Did you know III

I had started writing this post on philosophy. And then, I looked at my previous posts this year and seven of eight of them were on history or politics, with another political update coming up next week. I said to myself, “Lookit here, son, I say son, write something light-hearted.” So I will.

It’s also because I can’t find the philosophy piece I was writing, but, same difference.

I haven’t done a Did You Know in quite a while. A Did you know is a post about movies and tv trivia. I have done two before (10/29/07 and 12/24/07), and despite the fact that I know almost none of the information before I start researching it, it's a lot of fun. By the way, I am furious to see that IMDB now calls it's trivia section "Did you know?" and I am thinking of suing. Does anyone know a lawyer?

So here we go. Did you know. . . .

that I dream of Jeannie (1965) was based on a movie made only the year before called The Brass Bottle, where Tony Randall played the master and Burl Ives the genie? And that Tony Randall’s girlfriend in the movie was played by a stunning 31 year old actress named – Barbara Eden? But, she wasn’t expected to play Jeannie. The producer, Sidney Sheldon, wanted a brunette, to differentiate it from Elizabeth Montgomery in Bewitched. That is, until Jeannie – I mean Barbara, auditioned.

that Alec Baldwin was offered the role of Richard Kimball in The Fugitive?

that Mel Gibson turned down the lead in Gladiator (I hated that movie)?

that Will Smith was supposed to be the lead in The Matrix? That would have been different. He won the first rap Grammy ever, had a hit tv show and has been in 15 movies that have grossed over $100 million dollars.

that John Travolta could have been Forrest Gump and Tom Hanks the lead in Field of Dreams?

that Christopher Walken has played Hamlet and Romeo and MacBeth? That he has been married 42 years, which is a like a thousand years in Hollywood? That he was briefly a lion tamer when a kid and was that close to being Hans Solo – Lucas’ second choice?

that John Ratzenberger, who played Cliff on Cheers, has been in movies grossing over 3.7 BILLION DOLLARS, making him number 4 all time only behind actors Samuel Jackson (2) and Tom Hanks (3), and beating out actors like Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise? That one of those movies was Gandhi, in which his voice was dubbed?

that the all time box office king is someone named Frank Welker, who I sure never heard of, but is a voice in a zillion animated films which have grossed over 5.7 BILLION, dwarfing even films Samuel Jackson has been in?

that When Harry Met Sally was in the works it was originally called Boy Meets Girl and How They Met? That in the original script, they didn’t end up together at the end? That Meg Ryan was the 5th choice for Sallie? That Billy Crystal and the director, Rob Reiner, were actually best friends and that Harry's character was based on Rob's loneliness after his divorce to Penny Marshall, and his conversations with his friend in the movie (played by their real friend, Bruno Kirby) were based on Rob’s and Billy’s conversations after Rob's breakup? That Sallie's character was based on writer Nora Ephron (and her friends)? That Bruno Kirby (who I think was one of the best actors around when he died very young in 2006) has a jawbreaker of a real name – Bruno Giovanni Quidaciolu Jr.? That Meg Ryan’s real name is Margaret Mary Emily Anne Hyra?

that cute little Brandon Cruz, who played Eddie on The Courtship of Eddie’s Father, quit acting at age 18 (1980) to play punk rock, starred as the lead singer for years with the Dead Kennedy’s (who coincidentally, have the only punk song I have ever liked – Kill the Poor) and still performs with a different group?

that not only did David Carradine play Kwai Chang Caine but so did his little brother Keith, as a younger version?

that Happy Days has to be the all time spin-off king (itself spinning off from Love, American Style), including, Laverne & Shirley, Mork & Mindy, Joanie Loves Chaci, and two I never heard of and which were incredibly short lived – Out of the Blue and Blansky’s Beauties, not too mention animated spin-offs of Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley and Mork & Mindy?

that NCIS’s Sean Murray (McGee) is the step-son of the producer, Don Bellisario, whose mother used to play the mysterious redhead dating Jethro in season one? That Ziva's (Cote de Pablo) real name is Maria de Jose Pablo Fernandez, who was born in Chile, raised in Miami, and of course speaks English just fine? That in the first season Tony didn't know anything about movies, not even who Gary Cooper was? That in the first episode Gibbs didn't know FBI agent, Tobias Fornell, but later on later it became Fornell was briefly married to Gibbs' second wife, though Gibbs tried to warn him? That Sasha Alexander (Kate) is Sophie Loren's daughter-in-law and has never really said why she left, but has said there are a million reasons she can't talk about? That George W. Bush appeared as himself on the first episode.

that Cary Grant was one of Ian Fleming's models for James Bond, and he turned down the role in Dr. No, believing himself too old? That's kind of odd, because the next year he starred in Charade with a vastly younger Audrey Hepburn as his co-star and 3 years later he married a young starlet, Dyan Cannon, and had a kid with her.

that Stargate-SG1, a favorite of mine, was the longest running American Sci-Fi show ever - even longer than X-files, but soon to be passed by Smallville? That Christopher Judge, who played Teal'c, was was once on Richard Dean Anderson's MacGyver, which was also the show that inspired Michael Shanks (Dr. Jackson) to become an actor? That the voice of Thor is actually Michael Shanks?

that Megan Mullally, Karen on Will & Grace, played George's girlfriend on Seinfeld in the "double dip" episode? That Debra Messing played Jerry's girlfriend who turned out to be racist? That Michael Chiklis (The Shield, Commish) was the friend from LI whose house the gang went to for a party at which Elaine says to an obnoxious mother "Maybe the dingo ate your baby"? That Courtney Cox, shortly before Friends, played Jerry's girlfriend in the episode where they pretended to be married to get a discount at a dry cleaner? That Amanda Peet was a Jerry girlfriend in the episode where she lived with another guy while dating him? That Brad Garrett (Everybody Loves Raymond) played the mechanic obsessed with cars who steals Jerry's car to protect it?

that, speaking of Courtney Cox, she was supposed to audition for Rachel, but liked Monica's character -- already turned down by Janeane Garofolo -- better? That she was the only one of the six not to get nominated for an Emmy? That John Cryer, Alan of Two and a Half Men, was first choice for Chandler? That when Matt LeBlanc auditioned for Joey he actually was a broke actor? That the original plan was for Joey and Monica to be the main couple?

that Jennifer Taylor, the actress who played Charlie Harper's fiancee for a while on Two and a Half Men, had previously played four different women on the show?

that the actors and actress who play Raymond and Deborah's kids on Everybody Loves Raymond were actually brothers and sister?

that Bob Munden, at least at one time considered the world's fastest draw (I've seen him on tv and his abilities appeared super human), claimed that Jerry Lewis was actually Hollywood's fastest draw followed by Sammy Davis, Jr.?

that The Andy Griffith Show was actually a spin off from Make Room for Daddy? That Barney and Andy were cousins in season one?

Okay, that does it.

Three Cheers for England

You can probably tell from this blog that I’m a Grecophile. But, I’m also an Anglophile. Both countries were essential to the development of logic, philosophy, critical reasoning and science, not to mention political freedom. And, while I'm at it, also not to mention – America.

But, like with Ancient Greece, the amount of time I indulge myself in learning about England or Britain is not proportionally reflected in this blog. I wrote a post on Churchill (Move over Einstein -- The man of the century is . . . 5/9/07) and one on an interesting murder (The Strange Case of Edward Bellingham - 4/28/08). But, can I even count the four on Tolkien (7/17/07, 4/10/08, 5/14/09, 2/21/10)? Yes and no.

Recently, I saw a discussion forum on Amazon asking what are the best books to learn about Britain. I recommended:

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain
Le Mort D’Arthur (these first two are hardly real history, but critical to understanding Britain)
Churchill’s History of the English Speaking Peoples
Antonia Fraser’s Cromwell
Catherine Drinker Bowen’s The Lion and The Throne
Then, Churchill’s History of the Second World War
I didn’t write it on Amazon, but I’ll add here The Ultra Secret. With WWII, ends the long heroic age of Britain.

But, no book reports here (rare, anyway). I’m heading towards the ten greatest events in British history and, no surprise, they are all about liberty. I hope it is a little different than you've seen elsewhere, if at all. Hang on to your bowlers, gentle folk:

10. Common, but great. Ah, King Alfred, how little are ye celebrated now in lands settled by your descendants. Born royal, Alfred the Great long fought the Danish Vikings, eventually defeating, at least for the time being, forcing them to surrender and their leaders to accept Christianity. He was a scholar, as well as a military man, translating many Latin works into Anglo-Saxon himself. He has been credited with creating England as we know it, and it might not be overstatement. It is easy to be cynical about very old history, but as far as we can tell, the King was a pious Christian and a very good man, writing, “My will was to live worthily as long as I lived; and after my life to leave to them to come after me, my memory in good works.” Better still is the epilogue of his anthology, Blossoms, mostly taken from St. Augustine’s Soliloquies (having bored myself silly with Augustine’s Confessions in my youth, I never attempted Soliloquies; it might be better than I fear): “He seems to me a very foolish man and very wretched, who will not increase his understanding while he is in the World – and ever wish and long to reach that endless life where all shall be made clear.”

But, his greatest achievement was his code of laws, or Doom Book (meaning “Judgment Book”) , created from previous codes of Wessex, Kent and Mercia and from the old and new testaments. Fortunately, the golden rule was part of it. Following Leviticus, he wrote, “Doom very evenly! Do not doom one doom to the rich; another to the poor! Nor doom one doom to your friend; another to your foe!” His code was the basis for our common law, ever after in England and then in America, supplemented by Magna Carta, our own constitution, and a gazillion other statutes. But, still, a foundation of our freedom, which gives our lives such joy.

