Can I Change My Mind

The first hit single from Tyrone Davis.  In 1968, it hit #1 on the R&B charts, replacing Marvin Gaye's I Heard It Through The Grapevine, and rose to #5 on Billboard.  Smooth vocal and listen to that guitar riffing throughout!

The Vastness

Three previously unknown Roman forts have been identified in the bleakness and isolation of the Arabian Desert.  First located via Google Earth, they are in the southeast part of present-day Jordan, adjacent to Saudi Arabia.  As reported in Sky News and elsewhere, the discoverers and authors of a new study believe the forts were built in support of the Roman takeover of the Nabataean kingdom after the death of its king in 106 AD.  

The discovery is another example of the realization in recent decades that the Roman expansion into Arabia went much further than thought by earlier scholars.  On the map above, you can see Dumat al Jandal in the far southeast, an oasis deep within the desert.  We now know that Roman centurions were stationed here during the second century AD to monitor and police trade routes between the Persian Gulf and Nabataea.

More on the history of the Nabataean Kingdom and the Roman penetration into Arabia and the Red Sea can be found in The Farthest Outpost.

Youngblood Hart

The only song listed in Bob Dylan's The Philosophy of Modern Song that I've been unable to find on YouTube or iTunes is Alvin Youngblood Hart's version of Stephen Foster's Nelly Was A Lady.  I'd never heard of Youngblood Hart before and though I couldn't find Nelly I started to listen to some of his other recordings.  Turns out he's a terrific guitarist and vocalist.  This is his version of In My Time Of Dying, recorded in 2005, composed by Blind Willie Johnson who recorded it in 1928.

I've featured a couple of other Blind Willie songs previously, Dark Was The Night, Cold Was The Ground, and Trouble Will Soon Be Over.  In My Time of Dying has been covered by many artists, most notably Led Zeppelin.  I prefer the Youngblood Hart version.

They Seem Like Our Thoughts

 I like this sentiment from author Richard Brookhiser.

We love them, they seem like our thoughts. https://t.co/0NBbmwu8p2

— Richard Brookhiser (@RBrookhiser) April 26, 2023

I also worry that my books will have no home when I am gone.  I could not articulate why I felt that way until seeing Brookhiser's comment and realized I felt the same.  The books that I still have physical copies of are connected to my thoughts and worldview.  Whether fiction or non-fiction, whether or not I agree with everything in them, they all have something important to say.  Sometimes it is the substance, sometimes it is simply the beauty of the writing and, sometimes, both.

Over the years I've probably donated more than 1,000 books in various culling processes, particularly when we moved from Connecticut to Arizona.  And over the past 15 years much of my reading has been on Kindle so the physical book never comes into my possession.  I still prefer reading the physical book over the Kindle, but with travel ease and the need to discipline myself to limit further accumulation, I've had to make some accommodations.

Our home here is also less suitable for large scale book display.  Most of my books in the house are in this cabinet you see pictured below, with a few others, primarily on the history of the Southwest, on a cabinet nearby.  I also have probably three times as many books in our storage unit, all shelved and organized.  After going through the stored books several times and making donations, I've reached the point where it is difficult to do any more culling.  It's because they do seem like my thoughts and represent something of value to me.

A Bipartisan Note

Axios reports that Congressional lawmakers of both parties are expressing interest in changing Medicare policies that currently allow hospitals to charge more for the same service than when it is provided by a private doctor.  This is a crazy policy which over the past decade had led to the purchase of many private practices by hospitals, because it allows hospitals to increase their profits (yes, even "non-profit" hospitals which can be very lucrative places to work at).

I had this conversation with my PCP in Connecticut before we moved.  He liked private practice and building a relationship over the long term with his patients, but financially things were getting tighter between Medicare and private insurance rules.  He explained that hospitals get paid more by Medicare for providing the same service than he could get in private practice and it was why so many doctors were selling their practices to hospitals and becoming employees.  The process results in yet another set of rules (hospital) further interfering with the doctor-patient relationship.  Before than I had no clue this was an issue but since have heard the same from other physicians in private practice.

Proponents of change are advocating for "site-neutral" payments where it does not make a difference where the service is provided.

Along with some bipartisan Congressional support, Axios reports that think tank support is also across the political spectrum:

Proponents include the Koch-led Americans for Prosperity, the center-left Progressive Policy Institute and high-profile health policy scholars like Brookings Institution's [liberal] Loren Adler and the American Enterprise Institute's Brian Miller [conservative].

As you might expect, the American Hospital Association is fighting back.  Axios reports:

"We need to be sure we bring enough discomfort to make sure members understand this is a non-starter," Stacey Hughes, AHA's executive vice president for government relations and public policy, told hospital executives at a Washington, D.C. conference this week.  "If we can do that well, we hope that goes to the back burner and doesn't see the light of day in a true markup," she said.

The AHA is pretty powerful.  We'll see how this goes, but changing the current rule would be good policy.

Images

I like words, but images are more powerful.  Particularly if you are mass communicating.

I've spent a lot of time on the Russia Collusion story, the biggest political scandal of my lifetime.  Hillary Clinton, Adam Schiff, the Intelligence Community, the New York Times, and the Washington Post could not have harmed the stability of our democracy and trust in institutions more if they'd been paid agents of the Kremlin (the same can be said about Donald Trump for his behavior since the 2020 election).   Think of it as Watergate, but with the Times and Post on the side of the Nixon administration.

