I Miss These Guys

pic.twitter.com/RkLhXmiWYy

— Saul Goodman ⚖ (@itsSaulGoodman) April 21, 2024

 Lalo, Gus, Mike, and Howard. They're all gone now.  Lalo shot Howard.  Gus killed Lalo.  Mike buried Howard and Lalo, and then Walt killed Gus and Mike.

One Party State

The report of John Durham, Special Counsel on "Matters Related to Intelligence Activities and Investigations Arising Out of the 2016 Presidential Campaigns", released on May 12, 2023, includes a section explaining the reasoning on whether and when to recommend criminal charges against individuals.(1)  Durham explains that one of the reasons for declining prosecution is that:

. . . in examining politically-charged and high-profile issues such as these, the Office must exercise - and has exercised - special care.  First, juries can bring strongly held views to the courtroom in criminal trials involving political subject matters, and those views can, in turn, affect the likelihood of obtaining a conviction, separate and apart from the strength of the actual evidence and despite a court's best efforts to empanel a fair and impartial jury." (p.5)

Let me put this in plain English.  Any prosecution filed in Federal Court by Durham would have had to be in the District of Columbia or the Eastern District of Virginia.  Durham recognizes that in a politically charged case in those districts you cannot convict anyone coded as anti-Republican.  In 2020, Biden won 95% of the vote in DC and 81% in Arlington County, Virginia.

The reality is that the Federal workforce and the consultant/lobbyist blob that lives in these areas are heavily Democratic and have grown more radical over the years.  This is a problem not just for the legal system, it goes to whether our democracy can work in a fair way.

It is entrenched and very astute on ways to preserve itself.  For many reasons, the current system needs to be disrupted.

Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states,

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.  

Because of the dominance of Democrats in federal service, a Democratic president can effectively implement their agenda, but a Republican president will not get deference from that same bureaucracy, which is protected by civil service and union rules and almost impossible to fire obstructionists.  A few years ago I was seated at a ball game next to a guy who had recently retired as a senior economist in the Department of Agriculture.  When I asked what his job involved, he replied, "making sure political appointees didn't make any important decisions."  During the Trump administration, the president encountered continual obstruction on implementing his policies.  Finally, and too late, like so many things he did, in October 2020 Trump issued an Executive Order creating created a new job category for federal employees in policy-related positions, dubbed Schedule F, that would exempt them from civil service protections and make them easier to remove.  After all, if the President is vested with the executive Power under the Constitution, why should he not be able to control the executive branch, instead of leaving the Power with unelected bureaucrats?

However, to ensure that the bureaucracy remains dominated by Democrats, the Biden administration's Office of Personnel Management just issued final regulations that according to Government Executive online:

The new regulation — which will be published in the Federal Register for public inspection on Thursday — seeks to provide 2.2 million federal employees with defined protections that would make it difficult for a future administration to re-apply the Trump policy, known as Schedule F.

Democrats understand how critical it is for the party to maintain control of the Federal government, regardless of which party controls the Presidency.  This is an undermining of the constitutional authority of the President and is a direct attack on our democracy.  It also ensures that those living in DC and surrounding districts will remain loyal to the party, with the consequences for our legal system outlined in the Durham Report.

In his hypocritical statement, released at the time of the OPM Rule, President Biden claimed:

"Today, my administration is announcing protections for 2.2 million career civil servants from political interference, to guarantee that they can carry out their responsibilities in the best interest of the American people," 

It is precisely because Democratic control of the bureaucracy allows the party to politically interfere with our democracy when a president of the opposing party is in office that the new rule is being promulgated.

For more on the danger of the administrative state, read this piece by Philip Hamburger of Columbia Law School and founder of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, an organization I support.

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

(1) For my other posts on the Durham Report go here.

Conan's Japanese Etiquette Lesson

This kept cracking me up.  It's hilarious.

Peak Psychedelia

Vanilla Fudge doing their cover of The Supremes' You Keep Me Hangin' On, a #1 hit for the Motown group in 1966.  This is from the Ed Sullivan Show on January 14, 1968.  For the full nearly 7-minute album version listen here.  One of the great covers in rock.  Fudge specialized in slowed-down versions of rock and pop songs.  I listened to a lot of their stuff.  Drummer Carmine Appice is the best-known member, going on to play with Rod Stewart and many others, along with authoring a popular training book for drummers.  Three of the four original band members, including Appice, toured as recently as 2022.

Election '24

 I may write this guy in.

We have quite a choice ahead of us deciding between Trump and Biden. Here are my thoughts on whom to vote for. pic.twitter.com/kB2yhdw3Pe

— Frank J. Fleming (@IMAO_) March 19, 2024

Tough Guy

What were the 70 men gathered on the Lexington Green before dawn thinking as the sky began to brighten?  They knew the Regulars were coming - they weren't called the British because that word included those gathered on the Green.  They would have heard the approach of the Redcoat column coming up the road and then the voices of the officers.  Within a few minutes seven would be dead.  April 19, 1775.

The British moved on to Concord where they met disaster and then had to fight their way back to Boston.   Retracing their steps from Lincoln to Concord along what is now known as Battle Road and taking casualties all the way, they entered Arlington.  Nearing Arlington's border with Cambridge at Alewife Brook, the Redcoats encountered 78 year old Samuel Whittemore.  Whittemore was a farmer with extensive military experience, fighting in both King George's War (1744-48) and the Seven Years War (1756-63).  He was also quite prolific in his personal life having, by 1775, more than 180 direct descendants, most living in the same area.

Whittemore, with his home directly along the road of British retreat, decided he needed to do his part.  Taking his musket and pistols, he waited until the Redcoat column approached, rose up from behind his stone wall and fired his musket, killing a soldier.  As the British advanced on him, Whittemore drew his pistols and killed two more.  With that the British were upon him and he was shot in the face, bayoneted somewhere between 6 and 13 times, clubbed in the head with a musket, and left for dead.

Several hours later, neighbors noticed Samuel was still moving and brought him to the town doctor who proclaimed there was nothing to be done for him other than dressing his wounds and waiting for Whittemore to die.  They waited 18 years, as Samuel Whittemore died in 1793 at the age of 96.

The engraving on the marker in the picture is inaccurate as he was only 78 at the time.  The house seen to the right of the marker is Whittemore's home, which still stands.  For a decade I worked just on the other side of Alewife Brook on Whittemore Avenue in Cambridge.  You can read more about the British retreat from Concord in The Road Back.

Today is the 249th anniversary of the start of the American Revolution.  Next year will be the 250th and the year after that the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.  Time will tell if that nation, conceived in liberty, will continue to endure.

The Big Ukulele

Last night we attended a very enjoyable concert by the Ukelele Orchestra of Great Britain, done with their usual humor (along with paper airplanes being tossed).   Covering everything from ZZ Top, Robert Palmer, The Clash, Willie Nelson, a medley of Life on Mars/My Way/For Once In My Life/Substitute/Born Free, The Muppet Show Theme, James Bond movie theme, to Black Sabbath's Paranoid intertwined with Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy. They did a straight and beautiful version of The Cranberrie's Dreams, and closed with God Gave Rock n Roll To You from Kiss.

I've been a fan for years and it was a treat to finally see the group in person.  This was part of the annual Arizona MusicFest and the venue was the Casa de Christo Lutheran Church in Scottsdale, which was perfect for the concert.

Noted

The most significant aspect of Iran's attack on Israel last night was the Jordanian and Saudi military intercepting drones and cruise missiles, undermining simplistic narratives about the Middle East.  Three Jordanian civilians were killed in the attack.  One Israeli Bedouin child was critically injured.

Recent Reading: Fiction

A shorter list than my non-fiction one.

My Antonia by Willa Cather.  

