Given that it probably seems to those who stop in here that I see every "war movie" going, it will probably come as a surprise that: 1) I don't, and 2) I wasn't particularly inclined to see this one, but I don't really know why. It may be because I've known a couple of men, one particularly well, who had been snipers and they were profoundly unlikely to discuss it, which makes me feel just slightly odd about one who does. That isn't intended as a criticism, it's just a comment.
But I did see it last night, and because my wife wanted to, which is even more of a surprise. She recently read Chris Kyle's book, another surprise, and like it. I haven't read the book. Because she read the book, she wanted to see the movie.
Because I haven't read the book, I can't comment at all on how accurately the film depicts the events of the book. And I'm also not going to comment much on the surprising amount of controversy this film is generating, and from surprising quarters. I will say, however, that some of the criticism strikes me as very "parlor" in nature, i.e., the sort of slightly leftist commentary that comes from people whose view of conflict is very antiseptic. War is nasty, and that's just the way it. To depict that honestly, and to write about it, isn't something that deserves criticism. Nor does a person deserve criticism because they took an active part in it, which seems to be the basis of at least some criticism. It's interesting, indeed, how we're now at a point where that sort of criticism is not too uncommon in some quarters, when in earlier eras that would have been regarded as rather dishonorable.
Anyhow, what I will note is that this film, which depicts a lot of urban comment, is correct in material details, which it should be. It's pretty darned graphic, but not grossly over the top for the most part. Equipment appears to be generally correct with perhaps a few minor errors.
It depicts urban combat in a very gritty fashion, and it reminded me to a slight extent of Black Hawk Down, which in my view is the most accurate combat movie ever filmed. It's not Black Hawk Down, but it does a nice job with this story.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Blog Mirror: Engines of the Red Army in WW2, and Engines of the Wehrmacht
Engines of the Red Army in WW2
Interesting site featuring the owner's depictions of World War Two Red Army vehicles.
And "Engines of the Wehrmacht"
I fear that accurately listing every vehicle used by the German army would require listing every vehicle that existed in the 1910 to 1945 time frame, no matter where made.
And if you were the History Channel, you'd have to have a special category for "Secret Vehicles of the Wehrmacht", or "Alien Automobiles of the Wehrmacht".
As an aide, and its a complete aside, the author of this blog notes the correct name for the Red Army on his site, which is the first time I've ever seen what the correct name was. And, fwiw, I'd note that the meaning of "Wehrmacht" is commonly misunderstood, even by historians who should know better. The Wehrmacht were the German armed forces, not the Army. The German Army was (and is) the "Heer". The Wehrmacht included all of the German armed forces; including the Heer (Army), the Luftwaffe (the air force), the Kreigsmarine (the navy) and the Waffen SS (the "armed" SS). On that last group, the Waffen SS, the SS is an organization that's so complicated that its really difficult to actually define it other than that it was the uniformed branch of the Nazi party. Not all SS, however, were Waffen SS. The Waffen SS was essentially a rival armed force to the Heer, made up of volunteers (until the very end, when some were conscripted or transferred into the SS, but that was at the very end of the war), with the privso that if they were German (by culture), they had to be members of the Nazi party. That criteria would seem self evident, but there were also SS units made up of foreign Nazis, such as the Wiking (viking) division, which was made up of Norwegian volunteers, or SS units that were made up of odd cultures here and there that the Germans took into service, such as, ultimately, Cossacks serving with the Germans, in part, who were not members of the Nazi party but who were incorporated into the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) in SS formations.
That all leaves aside, of course, SS units that were basically interior Nazi elements, or the entire nasty subject of camp guards, which were also SS units.
Interesting site featuring the owner's depictions of World War Two Red Army vehicles.
And "Engines of the Wehrmacht"
I fear that accurately listing every vehicle used by the German army would require listing every vehicle that existed in the 1910 to 1945 time frame, no matter where made.
And if you were the History Channel, you'd have to have a special category for "Secret Vehicles of the Wehrmacht", or "Alien Automobiles of the Wehrmacht".
As an aide, and its a complete aside, the author of this blog notes the correct name for the Red Army on his site, which is the first time I've ever seen what the correct name was. And, fwiw, I'd note that the meaning of "Wehrmacht" is commonly misunderstood, even by historians who should know better. The Wehrmacht were the German armed forces, not the Army. The German Army was (and is) the "Heer". The Wehrmacht included all of the German armed forces; including the Heer (Army), the Luftwaffe (the air force), the Kreigsmarine (the navy) and the Waffen SS (the "armed" SS). On that last group, the Waffen SS, the SS is an organization that's so complicated that its really difficult to actually define it other than that it was the uniformed branch of the Nazi party. Not all SS, however, were Waffen SS. The Waffen SS was essentially a rival armed force to the Heer, made up of volunteers (until the very end, when some were conscripted or transferred into the SS, but that was at the very end of the war), with the privso that if they were German (by culture), they had to be members of the Nazi party. That criteria would seem self evident, but there were also SS units made up of foreign Nazis, such as the Wiking (viking) division, which was made up of Norwegian volunteers, or SS units that were made up of odd cultures here and there that the Germans took into service, such as, ultimately, Cossacks serving with the Germans, in part, who were not members of the Nazi party but who were incorporated into the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) in SS formations.