To do my investigation I did not watch any TV or cable news; I read.  I read the Department of Justice IG Reports, the Mueller Report, all four of the Carter Page warrant applications, the Intelligence Community assessment, released publicly in January 2017.  And the hundreds of pages of the Strozk - Page texts, the Confidential Human Source transcript regarding George Papadopolous, various litigation filings and FISA Court decisions, and the 5000+ pages of House Intelligence Committee interviews with 53 people, pages suppressed by Adam Schiff for more than a year until his hand was forced by DNI Grenell, who threatened to release them on his own (for more, read the 53 Transcripts series). 

Here's what you can learn just from reading source documents about the most recent public event, the trial of Igor Danchenko.  I predicted his acquittal, which I think the right result, but based on his own filings and the testimony of FBI agents at trial, this is what we also learned:

In the fall of 2016, the FBI offered Christopher Steele $1 million if he could substantiate the allegations in his dossier.  Steele never responded. 

The FBI agent handling Danchenko testified that Danchenko was responsible for 80% of the factual allegations and 50% of the analysis in the Steele dossier. (Correction, June 9, 2023; Reading the Durham report, this is Danchenko's personal assessment with which Durham concurs, but it is not that of the FBI agent).

The FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst, serving as the direct contact with Danchenko, confirmed the agency was never able to corroborate Danchenko's claims.

Danchenko's successful defense was based on his contention that when interviewed by the FBI, beginning in late January 2017, he told them that he was merely passing on gossip and stories he'd heard and did not stand behind the accuracy of any of it.  Further, he did not know Steele would use the information as he did in the dossier.  And, finally, he contended the FBI's questions were so vague and open-ended that his responses did not constitute false statement.

The FBI learned from Danchenko that Charles Dolan was the source of the allegation that during Donald Trump's pre-presidential Moscow visit he specifically requested the same hotel room President Obama had stayed in, and Trump then cavorted with prostitutes whom he asked to urinate on the bed.  (This was the one allegation FBI Director Comey made sure to mention to Trump when he first briefed the president-elect on the dossier on January 6, 2017, and was highlighted in media coverage when the existence of the dossier became public).

Charles Dolan is a Democrat associated lobbyist in Washington who had served as Executive Director of the Democratic Governor's Association.  He was Virginia State Chairman of the Clinton-Gore Campaign in 1992 and 1996, served as an advisor on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, and was a Clinton supporter in 2016.  At the same time, Dolan also turns out to have represented the Kremlin in its public relations in the United States and was regularly meeting with Vladimir Putin's head of communications.  [This was not the only Clinton-Kremlin connection in 2016; FusionGPS, the firm hired by Clinton's lawyers at Perkins Coie, which, in turn hired Christopher Steele to compile the dossier was, at the same time, representing a Putin-connected Russian oligarch in an effort to get Congress to repeal the Magnitsky Act which imposed sanctions on a number of Russian oligarchs.  And Christopher Steele was working for yet another Kremlin connected oligarch at the time!]

We learned that after the interviewing FBI agents found out about Dolan's role, they recommended to their superiors that he be interviewed, a recommendation that was rejected.

Later, after these agents were assigned to Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, they again recommended interviewing Dolan, and again their recommendation was rejected (no surprise as Mueller's investigation was staffed by Clinton supporting lawyers).

The FBI agents also testified that Mueller had a team devoted to investigating the claims in the Steele Dossier, yet in his Congressional testimony in 2019, Mueller repeatedly asserted that investigating the dossier was "beyond his purview" and refused to discuss the topic. The Special Counsel was not being truthful.  Turns out Mueller's team, like the FBI could not confirm the allegations in the dossier, and wanted to avoid admitting the truth, so they could keep the dossier story alive in the sympathetic mass media.

After determining Danchenko's role in the dossier, the FBI (and later the Mueller team) made him a Confidential Human Source (CHS), paying him $200,000 over the next two years, only terminating his status when the Mueller investigation ended.  The effect of making him a CHS was to hide his identity and role and make it more difficult for anyone to find information damaging to the credibility of the collusion hoax.

On top of all this, it turns out Danchenko, a Russian citizen and U.S. resident, had been the subject of a counterintelligence investigation by the FBI from 2009 to 2011.  At the time, Danchenko was working at the Brookings Institution, a liberal DC think tank, to which he'd been recruited by Fiona Hill, later a vocal opponent of Trump.  The investigation started after Danchenko reportedly told two Brookings co-workers that they could "make a little extra money” if they were to "get a job in the government and had access to classified information"; the investigation was upgraded when the FBI learned Danchenko had prior contacts with known Russian intelligence agents.  The FBI ended the investigation when it erroneously believed Danchenko had fled the country.

To repeat, these are not the prosecution allegations - these are admissions in Danchenko's own filings and from the testimony of FBI agents at trial.

But that's a lot of words, isn't it?  And it's only a small portion of the relevant evidence.   If I have enough time, and you have enough patience, I think I can persuade you that my views on this are correct.  But that's a lot of time and a lot of words to a very small audience.  As Pappy O'Daniel (1) says in the link above, I'm merely "one at a timing", not mass communicating.

Now, let's do images.

  Those images are powerful, immediately recognizable to most Americans, and they stay with you.  No words needed.