Last year I read Death Comes For The Archbishop by Cather which was simply wonderful and a book I will reread.  My Antonia was very enjoyable, if not at quite the level of Death Comes.  Set in the late 19th century farmlands and small towns of Central Nebraska where Cather grew up, the book deftly captures memorable characters and the physical settings.  Never thought I'd be a Willa Cather fan but now I'm deciding which of her books I should read next. 

A Chateau Under Siege by Martin Walker.  

Set in the Dordogne region of France, I look forward to each installment of the Bruno, Chief of Police series.  This is the latest and while a good read, I fear the overall quality has begun to decline.  I still enjoy the settings, many of which I am familiar with, and the characters but if you haven't read the books, I suggest starting from the beginning and going through the first dozen and avoiding this one.

The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoevsky.  

I'm still making my way through this one.  It's slow going.  Maybe it is the translation.  I now know where Norm Macdonald got the inspiration for his version of The Moth Joke.  I hear Norm's voice in my head when reading the book.

Night Soldiers by Alan Furst 

One of my favorite authors, this was a book I reread.  Furst wrote about 15 novels all set in Europe during the years leading up to WW2 and during the war itself.  Night Soldiers, the first in the series, and its successor, Dark Star, are more sprawling in scope, time and geography than the later books, but essential as they set the framework for Furst's world.  His characters are Russians, Eastern Europeans, Poles, French, and sometimes British, caught in the murky world between the Soviets and the Nazis, where every other group has its own agenda, where alliances and motives shift quickly.  As history, the settings and dilemmas are very accurate.  Night Soldiers and Dark Star provide as good a background on those times, and the terrible choices faced by so many, as any academic history.

Night Soldiers held up well upon rereading.  The story of a Bulgarian in his late teens, living in a Danube river town, who witnesses his younger brother beaten to death by fascist thugs, and is then recruited by the Russians and set to Moscow for training as an intelligence agent.  Over the course of the book he is in Spain and France, before coming full circle to return to the Danube.  The novel covers 1934 to 1945.  After Dark Star, Furst's later books are set in a tight time frame from 1937 to 1941 with a number of recurring characters.  The writing is captivating and precise until the last two books in the series which fall off in quality.

Resurrection Walk by Michael Connelly

Another favorite.  Connelly has three different series of crime novels built around the characters of (now retired) LAPD detective Harry Bosch, current detective Rene Ballard, and Mickey Haller, the Lincoln Lawyer.  All are worth reading.  Resurrection Walk is his most recent, featuring both Bosch and Haller who are half-brothers.

L.A. Confidential by James Ellroy

I've seen the movie four or five times and it is a great film, on my top 10 list.  You can read my full take on the novel here, but I summed it up this way:

The 500 page book makes for intense and compelling reading, I couldn't put it down.  It is also completely bonkers, an insane fever dream . . .

No Country For Old Men by Cormac McCarthy

Quite a book, deserving of being on your must read list.  Reflecting upon it led me to some thoughts in Carryin' Fire and What Is To Come.

 

Recent Reading: Non Fiction

Another in a series of occasional posts on my reading.

We'll start with two books by recent speakers at the Scottsdale Civil War Roundtable.

When Hell Came to Sharpsburg: The Battle of Antietam and Its Impact on the Civilians Who Called It Home by Steven Cowie

There are plenty of books about the military aspects of Civil War battles but few about what happened to civilians caught in those violent clashes.  Steven Cowie spent, when he wasn't working his day job, 18 years researching and writing about the people in and around Sharpsburg, Maryland, the site, in September 1862, of Antietam, the bloodiest day in American history.  For the civilians it was not just about the day of battle, terrible as it was, but about the six weeks following when the Army of the Potomac was based in, and around, the town.  Most homes that weren't destroyed were converted into hospitals to care for more than 10,000 wounded soldiers and home and farms were looted, crops and stock confiscated, even the fence posts that separated pastures and properties were taken.  Disease outbreaks took dozens of lives and then it took decades to get any compensation for the destruction (the last case wasn't resolved until 1915 and many received nothing).  Incredibly well-researched and documented, it also provides much insight into mid-19th century farming.

A Worse Place Than Hell: How the Civil War Battle of Fredericksburg Changed a Nation by John Matteson 

If you come to this book expecting a detailed study of Fredericksburg and how it changed the nation you won't find it.  Instead, despite a title probably insisted upon by the publisher to boost sales, A Worse Place Than Hell is a finely written, engaging, and touching study of five Civil War figures (only two of them soldiers) and how their lives intersected at Fredericksburg in December 1862.  Four of the subjects are from the North - Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, Louisa May Alcott, Walt Whitman, Arthur Fuller, and one Southerner, John Pelham.  Alcott and Whitman both started their nursing duties in the wake of the battle and Matteson writes of how that experience shaped their lives and writing.  Holmes was a soldier, wounded annually; shot in the chest at Ball's Bluff in 1861, in the neck at Antietam the following year, and in the foot at Chancellorsville in '63.  He was at Fredericksburg but saw no action because of debilitating illness.  Fuller is the figure readers are most likely to be unfamiliar with.  A Massachusetts clergyman, chaplain to a regiment from the state, and meeting a tragic end in the streets of Fredericksburg. Pelham was the young and charismatic commander of Jeb Stuart's mobile artillery unit.  A courageous, gallant, and innovative leader he played a key role at Bull Run, Antietam, and Fredericksburg before dying in a skirmish in March 1863.  Despite some errors on the military history side, this book is highly recommended. 

I Can't Tell a Lie by James Bish.

"Father, I can't tell a lie.  I chopped down the cherry tree".  Supposedly said by young George Washington to his father as related by Parson Weems in his early 19th century book.  Since Weems was an itinerant preacher and huckster who just made stuff up, the story is obviously nonsense and has been regarded as such by historians since the late 19th century.  But is it really nonsense?

Jim Bish is a historian, an expert genealogical researcher, and has lived in Virginia for many years (he's also a friend).  I Can't Tell a Lie makes the argument that it is very possible that the tale related by Weems is true.  The story is in two parts.  The first is a careful examination of what Weems wrote versus what we all think he wrote, because what he really wrote is key to the case that what he wrote might be true.  The second is the genealogical and historical research about the linkages between the families living on the narrow neck of land between the Potomac and Rappahannock Rivers in the 18th century.  While Parson Weems may have been itinerant, he was also connected to the Washington family.  I came away convinced that it is very possibly a true story.  For a detailed analysis of the historiography on the Weems story you can also read this article by Bish and a co-author.

De Gaulle by Julian Jackson

One of the great figures of 20th century Europe.  He drove Churchill and FDR crazy during WW2 but he ended up getting his way.  A remarkable man and Jackson shows us how great, how frustrating, how inspired, and how wrong he could be at times.  His political resurrection in 1958 in the midst of the Algerian crisis was something I knew little about and Jackson tells it well.  De Gaulle was a very undemonstrative and private man but I learned that when he and his wife had a daughter with severe down's syndrome (she never learned to speak) they insisted upon raising her with the rest of the family when the common practice at that time was to institutionalize.  De Gaulle doted on her, often singing songs and spending hours with her at his home, expressing his emotions in a way that the public never saw.

Commanches: The History of a People by TR Fehrenbach

Learn about the origins of the tribe in Wyoming, their move to the Plains, the century and a half domination of the Southern Plains, subduing other tribes, and holding off the Spanish, Mexicans, and Americans until the 1870s.  The greatest Indian horsemen, Fehrenbach's book describes in detail the culture and lifestyle of the Commanche with a sense of both understanding and sympathy and of the inevitability of their ultimate fall.  I was a bit puzzled that Fehrenbach spends so much time in the last part of the book on the history of the Texas Rangers and the frontier strategies that finally conquered the tribe and also saw some commentary and reviews mentioning the same thing.  It was only when I realized that the original title was Commanches: The Destruction of a People, that I understood why that material was included.

