the crippling fears and tragic apathy of the children of light.

“The Christian Way of Life in Human Relations,” speech, General Assembly fo the National Council of Churches, St Louis (4 Dec 1957)

A frequent theme of King’s, nudging audiences who thought of themselves too easily as the “good guys.”

Any church that violates the “whosoever will, let him come” doctrine is a dead, cold church, and nothing but a little social club with a thin veneer of religiosity.

“The Drum Major Instinct,” sermon, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta (4 Feb 1968)

It may be true that morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law can’t make a man love me, but it can restrain him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important also.

“The Other America,” speech, Stanford University (14 Apr 1967)

A riot is the language of the unheard.

“The Other America,” speech, Stanford University (14 Apr 1967)

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

“The Trumpet of Conscience,” Steeler Lecture (Nov 1967)

I must confess, my friends, the road ahead will not always be smooth. There will be still rocky places of frustration and meandering points of bewilderment. There will be inevitable setbacks here and there. There will be those moments when the buoyancy of hope will be transformed into the fatigue of despair. Our dreams will sometimes be shattered and our ethereal hopes blasted. We may again with tear-drenched eyes have to stand before the bier of some courageous civil rights worker whose life will be snuffed out by the dastardly acts of bloodthirsty mobs. Difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future.

“Where Do We Go From Here?” Southern Christian Leadership Conference Presidential Address (16 Aug 1967)

My personal disillusionment with the church began when I was thrust into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery. I was confident that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would prove strong allies in our just cause. But some became open adversaries, some cautiously shrank from the issue, and others hid behind silence. My optimism about help from the white church was shattered; and on too many occasions since, my hopes for the white church have been dashed. There are many signs that the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. Unless the early sacrificial spirit is recaptured, I am very much afraid that today’s Christian church will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and we will see the Christian church dismissed as a social club with no meaning or effectiveness for our time, as a form without substance, as salt without savor. The real tragedy, though, is not Martin Luther King’s disillusionment with the church — for I am sustained by its spiritual blessings as a minister of the gospel with a lifelong commitment: The tragedy is that in my travels, I meet young people of all races whose disenchantment with the church has soured into outright disgust.

Playboy interview (Jan 1965)

King’s disappointment with white Christian church response to his message came through repeatedly — and with justification.

Any religion that professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them is a dry-as-dust religion. Such a religion is the kind the Marxists like to see — an opiate of the people.

Stride Toward Freedom (1958)

King focused on civil rights, legal equality before the law. But he also was a proponent of economic rights and justice as well.

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

“I’ve Been To The Mountaintop,” speech, Memphis (3 Apr 1968)

King’s last public speech. He was assassinated the following day.

Independence Day

What is the meaning of July 4? Hint: It’s not about showing off tanks and jets.

When does the United States celebrate on July 4, “Independence Day”? What is it that John Adams wrote would be celebrated?

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

Is it the first noteworthy conflict with soldiery of the nation we rebelled against? Nope, would be the Boston Massacre, September 13.

How about the first defined military conflict with the British, at Lexington and Concord? Nope, that’s April 19.

Any other major Revolutionary War battles? Bunker Hill? Crossing of the Delaware and Trenton? Saratoga? Nope, those are June 17, December 26, October 17.

The British surrender at Yorktown? Nope, October 19. The Treaty of Paris, where Great Britain and the United States formally ended the armed conflict, recognizing American independence? Nope, September 4.

Unlike a lot of other countries, we don’t celebrate our national birthday based on a battle or war or even a violent protest. We have different days set aside to celebrate our military (Veterans Day, Memorial Day, etc.). We even have a different day set aside for the patriotic symbol of the US Flag.

Nor is it a date chosen to celebrate great individuals and their accomplishments, even among that generation. Presidents Day (the conglomeration of Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays) shows up in February. Not many still celebrate Thomas Jefferson Day (April 13), though it was once a big thing.

July 4 represents something special, transcendent of any one battle, any one enemy, any assertion of martial power, any one individual. It celebrates the ratification of the Declaration of Independence.

And the Declaration isn’t about the force of arms, but a document — a political document, a philosophical document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It declares those human rights and, as a ramification of them, the right of a people to change or throw off a government that commits offenses against them, a government in which the people have no voice, no ability to consent in how they are governed.

It’s an imperfect document, if only for the compromise of removing a clause condemning slavery in order to get the required unanimity from the Southern states. But even that omission does not change the overarching message of human equality and human rights.