That all leaves aside, of course, SS units that were basically interior Nazi elements, or the entire nasty subject of camp guards, which were also SS units.
Senate File 108 and the addressing of the unnecessary.
While I'm sure the Legislature gets more heat than it deserves, it is occasionally really hard not to cringe at certain legislative acts.
Indeed, it's hard not to cringe at certain legislative commentary. This year, for example, the local paper has been really upset by a couple of bills that seek to carve out a freedom of conscience defense for people who feel that they cannot perform services at same gender weddings, in spite of that having already been proven to be an issue in other states, but there's been no commentary in the paper, as far as I'm aware (and due to business travel, I may have missed it) seeking to restrict the Game and Fish from doing what it already cannot do.
That bill, Senate File 108, seeks to prevent Game Wardens from entering private lands without the permission of the landowners. In other words, it seeks to restrict what already can't be done. The draft bill states.
What motivates this is unclear, but a law enforcement officer already can't just walk onto private lands, so this bill is wholly unnecessary. Why somebody was worked up enough about this to write a bill preventing what's already prevented is not clear to me, but by taking this step, the law actually would preclude a Game Warden from entering any private land, such as Walmart for example, or the local sporting goods store. Clearly, that isn't what was meant, but the law in seeking to address a situation that doesn't need to be addressed, by extension could be acting to create a legal oddity that's a bit absurd.
Hopefully this bill will fail.
Just because its free, doesn't mean you have to take it (but then there's no harm in doing so).
More on air travel.
It's always been the case that when you fly in a plane, they give you the chance to have something to drink.
They used to also give you something to eat, if only peanuts. Truly.
Of course, flights used to be really long. The air time between Casper and Denver is now 35 minutes. Really short. When you had to take a prop aircraft, it was at least an hour. Even Denver to Tampa is just four hours, not really all that long.
Now, on a four hour flight, offering you something to drink makes a lot of sense. On a 35 minute flight, it really doesn't, but they do it anyhow. And as an observer of people, I notice that a very large percentage of people take it. I'm not really sure why, as they attendant barely has time to give you the drink, for you to drink it, and then to pick up the refuse. Indeed, on at least one occasion I've seen the drink distribution run into the final approach, to be followed, therefore by an immediate pick up.
Surely, you don't really normally need something to drink on a flight that short. It's really short. But probably over half the passengers on a plane take something to drink, no matter how short, or rough, the flight is. A person barely has enough time to get their drink, drink it, and have the attendant pick it up. And on a rough flight, and I've been on a few, more than a few people seem too dazed to notice that their drink is about to go flying on to their neighbor at any one time.
On the other hand, it's harmless too, usually, and probably a remnant of that day when air travel was slower, and you always got something to eat. Some people look back on that fondly, but frankly I'm so impressed by the modern speed of aircraft its not even funny. Casper to Denver in 35 minutes? Wow. And even a trip from Denver to Tampa or Toronto just doesn't take that long anymore. That's truly amazing.
On the other hand, it's harmless too, usually, and probably a remnant of that day when air travel was slower, and you always got something to eat. Some people look back on that fondly, but frankly I'm so impressed by the modern speed of aircraft its not even funny. Casper to Denver in 35 minutes? Wow. And even a trip from Denver to Tampa or Toronto just doesn't take that long anymore. That's truly amazing.
Update: Today In Wyoming's History: January 30
Today In Wyoming's History: January 30: 2015 The Federal government announced the sale of the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Center grounds, formerly the Teapot Dome Naval Petroleum Reserve, to Standard Oil Resources Corporation. Teapot Dome, of course, is famously known in most places of the scandal that occurred during Warren G. Harding's administration.
Sunday, January 31, 1915. Gas!
The Germans used poison gas in warfare for the first time, firing shells loaded with xylyl bromide, tear gas, against the Russians at the Battle of Bolimów.
Cold weather prevented it from being effective.
The day saw huge casualties as the German attacks failed, and the Russians countered, which also failed.
The British, alerted to the presence of the Ottomans, prepared defenses for the canal.
Thomas Merton OCSO, whom I frankly have mixed feelings about, was born in France on this day.
Last edition:
Wednesday, January 27,1915. Ottoman Suez raid, First US nautical loss of World War One.