I hate looking at them and being reminded of that day.(2)  It doesn't require you believe this was an insurrection.  I don't, but I do believe it was a riot and a disgraceful day for America.  And brought to you courtesy of Donald Trump.  Do I believe Trump planned it?  No, Trump doesn't do planning, but his reckless rhetoric fired up his most gullible supporters over what was a ceremonial event, the counting of electoral votes.  And, once it happened, while his aides frantically spent hours trying to persuade him to say something publicly to quell the rioters, he was watching it all on TV.

I envision Trump watching it just like Laurie (Vera Miles) watches her suitors fighting over her in The Searchers. Laurie didn't plan it, but she sure likes that they care enough to fight for her.

Trump and his acolytes loved trolling to "own the libs" but ended up creating the greatest political "self-own" of my lifetime.  January 6 was only the culmination of a series of Trump appearances and Trump influenced events that created indelible images - like his out of control presence at the Covid press conferences.

Unless you are a hard-core "stop the steal" person you find the photos above to be repulsive.  That's why it was another self-own when the full tapes of the riot were released and featured extensively on right-wing media.  Do I think some of those arrested have been charged and sentenced excessively?  Yes, but that's not the issue here.  When the full video is being used to argue that the narrative about January 6 is misleading, all I can say, over and over again, if I'm a Democrat, is "don't throw me in that briar patch".  If you want to argue that a bare-chested painted guy wearing a buffalo head roaming around Congress is the good guy and represents Trump and the GOP you are really bad at politics, and every time you show these images you are pushing away anyone other than your hard-core supporters. 

The very real damage Trump did by his actions leading to the creation of those images is that the real danger to American democracy is today's Democratic Party.  The Biden administration is the most radical in American history, devoted to undermining the foundations of this country, rewriting its history, and the most race-obsessed administration since that of Woodrow Wilson.  Trump's disorganized, impulsive rabble has no institutional foothold, and, like Trump himself, is simply incapable of doing long-term strategic thinking and planning, unlike the progressive New Racist warriors who now dominate American institutions.

But with January 6 and those easily remembered and accessible images, Donald Trump gave the Democrats their Reichstag moment, their great opportunity to effectively cast Republicans as the true threat to democracy, a threat justifying limits on speech, limits on conduct, and denying educational and job opportunities to those who dissent.  Any time those images are seen, and every time someone tries to justify aspects of that riot, it just reinforces the Democratic message.

We've already seen the effects in the actions and Executive Orders of the administration.  That it wasn't worse in terms of Congressional action during the first two years of the administration is only because of Sinema and Manchin in the Senate.  We were left dependent on those two Democrats after Trump, in classic passive-aggressive campaign mode, undermined the two GOP Senate candidates in the special election of January 2021.  After all, if they had won it would have undermined his claims about the alleged steal of the Georgia election in November.

Happy to talk with you about Russia Collusion or you can read the links above, but I think Donald Trump's images are much more influential. 

----------------------------------------------------

(1) Pappy O'Daniel really existed, though he was governor of Texas, not Mississippi as portrayed in O Brother, Where Art Thou?  W. Lee ("Pappy") O'Daniel rose to fame as a singer in a band he put together to promote the flour company he worked for.  Eventually O'Daniel started his own company, Hillbilly Flour, and formed a new and very popular group, Pat O'Daniel and his Hillbilly Boys.  After two terms as governor, in 1941 O'Daniel won a special election for the U.S. Senate.  In a close race, Pappy defeated Lyndon Baines Johnson by using the time-honored Texas Democrat tradition of withholding voting returns from certain Rio Grande districts until LBJ leaning districts had finished their reporting, allowing Pappy supporters to create enough votes to win.  LBJ learned his lesson, employing Pappy's techniques in 1948 to win a very close U.S. Senate race.

(2)  I expressed my views of that day here, here, and here.

Meaning Well

[He] means well for his Country, is always an honest Man, often a Wise One, but sometimes and in some things, absolutely out of his senses.

Benjamin Franklin on John Adams

On this date in 1789, John Adams was inaugurated as the first Vice President of the United States of America.  He would go on to serve another term as VP before becoming our second President.

Franklin's assessment, correct in all respects, was based upon his experience with Adams at the Second Continental Congress, where they served on the five man committee responsible for drafting the Declaration of Independence, and on their time then together in France during the war for independence.  Adams impatient and impolitic style contrasted greatly with Franklin's more subtle, and successful, approach to diplomacy aimed at securing the all important military and financial alliance with that country.

Adams was thin-skinned, voluble, with a temper that, on occasion, led him erupt with remarks that his enemies could use against him.  His books and essays seem turgid by modern standards and, even by those of his times, were not a source of memorable phrases.  As President, Adams could not control his own cabinet, and was responsible for the Alien & Sedition Acts, the greatest assault on free speech in peacetime in our history, until those of the current administration.

At the same time, John Adams was one of the leading proponents for resistance to the British attempts to interfere with the historical liberties of American colonials.  He successfully defended, at the urging of Samuel Adams and others, the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre of 1770.  As delegate to the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1777, he nominated George Washington to be commander in chief of the new army, was a leading and influential voice for independence, and served on the committee that drafted the Declaration.  In 1780 Adams drafted the Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest functioning written Constitution in the world.  During the war for independence, along with serving as Commissioner to France, he served as Minister to the Netherlands where he secured a critical loan for the American government and then, along with John Jay, was America's primary negotiator in securing the Treaty of Paris in which Britain recognized American independence and then becoming our first minister to Britain.