9. The best defense isn’t always a great offense. A few years ago, at the U.N., after a French diplomat bragged about his country being a great nation founded by the French people, a British diplomat joked that they were also a great nation founded by the French people. And, in large part it was true, 1066 being one of the most famous years in history, when Britain was successfully invaded for the second to last time (a Dutch army in 1688 was last). Of course, William the Conqueror claimed that he was entitled to the throne, in any event, but the French dominated England for many years and blended with the Anglo-Saxons (and others) to form the laws, culture and language we know as English or British.

There were actually four Kings of England that year. The first was Edward the Confessor, who barely made it into the year, dying on January 4th. Harold Godwinson was crowned King, and he, unlike his predecessor, was a warrior. But the Duke William of Normandy, Edward’s cousin once removed, claimed the throne as well, believing he was promised it by Edward and sworn fealty to by Harold, who had earlier fought alongside him. Actually, in England at the time, it was the Witenagemot, elderly nobles, who determined the king, and they selected Harold. He didn’t exactly get to enjoy it long as in September, while waiting on William's attack, he had to hurry north to defeat the Norwegian Harald Hardrada in league with his own brother, Tostig Godwinson, and then turn around and head south with a depleted army to fight William, who had already landed, a little over two weeks later near Hastings. He died there, as essentially did Anglo-Saxon rule, although the Witenagemot selected Edgar Æthelring (“Edgar the Exile”), another Edward the Confessor relative, as the new king. William defeated him too – Edgar fled - and was crowned king. It took about another 8 years to polish off the resistance, including Edgar who had fled to Scotland, but the Normans accomplished it (mostly done with William across the water in Normandy).

However, neither the invasion nor 1066 itself is my no. 9 choice, but a momentary decision or perhaps reaction in the battle of Hastings is. The English had no cavalry or bowmen (if any, few). The armed themselves like Homeric warriors with sharp clublike weapons, mostly axe and sword. And like later Greeks, they defended themselves by making a shield wall, which was a good defense against the short range bow and arrow and also cavalry, which could not penetrate the strong wall without room to maneuver within it.

After a long battle where the wall held, the left of the invaders broke and fled downhill, and others on William’s side, sensing disaster, began to flee as well. Sometimes an army is criticized for not pursuing and routing their foe, but, this is where the English made their mistake. Their equipment and strategy worked well on defense, but not well in the open field upon a calvary. William’s own horse itself was felled and it was thought William was dead. But, he rose and threw off his helmet, and rallied his troops. There’s my big moment, although perhaps, like much history, apocryphal. Without the shield wall, the English were vulnerable to the French cavalry. Also, by aiming their arrows over the shields into the rear, the invaders took a terrible toll on the defenders and perhaps then Harold received an arrow in the eye, as we are told. Perhaps he died otherwise, but dead he was. Harold’s two brothers were also slain and William regained the momentum. Slowly, the Norman cavalry found the room it needed to break up the shield wall and win the day. It is entirely possible the invasion would have faltered had the English maintained their position and not broken ranks. Indeed, perhaps Harold would have appended to his name “The Great,” as only Alfred had before him and none after.

8. A great charter, but mostly because of one part. Even I, the worst of school age students remember covering Magna Carta. Although something stirred inside me, I never read it or understood its value until I was an adult, despite the fact that individual liberty was an essential part of my personality - some might add "flaw". It was, of course, not intended to be a statement of the rights of the common man, but of free-men, not women, not serfs. However, it was restated again and again, and is undoubtedly a founding document in the bibliography of liberty.

It was forced upon King John of England, who signed it under threat of destruction. The most controversial part of the charter was its clause which permitted the barons, in sufficient number, to overrule the king. It was rescinded by him as soon as the barons, who now swore fealty again, left London. The Pope at the time also condemned it. John was dead a year later and not until a year after that was the term Magna used before Carta Libertatum - later just Magna Carta. It was not until 1225 that it really entered English law, although much changed.

Clause 39 of the original charter read as follows:

“No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.”

Close to a hundred and fifty years later in one of several revisions, the phrase now read (as clause 29 now):

“No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”

When we formed our constitution, it was written that no person (among other rights) could “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” These words were placed into the 14th amendment, and then applied against the states themselves.

It would not be possible to here provide you with all the freedoms we now have which stem from those words in that useless charter agreed upon only by duress in 1215, but it is the basis of the reason you have a right to know the charges against you, to defend yourself, not to have a confession beaten out of you, and all of the rights we now have which are deemed fundamental. It cannot be given too great an importance.

7. Heroes or villains? I have never been quite sure what to make of Oliver Cromwell. Apparently, neither can the British, as when over there on my second trip, I made it a point to question a few history buffs about whether he was hero or villain. They were all quite frank – they weren’t sure. I recommended Fraser’s book on him for a reason. It is an indefatigably researched work and a classic.

The most dramatic part, in my mind, of the victory of Cromwell and the increase in parliamentary power (forgetting for the time, his own tyranny), was the trial of King Charles I, who the Parliament forces had defeated, where it was established that no man is above the law. Undoubtedly, Charles believed he had right on his side. Had not his own father, James, declared the absolute power of the king? No king of England, or probably any king anywhere else (have I missed someone?), had ever been tried before. They just murdered them. When asked to plea, he answered thus:

“I would know by what power I am called hither. . . . by what Authority, I mean, lawful; there are many unlawful Authorities in the world, Thieves and Robbers by the highways: but I would know by what Authority I was brought from thence, and carried from place to place, (and I know not what), and when I know what lawful Authority, I shall answer: Remember, I am your King, your lawful King, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the Judgment of God upon this Land, think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a greater; therefore let me know by what lawful Authority I am seated here, and I shall not be unwilling to answer, in the meantime I shall not betray my Trust: I have a Trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it to answer a new unlawful Authority, therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me. . . . I will stand as much for the privilege of the house of Commons, rightly understood, as any man here whatsoever. I see no House of Lords, here that may constitute a Parliament, and (the King too) should have been. Is this the bringing of the King to his Parliament? Is this the bringing an end to the Treaty in the public Faith of the world? Let me see a legal Authority warranted by the Word of God, the Scriptures, or warranted by the Constitutions of the Kingdom, and I will answer.”

To which the Lord President responded:

“Sir, you have held yourself, and let fall such Language, as if you had been no ways Subject to the Law, or that the Law had not been your Superior. Sir, The Court is very well sensible of it, and I hope so are all the understanding People of England, That the Law is your Superior, that you ought to have ruled according to the Law, you ought to have done so. Sir, I know very well your pretence hath been that you have done so, but Sir, the difference hath been who shall be the Expositors of this Law, Sir, whether you and your Party out of Courts of Justice shall take upon them to expound Law, or the Courts of Justice, who are the Expounders; nay, the Sovereign and the High Court of Justice, the PARLIAMENT of England, that are not only the highest expounders, but the sole makers of the Law. Sir, for you to set yourself with your single judgment, and those that adhere unto you, to set yourself against the highest Court of Justice, that is not Law.

Sir, as the Law is your Superior; so truly Sir, there is something that is Superior to the Law, and that is indeed the Parent or Author of the Law, and that is the People of England . . .

Sir, that road we are now upon by the command of the highest Courts hath been and is to try and judge you for these great offenses of yours. Sir, the Charge hath called you Tyrant, a Traitor, a Murderer, and a public Enemy to the Commonwealth of England. Sir, it had been well, if that any or all these terms might rightly and justly have been spared, if any one of them at all.”

To which the once powerful King responded:

“Ha!”

6. A man and his hat. This trial is so delicious, I cannot pretend to do justice to it as a mere part of this post, but might return to it for a full discussion in due time. I’ve no doubt, if you are American, you have learned about William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. But I rather doubt you have heard about his hat, which is the greatest part of his life story. You see, though the son of an admiral, he was a bit of a trouble maker, having fallen in with the Quakers, and outlawed sect which was persecuted by the crown.

In 1670 Penn and a “friend” were arrested and charged for going to a “meeting,” which is what Quakers called their services. Brought to court, the bailiffs removed their hats. However, the Mayor (one of those who sat on the bench with the recorder and aldermen) wanted to have a little fun with the Quakers, and had their hats put back on, which was a big mistake on his part. This is a mere scrap of what Penn put the court through:

Recorder: Do you know where you are?
Penn: Yes.
Recorder: Do you know it is the King’s court?
Penn: I know it to be a court, and I suppose it to be the King’s court.
Recorder: Do you know there is respect due to the court?
Penn: Yes.
Recorder: Why do you not pay it, then?
Penn: I do so.
Recorder: Why do you not put off your hat, then?
Penn: Because I do not believe that to be respect.
Recorder: Well, the court sets 40 marks apiece upon your heads, as a fine, for your contempt of the court.
Penn: I desire that it may be observed, that we came into the court with our hats off (that is, taken off), and if they have been put on since, it was by order from the bench; and therefore not we, but the bench, should be fined.

After the so-called trial, the jury was basically directed to find a guilty verdict. They came back with a mock verdict, finding them “guilty of speaking in Gracious Street,” without adding “. . . to an unlawful assembly. No matter how the bench threatened, they kept coming back with the same verdict. Penn protested, as he did throughout.

Penn: It is intolerable that my jury should thus be menaced; is this according to the fundamental law? Are not they not my proper judges by the Great Charter of England? What hope is there of ever having justice done when juries are threatened and their verdicts rejected?

Later, having had enough:

Mayor: Stop his mouth; jailor, bring fetters and stake him to the ground.
Penn: Do your pleasure, I matter not your fetters.
Recorder: Till now I never understood the reason of the policy and prudence of the Spaniards, in suffering the Inquisition among them, and certainly it will never be well with us till something like the Spanish Inquisition be in England.
Penn: I know it to be a court, and I suppose it to be the King’s court.
Recorder: Do you know there is respect due to the court?
Penn: Yes.
Recorder: Why do you not pay it, then?
Penn: I do so.
Recorder: Why do you not put off your hat, then?

