GUIs of 1990

Work today took me in search of information about graphical user interfaces circa 1990.  I came across this time capsule:



Search YouTube for "Computer Chronicles" if you want to shake your head some more at how things have changed.

Military spending, in historical perspective

I came across usgovernmentspending.com that allows you to generate historical charts of government expenditures. (You can view the data in actual dollars or inflation-adjusted dollars or percentage of GDP by changing the units.)

Here is a graph of military spending using inflation-adjusted dollars (and a link to it and the underlying data):


I went looking for the data because a Facebook friend of a friend claimed that the drop in military spending as a percentage of GDP during Clinton's administration was the cause of 9/11. Ew boy. For starters, it should be obvious that our external threats are what they are regardless of GDP, so I don't get why you'd look to percent-of-GDP data to make the case that the spending was insufficient (or sufficient) to keep the country safe from attack. Further, military spending at the end of Clinton's term was still historically plenty high. Does anyone writing here believe that the drop in military spending under Clinton allowed 9/11 to happen or caused 9/11? I hope not.

Setting all that aside, I have to say that as I looked at this chart I was amazed at the extreme increase in military spending since 2001 relative to historical levels. I'm curious to know whether those who believe the Iraq war was a good idea also feel that the benefit you see is commensurate with these costs. In other words, was our takeover of Iraq as important as our role in WWII? Was it far more important than the Cold War?

The question of my Native American heritage

After speaking with my parents concerning this, I've come away with some facts: (1) it appears that I would not be able to claim "NA" as my race; (2) they are somewhat confused as to the exact lines; and (3) some details (such as dates and first and/or last names) are somewhat sketchy. Through the years I have either misunderstood what details have been told to me or I have twisted them to fit what I wanted. As best as my parents can tell me, here is my linage:

Father's Side: This side of my family is Choctaw, not Cherokee. My great, great, great grandmother was full-blooded Choctaw. One of her children was a daughter (this is the relative who lost an eye in a raid, not by other Choctaw's, but by Cherokee's). This daughter was my great, great grandmother who was actually still alive when I was very young. I was around her, but of course I have no memory of her. She married a white man and one of their children was a daughter. This daughter was my great grandmother. I do have many memories of her and my great grandfather and their farm. One of their children was a son who was my grandfather. One of his son's is my father.

On a side note, one of my grandmother's (my father's mother) brothers has some NA linage on his side. I was told that one of his son's (a cousin of mine) was able to attend the University of Tulsa and claim some type of NA heritage and thus get a big reduction on tuition. I need to check this out and see what the story is.

Mother's Side: I guess I never knew that there is some NA heritage from this side of my family - it wasn't really talked about. This side of my family is Cherokee, from somewhere in the Southeast, possibly Georgia. My great, great, great grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee. All anyone knows is her first name ( which might be her only name). One of her children was a daughter. This daughter was my great, great grandmother. She had many children and was married twice. One of her children with her 2nd husband (who not much is known about, but "the story" is that he was either full-blooded or 1/2 blooded Choctaw, but it seems no one really knows) was a daughter. This daughter was my great grandmother. I have memories of her and I remember she was funny as hell. Very outspoken. Very blunt. One of her children was a daughter. This daughter was my grandmother. One of her daughter's is my mother.


There are a couple of relatives that have done some rather extensive research on the family trees - more so on my father's side. I need to get with them and see if they have actual names, dates, places, etc. I'm told they do and in fact, one of my cousin's has traced back to pre-Civil war times. The Civil War details are actually more interesting to me than the NA stuff. I've heard stories about relatives that fought in Tennessee, so I'd like to get some details and learn more about my relatives and where they were, what they did, during the Civil War period. Maybe I can get into the Sons of the Confederacy.

Gangsters in Minnesota

In honor of Johnny Depp's upcoming movie about John Dillinger, the Strib published this article about the month that Dillinger spent in the Twin Cities in 1934.

Dillinger cut a brief but intense swath through St. Paul in early 1934, an era when St. Paul was the safest place in America for gangsters, thanks to the "O'Connor system." Police Chief John O'Connor had made a deal with crooks: They would receive police protection if they checked in upon arrival, paid a small bribe and promised to commit no crimes in St. Paul. . .The ironic upshot of the "system" was that St. Paul's citizens lived in a safe environment, despite occasionally recognizing the face at the next restaurant table from the post office walls.

One can tour gangster hotspots in St. Paul on Saturdays. Caves in the sandstone bluffs along the Mississippi were used by gangsters for storing alcohol and for clubs.

Another This Day in HIstory

for LJ. The English Restoration.