While his presidency was mostly unsuccessful due to, in addition to his own shortcomings, vicious anonymous press assaults (secretly promoted by his old friend Thomas Jefferson) and undermining by his rival Alexander Hamilton, Adams, for the good of the country, and at great personal political cost, avoided war with France.  When he lost his bid for reelection after brutal political campaign of 1800, Adams facilitated the first peaceful transition of power to another political party in Western history.

Adams is a difficult figure to relate to for 21st century Americans.  He could be stuffy and pretentious but his impulsive nature and reactions actually makes him more relatable than more remote figures like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, or Hamilton (though none can approach Franklin as a recognizable human figure to us).  We can see it in his correspondence after he and Jefferson reconciled in 1812 (after an earlier failed effort - see Abigail Writes Thomas).  For every letter Jefferson writes, Adams writes three.  He simply cannot contain himself, revealing much more about himself than the ever guarded Jefferson.

In the book I'm reading on Lafayette's tour of America in 1824-5, the Frenchman's secretary describes visiting the retired president, nearing his 89th birthday, at his modest home in Braintree, Massachusetts.

Our carriages stopped at the door of a very simple small house, built of wood and brick, and but one story high.  I was somewhat astonished to learn that this was the resident of an Ex-President of the United States. . . . He received and welcomed us with touching kindness: the sight of his ancient friend imparted a pleasure and satisfaction, which appeared to renew his youth.  During the whole of dinner time, he kept up the conversation with an ease and readiness of memory . . . 

At the moment of our visit, although he could not go out of his chamber, could scarcely raise himself from his chair, and his hands were unable to convey the food to his mouth without the pious assistance of his children or grand children, his heart and head felt not less ardour for every thing good.  The affairs of his country afforded him the most pleasant occupation. . . . We left him, filled with admiration at the courage with which he supported the pains and infirmities which the lapse of nearly a century had necessarily accumulated upon him.

Adams died on July 4, 1826, the same day as his old friend and rival, Thomas Jefferson.

These Days

Well I've been out walking
I don't do that much talking these days
These days
These days I seem to think a lot
About the things that I forgot to do
For you
And all the times I had the chance to

Jackson Browne was 16 when he wrote These Days in 1965, and 25 when he released a recorded version on his album For Everyman.  In his young hands, the lyrics sound presumptuous and pretentious, as did the title of the album.

Glen Campbell was 72 when he recorded These Days in 2008.  He'd lived quite a life.  Considered one of the finest guitarists in America, a noted session musician since 1960, a recording star (listen to Wichita Lineman), host of a TV show, a tumultuous and public love life, with bouts of alcoholism in the mix, Campbell had something to sing about and it shows in his version of the song.  The last line of the song weighs heavy here:

Don't confront me with my failures/ I had not forgotten them

Two years after this recording Campbell was diagnosed with Alzheimers (whether he was already showing signs of the disease in 2008 I don't know). Glen Campbell passed in 2017.

Richland Woman Blues

Sit back, relax, and enjoy some Mississippi John Hurt.  For more on John Hurt and his life read this.

Calculated For The Good Of The Citizens

In this happy country where every thing is more calculated for the good of the citizens than for the satisfaction of the authorities, it is necessary, before all other requisites, that a city should be as near the centre of a state as possible, in order to be selected as the seat of government.

I've started reading Lafayette in America in 1824 and 1825: Or, Journal of a Voyage to the United States by Auguste Lavasseur.  The quoted passage is by way of explaining why Albany, and not New York City, was the capitol of the state.

You can find a post I wrote in 2014 about Lafayette's Tour here.  It was the 66 year old general's first return to the country since 1784, undertaken after a resolution of Congress, forwarded by President James Monroe, requesting his visit, a visit that would end up lasting thirteen months, covering all 24 states of the Union, and culminating in an address to Congress.  During his visit more than thirty towns were named in the general's honor and he visited many old colleagues, including 89 year old John Adams and 81 year old Thomas Jefferson.

In that earlier post I quoted this account of the tour:

What was planned as a short visit to major cities turned into a . . . . procession.  The hysterical receptions were much alike.  He entered a town escorted by militia, through victory arches decorated with boughs and bunting; endured speeches by local dignitaries and greetings from Revolutionary veterans and the Society of Cincinnati; received poems and flowers from children; and made the rounds of dinners, Masonic banquets, schools and anybody else who wanted to hear him.  The nation went insane for the "last major general of the Revolution".

Lafayette was accompanied by his son George, named after George Washington who had provided the youngster refuge in the 1790s after his father fled France and was imprisoned by the Emperor of Austria, and Auguste Lavasseur, his secretary.  Lavasseur published his account of the journey in 1829 and the first American translation, which I am reading, by Dr John D Godman, was published that same year.

Godman, who was at the time living in Germantown, outside Philadelphia, had given up his medical practice because of ill-health (tuberculosis) to concentrate on writing.  He died the following year at the age of 36.  The translation contains footnotes added by Peter Stephen Du Ponceau (1760-1844), an interesting character in his own right.  Born in France, Du Ponceau came to America in 1777 as part of the entourage of Baron Von Steuben.  Von Steuben, a former Prussian military officer, joined the Continental Army, and with Washington's support, designed a training and discipline regimen for the army, transforming it into a well-drilled and capable military force.  Du Ponceau served as Von Steuben's secretary throughout the war, becoming acquainted with, among others, Lafayette, Alexander Hamilton, and John Laurens.  At the end of the war he settled in Philadelphia where, according to wikipedia, "He contributed significantly to work on the indigenous languages of the Americas, as well as advancing the understanding of written Chinese".