Two days and two nights without food and beds only brought the jury to make a finding of “Not guilty,” which in regular form, the court could not reject. But, he decided to fine the jury 40 marks each and to being imprisoned until paid. Penn demanded his own freedom:

Penn: I demand my liberty, being freed by the jury.
Mayor: No, you are in for your fines.
Penn: Fines for what?
Mayor: For contempt of the court.
Penn: I ask that if it be according to the fundamental laws of England, that any Englishman should be fined or amerced but by the judgment of his peers or jury . . . .
Recorder: Take him away, take him away; take him out the court.
Penn: I can never urge the fundamental laws of England but you cry, Take him away, take him away, but ‘tis no wonder, since the Spanish Inquisition has so great a place in the Recorder’s heart. God almighty, who is just, will judge you for all these things.

Again, this is but a small part of a trial where the court violated substantial rules, not even allowing Penn to know the charges or to put on a defense. The jury was later set free by a higher court, having courageously maintained their integrity. Against Penn’s wishes, his father, near death, paid the fine for his son and his friend. The trial is not the first example of what is called of jury nullification, but it did result in a ruling where courts were no longer permitted to punish jurors for coming to a result which displeased the bench.

Given my propensity for verbosity, I am making this a two parter, so that none might feel they'd rather be held prisoner without due process than finish it today.

Atheist and Bible to marry! Read all about it!

Could be a little excess hyperbole in the title there. I was also thinking of calling it - "Why this atheist loves the Bible," which amounts to the same thing with a little less drama. But, the truth is, I do love the Bible, and sometimes that perplexes people who know I do not believe in God. Very rarely, it angers someone, but that has happened. Too bad. Even had they the copyright for it, they couldn't keep me from commenting on it. Nor can they stop me from saying "God bless you" if they sneeze or "God damn," "Good God," "Jeeesus Christ" or any other expression. Sometimes, I have even been known to comment, "that's the weight God wants me to be" (but, I'm fighting it nevertheless) which caused one friend of mine to look very puzzled and to say "But you don't believe in God." I know, I know, but religions have such great metaphors.

I love the Bible, not because I believe it is divinely inspired or the word of God, not because I believe it is accurate in its history or accept the miracles in it as having taken place. I love it for the stories, and the language and the occasional inspiration, and also for its prominent place in the only culture I have ever intimately known. Today I thought I'd write about a Biblical character you wouldn't normally read about. I'm using the NIV Bible, if anyone cares.

My favorite prophet. When I was a kid one of my favorite programs was My Favorite Martian, a show about a martian with certain powers who came to live with an ordinary young man. In the Bible, there are many people with amazing abilities, including prophets, but, for some reason, this one prophet Elisha is my favorite among them. He doesn't drone on and on about the fall of Israel much, bellow angry jeremiads; he just does cool stuff and reminds me a bit of character's in Grimm's Fairy Tales more than an old wizened prophet. Then again, the tales about him also remind me, in his irascibility, a little bit of Gandalf too (as often magical and irascible old men do). Or maybe it's just that the Grimm Bros. and Tolkien were so influenced by the Bible. You can find the tales about Elisha in 2 Kings 2-13.  I'll go through some of them and when you sit down tonight with your King James version in your hand, you can read the whole thing.

Elijah and Elisha. Elisha (meaning, I read, my God is salvation - "El" in a Biblical name always refers to God) didn't just jump out of a rock whispering spells and croaking bad guys. He was an apprentice first to someone who is probably the most popular prophet in the Bible, Elijah, aka, Elijah the Tishbite. Elijah is sometimes lumped together with Moses and Jesus, and that's not bad Biblical company. Jews know him best from the Passover holiday, as there is a place set for him at dinner, and reputedly, he drinks the wine left at the table for him. One day (Elisha's introduction is found in 1 Kings 19), Elijah sees a boy, Elisha, plowing a field with oxen, and throws a cloak over him. The boy says good-bye to mom and dad, burns his plow to make a fire to feed his people, and the goes with his new master. "Then he set out to follow Elijah and became his attendant." Just like that. If it reminds you a little of Jesus calling Matthew - me too.

"Dragons live forever, but not so little boys," says the song, and apparently not prophets either. Elijah was going to be called to heaven. On a journey near his end he told Elisha to stay where he was because the Lord had sent him to Bethel. Elisha replies, almost rythmically, "As surely as the Lord lives and as you live, I will not leave you." So, he accompanied him. At Bethel another prophet asked him if he knew the Lord was going to take his master, and he acknowledged he did, but said, "Yes, I know, but do not speak of it." They repeated this little scenario in heading into Jericho and to the Jordan River and Elisha repeated his little mantra - "As surely as the Lord . . . ."

When they got to the river, Elijah, with a company of prophets watching, took off his cloak, rolled it, and struck the water with it. The river split and the two crossed dryly. If that reminds you a little of Moses splitting the Red Sea by waving his hand - me too. I like to call this event "The Prophet and the Second Parting," not because it's such a big deal, but I just think it sounds like a good title.

When they got to the other side, Elijah asked what he could do for Elisha and his wise apprentice asked for a double helping of Elijah's spirit. Ah, that was not so easy, warned Elijah, but he promised that if Elisha saw him when he was taken, he would have it. Then, walking along and chatting, horses and chariot of fire appeared, separating them and taking Elijah to heaven in a whirlwind. If that reminds you a little of Hades springing up from the earth to snatch away Persephone - me too.

Elisha helplessly calls after him – “My father! My father!” and tore his own clothes. But, he picks up Elijah’s cloak, the one that had been used to call him, and walks back to the Jordan River. He took the cloak and cried “Where now is the Lord, the God of Elijah” and struck the water as Elijah had. With that the waters parted again, and literally taking up his master’s mantle, he crossed. Touching, isn’t it?

The same company of prophets was watching and noted that Elijah’s spirit was resting upon him. They doltishly asked if they should go look for Elijah to see if God put him down somewhere. Elisha says no, but they keep asking until he is embarrassed into it. Of course, they find nothing, and when they come to him, he pretty much says – “Told you.”

Elisha and the thirsty townspeople. Then Elisha, apparently already in his full powers, a sorcerer’s apprentice with his awesome abilities is asked by the townspeople to solve their bad water problem. He tells them to bring him a bowl and put some salt in it. He flings the salt into the spring and fresh water comes out. Seem like a boring tale? Maybe it’s not so dramatic, but when you remember that in some Eastern religions and Western superstitions salt had mystical ability to ward off evil spirits (ever notice Sumo wrestlers throwing salt before a match?), it takes on new significance.

Elisha and the two bears. Don’t mistake Elisha for the Dalai Lama. He wanders back to Bethel where some kids mock him, calling him “Baldy.” I kid you not. I know, because the Bible tells me so. Taking the ribbing rather hard, he calls down a curse of the Lord. Two bears come out of the woods and maul 42 of the kids. If that reminds you a little of Tolkien's "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards for they are subtle and quick to anger” - me too.  However, he moves on, probably wisely. I can't imagine the parents would be overly happy.

Elisha and the three kings.  Three kings of Israel, Samaria and Judah decide to attack Moab, which had rebelled against Israel when the new king came in, find themselves in the desert without water (which, of course, is why one does not go into the desert without a lot of it). The king of Judah asked if there was no prophet who they could inquire of (If that reminds you of the Greek oracles . . . ) and someone replied that Elisha who used to pour water on Elijah’s hands was around. When the king of Israel comes to him, Elisha, ever the grouch, asks, “What do we have to do with each other?” and tells him to go to the prophets of his mother and father.” When the king of Israel protests that it was the Lord who called the three of them together, Elisha answers in that cranky yet whacky way, “As surely as the Lord Almighty lives, whom I serve, if I did not have respect for the presence of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, I would not look at you or even notice you. But now bring me a harpist.”

Bring me a harpist? But, apparently it helped put him in the mood, because he is now touched by the Lord and is able to tell them to dig a ditch and it will fill up with water. Not only that, but he will hand over Moab to them, and they can have their way. Sure enough, in comes the water. But, when the Moabites see it, it looks red and they think their enemies have slaughtered each other. So, they attack and got their Moabite heads handed to them, just as Elisha predicted. However, after a failed counter-attack, the king of Moab did what you or I would do – he sacrificed his oldest son. Apparently, God appreciated that, as “the fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.” See why I love the Bible. All it needs are orcs and a balrog.

Elisha and the oil jars. Not all the stories are so compelling. This one makes you want to say – “And . . . so?” One woman comes to him and tells him that her husband, a member of the company of prophets, therefore Elisha's servant, is dead and their creditor wants to sell her two boys into slavery. Elijah asks her what she has and she says a little oil. So, he has her borrow jars from her neighbors and pour the oil in them. She then tells him what they have done, and he replies – “Go, sell the oil and pay your debts.” I think the moral is sometimes you just need someone to tell you that what is right in front of your face – is right in front of your face, and just get busy.

Elisha and the sugar momma. A wealthy woman from Shunem and her husband make a little room for Elisha in their house for when he’s around. One day he is there lying about and he calls his servant, Gehazi, and tells him to summon the lady. He asks what he can do for her in return for this hospitality. Of course, she has nothing to ask for. But, Gehazi suggests that she has no son and her husband is old. The next thing you know, Elisha is telling her that she will have a son next year. She tells him not to get her hopes up, but sure enough, the next year she gives birth to a son. If that reminds you a little of Abraham and Sarah, or the Virgin Mary . . . . Frankly, I am just a little suspicious that Gehazi didn’t have more to do with it than The Good Book is telling us. In any event, some years later, the child complains to his father of a headache, and the next thing you know, he’s dead. His mother rushes off to Mount Carmel to find Elisha. At first, Elisha has Gehazi rush to her to ask what is the matter and she inexplicably responds that everything is fine. But when she gets to Elisha she grabs hold of him and Gehazi shoves her away. But, Elisha barks at him to leave her alone and she tells him what happened. He sends Gehazi to the child with his staff with orders to lay it on the boy’s face (Holy Gandalf! A magic staff!). It didn’t work and Elisha went himself. He lay himself down on the boy, “mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands,” and the boy warmed, sneezed seven times and woke. Mythological tales of bringing someone back to life are quite common, but this one was pretty dramatic. Of course, Isis dancing around Osiris with a magic phallus might be just as good.