The Year That Broke Politics by Luke Nichter

This book was a revelation.  It's about the 1968 presidential election.  Well-documented, it overturns several myths about that campaign.  Most startling to me was the extent of communication, including meetings, between Richard Nixon and LBJ, and the president's preference that Nixon win the election. LBJ was concerned about his legacy, both on civil rights and Vietnam, and did not trust Hubert Humphrey on the latter.  Nixon reassured LBJ about his support for civil rights and led LBJ to believe he was more in touch with his views on Vietnam than Humphrey.  Lots of other interesting material make this book worth reading.

The Savage Storm by James Holland 

I've already written about this book about the war in Italy from September through December 1943 in Incident at Bari.  Looking forward to the next installment on the Anzio and Cassino campaigns due this fall. 

To Hell And Back by Audie Murphy

As a kid I only knew about Audie Murphy because I saw him in some cheesy Western movies.  Though I later learned he was the most decorated American soldier in WW2 and had written an autobiography, I ignored it thinking it probably wasn't very good.  I changed my mind after listening to James Holland describe, on his We Have Ways Of Making You Talk podcast, how he initially thought Murphy's recounting of an incident in the Italian campaign was probably inaccurate, but upon walking the terrain realized it was 100% correct and went on to describe his book as one of the best of WW2 memoirs.  Murphy used a ghostwriter so there are some literary touches, some dialogue invented, and the names of his fellow soldiers changed, but in preparation for the writing Murphy and the writer traveled to Sicily, Italy, France and Germany to revisit the battle sites and, from what I've been able to find out, is accurate. The book is written in the present tense.  Murphy does not describe himself in heroic terms.  Almost every one of his fellow soldiers is killed or wounded as he relates in detail what combat was like.  When Audie describes his state of mind at the end of the war, you realize he had what today would be called PTSD.  Reading up on his life after the war we learn that indeed he had difficulties, taking sedatives to help him sleep and sleeping with a gun under his pillow.

Charlie Hustle by Keith O'Brien

Just published biography of Pete Rose.  The author interviewed many of those, including family members, who knew Rose.  O'Brien even spent several days with Pete in 2021 until Rose cut him off.  The book is about the rise and fall of the all-time baseball hit leader and the choices he made that led to his current pariah status.  Well done.

Malintzin's Choices by Camilla Townsend

I became aware of this book while listening to the Rest Is History 8-part podcast on Cortez's conquest of Mexico.  The podcast, with Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook is the best of all the history podcasts.  Malintzin.  It is about the young Indian woman, probably in her late teens, who had been taken from her tribe and given to the Aztecs, whom she hated.  Upon encountering her and realizing she knew the Aztec language and was very quick to pick up Spanish, she became Cortez's trusted translator upon whom he relied in his negotiations with the Aztec (or Mexica, if you prefer).  She also became Cortez's mistress and bore him a son, whom he recognized and made an heir.  Townsend's book tells the story of the conquest and its aftermath from Malintzin's perspective, which makes for compelling reading about a world-changing event.

Making Stuff

Many movies exist about a lone inventor in a garage having a eureka moment, but almost none about manufacturing, so it’s underappreciated by the public. Compared to the insane pain of reaching high-volume, positive-margin production, prototypes are a piece of cake. - Elon Musk

One of the privileges of working thirty years for manufacturing companies was getting to see how things are made.  In factories that make jet engines, light bulbs, silica gel, the sealants to ensure canned foods stay safe, refrigerators, separators for car batteries, medical equipment, locomotives, water treatment products, cement admixtures, materials that go into contact lens solution and toothpaste, the ingeniously designed packaging material that allows meats, chicken, and salads to stay fresh, and gas and wind turbines. The design and engineering creativity and the discipline and knowledge of workers is simply astonishing and, as Musk points out, largely unrecognized.  I enjoyed being part of organizations that made things that people want and use, or made the things that go into the things that people use.

Gone

Definitely a day to hear from Norm Macdonald.

For more, read Social Justice Is Not Justice.

What Was It About?

 Last week I had the pleasure of attending a lecture at Arizona State by Allen Guelzo, noted historian of Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War.  He is currently at Princeton University and previously taught at Gettysburg College.  The title of his lecture was "What Was the American Civil War Really About?".  Guelzo's thesis is that it was fundamentally about whether democratic representative government would survive and have a future.  He reminded us that, at the time, the United States was the only successful democracy in the world and that the leading powers in Europe were all eager to see its demise, with the odd exception of Russia.  Our country's survival was the most important outcome, regardless of the failure of Reconstruction.

This reminds me of the very misunderstood notion of American exceptionalism.  Exceptionalism does not mean wonderful or superior.  Exceptionalism was how the European powers saw the American nation when it was founded in the late 18th century.  The idea of a nation founded on a creedal document.  The motto on the seal of the United States is novus ordo seclorum ("a new order for the ages").  Foreigners recognized the new country and its people as something new and different.  Its pretentions to equality and democracy made America a strange, outrageous, and dangerous notion to a world of nations and empires based on monarchy and aristocracy.

Apart from its intellectual content, what was particularly striking about Guelzo was his eloquence, aided by a mellifluous broadcaster type voice.  Many of us were particularly amazed by the Q&A.  His response to questions, many of which were quite challenging, was astonishing well composed.  No ahs or ums.  No awkward pauses and he often pulled lengthy quotes from Lincoln letters and speeches seemingly with no effort.  During his talk and the Q&A he made reference to Lincoln's rhetorical techniques and I realized he was employing them himself, often adding humorous remarks.

I was invited to join some of the other attendees to have dinner with Prof Guelzo and was seated next to him and found him a wonderful dinner companion.  At the end of the dinner he engaged in another Q&A with us and it was as amazing as the one following the lecture.  Truly an extraordinary evening.

 

 

Circles

A live performance by Billy Strings and his band, along with Sierra Hull on harmonies and vocals.  Billy and Sierra are two recent favorites of mine.  The song is a cover of a massive hit by Post Malone from 2019.  I know nothing about Post Malone other than what I've just written but this is a very good song.

The View

Casper van Wittel, born and trained as a painter in the Netherlands in 1652, emigrated to Italy in the late 1670s where he remained until his death in 1736.  Known for his landscapes, van Wittel was a popular artist of the times and his paintings provide a record of how Rome looked before its transformation, beginning in the late 19th century into the metropolis it is today. I've written before about van Wittel. Of note, it was only around 1900 that Rome regained the same population it had in the second century AD.  For more on what happened between those times read Belisarius Enters Rome.

This painting depicts the Colosseum, built in the 70s AD and the area around it.  It is a bucolic scene.  In other paintings of the amphitheater, van Wittel depicts sheep grazing next to the remains of the monumental structure.  On the right is the Arch of Constantine, constructed 315-20.  In front of it is the mysterious, and stubby, Meta Sudans which existed until it was destroyed during Mussolini's dictatorship in the 1930s.  In the far distance behind the arch to the extreme right is the aqueduct that brought water to the Palatine Hill where the emperor's palace was located.  The severing of the aqueduct in the 6th century meant the abandonment of the Palatine.

The perspective of the painting is from the lower part of the Esquiline, one of the seven hills of Rome.  To the left of the artist would be the ruins of Trajan's Baths.  In the Meta Sudans post there is an 1890 photo showing some of this area.  Looking to the right of the Arch and aqueduct, this 1850 photo, taken from the Colosseum provides a view of the Palatine which would have been very similar to what van Wittel would have seen a 150 years previously.