The Declaration is not a statement of military might. It is not about how we have the strongest army, the shiniest cannon, the pointiest bayonets, the fiercest soldiers, the most powerful ships of war. It is, instead, about values, about what is important, about the natural rights of human beings. It isn’t a screed against a specific foe so much as it is a statement of principle as to what political truths we stand by, what is important to us, transcending all national boundaries and political divisions.

It could have been a document about military conflict and war. It could have talked about how we’d beaten the British, how we were all taking up arms, how we would fight to the last man. It could have been about Us vs. Them, centering on that as its basis for declaring revolt against the Crown. Instead, it spoke of a higher set of principles, principles that applied no matter who was the strongest, who was the most powerful, indeed, no matter who actually won the conflict already begun.

As Lincoln wrote in 1859:

All honor to Jefferson — to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.

That’s what we celebrate today. And those who seem obsessed with making it about military power, a display of our our might making us right, about how this day makes is bigger and better and more important than anyone else … it seems to me that they’re not only missing the point of the Declaration of Independence, and the day celebrating its ratification, they’re actively opposing it.

Casting about for a casus belli

The Trump Administration’s “proof” about Iran attacking ships is far from convincing.

Despite Trump and his Administration baldly asserting that Iran is behind the tanker attacks in the Straits of Hormuz this week, there remain far more open, unconfirmed, and even weird questions about attacks and their aftermath. To name just a few …

Why would the Iranians attack a Japanese tanker while hosting the Prime Minister of Japan, who was there on a peace mission?
Why does the crew of the Japanese tanker say that the ship was hit by flying objects, not mines?
If you’re sneaking up to a ship to remove a limpet mine you put there which didn’t go off for some reason, do you have all your crew crowd around while you’re removing the unexploded mine?
If those were the Iranians doing that, why did the UN Navy just let them do so and and then sail off without, apparently, tracking where they went?
How do the Iranians benefit from all of this?

That last one is key in this. Cui bono?, “To whom the benefit?” is an old Roman legal maxim. When seeking suspects, figure out who gains an advantage, who has a motivation.

Analyzing motivations is by no means foolproof, of course, as it assumes a certain level of rationality, enlightened self-interest, command and control within all the parties involved, and that you have sufficient facts on hand. On the other hand, just making assumptions based on biases toward an end you are seeking is even more of a mook’s game.

So how does Iran benefit by attacking these ships, at this time?

One semi-rational suggestion I’ve read about this (beyond vague “They’re crazy religious fanatics, go figure?”) is that by causing oil prices to surge, Iran’s restricted oil exports are worth more. That seems a very high stakes way for a short term gain.

Another suggestion is that Iran is sending (while denying the attacks for international sensibilities) a veiled signal that it could cause significant economic damage, if it chose to, and if it is in fact attacked by the United States. The risk calculus there still seems dodgy, but the Iranians (among others) might not see it that way.

So, yes, these attacks certainly could be Iranian. That might even be the most likely answer. Or they could be by Iranian proxies, enough at arms length for plausible deniability.

Or, alternately, they could be Saudis or Emirate forces, looking to get the US to attack their regional enemy (and, hey, drive up oil prices, too!). For that matter, I have full faith in the Israelis being able to stage this, should they choose to see this as a way of taking down by proxy what they consider an existential enemy.

And that doesn’t even count the terrible possibility that it was actually perpetrated by US forces under a false flag.

Given US history, and our willingness to rush to war on mistaken or intentionally fabricated facts (the Maine, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin, the war in Iraq), and given the staggering cost in blood and money that war incurs, we should always question the proof provided as a casus belli, and call for it to be of the highest transparency possible. We need convincing evidence, presented by convincing representatives.

In this case the scanty proof (mostly assertions) given us by a US Administration whose leaders have made it clear they are itching for a reason to take down the Iranians, and whose penchant for dishonesty on matters small and great is staggering, is as yet unconvincing.

Do you want to know more?

Why are there TWO National Doughnut Days?

Besides everyone liking doughnuts, that is.

Well, the obvious answer is, “To sell more doughnuts.”

As to why there is even one National Doughnut Day (not to mention a National Jelly-Filled Doughnut Day and a National Cream-Filled Doughnut Day) … well, this article helps explain the World War I-related origins of at least the first one.

Do you want to know more? Why Are There Two National Doughnut Days? | Mental Floss

The new Cold War with China

Team Trump’s actions toward the PRC are becoming more aggressive.