Elijah and the bad stew. Back home in Gilgal during a famine, Elisha was hosting the company of prophets. He ordered his servants to make a stew which they did out of herbs, vines and gourds. But, when the prophets ate it they yelled, “O man of God, there is death in the pot!” So, Elisha had them mix some flour in and it worked out just fine. As someone who has had the same thing happen at a dinner party, let me explain. Every good stew needs some flour as stock. Oh, yes, much practical advice can be garnered from the Holy Bible.

Elisha and the bread. Another food related story involves a visitor who brings Elisha 20 loaves of bread (apparently, Elisha entertains a lot). When Elisha tells his servant to feed the people, the servant tells him that he can’t feed 100 people with so little bread. Elisha tells him again to do it and reminds him that the Lord says, “They will eat and have some left over.” Easy for the Lord to say. But, sure enough, when they set it out, there’s enough. Which brings up another practical point - most people over cook for their parties, always sure they will not have enough. By the way, if this story reminds you of Jesus feeding the people . . . .

Gehazi’s big mistake. Another time a man from Aram, Naaman, went to the king of Israel to ask that he be cured of his leprosy by Elisha. The king did not take it well, reading the letter of introduction from Naaman's king, tore his clothes (you notice this happens all the time), and said “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!” But, perhaps I’m being unfair. Unlike, say, the mayor of San Antonio, who never has to worry that the mayor of Houston is going to attack his town one day, these kings had to be quite careful about insulting their neighbors. But, in any event, when Elisha heard about it he sent the king a message, which I will interpret loosely as, “What’s with the drama? Sent him to me and I’ll show him the good stuff.”

When Naaman went to the man of God, Elisha sent out a messenger who told him all he had to do was to wash in the Jordan 7 times. Naaman went away angry, saying that he thought Elisha would have “come out to me and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy.” Even then, presentation was everything. Finally, a servant convinced him to do it and lo and behold, it worked. He went back to Elisha, said he knew that the only God was in Israel and asked him if he could reward him. Elisha said in his typical fashion, “As surely as the Lord lives, whom I serve, I shall not accept a thing.” Trust me that wasn't always the case. Personally I usually give up the second time something is offered to me, having learned from experience that my refusal is far more irritating to the giver than the good feeling I get from not accepting, but Elisha was adamant.

Gehazi, however, if you remember him, was not happy about it. He went after Naaman and Naaman, seeing him, got out of his chariot and asked if everything was all right. It was, Gehazi said, but a couple of prophets came by and Elisha wanted to know if you would give them some money and clothes. With this, Naaman happily complied. Gehazi hid the gifts away and came before Elisha.

“’Where have you been, Gehazi?’ Elisha asked.
‘Your servant didn’t go anywhere,’ Gehazi answered.
But Elisha said to him, ‘Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you?’”

Now, you know that Gehazi is saying to himself something like, “Oh, boy. Please not the bears. Not the bears.” But, no bears. However, Elisha arranges it so that Gehazi ad his descendents get Naaman’s leprosy. Remember what I said before about meddling in the affairs of wizards. Anyway, Gehazi does return later, so perhaps it was the leprosy flu.

Elisha and the iron axe. When the company of prophets came to Elisha, they asked him to come down to the Jordan with them, as the place where they met was too small, and they wanted to build a place down the river. At the river, one of the men dropped his iron axe in the water. “Oh, my Lord," he cried out, "it was borrowed.” Elisha asked him where it fell, and cutting a stick, threw it in the water, causing the iron axe to float. The man plucked it out of the water. If this reminds you of Jesus walking on water . . . .

Elisha and the blind guys. Remember I told you they never knew when there neighbor was going to attack them. Well, soon enough the very same Aram from whence Naaman came is raiding Israel. Their king becomes quite frustrated that the Israelis always find out his plans and avoid him. At first he suspects one of his men. But, then it is explained to him that Elisha, residing in Dohan, is telling Israel's king Aram’s plans.

So the king of Aram sends men to surround Dohan. When Eliza comes out with his servant, they see the enemy troops and the servant panics. But Elisha tells him not to worry, that there are many more of us than them. He prays to the Lord to open the servant’s eyes and then he can see a ring of fiery chariots surrounding them. Then Eliza prays that his enemies are struck blind, and so they are. If this reminds you of the story of Lot.

Elisha tells the attackers, “This is not the road and this is not the city. Follow me, and I will lead you to the man you are looking for. And he led them to his own king in Samaria. The Israeli king asks if he should kill them, but, Elisha instead counsels him to feast them and send them home, which is done. And Aram stopped raiding Israel. For a while, anyway.

Elisha and the king's officer. When the Arameans attacked Samaria again, there was famine and the price of food was terrible. The king in a fury decided to kill Elisha (I’m guessing because his God wasn’t helping much). But, Elisha knew it before the king’s messenger even got there, and he had his prophets shut the door against him. The king asked why he should wait for the Lord anymore. Elisha foretold that that time tomorrow, flour and barley will be cheaper. The officer on whose arm the king leaned (hey, that's what the Bible calls him), questioned Elisha further, and Elisha predicted it would happen, and he would see it, but not get to eat any of it. If this reminds you of Moses and the Holy Land . . . .

In the meantime, 4 lepers were living by the gates. They decided that if they stayed there, they would die, so they decided to surrender to the Arameans and hoped they wouldn’t kill them. Unbeknownst to them, the Lord had made a big racket and the Arameans, believing the Egyptians and Hittites were attacking, fled. When the lepers got there, they ate, drank and pilfered. Then they realized they should tell the king or they might get in trouble. So they did. Scouts were sent and found that in their flight the Arameans had discarded their clothes and equipment.

The Israelis came out and plundered the Arameans camp, trampling to death as they went the officer on whose arm the king leaned. As Elisha predicted, prices would come down, and he would get to see it, but he would never eat it.

Elisha and his worst prediction. Elisha went to Aram and the king sent his servant, Hazael, to ask him if he would recover from his illness. When Hazael asked as he was bid, Elisha told him that he should tell the king that he would recover, but that he knew he was going to die.

At that, Elisha began crying. When Hazael asked him why, Elisha said because he knew Hazael would kill the people of Israel (he was a lot more graphic, including ripping open pregnant women’s bellies). When Hazael asked how it was possible that a servant could do this, Elisha said that God had revealed to him that Hazael would be king.

Sure enough, when Hazael went back to his king and told him that Elisha said he would recover. “But the next day he took a thick cloth, soaked it in water and spread it over the king’s face, so that he died. Then Hazael succeeded him as king." Maybe Elisha shouldn't have had such a big mouth.

The end of Elisha. Things become complicated at this point, particularly with war, and I skip ahead to the end of his life. Elisha was suffering from an illness. The king of Israel came to him worried about war with Aram. Elisha had him open a window and shoot an arrow. Then he told him to strike the ground. The king did so three times. “The man of God was angry with him and said, ‘You should have struck the ground five or six times; then you would have defeated Aram and completely destroyed it. But now you will defeat it only three times.'”

I'm not sure what the significance of this last tale is, but, it's possible that the old fellow may have just lost it, because that made little sense. Or maybe he was just having fun with him.

And then, just like that, the old man died and was buried. But, later, some Israelis were burying a man when they saw Moabite raiders and they threw the body into Elisha’s tomb. The man rolled onto Elisha’s bones, and then he suddenly stood up alive. If this reminds you of Jesus and Lazarus .  .  . .

Political update for February, 2011

What in the world happened to Glenn Beck?

I barely watch cable news shows any more, pretty much since the ’08 elections, and particularly at night, when the commentators are almost literally throwing red meat to their audiences. Still watch Morning Joe maybe 20 minutes a week and if there is good coverage of havoc somewhere, as there is this week, I’ll watch that. Glenn Beck is someone I have never watched with the exception if I am on the thingee at the gym, and Cash Cab isn’t on another set. I do put on talk radio when I drive and I have to say that personally, I like him personally for the most part.

And I’ve always said about him, he can make a lot of sense (meaning when he agrees with me) – until he says something crazy. I had heard he said wild things, but hadn’t seen it myself because I wasn’t on the thingee all that long and sometimes Cash Cab was actually on too. Then one night, he said something that really made me laugh. While making oodles of money on tv, his own radio show and being a best selling author, he announced – we are no longer a capitalist company.

What? I wish I could have had a line into his show, ring him up and ask him in front of his audience – how much money did you earn tonight? Beck took cable by storm, ringing up huge audiences. And then, for some reason, when the tea party was at it’s hottest in 2010 and you would thing he'd ride that wave, his ratings started going down. Not just a little. A lot. It didn’t make sense. He even managed to have a very successful rally last year on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Washington D.C. speech.

Now, in 2011, his tv audience is down about 40% from the year before and 50% with the younger demographic. It’s not that the network is doing badly. Fox still beats CNN and MSNBC combined. And Beck, bad as he did comparatively, still beats Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer and Headline News together, but his ratings have been progressively going down. But Brett Bair, who seems like a really nice guy with little charisma, is now no. 2 overall on the station, and Hannity no. 2 with the youth rating. Beck is demoted to 5th.

Fox gets its rating from conservatives, not liberals and not that many independents. And, he hasn’t done anything to offend them. So where is his audience going? It can’t be that he doesn’t say whacky things anymore. I heard him defend on the radio the other day Michele Bachman’s statement that the founders worked tirelessly until they ended slavery was true. Really? Even the youthful founder, James Madison, had died almost three decades before the 13th amendment. She specified J. Q. Adams, who was not only not a founder, but the son of a founder, and he was also long gone before the 13th amendment was even proposed. I listened to him say it online again just to be sure and I had it right. It was an unusually angry rant against Chris Matthews (who also says crazy things) and he even claimed that Matthews hates Frederick Douglass because Douglass changed his mind and said the constitution was an anti-slavery document. That’s true, Douglass did do that, but it was, in my opinion – because, as Mr. Beck suggests, I actually do my own homework and read history, that it was purely a political decision by Douglass and even ruined his relationship with William Lloyd Garrison. And, one more thing, Mr. B. He didn’t do it after he had a conversation with Abraham Lincoln. They didn’t even know each other at the time and met over a decade after his 1852 speech.