Mary, Queen of Scots

Another subject that grabbed my attention around our trip to Britain. However, after getting tired head when reading the book on Henry VIII and his wives, I wanted to find something a bit more basic and hopefully, shorter. So I went to my local library (the local library - a subject that I need to post about) to see what they had. This one was listed as being in the children's section, so I was a bit wary of it. I was pleasantly surprised not only with the book, but with the selection of books in the children's section of the library. With the onset of the internet, do kids still use books to write reports? This was a concise, to the point, no frills account of Mary's life. It was well sourced and even with my knowledge of the subject matter, it held my interest and refreshed my memory. It had an easy to read timeline and family trees which made it easy to keep all the Henry's and Mary's separate.

Mary made some really poor choices, especially after the death of her French husband. But one has to wonder if our judgment of those choices are blinded by hindsight. Add to this that she was a bit unlucky (had Elizabeth I not been childless, would she have been so suspicious of Mary and eventually put her under house arrest and executed?) and her life is viewed as rather tragic, much like the history of her subjects, the Scots.

A very quick read and a great overview of her life and times.

Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII

I was looking for a comprehensive history of Henry's wives that also explored the diplomacy, religious issues, and politics surrounding this period of English history. While this was something that I studied back in my high school and college days, I only recalled the basics. I wanted to read something along those lines before our trip to Britain, but I had a difficult time finding something that wasn't too dry or too basic. I asked a few people "over the pond" and this book was one that was mentioned most often. It did fit my criteria and while it was highly researched and at times a bit dry, overall it gave me exactly what i was looking for. Details into why decisions were made, in the context of Henry and his quest for a son. I only had 2 major complaints:

(1) The focus was heavily weighted towards wives #1 and #2 (Catherine and Anne). Of the roughly 500 pages, maybe 375 were devoted to them - the other 4 wives were crammed into the final 100 pages or so. While I understand that in the context of major events in history, Catherine and Anne were much more important, I would have liked a bit more about the other wives.

(2) Perhaps to show how highly researched this work was, it didn't take long to get tired of reading where everyone was on specific days.... "On xx/yy/zzzz Henry was hunting with some Lord of wherever while his Queen (pick one) was moving from the court at (some castle) to a residence in xxxxxx-shire, only to join up with Henry 5 days later at the feast of (pick one) at the residence of whomever....". I picked up on that fact that the King and The Queen were rarely together, even when they were at the same location. And that the children were with neither. I also got tired of the descriptions of what the Queen was wearing for whatever special ceremony.

These are only minor quibbles - on the whole, the author made this whole period interesting without being too intellectual and gave me the background and back-stories that I was searching for.

Today's This Day in History just for LJ

The beheading of Anne Boleyn.

Hunting Eichmann

This is the book that has launched my current fascination with Nazi's and death camps. What piqued my interest in reading this book wasn't how Eichmann was captured (even though you know he is, it's still a very riveting and suspenseful event), but tracing his years and journey from post-war Germany to Argentina. Reading about all the "assistance" mid and high level Nazi's got from the Red Cross, the Vatican, and the leaders of several South American countries is just incredible. While one could make an argument that in the period just after Germany surrendered, the world didn't fully grasp what was going on with the camps and the Jews, certainly by the late 40's everyone knew. And once these guys got down to Paraguay and Argentina, they didn't exactly go underground. With the huge German immigrant populations, the support of the governments and what I can only assume was general apathy on the part of Europe and the USA, many of them lived quite openly. Eichmann's children even used his last name! What also struck me was that while some of Nazi's lived a very good life in South America, Eichmann did not. Even when he moved to the outskirts of Buenos Aires, his "house" was basically a small adobe hut with just a few rooms. He worked at a factory and had a very blue-collar lifestyle.

On a separate note, as a big Evita-file, I found it very disturbing to read about the very close ties between the Peron government and Nazi Germany - before, during and after the war. Of course, I will rationalize it by saying that was Juan's doing - Eva I'm sure had no knowledge or part in that policy.

This reads like a non-fiction spy novel, it is that good. The author researched this thoroughly and interviewed everyone still alive. A great read that will keep you up late.

Re: Joker One

Update: I saw a Reuters video today in which the author said he still doesn't know whether the Iraq War was successful. The gist was to ask him again in 50 years.

Re: Romanticizing Pirates

We've really glorified them. And they're so cool. Cutlasses, eye patches, baggy breeches (never written that word before)...what's not to love?

Of course, I can’t forget the Texas connection (Galveston) to Jean Lafitte. From the Texas Handbook Online, again without those annoying "qv's":

Laffite remained the master of Galveston after his return in September 1817, and made it a center for smuggling and privateering. When the expedition of Charles Françoise Antoine Lallemand arrived in January 1818, the Laffites plotted to betray the French refugees to Spain. This plot failed, and Galveston went on with its illicit activities. Lallemand's men, having fled from the Champ d'Asile, were at Galveston when George Graham arrived in August 1818 to investigate affairs in Texas. Graham suggested that Jean Laffite should take possession successively of points on the coast as far as the Rio Grande and surrender them to the United States after faked attacks. Nothing came of this scheme, which apparently was Graham's own idea, although James Monroe may have suggested it. Jean cooperated halfheartedly with James Long during the latter's invasion of Texas, but his principal interest lay in the privateering business, while his brother managed the intrigues with Spanish officials and took care of the New Orleans business arrangements. Finally, with nothing to hope for from Spain and confronted with the American government's determination to end the Galveston establishment, the Laffites decided the game was up. Laffite abandoned Galveston early in May 1820 and sailed to Mugeres Island, off the coast of Yucatán. There he continued his illegal activities until around 1825, when, mortally ill, he went to the mainland to die. Although his brother was the leader in all their affairs, Jean Laffite, more colorful than his older brother, has become the center of many romantic tales.