Bad Boys

That's Michael Jordan being mugged by Isiah Thomas (top) and Dennis Rodman (knee to groin).  Celtic fans were not the only ones who hated the Bad Boy Detroit Pistons.  When they initially beat the Bulls those first few years after Jordan came into the league, their strategy was never to let Michael get to the basket untouched.  It worked for a while.  It's why Isiah wasn't on the Dream Team in 1992.  

Eventually the Bulls learned to give as much as they got.  This is Jordan teammate Scottie Pippen strangling the worst of the Bad Boys, Bill Laimbeer.  I hope he didn't get called for a foul.

This Ship Is England

I'd follow this guy anywhere.  Wouldn't you?  Russell Crowe as Captain Jack Aubrey, commander of HMS Surprise in Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World.

 

A Little Extra From The Garden Hose

Super 70s Sports strikes again!

Yes, Mr and Mrs THC had a waterbed for about 15 years and it looked almost exactly like this one, except it had no mirror.  Like Three Year Letterman, we were able to purchase it without financing.

Our dog did puncture it once with his claw, necessitating emergency repairs.

Whenever romance was in the air, you always wanted to top it off with a little extra from the garden hose. pic.twitter.com/NkgES0ONKe

— Super 70s Sports (@Super70sSports) March 12, 2024

Playing The Role

An interview with Gene Hackman about the making of The French Connection, the 1971 film that made him a star.  If you haven't seen it, the clips show the grittiness of New York City in that era.  Great film.

Hackman is one of those stars who is always good, even if the movie isn't (Denzel Washington is another one like that).  Gene retired from acting in 2004 and is now 94, living in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

A fantastic 2008 in-depth interview with the great GENE HACKMAN on ‘The French Connection’ (1971). pic.twitter.com/uw7fmkv1DP

— Michael Warburton (@MichaelWarbur17) March 12, 2024

Thinking About Rome

There's a social media meme going round in which guys are asked about how often they think about Rome.  As can be seen from THC's history it turns out to be quite often.  

Most recently I came across a painting of the Arch of Septimius Severus in 1742 by Canaletto and a photo of the arch from 1895 (via Imperator Cat on twitter).  The two provide a graphic illustration of the disrepair the Forum had fallen into after the 6th century when the drains were no longer maintained and the area subject to frequent flooding.

Severus was emperor from 193 to 211 and the Arch celebrates his victories over the Parthians in Mesopotamia and annexation of new lands.

Comparing the two pictures you can see the dramatic difference after the flood sediment and debris were removed during the 19th century.  In the painting the top of the arch on right is barely visible, while the photo shows the arch fully revealed.  Examining the height of the people around it, the sediment was 10-15 feet deep.

And, to tell the truth about how often I think of Rome, it is pretty frequently because this 33"x46" map hangs in the room where I am writing this is a constant reminder.

There are several things that make this map, which depicts, in great detail, the Roman road network and cities, exceptional.  First, is the date portrayed, 211 AD, at the death of Severus.  Most maps depicting the geographic height of the empire use 117 AD, right after Trajan's conquest of Mesopotamia.  However, Trajan's conquest was fleeting, with the lands abandoned within a year or two, along with a portion of the Dacian conquest from a dozen years before.  In contrast the boundaries in the 211 map all existed for a minimum of fifty years, with most enduring for centuries.

The map also shows the Severan advance into the deserts of Libya (the emperor was a native of Leptis Magna in that province) and reflects the most recent discoveries and research on Roman boundaries.  Until recently it had been thought the the Roman border in Arabia went north from the Red Sea and through the center of today's Jordan.  However we now know the Roman lands included much of what is now northwestern Saudi Arabia which is reflected in the map.  The map also depicts the 21st century discovery of a Roman garrison on the Farasan Islands near the southern end of the Red Sea (discussed in The Farthest Outpost).

This wonderful map was prepared by Dr Michael Ditter in Germany.  Dr Ditter has created a series of maps of the ancient world which you can find at his website.

As to what I think about Rome, I recommend you read Ciceroing.

Just Guitar

My Old School, a Steely Dan song from their second album, Countdown To Ecstasy, but with just Skunk Baxter's guitar parts.  The whole thing is great, but goes absolutely insane with the closing solo starting at 2:31.  There is nothing predictable about that solo and it's also very humorous.  The guy covering this is quite good.

I Take It Back

On February 11, THC gave a favorable review to Monsieur Spade after viewing four of the six episodes.  We just watched the final episode tonight and what a miserable way to end the series after a such a strong start.  There were a couple of plot points early in the episode which seemed very manipulative and out of character with what we'd seen previously, but it was the last big scene which was an absolute disaster, introducing a completely new character into a Hercules Poirot setting, full of exposition with poorly written dialogue, and making little sense.  It was as though the screenwriters got tired and rather than work their way through to some resolution they just decided to give up and phone it in.  I've rarely watched anything with such a drastic fall off in quality at the end, and Ms THC concurs with this verdict.

Shady Grove

You can find several version of Doc Watson performing this traditional folk song on YouTube but I like this best, because you can hear Doc's wonderful speaking voice and telling the story of how he met his wife RosaLee.  RosaLee and Doc were married for 65 years, with RosaLee passing six months after Doc in 2012.  Ms THC and I saw Doc perform in 1978.  An appropriate song for Valentine's Day.

Great Moments In History

Going through my old books I came across Great Moments in History by Samuel Nisenson and Alfred Parker.  Published in 1932, Great Moments had been my mother's book (her maiden name is inscribed) and I remember reading, and loving, it as a child of 9 or 10.  It consists of 150 "Moments" described in one page, illustrated, and vividly written vignettes, beginning with The Exodus from Egypt (1285-1250 BC) and The First Olympic Games (776 BC) and concluding with Lindbergh's Transatlantic Flight (1927).  It is heavily weighted towards American history.

Samuel Nisenson wrote a series of similar books, primarily in the 1930s but continuing into the 1950s with titles like Minute Biographies, Minute Sketches of Great Composers, Great Moments in Catholic History, Great Moments in Baseball, History's 100 Greatest Events, and a 1934 biography of Franklin Roosevelt.

Written for general audiences and published by Grosset & Dunlap, one of the big publishing houses of the day, the books provide an insight into the America of that era.  I thought it would be interesting to see how and whether events related to race in America are portrayed almost a century ago.

One of the "Great Moments" is "The Introduction of Slavery in America: The Beginning of the Powerful Institution that was Nearly to Disrupt America" (August 1619), pictured below.  The narrative provides a pretty good summary of the origin and growth of slavery in the Western Hemisphere and concludes:

The spread of the institution of slavery had far-reaching and disastrous effects on the social history of the United States.  It created a sharp line of division between the northern manufacturers who did not need slaves and the southern planters who depended on them, a division that ultimately precipitated the American War Between the States in 1860.

Doesn't appear the authors had any doubts about the cause of the Civil War.

The next relevant Moment is in 1793, "The Invention of the Cotton Gin: The Remarkable Machine that Changed the History of America", pictured below.  We are given an account of the invention by Eli Whitney along with its impact on the economics of cotton.  This page concludes:

Between 1791 and 1801, the exports of cotton, now a cheap commodity, instead of a luxury, increased 100-fold, and slavery became an important industrial factor in the Southern states.  The South was soon a country of vast cotton plantations, while the slave system grew into a powerful institution that threatened to disrupt the Union and ultimately brought on the Civil War.

 The Capture of John Brown: The End of the Raid that Startled the Country! (Oct 18, 1859) is next up.

With the coming of the Civil War the next entry on the subject is"The Freeing of the Slaves: The Proclamation that made All Men Free and Equal in America!" (January 1, 1863), pictured below.

Unlike the prior entries, this narrative has serious flaws.  It states that Lincoln "freed all the slaves by his Emancipation Proclamation".  The effect of the Proclamation was much more limited, being restricted to slaves still held in areas controlled by the Confederacy on that date.  Non secessionist slave states, and slave holding areas already occupied by Union troop were not included.