What happened to Glenn Beck? I don’t know. Still better to be him than Keith Olbermann or David Shuster, of course.

Speaking of Keith Olbermann

I’ve often said out of all the pundits, the meanest, the one I can stomach the least, was Keith Olbermann. Not that I didn’t think he was talented. He is a good looking man with a great voice and can talk a blue streak. Like many of the other television or radio political jocks, he can rambles on about the same thing over and over again and maintain grow his audience (although tiny compared to Fox). He writes much (maybe all - not sure) of his own stuff, and it rings, whether you agree or not.

Back in ’08 when I still watched cable news, I email MSNBC several times. They finally took my request (along with, I’m sure, thousands of other people) and fired him along with Chris Matthews from their campaign anchor positions. I don’t really think someone like Mr. Matthews belongs doing campaign coverage, but Mr. Olbermann made a joke of it to the point it seemed like a Barack Obama campaign commercial.

When he was fired from his job last week I watched some old videos on youtube. In one, while Joe Scarborough commentated from the Republican convention, KO said under his breath – “Someone get a shovel,” and got called out on it. One night he pissed off his co-anchor so bad that Chris Matthews interrupted the conversation with the next guest and yelled at him. This could not have made anyone really happy at MSNBC.

Reportedly, the station wanted to fire him a long time ago. I wish they did. I try not to dislike people, but sometimes it happens anyway and I just have problems with his hubris. The day he was canned I tried to email Bill O’Reilly (not really a fan of his either) as Olbermann had made a regular mockery of him. I couldn’t remember the email address he repeats like a mantra on his show, but I wanted to send him the following idea.

At the end of his show he should face the camera and say: “We learned today that a certain competitor and critic of mine was fired from his job at a network I’d rather not mention. In fact, I’m not going to comment on the whole story at all.”

And, then give the biggest smile he can while the camera just lingered on him.

Wherefrom Egypt and Tunisia?

Egypt is getting the 24/7 news coverage it should, and I never cease to be amazed 10 years after 9/11 how ignorant news personnel are about Islam. Sure, they’ve learned a few buzz words like Shi’a and Sunni, but they don’t know much about them.

Here’s something you can mention at your next cocktail party (incidentally, is there really even such thing as a cocktail party anymore, and if there is, why have I never been invited to one?) – the news media will tell you endlessly that this cycle of protest started in Tunisia last week. And, it may be true. But, it is quite possible that the inspiration for what happened in Tunisia and now Egypt, Yemen, etc., started in North Africa all right, but in an area known as either Western Sahara or Morocco, depending on your view point, back in November of last year.

If you look at a map of Africa, which I confess I do more than would seem healthy, and find Morocco right across the water from Spain, you will find to the southwest of it a country called Western Sahara.

Actually, it’s not quite a country. According to the U.N. it is a non-self-governing territory. It may not look so big on a map of Africa, but that’s because the countries neighboring it are huge. It is actually larger than France, for example, which is the largest country in the European Union. But, it is also mostly sand as you'd guess from the name.

The territory has been disputed between Morocco and the Polisario Front (Communist? Free market advocates? Criminal syndicate? Terrorist links? Freedom fighters? All of the above?) for about 35 years or so when Spain finally gave her up as a colony in the 1975. Some countries recognize her as an independent country and some recognize Morocco as the sovereign. I don’t intend to go through the whole history, but despite the fact that most of it is unusable and that there are only a half million people in the entire area, compared to France again with 62 million or 124 times as many people, they fought a war over it for a while. Morocco continues to govern much of it.

About 3 months ago, there was a dust up. A group of the native Sahrawis set up a protest tent city outside of the major city of Laayoune. It was the largest protest they have ever had there since Spain left. Moroccan troops attacked. The tent city was broken up and there were many injuries and reportedly the deaths of dozens of natives and a dozen officers. The fighting spread to the city and there were fires and stone throwing akin to what we saw in Tunisia and are now seeing in Egypt. France, which backs Morocco in its claim, blocked a U.N. inquiry.

Can I say with certainty that the events in Western Sahara was a cause of what took place in Tunisia and now Egypt. Of course not. But they are in the same area of the world and although we pretty much ignore here what happens in Western Sahara, it is big news in that part of the world (I checked their English language newspapers). While the revolt in Tunisia was going on, the Polisario Front and Morocco were engaged, without fruit, in another round of U.N. negotiations which had originally scheduled to start the same day as the Laayoune battle. And, of course, the attack on the protesters came only a few months ago. Proximity in time and place should mean something.

I’m not suggesting a John Le Carre type conspiracy here. I am only talking about inspiration? The Tunisian revolt did not come from nothing. I’m suggesting that this event, virtually unreported in the United States, might be a large part of it.

As I did with our invasion in Panama, Desert Storm and the last invasion of Iraq, I am glued to the television set watching the same scenes in Egypt over and over again. And, I admit, I am excited by it like I would be watching an NFL football game. That’s probably not politically correct to say and it’s not that I don’t have empathy. I have plenty of that. But, this is not news you can catch up with later.

What amazes me is how many people think they know what is going to happen. Think about it. Mubarak has been there for thirty years and there were only 3 for the nearly 30 years before that. Who knew Sadat was going to be assassinated? Who knew that Mubarak would be there for 30 years? Who knew this was going to happen?

As I write this, there is a deadline given by the protesters for Muhbarak to be gone by tomorrow. They are preparing for an attack on them. But, no one knows what is going to happen. Is the government going to have the so-called “goon squads” charge again? Is the Muslim Brotherhood plotting to take power once the government is gone? Will President Obama be more outspoken in supporting the protesters? Is Mubarak right that if he leaves now, there will be chaos? Does Elbaradei have any real say in anything or any serious future? Do we want a less secular, more anti-Israel democracy in place? These are all questions and I do not have any answers. More, I’d suggest that anyone who predicts correctly, will have just gotten lucky.

I don’t even know what will happen by tomorrow morning and despite that tv will be boring again, I hope for a peaceful solution.

Still no shows on the right for 2012

How different is this than the last time? By now the candidates for both sides were mostly known if you were paying attention. Now, of course, we know Barack Obama is going to be the candidate for the Democrats. The fantasy of the right that Hillary Clinton was going to challenge him for the nomination – always laughable – is not even thought about anymore.

But where are the Republican leader? Tim Pawlenty is busy trying to get anyone to notice him, but he hasn’t announced. Mitt Romney is doing his rounds, boring everyone, not answering questions about the Massachusetts health care plans well, and not announcing anything. It is such a desert out there that now the media is starting to speculate about Jon Huntsman, who has a slightly better chance of winning than I do, and Michele Bachmann, who is more deliberately divisive than Sarah Palin can ever hope to be.

And that is who we are all waiting for, isn’t it? Sarah Palin. That will be front page news. 

I am almost positive I am right about Mike Huckabee (I always want to call him Bill, for some reason). He isn’t running. Maybe I dreamed he already said so, because I had to double check. If I haven’t suggested it before, I don’t think Ms. Palin will either. I think she knows she can’t win and losing might jeopardize her chances forever or hurt her celebrity, which is how she makes her living. The time may be right for her followers, but she is not ready, if she ever will be. For reasons I can’t quite comprehend, Mayor Giuliani said if she runs, he might. I guess he sees himself as the moderate and thinks the comparison will do him well. But, he couldn’t get anywhere last time and this time the party has moved right. He’s kidding himself. Newt Gingrich is occasionally getting his name in the news. With less certainty than my other predictions, I just don’t feel a run by him, even if he donated very heavily to Iowan politicians and went there ten times in 2010. This is what is reasonably called “spidey-sense.”

I am expecting a much smaller field than last time. I’m not counting Alan Keyes whether he turns up on a debate platform or not (the greatest unsolved mystery of the ’08 campaign). It won’t be as exciting as last time unless Sarah Palin running, and in some ways, I’m kind of happy they are waiting. Elections bring out the worst in people. It’s not that I mind family and friends calling me a Nazi, Commie, racist, partisan, American hater and misogynist. Sometimes I find it funny. But, I wouldn’t mind if it was just for a little shorter period this time.

Health care, anyone?

The health care repeal in the senate has failed. It’s done. But, still, a federal district court in Florida has declared the law unconstitutional based on the mandate requiring those who don’t want health care (and some who can’t afford it) to pony up anyway and pay a penalty.

The argument by about half the states, which are opposing the law is that the mandate is the first time in history people will be required to pay for a product they don’t want, which is not authorized by the commerce clause contained in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution.

A Virginian court has already found this, but it stayed the enforcement knowing that it would go up on appeal. This judge, Roger Vinson, instead that as he granted a declaratory judgment stating the law unconstitutional (because the rest of the health care law can’t work without the money from the mandate), no injunction is necessary.

What does that mean for the states? Generally speaking, any district court judge can declare a law unconstitutional and it is until appealed and overturned. Right wing media hosts have been saying that the argument is over and the federal government has no choice – the federal government can’t put the law in effect barring Judge Vinson someday being overruled. That’s pretty funny, of course, as quite recently they were telling us that a district court didn’t have the power to force the federal government to stop enforcing don’t ask, don’t tell.

What do lawyers think? They don’t seem to know. Some attorney generals are already saying that their states should continue and others that they should not. I would say that for those within the jurisdiction of the Florida federal court, that is true. Which would mean in Florida, but not any other state.

The truth is, this should get an expedited hearing in the responsible court of appeals, and then straight up to the Supreme Court. Too much rides on this as a result of the size of the legislation.