Mike Pompeo’s blistering condemnation of China’s past actions on this 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre[1] — and China’s double-barreled retort — highlight a steadily deteriorating relationship between the US and China. It’s occasionally belied by the “Xi is my bestest friend (after Kim!)” rhetoric from the President but, coupled with the escalating trade war and tensions in the South China Sea, it’s more than a little ominous.

With this President, though, one always has to wonder. Would these storm clouds disappear if China satisfied Trump on something flashy, like trade? Or, conversely, is it setting up Trump to be the Great Hero against the Chinese Menace (since support for his escalating tariffs and and their economic disruption is tepid at best)?

In other words, how much of this is driven by authentic resistance to actual deplorable behavior by China — on human rights, on maritime law, on economic issues — and how much is a convenient excuse to beat the war drums (against yet another nation) so as to rally the country just in time for a presidential election …?

We will, doubtless, find out in the coming several months.

Do you want to know more?

[1] To be fair, an absolutely legit statement on Pompeo’s part.

The Banning of Segregation

As a nation we once stood against discrimination, even when dressed up as “religious freedom”

Brown v. Board of Education—Supreme Court found segregated schools unconstitutional 65 years ago this week: pic.twitter.com/b2Li6CKViM
— Michael Beschloss (@BeschlossDC) May 13, 2019

RT @BeschlossDC: Brown v. Board of Education—Supreme Court found segregated schools unconstitutional 65 years ago this week: https://t.co/b…

This week we commemorate the banning of “separate but [though it never was] equal” as a dodge to allow segregation.

Gosh, remember back when claims of “religious freedom” (as some folk used to defend “the Biblical separation of the races”) as an excuse for discrimination (racial discrimination in particular) were laughed out of court?

Yeah, I get nostalgic for those days, too.

Trumpdependence Day

Donald Trump has decided that the 4th of July is a great time for a political rally

I can say in all complete honesty that the last thing I want to do (and the least patriotic thing to do, in my opinion) on the Fourth of July is listen to Donald blather from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. https://t.co/NSiIn6mn1W #trump #IndependenceDay
— ***Dave Hill (@Three_Star_Dave) May 11, 2019

I can say in all complete honesty that the last thing I want to do (and the least patriotic thing to do, in my opinion) on the Fourth of July is listen to Donald blather from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. https://t.co/NSiIn6mn1W #trump #IndependenceDay

Because of course the Federal Government should elbow the city of Washington, DC, aside, and turn the Fourth of July into a Trump-centric MAGApalooza celebration.

Also, Abraham Lincoln was an unassuming man of strong moral fiber, a reputation for honesty, admitted self-doubt, a dedication to preserving the unity of the nation, forgiveness toward his enemies, and self-deprecating humor. The idea of Donald Trump giving a speech from his memorial building is … appalling.

Do you want to know more? Trump moves DC July 4 fireworks display, plans to deliver remarks: report | TheHill

Sinification

China is in a campaign to literally tear down the cultural heritage of the Uighurs

China's in the US news largely over tariffs and trade wars that Trump is bombasting us into. But China's guilty of more profound crimes than currency manipulation or refusing to cater to the US President's publicity needs. https://t.co/v4XlP1P4hD
— ***Dave Hill (@Three_Star_Dave) May 10, 2019

China’s in the US news largely over tariffs and trade wars that Trump is bombasting us into. But China’s guilty of more profound crimes than currency manipulation or refusing to cater to the US President’s publicity needs. https://t.co/v4XlP1P4hD

Not that US hands (or other nations, for that matter) have been clean in the past when it’s come to indigenous populations who “need” to be managed, pushed out of the way, or made more like “us”. But China’s doing it right now, in front of everyone’s eyes, and most of the concern is focused instead on trade and tariffs.

But inclusion is HAAAARRRRDDDD!

Parents are claiming that explaining what #LGBTQ people are is too difficult, that their kids will be "confused." That seems to be their excuse, at least. https://t.co/J0dgFDLaFy
— ***Dave Hill (@Three_Star_Dave) May 9, 2019

Parents are claiming that explaining what #LGBTQ people are is too difficult, that their kids will be “confused.” That seems to be their excuse, at least. https://t.co/J0dgFDLaFy

A California school district has found that a substantial number of parents don’t like the idea of their kids learning about “the accomplishments of LGBTQ Americans”.

But it’s not that they’re biased against gay and trans people! Perish the thought! It’s just that … well … having to answer questions from their third grade kids about what “LGBTQ” means is … um … tough.