The narrative concludes:

"Although the liberation of the Negroes at first threw the South into chaos, the gradual readjustment, after the war, placed the Negro on an equal footing with the White man and fulfilled the words of the Declaration of Independence that 'All Men are Created Equal'"

That is not what happened and, in the former slave states, the "readjustment" took the form of Jim Crow laws which began to be adopted in the final two decades of the 19th century.

The final Moment dealing with race in America is "The Reconstruction of the South" (1867-1876) and it goes badly awry.  We read of Northern "carpetbaggers", the Southern white "scalawags" who joined in their corrupt schemes, and government "completely into the hands of the Negroes".  It only ends when "the people finally rose and drove them out".  Once the states were readmitted "the Union was once more intact and a new industrial South replaced the broad plantation with its black slaves."

We find no mention of the Black Codes, instituted by southern states in 1865-66, or of the spree of violence by Whites against newly freed Blacks, actions which triggered the 1867 Reconstruction Act.

Great Moments in History was published in 1932 at the height of the influence of the Dunning School interpretation of the Civil War and Reconstruction.  William Dunning was a professor of history and political philosophy at Columbia University.  Extremely influential, Dunning taught and wrote that Reconstruction was a disaster, that freedmen were incapable of self-government, Blacks should not be allowed to vote or hold office, and segregation necessary; the military occupation of the South had been a mistake; and that the Reconstruction state governments had been corrupt and incompetent, a gross mischaracterization, particularly given the armed resistance they faced from recalcitrant Whites.  This caricature of reconstruction governments was prevalent for decades - I remember references to this in my middle school history book in the early 1960s, though by high school I think it was gone.

It is interesting that the greatest diversion between the text and the real history is in its most recent entry, illustrating the failure of post-Civil War America to find a way to assimilate Blacks at the same time it was successfully assimilating millions of immigrants.

This book was written during a period that some historians consider the nadir of the post-Civil War experience for Black Americans, the era between the World Wars (see Strange Fruit for more details), and it is a reflection of its times.

Monsieur Spade

 We were not aware of this series until a couple of days before its premiere.  Decided to watch after the first couple of episodes had been broadcast and have now viewed 4 of the six in the series.  It's very good - not Breaking Bad/Justified top notch, but very good, even though I had my doubts at the start.

The Maltese Falcon, which introduced Sam Spade to movie audiences, takes place in 1941 and it ends with Spade (Humphrey Bogart) turning the duplicitous and lovely Brigid O'Shaughnessey (Mary Astor) with whom he'd had a dalliance, over to the San Francisco police.

It's now 1955 and we find ourselves in rural France, where Spade has come to deliver O'Shaughnessey's daughter to the family of her father.  Flash ahead to 1963, and we find Spade has remained in France and is now caught in a web of death and intrigue stretching back to World War Two and the recently ended Algerian War.

The series is slow-burning with a complex plot.  There are several very appealing aspects.

Clive Owen as Sam Spade.  He's the right age and physically right for the role, bringing a sense of Bogart's cynicism tinged with flickers of romanticism and a sense of honor.  Though he does not sound like Bogart, the cadence of his speech is identical and you can imagine Bogie speaking the dialogue.

The supporting cast is excellent.  From Chiara Mastroianni (daugher of Marcelo M and Catherine Deneueve) as Spade's now deceased wife, Cara Bossom as the now 15-year old daughter of O'Shaughnessey who reveals character traits much like her mother, to Denis Menochet as the local police chief.

The setting.  Most summaries of the series mention it is set in the South of France, so I assumed it meant the overused Provence.  But it is not.  The town of Bozouls is in the southern part of the Auvergne, a very rural and isolated (particularly in the time setting of Spade) rural area of small towns and farms in a rugged landscape.  Ms THC and I drove very close to Bozouls in 2015 while going from Millau to Dordogne.  Lovely country, but definitely nothing like Provence.

The Frenchness.  The people are not warm and cuddly.  They are very, very French and a very real portrayal of French attitudes and behaviors decades ago.  In that regard, Spade's housekeeper, whose name I cannot find, is perfect.

The Durham Report: Part 3 - A Conspiracy So Immense

For Part 1 (The Kremlin Connections Of The Clinton Campaign)

For Part 2 (Mueller's Obstruction of Justice)

The Russia collusion story was a turning point for this country.  When Trump was elected in 2016, I had many concerns, one of which is that, over the years, he had been on every side of every issue (except trade).  For instance, he'd criticized Justice Scalia for his position on affirmative action and Mitt Romney in 2012 for being too tough on illegal immigration.  I had no idea what he would actually do in office but suspected he could be easily manipulated by the Democrats he'd spent so much time with for decades in New York.  Go look at the 1996 Democratic Platform and, with the exception of trade, it reads like Trump's positions in 2016.

That's also apparently what was on mind of New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who knew Trump well, in the immediate aftermath of the election.  Schumer knew that with the right combination of flattery and friendliness Trump would move in his direction and, for those first couple of days, the senator spoke of Trump as someone he could work with.

Then came an abrupt change in direction and Schumer changed his tune.  It was a combination of factors.  Hillary Clinton decided to make alleged collusion of Trump with the Russians a permanent issue and a couple of her key staffers were able to raise millions of dollars to set up a permanent organization to undermine Trump's presidency.  It helped that the Clinton campaign and its media accomplices managed to create an atmosphere of hysteria and panic about the incoming president among the most committed Democrats.  I read and heard about the brownshirt marches and imminent fascist measures that were going to be implemented.  And the intelligence community, now panicked that its efforts to defeat Trump would be uncovered in the wake of his unexpected victory, found a common interest with Democrats in destroying his presidency.

Instead of trying to manipulate Trump it was to be total war against him.  It wasn't limited to the Russia collusion story; for the first time in American history the opposition party in the Senate obstructed and held up the confirmation of even routine, otherwise non-controversial political appointments, in order to hamper the new administration.  But the collusion story was the beating heart of the opposition up until the release of the Mueller Report and Mueller's Congressional testimony in the summer of 2019.  And it would have continued for even longer if William Barr had not become Attorney General and finally called a halt to the nonsense.  The collusion investigation tied up Administration resources and understandably became a preoccupation of Trump, all the while generating a steady stream of what proved to be bogus stories to be reported by an all too willing media.

As a result, several things happened, none of them good for America.

First, we never got to see the alternative scenario where Schumer & Co schmoozed Trump, though we had one brief glimpse when Schumer and Pelosi charmed and flattered him into temporarily agreeing to an amnesty deal for 1.8 million illegals.  Schumer understood the truth about Trump.  He doesn't do policy, he does impulses.  He also does deals, but doesn't care that much about the substance of the deals.  His brand is as a great deal maker and what he most wanted to tell people when he was in business and when President, is that he got a great deal.  The deal itself is the victory, Trump's personal trophy.  What would that presidency have looked like?  Instead, a gullible and conspiratorial minded guy had a real conspiracy created against him.

Second, in their monomaniacal pursuit of Trump, the Democrats, the media, and many of our other institutions ended up degrading and discrediting themselves.  They disregarded the truth, exaggerated, and spread as much misinformation as Trump.  They proved themselves no better than their opponent. Every poll shows the credibility of every major American institution has declined since 2016.

Third, Trump's opponents helped Putin accomplish his goals of weakening the United States.  Hillary Clinton, the Intelligence Community, Adam Schiff, and the New York Times could not have helped Russia more if they'd been paid agents of the Kremlin.

Fourth, they empowered conspiracy theorists on the left and right.  I'm allergic to conspiracy theories.  If you had told me in 2016 or early 2017 the truth about what was actually going on with the Russia collusion story I would not have believed you.  That a conspiracy so immense could really exist was not credible to me back then.  But it happened.  It was real and proved much worse than I thought even after my first few months of digging into the source documents.