I watched a bunch of fancy schmancy lawyers on C-Span the other day as they were questioned by Senators. The lawyers, of course, differed as to whether the law violated the commerce clause. No surprise as the congress usually tries to have witnesses of different persuasions. Some felt this is well within congress’s powers and others that it is revolutionary. Personally, it seemed to me a waste of time for the Senate to listen to disparate opinions now given that it is up to the courts to decide.

This is a politically explosive case. Politically explosive cases often end up as 5-4 decisions in the Supreme Court. However, both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia have shown a bit of leeway in commerce clause cases and it cannot be positively stated what they will decide. However, that is not a prediction. Just a - don't be surprised. I rather think they will side with the complaining states, but one argument, which might have some effect on Justices Kennedy and Scalia, is that no one doubts this would be constitutional if the penalty was a general tax and a credit was given to those who purchased health care. That is, it would be the same thing phrased differently. Justice Scalia sometimes asks in oral argument - so, if we just change the titles around, everything's fine? Another argument that might affect them is one Justice Scalia concerned himself with before, that the necessary and proper clause permits regulation of non-commerce when it affects interstate commerce. However, they may also find that is true with activities but not inactivities like not buying health insurance.

It was a very long decision and I’m not about to decode it here. But, I will give you a few basics. Congress is not authorized to pass any law it wants. It has to be authorized by the constitution's grant of power to it in Article 1, section 8, which lists a whole bunch of things congress can do, including things like coining money, declaring war, and regulating interstate commerce, among them. At the end of the list there is what is called the necessary and proper clause. That clause means that even if something isn’t in the list, congress can still do it if it is necessary and proper to achieve one of things it is permitted to do.

Long ago, and while some few founders were still alive, the necessary and proper clause was interpreted to mean convenient and proper. Fuss all you want, it is too firmly entrenched in our constitutional law since 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland) to be overturned without a near legal revolution. Chief Justice John Marshall noted that the commerce clause was difficult to interpret and probably would be as long as we kept the system we had. He was right. However, for a long time, the commerce law was not that controversial and rarely referred to by congress.

Although you can trace a long change in the history of the commerce clause starting in the late 19th century, it really accelerated in the late 1930s and early 1940s with New Deal legislation. One of the cases that most dramatically demonstrates the sea change in the law is Wickard v. Filburn (1942), wherein a farmer who was also growing food to feed his own family was held to be in violation of a federal law limiting what he could grow. That a farmer could be told that the federal government could tell him he couldn’t grow his own food on his own property to feed his family stunned many people then and continues to now.

This isn’t going to be a full tutorial on the commerce clause which you can get many other places, including on Wikipedia, but hopefully you get the drift. Nowadays, most everything the congress wants to authorize under the clause passes the Supreme Court’s test. While the court drew a line in the sand in the 90s in two cases (Morrison and Lopez, if you care), they then drew back a little (Raich, if you still care), it continues to be the go to provision in the constitution. This is not just because of a change in the interpretation in the law, but I don’t think anyone, even the most ardent states’ right advocate, disagrees that there is a lot more interstate activity now than in the early days of the country.

Two district courts have found that this law is constitutional and two that it is not. Before it gets to the Supreme Court, there might have to be a split in the various circuit courts of appeals. It might get there anyway because of the seriousness of the dispute. But, that the Supreme Court will decide itself.

Personally, I think the interstate commerce clause has been expanded enough. I would also see a liberty interest here under the 5th amendment as more pressing than the commerce clause argument, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here for the lawyers involved. But, I acknowledge that I would have to put in a lot more time to make a decision on the legal aspects of this matter and perhaps I will in a separate post dedicated to it. I have long been a believer that interpretations of the constitution and fundamental law are unavoidably as personal for judges as legal and personal feelings of liberty will undoubtedly matter. And, of course, what the constitution might have meant in the beginning is hopelessly complicated and even distorted forever by the principle of stare decisis, also known as precedent. While Justice Thomas frequently suggests that original meaning be returned to, he is outvoted by every other justice on the court now and pretty much all that have ever been there.

Trivia VI, the family edition

More of the greatest running trivia game since Trivial Pursuit. There is no point in googling. Just guess. This one is all about families.

1. Who are Gershom and Elizier?
a. The sons of Elrond.
b. The sons of Moses.
c. The sons of Alexander the Great.
d. The sons of Saddam Hussein.

2. Who were Magni and Modi?
a. The sons of the Norse god Thor.
b. The first legendary tiger tamers in Ringling Bros. circus.
c. The sons of Jack Dempsey.
d. The only brothers (Gustaffson) ever to win NCAA wrestling championships in the same year.

3. Wendy, Michael and John’s parents were . . .
a. George and Mary Darling.
b. Bryce and Emma Darling.
c. John and Mary Darling.
d. Michael and Nanna Darling.

4. Peter Pan grew up in . . .
a. Hyde Park.
b. Kensington Gardens.
c. London Tower.
d. St. James Park.

5. These brothers have more home runs than any other brothers in baseball history.
a. Lloyd and Paul Waner.
b. Felipe, Matty and Jesus Alou.
c. Hank and Tommie Aaron.
d. Dick, Hank and Ron Allen.

6. Abraham, Sarah and Thomas were . . .
a. the patriarch, his wife and brother.
b. three first disciples to join the 11 after after Jesus’ death.
c. Martha Washington’s 3 children from her first marriage.
d. Lincoln, his sister and brother.

7. They are siblings.
a. Albert Brooks and Super Dave.
b. Scott Baio and Vampirella.
c. Angela Basset and Laurence Fishburne.
d. Rachel McAdams and Amy Adams.

8. They share a pedigree.
a. Seattle Slew and Barbaro.
b. Secretariat and Seabisquit.
c. Affirmed and Man o’ War.
d. Alydar and Affirmed.

9. These two were also related.
a. The Green Lantern and the Green Arrow.
b. Mr. Fantastic and Bruce Banner.
c. Caspar and Richie Rich.
d. The Lone Ranger and the Green Hornet.

10. They were cousins.
a. Zachary Taylor and James Madison.
b. Warren Harding and Grover Cleveland.
c. George Bush and LBJ.
d. James Monroe and Martin van Buren.

11. Julius, Adolph and Leonard were . . .
a. The real names of the Three Stooges.
b. The real names of the Ritz Bros.
c. The real names of Archie, Peyton and Eli Manning.
d. The real name of the Marx Bros.

12. Olga, Tatiana, Marie and Anastasia were . . .
a. The four daughters of Czar Nicholas II.
b. The four original female Flying Wallendas.
c. The four names assigned to positions in Mah Jong.
d. The four daughters in the 1938 movie The Four Daughters.

13. Jackie Gleason’s grandchild is . . .
a. Kiefer Sutherland.
b. Jason Patric.
c. Carrie Ann Moss.
d. Edward Norton.

14. This president’s son died in an accident on their way to his inauguration.
a. John Adams.
b. Abraham Lincoln.
c. Calvin Coolidge.
d. Franklin Pierce.

15. Presidents Jackson, Tyler, Benjamin Harrison and Wilson all . . .
a. Had no children.
b. Had a younger relative in congress while serving.
c. Had their wife die after they were elected.
d. Married after they were elected.

16. Agamemnon and Menelaos were brothers from this story.
a. The Iliad.
b. The story of Purim.
c. Brer Rabbit.
d. Egyptian Book of the Dead.

17. These actors are not siblings.
a. James Arness and Peter Graves.
b. Olivia De Havilland and Joan Fontaine.
c. Shirley MacLaine and Warren Beatty.
d. Beau Bridges and Dennis Quaid.

18. This president had ten brothers and sisters.
a. James Madison.
b. James Monroe.
c. James Polk.
d. James Buchanan.

19. Perhaps the literary prototype of modern television show relatives who like to get others in trouble, Sid was the half-brother to . . .
a. David Copperfield.
b. Tom Sawyer.
c. Sherlock Holmes.
d. Alice (in Wonderland).

20. This Biblical hero’s daughters seduced him when he was drunk so that they could have children by him.
a. Moses.
b. Jacob.
c. David.
d. Lot.

1-b. Moses had kids? Yes, he did and those are their names. I couldn’t remember them and had to look in the Bible, so don’t feel bad. Elrond’s sons were Elladan and Elrohir. Alexander the Great had Herakles (no, not the mythological hero) and Alexander IV. Saddam’s sons were Uday and Qusay, killed together during the war.

2-a. Thor’s kids, both who survive Ragnarök, the final battle of the gods. B and d are made up. D is only half made up; Dempsey had kids, but I have no idea what there names were.

3-a George and Mary Darling.

4-b Kensington Park as we learn in Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens.

5-c Hank and Tommie. No one even close.

6-d Lincoln and siblings. The patriarch’s brothers were Nahor and Haran. Martha Custis (Washington) had 4 children, but none with those names.

7-a Albert and Dave. The other three are just as likely, but they aren’t related. Super Dave’s and Albert’s real last name is Einstein. That’s right. Albert Brooks is really named Albert Einstein.

8-c Man o’ War was Affirmed’s great great great grandfather and War Admiral was his great great grandfather. Alydar and Affirmed was probably the greatest racehorse rivalry of all time. Affirmed was just consistently a little better. He beat Alydar in the three Triple Crown races, but all together by less than two lengths. But, here’s what you might not know even if you are a fan. Alydar was the favorite going into the Kentucky Derby and he actually beat Affirmed 3 times in their 10 races, including the very last one.

9-d I always imagined that Casper was Richie Rich’s ghost, but no. The Lone Ranger was created by George W. Trendle and Fran Striker. The hero was a Texas Ranger left for dead whose name was John Reid. Jon’s brother, who died in the same ambush, was Dan, whose son Dan was Britt Reid’s father. Britt Reid was, of course, the Green Hornet. How can they just say that? Well, the Green Hornet was also created by Trendle and Striker, so they could do whatever they wanted. Radio-wise, the Ranger is only 3 years older than the Hornet even though fictionally, he was two generations earlier. Hi-yo Silver, Away!