From 1818 until his death in 1844, Du Ponceau served as vice-president and then president of the American Philosophical Society, founded by Benjamin Franklin who served as its first president.  The Society, considered the first scholarly society organized in the U.S., still exists.  So far my favorite Du Ponceau footnote is in response to Lavasseur's observation that "The inhabitants of Connecticut have the reputation of being litigious" but then stating:

But I believe this reputation has no better foundation than that which they formerly had of allowing their youth of both sexes to live in a state of excessive familiarity before marriage.

This leads to a vigorous correction by Du Ponceau who claims the people of that state are no more litigious than those of any other state and attributes the general litigiousness of Americans to the confused state of English common law while, "as to the excessive familiarity which is supposed to exist . . . between young people before marriage", well that is much exaggerated!  In fact:

There is not a people on earth more truly moral and religious than the people of that state.

That's a relief having been born and raised in the state!

As to Lavesseur it's been difficult to find much information, beyond his birth in 1795, his accompanying of Lafayette and later representing France in diplomatic missions to Haiti and Mexico.  He died in 1878.

I'm still in the early pages of the book but already can see it provides a fascinating look at how both a visitor saw the new Republic and Americans saw themselves.  More to come.

Sour Milk Sea

Jackie Lomax was one of the first musicians signed to Apple Records, the record label of The Beatles.  Sour Milk Sea was his debut single in 1968 and it's quite good.  

Despite backing on the recording by Ringo Starr, Paul McCartney, George Harrison (who wrote the song), Eric Clapton, and famous session man Nicky Hopkins on piano, the record was a commercial failure.

This backing line up reminds me of Warm Heart Pastry by Mike Heron, formerly of the Incredible String Band, backed by Pete Townshend, Keith Moon, and Ronnie Lane.  A great song.

Light Flight

Pentangle was a folk/jazz/oddball English group in the late 60s and early 70s.  I like this jazzy tune; think it's in 5/4 and 7/4 time, though not certain.  The rhythmic feel reminds me of Golden Brown from The Stranglers (1982).

Custer's First Stand

In 2015 I did a series of posts covering the 150th anniversary of Lee's retreat from Richmond and Grant's pursuit.  From April 1 to April 12 you'll find daily posts at this link The Appomattox Campaign.  I'm reposting this one from the day before Lee's surrender.

 

The two armies raced to reach the "neck of the jug" at Appomattox.  For the Federals, General Phillip Sheridan assigned the task to his favorite subordinate, General George Armstrong Custer.

George Armstrong Custer is remembered today for his reckless decisions on June 25, 1876 when he decided, against orders, to have his 7th Cavalry Regiment attack a large Indian village along the Little Bighorn River in Montana.  Dividing his 600 trooper command into three detachments, Custer led 209 of his men along a high ridge overlooking the Indian encampment, which turned out to be the largest such gathering ever of the Plains Indians.  Custer and all his men would be dead within two hours and, six decades later, have the added ignominy of being subject to perhaps the least historically accurate, albeit very popular, Hollywood movie ever made (see They Died With Their Boots On).

The Custer of the Civil War is far less well known.  Born in 1839, Custer entered West Point in 1858 in the class of 1862 which, because of the outbreak of the Civil War, graduated a year early in 1861.  Custer ranked dead last academically in his class of 34, accumulating a then-record of 726 demerits for personal misconduct and coming near expulsion on several occasions.  With that record, and absent the war, Custer would have been assigned to some obscure frontier outpost.  Instead, he participated in the first Battle of Bull Run and was assigned to the staff of the Army of the Potomac.  Handling his assignments with alacrity and elan he quickly rose to command a brigade, becoming  Brigadier General of Volunteers on June 28, 1863.  He was 23 years old.
(Custer in 1862 with a former classmate captured by the Federals)

On the final day of the Battle of Gettysburg on July 3, 1863 he led his outnumbered brigade in a series of charges against the Confederate cavalry commanded by the famed and feared J.E.B. Stuart, thwarting his attack on the Union rear.  Throughout 1863 and 1864 he was successful in actions throughout Virginia and was promoted to command of a division in May 1864.  Later that year he helped destroy Jubal Early's army in the Shenandoah Valley.

Custer led his troops from the front and was solicitous of their welfare, a combination that made him very popular.  His aggressiveness made him a favorite of General Sheridan.  And he's all over the Appomattox Campaign.

(Custer, with his dog) 

Custer played a key role at the battles of Dinwiddie Court House and Five Forks at the start of the campaign.  On April 3 it was Custer's division that defeated General Barringer (see General Barringer's Ride) at Namozine Church.  Two days later, his troops were part of the force blocking Lee's advance towards Jetersville and North Carolina.  The next day at Sailor's Creek, his division made the assault that broke the Confederate lines.  In that action, Custer captured Edward Porter Alexander's former artillery battalion commanded by Colonel Frank Huger.  Alexander wrote:

Custer & Huger had been great friends & class mates, & Custer made him ride along all day, & sleep with him that night, & treated him nicely.

For much of April 8, 1865 there was little contact between the armies.  Lee was north of the Appomattox River marching hard towards the neck of the jug, pursued by much of Grant's army.  Parallel to Lee, Sheridan's cavalry, led by Custer's division and trailed by General Ord's infantry was south of the river trying to reach Appomattox Station and Court House before the rebels.