I've also dug into the Stop the Steal accusations.  They are nonsense, but I have a lot harder time persuading believers because they can point to the Russia collusion story and other excesses since 2016 and simply say, "these things DO happen".  Let's face it, if you really believe Trump is another Hitler, wouldn't you be justified in doing anything you could to prevent his reelection, including rigging the vote? Wouldn't it be immoral not to? And that there has still be no institutional or personal responsibility and accountability for the Russia collusion conspiracy only reinforces the beliefs of the conspiracy minded.(1)

It's why I've spent so much time on this since 2017.  We cannot come out of the dismal spiral the country is in until there is accountability for what happened, beginning with the Clinton campaign in 2016.

The Starting Point: HillaryLand

It all started with Hillary Clinton's private email server on which she conducted government business in violation of legal requirements.  That server, set up upon her becoming Secretary of State in early 2009, evaded government requirements in order to make it more difficult for anyone in the American public to obtain her communications under the Freedom of Information Act.  The downside was it increased the chances that outside parties, such as Russia or China, could access her communications.  Clinton apparently felt her desire for privacy from her fellow Americans was worth the risk of America's enemies accessing her emails.  Or perhaps, in determining priorities, she was confusing her fellow citizen with her enemies.  We need to start here because it was all the trouble the emails were causing Clinton in 2016 (along with the leak of internal Democratic Party emails) that led to her campaign deciding to construct a Russia collusion story around Donald Trump in order to distract the public from Hillary's problems.

One of Clinton's priorities on joining the Obama administration was to, in her words, "reset" the relationship with Russia.  During the campaign and after, Obama and Clinton blamed the deterioration on U.S.-Russia relations (in 2008, Russia invaded U.S. ally Georgia) solely on George W Bush.  For this reason, along with his hatred of John McCain, Putin openly backed Obama in the 2008 election.

Announced with great fanfare, the reset was designed to open a new and cooperative era between America and the Kremlin.   Below, we see Clinton giving a "reset" button to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on March 5, 2009.  Lavrov is still Foreign Minister and a vocal supporter of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine.  The first act in the reset was NATO's restoration of relations with Russia, after they were suspended in the wake of the Georgia invasion the year before.

Meanwhile, during her time as Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars of contributions from Kremlin-connected oligarchs, and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.  It was also during Obama's first administration that efforts to negotiate a nuclear compact with Iran began, and a improved relationship with Russia was seen as essential in accomplishing that role because of the Kremlin's good relations with the Mullahs.

As a result, the Kremlin, even more openly than in 2008, supported Obama in the 2012 election.  Putin must have enjoyed Obama's mocking of Mitt Romney's claim that Russia was our #1 enemy, and then the President was caught on an open mic with Soviet President Medvedev, asking him to "tell Vladimir" he'd "have more flexibility after the election".  This was a reference to the portion of the missile defense interceptor system to be based in Eastern Europe, a program announced by the Obama Administration in 2009.  However, in 2013 after Obama's re-election, the administration announced it was cancelling the SM-3 Block IIB program, to the dismay of Poland and Romania where it was to be installed, and to the joy of the Russians as it was the part of the interceptor program most vociferously objected to by the Kremlin.

In early 2013, Clinton left the Obama administration to prepare for her 2016 presidential run.  Once outside the administration, she displayed hostility to the Russian regime and Putin.  Meanwhile, in pursuit of the Iran deal, the Obama administration acquiesced in the Russian intervention in Syria and settled for a perfunctory protest, and weak sanctions, in the wake of Putin's 2014 takeover of the Crimea.

Awareness of the irregularities in Clinton's handling of the emails was an offshot of the Congressional Benghazi investigation and by early 2015, the Clinton email server began to make news, with CNN reporting in March that she wasn't publicly registered as the owner of the domain and server used to operate her personal email, making it difficult to trace the account back to her.  Accounts were registered in her aides' names, and she used a proxy company to shield her involvement.

A DOJ investigation began, along with others.  On January 4, 2016,  in a letter to congressional intelligence committees, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III wrote that emails on Clinton’s private server had been flagged for classified information, some of which was considered the highest “top secret” level of classification.

Meanwhile, in late 2014, the FBI learned from a "well-placed CHS [Confidential Human Source]" that a foreign government was planning to send a individual to contribute to Clinton campaign "as way to gain influence with Clinton".  Application for a FISA warrant "lingered" because, according to agent, "everyone was super more careful" "scared with the big name" and "pretty tippy-toeing around HRC because there was a chance she would be the next President" (Durham Report, p.69)(2).  The FISA was eventually approved, but on condition Clinton campaign get a defensive briefing.  Later, a similar incident from another country was discovered (p.74), and most startingly of all, the CHS made illegal contributions to the Clinton campaign that were not documented by FBI handlers. (p.76).

The Durham Report drew a number of contrasts between how the FBI handled these situations versus its approach in 2016 towards Trump.  Hillary's campaign was afforded a defensive briefing, in which it was made aware of the potential illegal contributions from a foreign government so it could be on the alert, while Trump's campaign was not given a defensive briefing.  Further:

"The FBI's and the Department's measured approach to these foreign influence allegations involving Clinton also stands in stark contrast to the speed with which the FBI undertook to include the Steele Report allegations in the FISA request . . . targeting [Carter] Page". (p.73)

"Contrasted with the FBI's rapid opening of CH [Crossfire Hurricane, the Trump investigation], the FBI appears to have made no effort to investigate the possible illegal campaign contribution (which allegedly was a precursor to the contribution of a significant sum of money) . . . on behalf of Foreign Government-30, or the Clinton campaign's purported acceptance of a campaign contribution that was made by the FBI's own long-term CHS on behalf of . . . ultimately, Foreign Government-3" (p.77)

In January 2016, three different FBI field offices opened investigations into "possible criminal activity involving the Clinton Foundation". (p.78)

"The reporting, which in itself is not proof of wrongdoing, was a narrative describing multiple funds transfers, some of which involved international bank accounts that were suspected of possibly facilitating bribery or gratuity violations.  The transactions involved occurred between 2012 and 2014, and totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars." (p.79)

On Feb 22, 2016 a meeting was chaired by Assistant Director McCabe to hear from field offices.  "McCabe initially direct field offices to close their cases, but following objections, agreed to reconsider the final disposition of the cases".  McCabe's approval would be needed before any further investigative steps taken and it was not granted. (p.79)

The FBI was beginning preparations to interview Hillary Clinton regarding the emails, prompting an email from FBI lawyer to Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, who was leading the investigation into Clinton's emails, and later led the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.  Page and Strzok were having an affair, and she reminded him:

"One more thing: [Clinton] may be our next president. The last thing you need [is] going in there loaded for bear.  You think she's going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?"

Meanwhile, on March 2, Bryan Pagliano, the former Clinton staffer who helped set up her private email server, agreed to provide an interview with investigators and accepted an offer of immunity from the FBI and Justice Department, a highly irregular procedure since he had made no proffer of what we would testify to.

It is at this point that Trump emerged as the front runner for the GOP nomination, his campaign took steps to set up a foreign policy advisory board, and the timeline of relevant events in both campaigns begin to merge which will be covered in the next installment in this series. 