Because clearly their first instinct is to have to talk about gay sex, and that’s clearly inappropriate. But if they tone it down to say it’s “boys who get married to other boys” or “girls who get married to other girls,” etc., well, that’s, um, kind of making it sound like something normal. Acceptable. Allowed.

And … well … we can’t have that, can we?

A Day in the Life: 4 May 2019

It’s an odd confluence of events and commemorations.

Three things of note.

It is, of course, Star Wars Day. “May the Fourth be with you,” as they say. James messaged me that, and when I mentioned it to Mom, who’d never heard it, it drew a chuckle. So totally worth it.
Yes, an awful joke, but it still always draws a chuckle from me.
This is the fifth anniversary of Dad’s passing. I don’t talk about it much, even now, though I still think of him often — what he would think of something, how he would enjoy a joke, music he would enjoy, all that kind of thing. I miss him.
Dad, with Mom, on a visit to the Denver Botanic Garden
This is the fiftieth (!) anniversary of my First Communion. Which I only remember because the gift I got for it, a St. Christopher medal I wore for many years, had the date engraved on the back: 5-9-69.
It’s not something that means quite as much theologically to me as it once did, but it was a huge milestone in my childhood, and that it’s hit that kind of anniversary is … well, once in a lifetime.
Ah, the joys of old school photos.

It was a nice day — sleeping in, running errands with Margie, texting with the boy, dinner out with Mom. Pleasantly domestic and familiar. An odd confluence of anniversaries and events, with an otherwise pleasantly ordinary day, but, then, ever.

Cursive! Folioed again!

The return of cursive handwriting might have good reasons, but mostly bad ones.

I am sure there might be good reasons for kids to learn cursive that aren’t “Because I did, dammit!” but they aren’t among those in the attached article (about revanchist efforts, mostly by political conservatives, to push cursive training back into schools).

Among the reasons given:

People who don’t know how to write in cursive won’t seem educated. — That seems very … subjective. Once upon a time people who couldn’t decline in Latin and Greek didn’t seem educated, but we seem to have gotten over that.
“Part of being an American is being able to read cursive writing” — Um … that seems even more subjective, and, yeah, I really don’t buy it.
The Founding Fathers all knew cursive, as demonstrated by John Hancock in that quintessential document, the Declaration of Independence. — The Founding Fathers wore wigs, too (and, as noted previously, had learned Latin and Greek).
Knowing cursive helps you read prominent historical texts in their original handwriting. — Only if you don’t trust the printed transcriptions. Also, there are a lot of prominent historical texts that require knowledge of, dare I say it, Latin (e.g., the Magna Carta). Actually, Louisiana passed a bill requiring cursive education because, in part, the Magna Carta was written in cursive — while not also mandating Latin education. That strikes me as a bit … uneducated.

Magna Carta, from the Bodleian Library. Does knowing cursive help you read and appreciate it?

Signatures are important and require cursive. — Most people’s signatures are unintelligible scrawls, and the need for signing stuff continues to dwindle every year.
“Your cursive writing identifies you as much as your physical features do” — And your non-cursive writing doesn’t, too?
“The fact that American kids couldn’t do cursive made us vulnerable to the Russian menace.” — We still managed to beat ’em. Maybe it’s because we use a Latin alphabet instead of a Cyrillic one.
“It’s a lifelong skill that is part of a well-rounded education. Why leave it out?” — Because there are only so many hours in the educational day, and it’s unclear that’s a more important “part of a well-rounded education” than math, science, reading, writing, art, music, theater, PE, or all the other demands on kids times. Hell, we’ve already carved out vast swathes of time to teach kids to do well on standardized tests — none of which require cursive — that eating into the remainder to teach how a second way of forming letters that most people will find of minimal practical application in their life seems goofy.

The article does note that there are some studies that seem to indicate that learning and using cursive may have some interesting positive effects in brain development and the like. Of course, it also appears that some of those studies come from … companies that sell cursive handbooks and the like.

I don’t particularly object to cursive. I just want people to be honest that they are pushing for it because they think it’s cool and since they had to learn it they want their kids to, too. Dressing it all up in dubious patriotism or incomplete cultural pedagogy only discredits the argument.

My personal preference, though, may be showing through. I dropped handwriting almost as soon as I was allowed to do so, evolving a block script that served me just as well. (My actual cursive is exquisite, as I never learned any bad habits over years except with my scrawl of a signature.)

That said, 99% of the writing I do, I do at a keyboard. I’d rather kids were getting solid training on that before we bother with cursive.