Late that afternoon, Custer's troopers reached the Southside Railroad at Appomattox Station and captured a train with 300,000 rations intended for the hungry Confederate soldiers.  The rebel forces, mostly artillerymen, in the vicinity were startled to see Union troops in the area while most of Lee's army was still strung out on several miles of road to the east of Appomattox Court House.

After skirmishing, Custer ordered a full assault on the Confederates around 8pm under a full moon, scattering the enemy force and capturing 30 cannon and almost 1,000 prisoners.  Custer's division was now positioned directly in front of Lee's advancing army, blocking the only road to the west.  To locate Lee, Custer sent a unit under Colonel Augustus Root to Appomattox Court House.  Entering the village, they encountered Confederates and Root was killed in the fighting.

Lee knew that in the morning he would have to move west from the Court House and try to push aside Custer's cavalry.  But if the Federal infantry reached the field before that could be accomplished the game would be up for the Army of Northern Virginia.
____________________________________________________________________________
 

The plight of the Army of Northern Virginia was obvious to its general officers.  General Alexander recounts in his memoir that sometime on the 8th, several rebel generals conferred and "agreed that a speedy surrender was inevitable" and that they "thought it desirable that they should first suggest the necessity to Gen. Lee, that the blame or odium, if any, might be laid upon them instead of upon him".   Alexander reports that General Pendleton, who delivered the message to Lee, was "coldly received".

Despite Lee's rejection of his own officers suggestion of surrender, he and Grant continued their correspondence that day.  Grant sent a note:

Your note of last evening in reply to mine of the same date, asking the conditions on which I will accept the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, is just received.  In reply I would say that, peace being my great desire, there is but one condition I would insist upon, - namely, that the men and officers surrendered shall be disqualified for taking up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged.  I will meet you, or will designate officers to meet any officers you may name for the same purpose, at any point agreeable to you, for the purpose of arranging definitely the terms upon which the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia will be received.

Lee's response reached Grant around midnight:

I received at a late hour your note of today.  I did not intend to propose the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, but to ask the terms of your proposition.  To be frank, I do not think the emergency has arisen to call for the surrender of this army; but, as the restoration of peace should be the sole object of all, I desire to know whether your proposals would lead to that end.  I cannot therefore meet you with a view to surrender the Army of Northern Va., but, as far as your proposal may affect the Confederate States forces under my command, & tend to the restoration of peace, I should be pleased to meet you at 10 A.M. tomorrow on the old stage road to Richmond between the picket lines of the two armies.

Grant's Chief of Staff, General John Rawlins, upon reading Lee's note aloud, pronounced it "a positive insult" reminding the Union commander that he had no authority to meet with Lee to discuss the subject of a general peace, but the imperturbable Grant, echoing Lincoln's sentiments of April 4, responded that "Lee was only trying to be let down easily".

The Avengers Vs The Wild Bunch

Don't agree with all the analysis here, but worth watching and listening to the discussion re the depiction of violence.  I've never seen The Avengers, but recently rewatched The Wild Bunch, which holds up well.  Plus you'll learn about Rene Magritte.  And the narrator really doesn't like Josh Whedon, director of The Avengers.

A Precursor

Largely forgotten now, events in Wisconsin from 2011-14 set the stage for much of what we've seen in the political and legal arena in recent years - storming of a capitol, labeling a chief executive as a fascist and Nazi, fake and misleading news coverage, and use of the legal process to intimidate political opponents.

Republican Scott Walker was elected governor in 2010 and his first initiative was the Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill which, among other things, ended collective bargaining for public employee unions other than police and firefighters.  In 1959 Wisconsin had become the first state to allow for collective bargaining rights for public employees.(1)  Along with lowering state and local government costs, the proposal also would have lowered union employee healthcare costs.(2)

The proposal generated furious opposition from unions and Democrats.  Starting in February 2011, large groups of protesters occupied the capitol in Madison, while Democratic legislators fled the state to avoid a vote.  Though the police were not covered by the proposed bill, in an act of solidarity with the protestors they refused to block access to the capitol.  The occupation was greeted with cheers from most national media and Democrats - Nancy Pelosi called it "democracy in action" - which portrayed Walker as a fascist.  Lest you think I'm exaggerating, here is how one well-informed progressive characterized Walker at the time:

No Democrats complained that the occupation and obstruction of government proceedings was anti-democratic, nor, for that matter, did most of that same media see anything wrong with the attempted storming of the White House and the injuries suffered by law enforcement personnel in late May 2020.

Despite continued obstruction and the media-induced hysteria, the bill passed a month later to the benefit of the citizens of Wisconsin.  

But that wasn't the end of it.  2012 saw a failed recall election by Walker's opponents, as well as a more insidious and anti-democratic effort via manipulation of the legal system, a manipulation applauded by the press when it became public. That year, a Democratic district attorney began an investigation of alleged fund raising violations by Republicans; a search for a crime, but, more importantly, designed to interrupt fund raising by the GOP.  It was a secret probe, involving more than 100 subpoenas, and dawn raids on homes.  Individuals who were targets and suspects were told they could not speak publicly about it.

In early 2014, a court finally put an end to it all, quashing the subpoenas after finding they "do not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign finance laws".  What happened next is even more appalling - the creation of a deliberately misleading narrative by local papers as well as the New York Times regarding the investigation.  Gabriel Malor discusses it in this 2014 piece:

And that is where the litigation stands as of today. Having launched a secret probe that has now been shut down by both the state and federal courts, the Democratic district attorneys find themselves the subject of an ongoing civil rights lawsuit for infringing the First Amendment rights of conservatives. But that is not how the media have reported the case.