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

(1)  One of the few examples of "accountability" only reinforced the conspiratorial minded.  DOJ Inspector General reported that a junior DOJ lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, deliberately altered a communication from the CIA to the FBI, regarding whether Carter Page had been a voluntary informant for the CIA regarding Russia.  The CIA notified Clinesmith that Carter Page had been approved by the CIA as an operational contact, but Clinesmith informed those putting together the FISA application on Page that the CIA said Page "was never a source".  As a result, the FISA application omitted material information that may have impacted whether the warrant was approved. (p.185).  Durham reports that a few days after the 2016 election, Clinesmith sent a email to a colleague proclaiming, "vive la Resistance".  Despite the lawyer deliberately lying in a matter that resulted in the issuance of a surveillance warrant for those close to the newly elected President, Clinesmith was only sentenced to 12 months probation.  The normal practice for the DC Bar Association is to automatically suspend convicted members.  However, in this instance, the DC Bar only did so after a reporter asked questions of it a couple of months after the conviction.  The DC Bar also requires those suspended to reapply for admission before they are reinstated.  However, in the case of Clinesmith it did so automatically without asking him to reapply.

(2)  In 2006 or 2007 I was in a meeting with the corporate communications team of the company I worked for.  The team told us that the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) had requested our CEO appear at one of its events.  We were informed that our CEO did not want to attend, but we needed to provide someone senior for the event because "you know, she might be president some day".  The Clinton Foundation and CGI were always a "pay to play" scheme, with their viability to attract donor funds resting on Hillary's potential political future.  Do you think companies were paying Hillary $250,000 per speech because of her brilliant insights?

Now And Then

The last song from The Beatles, released late last year.  Simple and elegiac, based on a Lennon demo from the late 1970s, transformed into a tribute by Paul and Ringo to their missing mates.  Tonight's the 60th anniversary of the band's US performance debut on The Ed Sullivan Show, watched by 73 million Americans, including almost 13 year old me.  At the time, the outbreak of World War One seemed unfathomably distant to me, but it was much closer in time than today is to that night sixty years ago.

The Boy Is Back In Town

After an absence of over a thousand years, the colossal (42.6 feet high) statue of the Emperor Constantine, is complete and back in Rome, having just been unveiled in the garden of the Capitoline Museum, overlooking the Roman Forum.

Constantine, born around 280, spent from 306 to 312 maneuvering to seize control of the western portion of the Roman empire.  In 312 he defeated the Emperor Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge outside of Rome, and sometime in the next few years the statue was completed and placed in the Basilica of Maxentius, located between the Forum and the Colosseum.  According to Wikipedia:

The great head, arms and legs of the Colossus were carved from white marble, while the rest of the body consisted of a brick core and wooden framework, possibly covered with gilded bronze.

The statue was pillaged during the early Middle Ages although various portions of the statue have been preserved and ended up in different Italian museums.  I'd seen the head and other fragments during my visit to the Capitoline in 2006.

(Statue fragments)

The unveiled statue is a recreation that, according to this AP article:

 . . . was imagined using 3D modelling technology from scans of the nine giant original marble body parts that remain.

Constantine went on to defeat Licinius, his rival in the East, in 324, reuniting the empire under one ruler.  Before his death he began the construction of a new capitol, modestly called Constantinople, and accepted baptism as a Christian on his deathbed.

The Defects Inherent In Its Own Merits

A constitutional government will always be a weak government when compared to an arbitrary one. There will be many desirable things, as well as undesirable, which are easy for a despotism but impossible elsewhere. Constitutionalism suffers from the defects inherent in its own merits. Because it cannot do some evil, it is precluded from doing some good. Shall we, then, forgo the good to prevent the evil, or shall we submit to the evil to secure the good? This is the fundamental practical question of all constitutionalism.

- Charles Howard McIllwain, Constitutionalism Ancient and Modern (1940)

Written more than eight decades ago, accurately reflecting the choices made at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and the same question that confronts us today. 

Charles McIllwain (1871-1968) was professor of history and government at Harvard from 1911 to 1946.

Elihu Root considered the same question in his lectures at Princeton in 1913; see Elihu Root and 21st Century America.

The issues may change over time but the question remains unchanged.

No, No, No

. . . on the proposed foreign aid/immigration bill (which now seems dead).  Before getting to why, let's take a minute to set the context.

The current border chaos is a result of the Biden's administration deliberate choices on enforcement and funding, made at the beginning of the president's term.  He has the authority to reduce the chaos, and has chosen not to do so.  The degree of chaos and inability of the United States to control its own borders is evident if you follow those correspondents who spend time on the border or if you live in a border state, as I do, and see it yourself. 

The reason the administration has gone from three years of insisting the border is under control to admitting there is a problem is because of Ron DeSantis.  It was DeSantis who started it all with the brilliant move of sending illegal migrants to Martha's Vineyard, a tactic then adopted by other like Governor Abbott in Texas.  Now that all those Democratic governed sanctuary jurisdictions are being flooded with illegals, it has become a crisis!  It's also heightened the profile of the entire problem in an election year, not a good look for the Democrats.

From the Democrats perspective the issue became how to appear to be doing something meaningful, while not really impacting the general trajectory of encouraging illegals.  Or, if they fail, how to blame Republicans.  The answer; lure into negotiations some GOP senators who really, really want aid to go to Ukraine and Israel, while the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP can support them in making minimal cosmetic changes.

I'm in favor of additional aid to Ukraine and Israel, but I think it fair for American citizens to ask, "why should we care more about the borders of foreign countries than we do about our own?".

One of the Democratic negotiators of the bill, Senator Chris Murphy, the callow youth whose only life experience is working on campaigns or running for office, has been tweeting and going on news shows emphasizing to his progressive supporters that the only thing this bill really does is smooth out the flow of illegals into the U.S., making the process more manageable over the long term.  His version of "reducing chaos" is to allow the same numbers in but just over a bit long period.  He's also emphasizing that this is just a three-year deal and that Biden can always declare a national emergency and get around the bill's provisions.  Some excerpts from Murphy's tweets:

"A requirement the President to funnel asylum claims to the land ports of entry when more than 5,000 people cross in a day.  The border never closes [emphasis added by THC], but claims must be processed at the ports.  This allows for a more a more orderly, humane asylum processing system."

"But . . . important checks on that power.  It can only be used for a limited number of days per year.  It sunsets in 3 years..  Emergency cases that show up in between the ports still need to be accepted.  The ports must process a minimum of 1400 claims a day."

"You can't reduce arrivals at the border without allowing for more legal immigration.  So, more visas! [Exclamation point by Murphy, not THC]. 50,000 extra employment and family reunification visas each year for the next 5 years.  And a brand new visa category to allow non-citizens to visit family in the U.S."

"A brand new right to legal representation for all immigrants. . .  And . . . the first ever government paid-for lawyers to young unaccompanied minors."

"A quicker, fairer asylum process.  No more 10 yr wait.  Claims processed in a non-detained [emphasis added by THC], non-adversarial way in 6 months.  Also, no more waiting for work permits.  Most asylum seekers can work immediately."

Yeah, that's the ticket!

There was a lot more wrong with the proposal, but fundamentally, while the border was not controlled under Trump, it was better controlled, so the simplest thing for Biden to do would be to undo all his measures reversing Trump's policy, which he could do without legislation.(1)

The bigger problem:

The GOP does not know how to negotiate.  The Democrats, and many in the GOP, wanted to authorize additional aid for Ukraine and Israel.  The GOP wanted to regain control of our borders and, at least for purposes of the 2024 campaign, the Biden administration wanted to be seen as doing something.

The problem is that the GOP negotiators seem to have started from the position of what is the minimum we can do to satisfy our supporters that will also allow us to get the aid to Ukraine and Israel.  The result is they were negotiating within the context of immigration policy and law.  What they needed to start from was "you" (Democrats) want aid, "we" (GOP) want border security, and here is what you need to give us on the border in order for us to support the aid.  Such a strategy would set up an initially stronger bargaining position, and force Democrats to reveal their preferences and priorities.  Instead the GOP started negotiations on their back feet.