Do you want to know more? Cursive Seemed to Go the Way of Quills and Parchment. Now It’s Coming Back. – The New York Times

Fire at the Cathedral

The damage to the 800+ year old Notre Dame structure is a cultural tragedy

As an historian, watching the gutting of the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris is wrenching. In my life, and in my studies, I’ve come to realize that nothing material is permanent, but watching entropy take its toll is awful.

It appears that most of the external structure is still intact, and at least some of the rose windows as well. What was there can be rebuilt, though as one scholar noted, the “layers of history” — the things that were tweaked, covered over, redone, repainted, revised over the centuries, that “revision trail” has been lost. One can theoretically replace the appearance of everything that was there (in such a highly photographed and studied structure), but it will always be a replacement.

From a Christian perspective, it’s both tragic as a loss, but also darkly ironic as Lent is wrapping up — Remember, man, that dust thou art, and to dust thou shall return. Again, nothing material is permanent, and relying on such permanence is vanity and delusion.

My thoughts go out to the people of France, and Paris, and my appreciation to the fire fighters who struggled in the face of danger to protect what they could.

Do you want to know more?

The Last of Doolittle’s Raiders

Dick Cole, the last of the B-25 crewmen who flew “Thirty Seconds over Tokyo” in the first daring WWII air raid of Japan, has passed away at 103. Cole was mission leader Jimmy Doolittle’s co-pilot.

The April 1942 attack was as much symbolic as anything else — a first-ever (and one-way) carrier launch of tactical bombers …

Doolittle-raid-uss-hornet-b-25-bomber-airborne — B-25 taking off from the USS Hornet

… attacking five Japanese cities, then ditching (for the most part) over China, nearly 1500 miles beyond.

Doolittle-raid-1942-us-world-war-two-bombing-mission-map — Newspaper map of the Doolittle Raid.

But even if its actual military effect was relatively small, it was a huge morale booster for the US, four months after the Pearl Harbor debacle, and demonstrated Japan’s vulnerability to bombing (a method of attack that would escalate to horrific proportions during the course of the war).

Cole was the last of the 80 raiders to pass away. In post-war life he was a citrus farmer in Texas.

Thank you, sir, for your service, those many years ago.

Do you want to know more?

The Tangled Histories of the Captains Marvel

One who was first called it isn’t any more. One who is now called it wasn’t before.

I knew pretty much all of this, but it’s still a fine analysis of “Captain Marvel” — the origin story(ies), why the original isn’t called that any more, why the one called by that name isn’t the original even in their own comic book company, and why the story is entangled not just with two comic book companies but with others foreign and domestic.

But the story of the Captain Marvels begins decades before Marvel Comics was even calling itself “Marvel Comics,” and it’s much, much wilder than you could ever expect. Among other things, it involves Superman, Spawn creator Todd McFarlane, the UK’s Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act of 1955, the word “atomik” spelled backwards, and preeminent United States legal scholar, Judge Learned Hand.

And I liked this:

They say that life is stranger than fiction, but I know it to be true; because both Marvel and DC Comics have characters known as “Captain Marvel,” and in 2019, both of those characters have feature films out within a month of each other.

The tangled stories of the Captains Marvel is darned fun. Enjoy: Shazam & Captain Marvel are forever linked. This is the wild story why – Polygon

Once again, no, Hitler’s “National Socialism” wasn’t what anyone talks about when supporting “socialism”

Well, unless they’re talking about the former to discredit the latter.

Critic socialist politics and economic theory in the US — on the upsurge within the left wing of the Democratic party — have a particular gun they love to pull out.

[Alabama Rep. Mo] Brooks went on, saying, “In that vein, I quote from another socialist who mastered big lie propaganda to a maximum, and deadly, effect.” And then, after reading a long quote about how “broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature,” Brooks got to his big conclusion:
“Who is this big lie master? That quote was in 1925 by a member of Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party—that’s right, Germany’s socialist party—more commonly known as the Nazis. The author was socialist Adolf Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf.”

Yeah! Hitler was a socialist, thus socialists are like Hitler!

It’s rubbish logic (Hitler was an Austrian, thus Austrians are like Hitler; Hitler was a national leader, thus national leaders are like Hitler; Hitler was a war veteran, thus war veterans are like Hitler; etc.). Worse than that, it’s nonsense: Hitler was not a “socialist” as the word is used today, and not even as the word was seriously used 90 years ago. Hitler considered socialists (like the actual “German Socialist Party”) both as rivals and as philosophically opposed to his own beliefs — and, as he rose to power, brutally suppressed them.