Upon the unsealing of some of the probe documents by the federal appeals court, the media worked itself into a frenzy claiming that Walker was part of a criminal conspiracy. The media claim was based entirely on the subpoena document that was denied by the state judge as failing utterly to demonstrate probable cause to believe a crime occurred. In short: the judge, looking at all the evidence, found no reason to believe that a crime had occurred. That has not stopped the media from falsely implying otherwise.

This is largely accomplished by playing with verb tense. For example, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel kicked off this infuriating libel with a piece that claimed, “John Doe prosecutors allege Scott Walker at center of ‘criminal scheme.'” The more accurate word, of course, would have been “alleged,” past-tense with the addition of the words “in denied subpoena request” or perhaps “in failed partisan investigation” or even “in politically-motivated secret investigation rejected by the state and federal courts.”

The New York Times, trumpeting the story on today’s front page, also uses the present tense to give the wrong impression. The piece begins “Prosecutors in Wisconsin assert that Gov. Scott Walker was part of an elaborate effort to illegally coordinate fund-raising and spending.” Again, the true story is that this took place last year and was ended by the courts. You’d have to read all the way down to the tenth paragraph to learn that the subpoenas weren’t granted because there was no probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred. Oddly, the Times piece muses on the electoral consequences for Walker in the third paragraph. 

In other words, the Times, pandering to the preferred narrative of its readership, portrayed the investigation as something of substance.  The New York Times publicly stated its intent to construct narratives, and no longer report the news, after the election of Donald Trump in 2016, but that paper and most other media had already abandoned traditional reporting standards by that time.

While we are at it, here's another precursor, or rather an illustration of how the system can be manipulated in your favor if you have the right political affiliation.

In March 2022, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) agreed to pay $113,000 in fines to the Federal Election Commission for claiming in their government filings that payments made in 2016 to the law firm of Perkins Coie were for "legal/compliance consulting", even though those payments were actually being funneled by the law firm to FusionGPS to help fund the fake Steele Dossier.  

Hillary Clinton and the DNC lied to the United States in violation of federal law about a scheme to compile a fraudulent dossier to be used to influence a presidential election and then to undermine a presidential administration and were let off with a slap on the wrist, very little adverse publicity (the state affiliated media characterized the fine as a technical violation), and no investigation of potential criminal malfeasance.  It's good to have friends in the right places.

-----------------------------------------------

(1) At the state and local level the greatest public policy mistake of the 20th century was allowing public employees to unionize.  At the federal level, FDR was smart enough the reject the proposal when first made in the 1930s, exclaiming that while private sector unions dealing with profit-making companies made sense, government employees organizing against the people was nonsense.  To bad JFK reversed that decision in 1962, though the impacts have been less severe at the federal level.

(2) Really, lower healthcare costs.  I know this first hand.  A relative took an early retirement package from a Wisconsin school system in 2003.  The package provided that the school system would continue to pay him an amount equal to his healthcare costs as of his date of retirement, but he would be responsible for anything above that over time.  Under Wisconsin's collective bargaining law, school districts had to purchase health insurance for teachers from the union's captive insurer.  By 2011 my relative was paying $300 a month because of increased insurance costs.  After the passage of Walker's proposal, which allowed school districts to seek competitive bids, healthcare costs dropped, in my relative's case by $400 a month, so he actually ended up $100 a month ahead.  School districts used the savings in a variety of ways, including hiring more teachers.  I guess that's just fascism at work!

In light of the reality of what the bill accomplished, it was stunning to see various religious organizations opposing it on moral grounds.  As often happens, gullible activists don't bother to even read or understand these proposals, which is what the Democrats and the media count on (for other examples, see fake news stories like "Jim Crow 2.0" and "Don't Say Gay" for narratives completely detached from reality).

Simple Sister

Simple Sister
Got Whooping Cough
Have to burn her toys
Take her treats
Eat her sweets
Scare off all the boys

Another deliciously weird song from Procol Harum.  From their 1971 album Broken Barricades which, for some reason, is not iTunes.

The Duty Of Preservation

On April 4, 1864 Abraham Lincoln wrote the letter below to Albert G Hodges.  The letter expresses the president's beliefs about the morality of slavery:

I am naturally anti-slavery.  If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.

At the same time it set forth the constitutional constraints under which he believed he was obligated to act in accordance with:

And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgement and feeling.

The letter arose from a meeting Lincoln had a couple of days before with Hodges, Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon.  Bramlette was governor of Kentucky, Dixon a former senator from that state, and Hodges editor of the Frankfurt Commonwealth, the most influential paper in the state.  The meeting's purpose was for the Kentucky delegation to object to the recruitment of former slaves in that state into the Union army, a policy approved by the president.  Bramlette and Dixon, while supporters of the Union and opponents of secession, were not anti-slavery and offended by the prospect of black soldiers.

The importance of the letter resides first in the clear distinction Lincoln makes between his moral beliefs and his Constitutional authority as Chief Executive, a distinction I wish more politicians paid attention to.

The second important aspect is the question of what steps is it rightful for a president to take to preserve the Union.  Lincoln sets forth the issue: 

I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the Constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government – that nation – of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the Constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together.