10-a Zach and James were 2d cousins, much closer related than FDR and Teddy Roosevelt. The others listed – no. I’ve given this one before, but it fit the category.

11-d Groucho was Julius, Harpo was Adolph (then Arthur) and Chico was Leonard.

12-a The Czar’s little girls. Come on – Anastasia! How big of a hint can I give you?

13-b Jason Patric. Not a great actor, but a great lineage. Do you remember when Julia Roberts dumped Kiefer Sutherland just before they got married (supposedly he cheated, but who knows) and she ran away with Jason, Kiefer’s close friend. It was a long time ago, but according to one interview with Kiefer, who had serious addiction problems, he forgives Julia, but not Jason. I can understand that. Guys have a code, or, at least they are supposed to have one.

14-d Pierce was on his way to Washington when their train derailed and his last living child died. However, the others all lost children while president. Adams was estranged from his grown son. Lincoln’s son was very young when he died and Coolidge’s son got a blister playing tennis which ended in blood poisoning.

15-c All of them.

16-a The sons of Atreus were Greek conquerors of Troy, of course, but their names do sound a little Egyptian, don’t they?

17-d This was an easy one. Dennis Quaid’s brother is Randy and Beau Bridges’ brother is Jeff. Who got that wrong? 'Fess up.

18-d But, only one of Pres. Buchanan’s brothers and sisters was alive by the time he got to the White House.
19-b Confession. I have never actually read any of the Tom Sawyer novels and don’t even know how I knew that.

20-d Lot’s daughters did this after they fled with their father and his wife had been turned into a pillar of salt when she looked back at Sodom, which, if you recall, Jehovah had nuked in a snit. To be fair to his daughters, they were trying to keep the bloodline going, but it's one of the more disturbing non-fatal moments in the Bible.

First hand accounts of the 19th century

Slow as I am to catch on to some technologies, one thing has delighted me about email that I discovered a few years ago, about a year after I started blogging. You can write to professors, who are often authors, or even reporters, and they write back to you, often gregariously and personally. My experience in life has taught me that sometimes it takes people a while to get to know me (a morbid sense of humor, lack of common social skills and asking questions a little to direct at the wrong time – your basic Asperger Syndrome symptoms – might be the cause), but somehow in emailing, none of that is a problem.

A week or so ago I was communicating (email, of course) with an author of one of my favorite American history books, Joanne Freeman of Yale University, who wrote Affairs of Honor. I was asking her about something I had read in an article she had just published in The New York Times and she recommended to me a diary of a congressional clerk whose diary had been published under the name Witness to the Young Republic (1989). I Amazoned it and saw it was a truncated version of the diary of Benjamin Brown French, who I vaguely remembered reading about in Lincoln books. I only recollected that he was one of the few people I could think of who was quoted as actually having liked Mary Todd Lincoln and I knew he was at Lincoln's deathbed, but I couldn’t remember who he was otherwise. I plied through a few of my books and found a few quotes. It’s not that he had a very dramatic public life and I don’t think you would say anything he accomplished was “great.” His high point was as Commissioner of Public Buildings, first under his friend, Franklin Pierce and then others, including Lincoln. But he personally knew John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James Polk, Zack Taylor, Millard Fillmore, James Pierce, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson and Ulysses Grant. He had the right to name drop and dramatic things happened around him all the time.

Anyway, Witness was whittled down from about 4000 pages to a little over 600 and I’m grateful. Exciting things can’t have happened everyday and there is more than enough here to enjoy of the first hand accounts that have so much more authority than the second or third hand biography. And, it has provided for me this week’s post, combing through my bookshelf for interesting little first hand observations from history.

I’ll start with Mr. French’s observations about a fight in congress he observed, violence in congress being the topic of Professor Freeman’s article I had read:

“During Thursday another of those scenes, so disgraceful to the House of Representavies, occurred in that body. Mr. Wise had made some remarks to which Mr. Stanly alluded in a manner that W. thought malevolent & unkind. He went to Mr. Stanly’s seat to remonstrate with him when angry words passed between them, and Wise, as he says in his statement to the Committee, since called Stanly “ a mean, contemptible puppy and miserable wretch,” to which Stanly replied[.] “You are a liar,” when Wise struck him, and fight instantly ensued. Nearly all the members rushed to the spot where they were engaged. The House was in Committee[.] Mr. Samson Mason endeavoured for two or three minutes, in vain, to restore order. I was at the Clerk’s table where I could see & hear all that transpired. The Speaker crying at the entent of his voice[.] “Order – order – order,” exclamations from the crowd of “Damn him[,] down with him” –“Where are your Bowie knives”—“Knock him down,” etc. Mr. Clarke, the Clerk of the House, seized the mace & went into the midst of the melee & exclaimed[,] “Gentlemen, respect the symbol of authority, respect yourselves.” Mr. Arnold & Mr. W. O. Butler of Ky. Were seen in violent personal contest, & Mr. Houston of Ala. Held an uplifted cane over Mr. Arnold’s head, which some member arrested in its descent, & thus, probably saved Mr. A. a bloody coxcomb. In two or three minutes order was restored, mainly, I believe, by the exertions of Dixon H. Lewis, whose seat was at the head of the aisle where the tumult occurred, & who, as soon as he could[,] moved his tremendous form into the middle of the fight & instantly separated the first belligerents, & there he stood like an elephant among a parcel of dogs, keeping them all at bay, & separating any who seemed inclined to fight, until the House came to order.”

I can’t help smiling thinking of Dennis Kucinic clinging to the leg of Marsha Blackburn as she pulls Barney Franks hair, Boehner and Pelosi having a slap fight and Debbie Wasserman Schultz karate chopping Dan Issa, but, unfortunately for C-Span, we have become a very civilized nation.

“In the midst of this, an officer from my center informed me that some important movement of the enemy was going on in his front, beyond that of the line with which we were engaged. Mounting a large rock, I was able to see a considerable body of the enemy moving by the flank in rear of their line engaged, and passing from the direction of the foot of Great Round Top through the valley toward the front of my left. The close engagement not allowing any change of front, I immediately stretched my regiment to the left, by taking intervals by the left flank, and at the same time “refusing” my left wing, so that it was nearly at right angles with my right, thus occupying about twice the extent of our ordinary front, some of the companies being brought into single rank when the nature of the ground gave sufficient strength or shelter. My officers and men understood my wishes so well that this movement was executed under fire, the right wing keeping up fire, without giving the enemy any occasion to seize or even to suspect their advantage. But we were not a moment too soon; the enemy’s flanking column having gained their desired direction, burst upon my left, where they evidently had expected an unguarded flank, with great demonstration."

Thus speaks Col. Joshua Chamberlain of the 20th Maine Infantry of a little piece of action named Little Round Top, one of the most dramatic actions at Gettysburg, where he had his troops perform the “right-wheel forward” maneuver to head off General Le Bell Hood’s Alabamians charging up the hill to their front and flank. Let's keep going:

“It was imperative to strike before we were struck by this overwhelming force in a hand-to-hand fight, which we could not probably have withstood or survived. At that crisis, I ordered the bayonet. The word was enough. It ran like fire along the line, from man to man, and rose into a shout, with which they sprang forward upon the enemy, now not 30 yards away. The effect was surprising; many of the enemy’s first line threw down their arms and surrendered. An officer fired his pistol at my head with one hand, while he handed me his sword with the other. Holding fast by our right, and swinging forward our left, we made an extended “right wheel,” before which the enemy’s second line broke and fell back, fighting from tree to tree, many being captured, until we had swept the valley and cleared the front of nearly our entire brigade.

Meanwhile, Captain Morrill with his skirmishers (sent out from my left flank), with some dozen or fifteen of the U.S. Sharpshooters who had put themselves under his direction, fell upon the enemy as they were breaking, and by his demonstrations, as well as his well-directed fire, added much to the effect of the charge.”

This from Chamberlain’s own papers, collected in Through Blood & Fire by Mark Nesbitt. Chamberlain, later a Major General and four time governor of Maine (beating the same poor guy three times in a row), and there for Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, got the Medal of Honor for Little Round Top, and we want our heroes to deserve their laurels. But, naturally, nothing can be simple, and Captain Holman S. Melcher later claimed that he was responsible for the famous bayonet charge, and there is some reason to believe it. Chamberlain acknowledges that his brave captain asked permission to charge and that he told Melcher that had already decided to give the order. Melcher ran to his troops and the “Bayonet” was very quickly heard down the line. Even Chamberlain stated in a speech that his order to charge with bayonets was never given or given imperfectly.

At Appomattox, he had his troops stand at attention and "carry arms" in tribute to the marching Confederate soldiers. It was not appreciated by Union soldiers, but, did not hurt his career or his popularity. I’ve been to Gettysburg three times now, to Little Round Top thrice, and along with the long rising plain where Pickett’s Charge failed, is my favorite spot - beautiful and interesting in its own right. I tried to imagine the scene where Chamberlain had his men honor their enemy, but wasn't sure where it took place. Probably should have asked.

Here’s a little Lincoln legend which came from the work of his law partner, Billy Herndon, a fascinating, if not so great western figure in his own right:

“He [Lincoln], in the years . . . 1833 & 4 was in love with a young lady in New Salem by the name of Mis[s] Ann Rutledge. She accepted the overtures of Lincoln and they were engaged to be . . . married. This young lady was a woman of exquisite beauty, but her intellect was quick – sharp – deep & philosophic as well as brilliant . . . a short time before the marriage was to be she took sick with the brain fever and died in 4 or 5 days. Lincoln went & saw her during her sickness – just before her death. Mr Lincolns friends after this sudden death of one whom his soul & heart dearly & [?] loved were compelled to keep watch and ward over Mr Lincoln, he being from the sudden shock somewhat temporarily deranged. We watched during storms – fogs – damp gloomy weather Mr Lincoln for fear of an accident. He said “I can never be reconcile[d] to have the snow – rains & storms to beat on her grave.”