Bear in mind that in the 1930s, party / faction / gang labels like “worker” and “labor” and “socialism” were way cool, regardless of actual economic theory and politics. A reaction against the Great Depression, class warfare from above, and the German national trauma from WWI, any number of groups adopted those names to gain popular support, just as they bandied about “patriotic” and “national” in the same way.

Beyond that, the article below goes through the origin of that German party’s name, some very specific German history that led to Hitler and the party he eventually took over, and precisely what Hitler thought about “socialism” as it was actually advocated in 1920s-30s Germany. It’s worthwhile reading that I won’t repeat here, except that (to vastly simplify) Hitler was looking to bind up all of the right society (productive “Aryans”) under a fascist regime, with himself as the leader, and with full support of (and profit to) the industrialist and military leadership and wealthy and nobility. In his own words:

Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic… We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.

Not quite a “Green New Deal,” or Medicare-for-All.

Instead, his “national socialism” allowed Hitler to rise to power with the full support of the “right kind” of people, alongside industrialists and corporations and the rich and powerful — the latter of whom were full partners with the Nazi apparatus, supporting his war effort as well as assisting in and enabling Hitler’s death camps, to which were sent Jews, but also a variety “Others” — Romany, gays, mentally disabled, and, yes, political opponents like union organizers and socialists.

As the article author notes:

Nazism aligned itself with industrialists and corporations that would ultimately utilize Nazi slave laborers and patent the chemicals used in Nazi death camps to kill millions of men, women, and children. The word “socialist” doesn’t change that, just as the word “Democratic” does not make the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — North Korea — a democracy.

Or a republic, for that matter.

One can argue for or against socialism as a whole (bearing in mind the broad array of arrangements and theory that fall under that label), or even better about specific proposed policies that strike one as “socialist”. But if you’re going to do so, do it without non sequitur references to “National Socialism” in Germany in the 20s and 30s, if you’re looking to actually have the discussion and not merely throw around smears.

Do you want to know more? Adolf Hitler was not a socialist – Vox

The Turning of the Seasons

Major League Baseball no longer has any actives who played the 20th Century.

You can officially feel old now.

This year, for the first time, there are no players on Opening Day rosters who were playing Major League Baseball in the 20th century. And MLB is about to see its first player who was born in the 2000s.
There were two Major Leaguers in 2018 who had played in the 1990s: Adrian Beltre and Bartolo Colon. Beltre retired at the end of last season after a 21-year Hall of Fame-caliber career that began in 1998. The 45-year-old Colon — who debuted in 1997 and has pitched 21 seasons in the big leagues — has not retired and has expressed the desire to continue his career, but he’s unsigned entering Opening Day.
Ichiro Suzuki, who played the Mariners’ first two regular-season games in Japan last week before announcing his retirement, didn’t start his Major League career until 2001. So did two other players who entered Thursday on their team’s Opening Day roster — Albert Pujols of the Angels) and CC Sabathia of the Yankees. They’re the earliest debuters left of anyone on an MLB active roster.

Also interesting — despite the sense that baseball is a bit softer on its players than football or basketball, MLB is the first league this has happened to; the NFL and NBA and NHL all still have active players who started in the 1990s.

[Handwave discussion about which century 2000 belongs in.]

Nothing earth-shattering, to be sure, just … an observation about the passing of time.

Do you want to know more? Baseball says goodbye, literally, to 20th century

NASA’s space suit problem

I don’t think I’ve ever seen or read SF that thought about this particular issue.

NASA had a bit of egg on its face recently when it had to cancel a two-woman space walk because, well, they only had one space suit in their mutual size.

But the reality is actually more complex — and even less complimentary to NASA and the general state of the nation’s space planning. The existing wardrobe of space suit pieces is over 40 years old, designed for the space shuttle program. NASA doesn’t have the budget to make new ones, and, as importantly, doesn’t know what sort of space suits to make as US space priorities seem to change every 4-8 years.

Do you want to know more? NASA Space Suits Were Never Designed to Fit Everyone – The Atlantic

Bach again, after all these years

Google helps you create a Bach ditty.

Today’s Google Doodle (in some areas of the world) is celebrating the birthday of Johann Sebastian Bach, the greatest European Baroque composer.

You even can even create your own little Bach-esque tune by entering in four notes and then watching the AI generate the accompaniment based on Bach’s extensive corpus of music.

Here was mine.

It’s the first AI-powered doodle that Google has put out. Fun stuff.