Third, the president asserts that his decision was both necessitated by events (the failure of his proposal for compensated emancipation in the border states) and proven by the results: 

They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying [a] strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, – no loss by it any how or anywhere. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no caviling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

Lincoln then challenges Hodges and his companions to contemplate where the Union would be without those 130,000 colored troops and laborers:

If he cannot face his case so stated, it is only because he cannot face the truth.

His final paragraph provides an early glimpse into the president's thinking on God's role in fulfilling a moral obligation and the costs entailed, a sentiment so memorably expressed in his Second Inaugural address in March 1865, a month before his murder.

I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years’ struggle the nation’s condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain.If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God.

The letter is a reminder of Lincoln's talents as a rhetorician and a politician.   His use of rhetoric makes disagreement difficult, while one must never forget that the president was not a philosopher but rather a practical politician, who was very careful to tailor his rhetoric to the specific needs of the moment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 4, 1864

My dear Sir: You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:

“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgement and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgement on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my primary abstract judgement on the moral question of slavery. I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the Constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government – that nation – of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the Constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together. When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed that the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying [a] strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, – no loss by it any how or anywhere. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no caviling. We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

“And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he cannot face his case so stated, it is only because he cannot face the truth.”

I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years’ struggle the nation’s condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God.

Yours truly,

A. Lincoln

Hopper Along

Someone made this lovely video of Edward Hopper's paintings from 1935 to 1941.  All are set in New York or the surrounding area (some look very much like the Connecticut shoreline).

 

A friend sent this to me, knowing I like the paintings of Edward Hopper. I don't know who made this video, but I enjoyed it: the ambient music was perfect. pic.twitter.com/CXb6a93SYl

— Laocoon of Troy (@LaocoonofTroy) February 10, 2023

Try A Little Tenderness

Composed by three English songwriters, Jimmy Campbell, Reg Connelly, and Harry M Woods in 1932, first recorded by the Ray Noble Orchestra before Bing Crosby made it a hit the following year, and twice recorded by Frank Sinatra, it is Otis Redding's 1966 recording that is the definitive interpretation.

Produced by Isaac Hayes and backed by Booker T & the MGs, along with the Stax house horn section.

Otis was one of the greatest of soul singers and this is one of his best efforts.  He pays attention to every phrase, word, and syllable.  It may seem a strange connection but it reminds me of Joni Mitchell's vocal on A Case Of You where she differentiates her phrasing throughout the song to appropriately reflect the content of the lyrics.

And the arrangement is splendid.  Every little musical touch is perfect.  Pay attention to the little guitar riffs, keyboard touches, and horn flourishes.  They all fit.

This video gives a taste of Otis performing the song.  It's from his breakout performance at Monterrey Pop in July 1967.  The first part is the audio over video of concert goers but he appears in the last minute.

This Is How Michael Caine Speaks

Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon do dueling Michael Caine impressions, both different and both great.  From the BBC Series, The Trip, in which Coogan and Brydon play versions of themselves while on a restaurant tour in northern England.

They Never Saw It Coming

 Echoing the theme of my post Mastering The Tides of the World.

pic.twitter.com/WkCxKnnDUl

— Varangian Chronicler (@Varangian_Tagma) March 24, 2023

In 1025, Basil II (The Bulgar Slayer) died, leaving the Byzantine Empire in seeming good health, dominating both the Balkans and Anatolia.

Empire at the death of Basil II

The Arab threat, which placed the very existence of the Empire at risk from the mid-7th century until the mid-9th century had abated.  Over the past century, the Byzantines had reconquered the eastern portions of Anatolia and retaken Antioch and the approaches to the Holy Land, reducing the adjacent Arab principalities to dependencies.

In the Balkans, Basil had completely obliterated the Kingdom of Bulgaria, another constant threat for the past three centuries.  The empire's position in southern Italy was strengthened and the reconquest of Sicily appeared within reach.

The Empire was strong, both militarily and economically.

Then a succession of weak emperors followed, while Seljuk Turk invaders from Central Asia entered Anatolia.  In 1071 the Empire suffered a devastating defeat at Manzikert.  Over the next ten years, internal strife and the advance of the Turks led to the loss of most of Anatolia, a Roman territory for a thousand years.  Despite minor resurgences over the next century, the Byzantines were on the defensive, finally calling on the Western European adventurers of the Fourth Crusade to rescue them.  That "rescue" turned into the Latin assault on Constantinople and its sacking and fall to fellow Christians in 1204.  Though the Byzantines recovered their capitol in 1261, the reassembled and more geographically limited empire was a shadow of its former self, explaining why it never became Lebronstantinople.

Lebronstantinople

Answering the question you never thought to ask:  How did the fall of Constantinople in 1453 affect LeBron James' legacy?

This lunacy brought to you courtesy of DocuDubery.

Something More Than Night

The streets were dark with something more than night. It was as cool as a cafeteria dinner. It makes you think maybe we all get like this in the cold half-lit world where always the wrong thing happens and never the right.

- Raymond Chandler 

The noir is off the charts in this late-1930s image of Lawry’s The Prime Rib on La Cienega pic.twitter.com/jg0wH6pmmP

— Vintage Los Angeles (@alisonmartino) March 31, 2023

The Prime Rib in Beverly Hills opened in 1938.  For years the only entree on the menu was Standing Rib Roast.

Vintage Los Angeles is run by Alison Martino, daughter of singer Al Martino, who played Johnny Fontaine in The Godfather.  Lots of good stuff on her feed.