A secondary problem is the lack of expertise and skill in the substance of the legislative language and the interplay of the various provisions in the bill.  GOP staffers are simply not as good as Democrat staffers when it comes to the details, and it is details that count in drafting legislation.  You can have all the nice concepts you want but one innocent sounding clause in the bill can undercut any concept.  This is a long-standing problem but has gotten worse in recent years as so many GOP lawmakers and their staff seem more interested in performance art on Twitter and elsewhere to please their base.

Incoherent GOP strategy.  What the House GOP should have done is bring up the Senate bill, or its version of the bill, proposed extensive amendments to strengthen it, and force the Democrats to vote on each amendment.  It would be easy enough to expose the game being played by the Democrats, but that's not going to happen.

The biggest problem:

The death of compromise.  I don't know if there is a way, regardless of legislative language, to fix this.  The Senate proposal would have allowed Biden to declare a national emergency and override its provisions.  Given this administration's disregard of the law - see the rent moratorium and student loans for example - it is likely that if Biden were to win reelection, he'd simply declare the law inoperative.  Even if he didn't he still controls the administrative bureaucracy, a bureaucracy ruled by Democrats, and could easily undermine the provisions he doesn't like.

I pointed out, in posts in 2014 and 2016 (read the last part of this post), how President Obama's arbitrary and lawless modifications to the Affordable Care Act and immigration law with DACA, undercut the ability of the political parties to reach legislative compromise.  Compromise means each side gets some things it wants in exchange for giving up some other things.  But the Democratic approach to executive power, which has accelerated under Biden, means that even if codified in legislative language, the GOP is likely not to get all the things it thought it got in any bill.  The situation is so dire, if I were in Congress I don't know if I would support any bill, regardless of the language, if we had to rely on a Democratic administration and bureaucracy to implement it.  To do otherwise would make me, as I wrote in the 2016 post linked above, a chump from Palookaville.

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

(1) I have not read the full text of the bill, nor, I suspect, have most of the Senators doing the negotiating.  This leaves me relying on the analysis of the few sources I have come to trust over the past few years.  None of these are newpapers, TV, cable, or websites.  It's a difficult situation if you don't have the time to read original documents yourself.  When you do, the details often reveal a very different picture than what is portrayed in the media across the political spectrum.  For instance, in 2015 I read the full text of the Iran Deal to discover the gap between how the media and White House described a key element of the deal and how this would work out in the real world when you read the specific language (see The Iran Deal: It Was Never About Nuclear Weapons).

Fast Car

I very much liked Tracy Chapman's Fast Car when first released, but it quickly became overplayed and started turning it off whenever it came on my radio while commuting.  Hadn't listened to it in years.  Heard there was a popular cover recently that was the subject of yet another manufactured controversy.  

Tracy and the cover artist, Luke Combs, performed at last night's Grammy Awards and it reminded me of the beauty and pathos of the song.  I gather Chapman has rarely performed in recent years but she was in great form and the duet worked so well.  Until I saw his name, I didn't realize Combs had done the cover - I first heard him in a duet with Bill Strings (on guitar and harmonies) on a song called The Great Divide which is now on my playlist.

Tracy Chapman and Luke Combs - Fast Car#GRAMMYs pic.twitter.com/WWztcov2tJ

— Craig R. Brittain (@RealBrittain) February 5, 2024

UPDATE: Sadly the Chapman/Combs duet has been taken down.  Here is Tracy Chapman's original. 

FURTHER UPDATE:  The Grammys have posted the duet.

The Good Humor Man He Sees Everything Like This

(Barrett Jackson Custom Auto Auction)

I can remember as a child, the Good Humor truck coming up the street on a summer afternoon while we were playing in the field across the street, its signature music blaring.  Unlike the Steve Wright joke, the song it played was not Helter Skelter. 

The title of this post is taken from the name of a song by Love from its 1967 masterpiece Forever Changes.

Summertime's here
And look over there
Flowers everywhere
In the morning, in the morning

Dad Rock

Or, in my case, Grandpa Rock.  Walter White rhapsodizing on the virtues of Steely Dan.  He may have been a meth kingpin and killer but what great taste in music!  Extra bonus points for mentioning Boz Scaggs who, in 2012, toured with Dan co-founder Donald Fagen and frequent Dan background singer Michael McDonald; here they are performing Boz's big hit Lowdown.

Bay Of Naples

Stunning photo by Sophie Hay, an archaeologist working at Pompeii, taken from the Certosa di San Martino Museum in Naples.  The museum is housed in a former Carthusian monastery built in the 14th century, located on the north shore of the Bay of Naples.

The photo looks west towards the center of the city and the still active volcano Vesuvius, which stood 1,000 feet taller before the eruption of 79 AD.  The ruins of Herculaneum lies on the coast just behind the pillar on the right, while Pompeii is a bit further to the right and a couple of miles back from the coast.

A staggeringly glorious day to be looking over Naples and Vesuvius. pic.twitter.com/dy6Av3RgJP

— Dr Sophie Hay (@pompei79) January 21, 2024

Still Looking Good

It was the 1975 team that made me a Red Sox fan, and specifically these two guys, Fred Lynn and Jim Rice (along with El Tiante and Bill Lee).  I'd moved to the Boston area in August 1973 and was a National League and Mets fan.  But two things appealed to me about the Sox, (1) everyone in Boston hated the Yankees, which was part of the baseball creed in which I'd been raised, and (2) late in the '74 season rookies Lynn and Rice joined the club.  Of course, it helped they won the pennant in '75 and the greatest world series I'd seen, three games to four (don't forget Carlton Fisk and Bernie Carbo!).  Freddie won the Rookie of the Year and MVP awards, while Jim hit .309 with 22 homers before getting hit by a pitch and breaking his hand a week before the end of the season, causing him to miss the series.

It was also the season that the future Mrs THC and I attended our first Red Sox game together and saw Rice hit the longest home run I ever saw in person.

Here they are a couple of days ago in Springfield, Massachusetts; Jim at 70, Fred at 71, both looking good. 

Twins reunion …Jimmy looks great. … stories flying. ⁦@MGMSpringfield⁩ #Soxwinterweekend ⁦@NESN⁩ ⁦@RedSox⁩ pic.twitter.com/eAE2Q1kyMG

— Fred Lynn (@19fredlynn) January 21, 2024

Blank

Looks like THC will be leaving the presidential line blank on the ballot for the first time since he started voting in 1972 (McGovern was my choice back then).

I wish this was happening instead!

What elderly men should be doing pic.twitter.com/fwsgFh9qMD

— Emil O W Kirkegaard (@KirkegaardEmil) January 21, 2024

Unfortunately, my post of September 2021 proved accurate.

Without A Song

Without a song, the day would never end

My first Perry Como post!  I became aware of this song when it was singled out by Bob Dylan in The Philosophy of Modern Song, one of my favorite books of the past few years.

The most unhip guy I remember on TV from my childhood (other than Lawrence Welk).  This is how Dylan got me to listen:

Perry Como was the anti-Rat Pack, like the anti-Frank; wouldn't be caught dead with a drink in his hand, and could out-sing anybody.  His performance is just downright incredible.  There is nothing small you can say about it.

Perry is also the anti-American Idol.  He is anti-flavor of the week, anti-hot list and anti-bling.  He was a Cadillac before the tail fins; a Colt .45, not a Glock; steak and potatoes, not California cuisine.  Perry Como stands and delivers.  No artifice, no forcing one syllable to spread itself thin across many notes.

Perry Como lived in every moment of every song he sang. . .  When he stood and sang, he owned the song and he shared it and we believed every single word.  What more could you want from an artist?

The song was recorded by Perry a month before I was born in 1951, and composed in 1929 with music by Vincent Youmans and lyrics from Billy Rose and Edward Eliscu.  Now I love listening to it.