Four Words end the discussion (or start it):

The Dread Pirate Roberts

Secession nonsense

I first became aware of all this in the 70s as a result of an article in Texas Monthly if memory serves. The idea was that The Republic of Texas, under its annexation treaty with the US, could not secede but could subdivide into as many as four new states plus Texas. That would give "old" Texas ten senators in the US Senate and the thinking was that this much control would "persuade" the rest of the Union to bid us adios (another issue altogether).

Ok, here’s part of an overview from the Texas Handbook Online which appears to be affiliated with the Houston Chronicle so that should give it some credibility:

DIVISION OF TEXAS. The congressional joint resolution for the annexationqv [me: I don’t know what to make of these little “qv” marks—I assume some kind of footnote feature gone awry--I'm deleting the rest of them that I catch in this quote because they annoy me] of Texas, passed on March 1, 1845, provided that new states, not to exceed four, could be carved out of Texas, the new states to be entitled to admission to the Union, with or without slavery if south of the Missouri Compromise line, and without slavery if north of that line. The gubernatorial campaign of 1847 centered around the division of Texas into East and West Texas-East Texas being a slave state and West Texas being a free state-but the death of Isaac Van Zandt, chief proponent of division, ruined the hopes of the divisionists. In 1850 Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri introduced a bill to reduce the size of Texas, and Senator Henry Stuart Footev of Mississippi proposed a new state east of the Brazos River, to be called Jacinto, but the proposal received little consideration in the Senate. On February 16, 1852, a joint resolution was introduced into the Texas legislature proposing that Texas be divided into East Texas and West Texas, but the measure was defeated by a vote of 33 to 15.

Article goes on with accounts of various divisionists' attempts and ends with:

After the 1930s division proposals were not taken seriously. In 1969 San Antonio Senator V. E. "Red" Berry proposed the formation of two states, North and South Texas. Senator Bob Gammage also proposed division in 1975. Generally, these later proposals sought the increase in political influence that multiple Texas states could stand to gain with two senators each in the federal government. In 1991 state representative David Swinford submitted a House bill to make the Panhandle into something called the state of Old Texas. The bill was not considered.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Weston Joseph McConnell, Social Cleavages in Texas (New York: Columbia University, 1925). Donald W. Whisenhunt, The Five States of Texas: An Immodest Proposal (Austin: Eakin Press, 1987).

Claude Elliott

Some salient, cherry picked language from a SCOTUS case following closely upon the heels of the Late Unpleasantness:

The Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union, as a State, on the 27th of December, 1845. By this act, the new State, and the people of the new State, were invested with all the rights, and became subject to all the responsibilities and duties of the original States under the Constitution.
...
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

Of course, if I were some kind of jen-u-wine secessionist I'd challenge anything the Supreme Court might have to say on the subject. But, the annexation language is pretty clear on the subdivision issue.

The actual annexation language (surprisingly brief--out on a bit of a limb here as the source is something called sonofthesouth.net):

Whereas, the Congress of the United States of America has passed resolutions providing for the annexation of Texas to that Union, which resolutions were approved by the President of the United States on the first day of March, 1845 ; and

Whereas, the President of the United States has submitted to Texas the first and second sections of the said resolutions as the basis upon which Texas may be admitted as one of the States of said Union, and Whereas, the existing government of the republic of Texas has assented to the proposals thus made, the terms and conditions of which are as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully belonging to, the republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of government, adopted by the people of said republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.

And be it further resolved, that the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, to wit: First, said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this government of ail questions of boundary that may arise with others governments, and the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, 1846; second, said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, forts and harbors, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, and armaments, and all other means. pertaining to the public defense belonging to the said republic, shall retain all its public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due and owing to the said republic, and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct; but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the government of the United States; third, new States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal Constitution [emph. mine]; and such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of 36° 30' N. lat., commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

Now, in order to manifest the assent of the people of the republic, as is required in the above-recited portions of said resolution, we, the deputies of the people of Texas in convention assembled, in their name and by their authority, do ordain and declare that we assent to, and accept the proposals, conditions, and guarantees contained in the first and second sections of the resolutions of the Congress of the United States aforesaid.

Adopted by a vote of 56 to 1, July 4, 1845, in the tenth year of the republic.