David Donald, the late renowned Lincoln scholar, shows how Herndon, set on making his career on his late partner’s biography ferreted the story out from old timers and Ann’s own family. Herndon sometimes thought his older partner’s glumness was due to constipation, but turned to the Rutledge story for an explanation. It was quite controversial as Mrs. Lincoln, no friend of Herndon’s, was still alive. Professor Donald is very skeptical of the whole story, which he describes as a “floating rumor” that grew into a “fixed romance.”

“Bad as all slaveholders are, we seldom meet one destitute of every element of character commanding respect. My master was one of this rare sort. I do not know of one single noble act ever performed by him. The leading trait in his character was meanness; and if there were any other element in his nature, it was made subject to this. He was mean; and, like most other mean men, he lacked the ability to conceal his meanness. Captain Auld was not born a slaveholder. He had been a poor man, master only of a Bay craft. He came into possession of all his slaves by marriage; and of all men, adopted slaveholders are the worst. He was cruel, but cowardly. He commanded without firmness. In the enforcement of his rules, he was at times rigid, and at times lax. At times, he spoke to his slaves with the firmness of Napoleon and the fury of a demon; at other times, he might well be mistaken for an inquirer who had lost his way.”

. . .

“I was glad to learn, in your story, how early the most neglected of God’s children waken to a sense of their rights, and of the injustice done them. Experience is a keen teacher and long before you had mastered you’re ABC, or knew where the “white sails” of the Chesapeake were bound, you began, I see, to gauge the wretchedness of the slave, not by his hunger and want, not by his lashes and toil, but by the cruel and blighting death which gathers over his soul.”

. . .

“My term of actual service to Mr. Edward Covey ended on Christmas day, 1833. The days between Christmas and New Year’s day are allowed as holidays; and, accordingly, we were not required to perform any labor, more than to feed and take care of the stock. This time we regarded as our own, by the grace of our masters and we therefore used or abused it nearly as we pleased. Those of us who had families at a distance, were generally allowed to spend the whole six days in their society. This time, however, was spent in various ways. The staid, sober, thinking and industrious ones of our number would employ themselves in making corn-brooms, mats, horse-collars, and baskets; and another class of us would spend the time in hunting opossums, hares, and coons. But by far the larger part engaged in such sports and merriments as playing ball, wrestling, running foot-races, fiddling, dancing, and drinking whisky; and this latter mode of spending the time was by far the most agreeable to the feeling of our masters. A slave who would work during the holidays was considered by our masters as scarcely deserving them. He was regarded as one who rejected the favor of his master. It was deemed a disgrace not to get drunk at Christmas; and he was regarded as lazy indeed, who had not provided himself with the necessary means, during the year, to get whisky enough to last him through Christmas.”

These are all from The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, which details his life in slavery through his escape. Almost every paragraph of the book is interesting, but much of it painful to read. His real last name was not Douglass, but Bailey. When he was safe in the north, he let a host, Mr. Johnson, chose his name (Johnson was much too common). Mr. Johnson was reading The Lady of the Lake, a poem by Sir Walter Scott, and he chose the name of a father and daughter in it, James and Ellen Douglas, Douglas being a well known Scottish clan. I have no idea why Frederick's last name had two s’s at the end. I guess someone didn’t spell so well. Douglass escaped long before the Civil War and the 13th Amendment. It is ironic that he became free not by escaping or when all others did, but when he was purchased from his owner by European friends.

November 13, 1861

“I wish here to record what I consider a portent of evil to come. The President, Governor Seward, and I, went over to McClellan’s house tonight. The servant at the door said the General was at the wedding of Col. Wheaton at General Buell’s and would soon return. We went in, and after we had waited about an hour, McC. Came in and without paying any particular attention to the porter, who told him the President was waiting to see him, went up stairs, passing the door of the room where the President and Secretary of State were seated. They waited about half-an-hour, and sent once more a servant to tell the General they were there, and the answer coolly came that the General had gone to be.

I merely record this unparalleled insolence of epaulettes without comment. It is the first indication I have yet seen of the threatened supremacy of the military authorities.

Coming home I spoke to the President about the matter but he seemed not to have noticed it, specially, saying it was better at this time not to be making points of etiquette & personal dignity.”

The legendary snub of President Lincoln by General McClellan, who must rank as one of the most arrogant and incompetent generals in our history. We must, excepting those who still wish the Confederacy a different result, be glad for the day the President had it and busted him (although he briefly let him back) and that he was able to defeat him in the 1864 election.

John Hay was a fascinating fellow and I read a volume of his diaries and letters edited by Tyler Dennett under the title Lincoln and The Civil War long ago. The fact that his father had an office next door to Lincoln’s in Springfield, Illinois and that he himself was a school buddy of Lincoln’s private secretary, John Nicolay, made his career. Serving as a secretary of Lincoln’s might have been the highlight of any man’s career, but he was in government except for a few years ever after and was McKinley’s and TR’s Secretary of State.

October 19, 1863

“The President told me this morning that Rosecrans was to be removed from command of the Army at Chattanooga. Thomas is to take his original army and Grant to command the whole force, including Hooker’s and Burnside’s reinforcements. He says Rosencrans has seemed to lose spirit and nerve since the battle of Chickamauga. I told him that I believed Thomas would fail in attack, like Meade and others. The vis inertiae which prevents those fellows from running when attacked will prevent them from moving in the initiative.”

What a propitious moment – Grant to command the whole Military Division of the Mississippi! Some thought General George Thomas was slow to move, others that he was a, if not the, main reason for Grant’s success, though they were not on great terms. But, Hay was certainly wrong about Thomas that day as Chattanooga was probably his greatest moment. Thomas’ lack of interest in self-promotion or military promotion, for that matter, makes him even more sanguine than his boss and may be why most people have never heard of him (although this blog’s incendiary commenter, Bear, is a big fan).

April 28, 1864

“The Pres tells a queer story of Meigs. When McClellan lay at Harrison’s landing, Meigs came one night to the President & waked him up at Soldiers’ Home to urge upon him the immediate flight of the Army from that point – the men to get away on transports & the horses to be killed as they
c[ould] not be saved. ‘Thus often,’ says the President, ‘I who am not a specially brave man have had to sustain the sinking courage of these professional fighters in critical times.’”

And well presidents might always have to, I think, as it is the general, not they, who is sacked and ridiculed when things don’t go well and bears the images of his dead troops ever after.

Here’s one about family love and respecting your elders:

“The picture you have drawn of that slovenly German Gelehrte whose highest delight is to lecture boys about a rhetoric of which he never could practice either the style or the action or the voice or the art, and then gloating over his own foolish production in private, instead of rolling on the ground with mortification as his grandchildren would do – this picture grinds the colery into my esophagus, but it is not so hideous as the picture of his voting for the Embargo under the preposterous and the dishonest pretene that it was a measure of resistance, although he knew Jefferson was a temporizer by nature. Even that is not so bad as his voting for the Embargo under the preposterous and dishonest pretence that it was a measure of resistance, although he knew Jefferson better than anyone else did, and (like Hamilton) knew that Jefferson was a temporizer by nature. Even that is not so bad as his going to caucus to nominate a candidate for the opposition party, an act which scandalized even his admiring mother to hot and just remonstrance. And even this is not so bad as his jumping at the Russian mission and deserting his self-evident duty in Massachusetts at the time of the utmost difficulty and under the hottest kind of fire, avowedly because he wanted to escape attack – my teeth chatter at this exhibition. Yet worse follows! To see him dawdle on in Russia under one pretense or another when his mother and father pray him to come home, and he had ceased to be useful where he is, but during all these years, while the young Americans like Clay are forcing the country to assert some shadow of self respect, I do not see J. Q. A. open his mouth, and his one allusion to the war is to call it a rash act. Finally, I see him find his chief delight in quarreling with foes and friends alike, but still clinging to Europe, until Monroe makes him his tool to break down treacherously the Virginia dynasty which gave Monroe all the credit the idiot ever had.”

That’s from ground breaking historian Henry Adams’ critique of his brother Brooks’ biography of their grandfather, former President John Q. Adams. Henry spent 80 pages tearing it apart. You can tell there is some warmth lacking in this relationship. Gelehrte in the first sentence means academic, pundit, savant or scholar. JQA taught rhetoric at Harvard and Henry doesn't seem to have much appreciation for him there either. I think the grinding "colery" in his esophagus is celery, but that neither makes much sense or is certain.

Last, this is from the diary of Zenas Leonard, who spend over 5 years as a mountain man including in the service of Joseph Walker, in my opinion the greatest of mountain men for reasons stated in my post of February 28, 2008, King of the West. This memoir, Narrative of the Adventures of Zenas Leonard, is filled with his participation in Indian fights, a bison hunt, getting chased by a grizzly, a bear and bull fight, river crossings and all the other things you usually only read about in adventure novels. He lived it.

“Capt. Walker then gave orders to some of the men to take the bows of the fallen Indians and put the wounded out of misery. The severity with which we dealt with these Indians may be revolting to the heart of the philanthropist; but the circumstances of the case altogether atones for the cruelty. It must be borne in mind, that we were far removed from the hope of any succour in case we were surrounded, and that the country we were in was swarming with hostile savages, sufficiently numerous to devour us. Our object was to strike a decisive blow. This we did – even to a greater extent than we had intended.”

Leonard returned home five and a half years later to shocked parents who had believed their son long dead on his adventure. After a visit he returned west, but only as far as Missouri where he became a trader servicing those still trapping and adventuring. The era of the mountain men was nearly over, but the trails they blazed were the paths of later pioneers who crossed the west with their wagons and boots on the way to Oregon and California. When the so called “Great Pathfinder,” John Fremont, made his first trip out west, Leonard had been back from his trip with Cap’n Walker for seven years.