Friday, January 30, 2015
The Window Seat
When you book a flight, you get to choose your seat, unless you book too late and end up getting simply what's left. When that occurs, you almost invariably get an aisle seat, or if the plane is big enough, a middle seat.
Which raises this question, why do people who book window seats close their windows so they don't have to look out them?
I hate flying. I like airplanes, but I do not like riding in them. Nonetheless, I do a fair amount, and when I do, if I can, I book a window seat. That's because I'm fascinated by terrain and geology, and you get to see a lot of that from the air.
But this view isn't universally shared, however, and I've noticed of late a fair number of people will rapidly shut their windows so they don't have to look out them, which then means that the trip has all the joy of traveling in a can.
Oddly, the window seat is otherwise one of the most uncomfortable seats. It's hard to get in and out of. the aisle seat is the easiest. If you don't want to see something, why not take that one?
Indeed, I've noticed some people can be aggressive about this. Recently I was on a really long flight and got up to use the facilities (it was hours and hours long). When I got back to my seat, the guy in the aisle, who was a really fussy traveler anyhow, had mostly closed my window. As I try not to be rude, I just looked out the remaining 1/5th that was available.
Anyhow, commercial air travel is a really grim experience, by and large, but getting to look out the window is neat. If you don't like doing that, leave the window for somebody who does.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
President Obama's Community College Proposal
Note: I started this post before the recent State of the Union Address. That means that the tax aspects of that speech, which are really another topic, had not been made yet. As its hard to discuss this topic, without discussing that one, I thought I'd note that.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Me, in 1986. I'd just graduated from University when this photo was taken in South Korea. Being in the Guard meant that I qualified for tuition assistance, and they even sometimes paid for my books.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Casper College Geomorphology class, field trip, 1983.
As everyone surely knows, the President recently proposed that the Federal government should fund two years at a community college for every American. I imagine that this will have some qualifiers, such as you need to be qualified by having a high school degree or a GED, and you can't be 51 years old, but that's the general idea.
As folks here know, or no doubt suspect, I read things quickly which means I can read a lot, and of the things I've been reading a lot of is criticism of this idea. I've frankly been surprised by some of the quarters I've seen that criticism coming from. I understand a general conservative opposition to it, based on the view that Federal funding of many things is out of control and needs to be reigned in, but I've also been surprised, for example, in reading the comments by people who are what I'd regard as religious conservatives, or social conservatives, who are, in some cases, extremely worked up about this, as I'd otherwise suspect that this proposal fits in with their greater social views.
Well, let me note that where I live it basically doesn't matter, as here in Republican Wyoming, bastion of conservatism and free enterprise, we already fund college and even university for our resident high school graduates. On this one, we're as socialist as can be. Drag out the red banner Wyoming!
Now, I'm not criticizing my native land, which I truly love. I think this is a good thing. I only note that as if this fails, it doesn't impact the people I know. We're already on board with this one, here.
But I also point it out because, living in a state that's adopted this, to use some of our oil largess (which is now declining, of course) I've seen it up close and personal. This didn't exist back in when I was a young college student. At that time, there was only one state institution that was funding college education, and that state entity was:
Me, in 1986. I'd just graduated from University when this photo was taken in South Korea. Being in the Guard meant that I qualified for tuition assistance, and they even sometimes paid for my books.
The National Guard.
Yes, the Wyoming Army National Guard and Air National Guard provided tuition assistance to its troops, and if well funded, they even provided funds for books. And of course, you also got a monthly paycheck.
Of course, you had to do something in return, which was agree to be shot at, if need be. But, I did it, and I frankly really liked it. One of the big mistakes I've made in my life was dropping out of the Guard when my enlistment was up. I wish I hadn't, and had kept on and done twenty. But that's water under the bridge now.
Now, of course, a person who was looking for college cash wouldn't need to consider the Guard as Wyoming will pay.
Okay, well so what? Well, frankly, the state helping to educate its young is one of the best things that this state does. Our economy is cyclical, and we're heading into a bust. When the photo above was taken, I was a Sergeant in the Army National Guard. I was also the holder of a Bachelor in Science in geology and couldn't find a job as we were in a bust. You could argue that I'd panned unwisely, but I"d also note that my Guard unit was full of men who were unemployed from the oilfield. Their life was tougher, as their jobs were gone, and the Guard was helping them hold on. Indeed, at that time our Guard unit was a collection of middle aged Vietnam veterans, a tough, intelligent, and lively bunch of men who, in some instances, had fallen on hard times. If we had to fight, it was comforting to know that a lot of those men had indeed fought before, and they were pretty experienced fellows.
Point being, however, is that even back in 1986 having an education at least got you somewhere, in a state that was having a depression. I went on to law school, and after graduating in 1990, I've never been out of work. I'm not rich, and I never will be, but without my education, I'd be in a hard spot for sure. I'd probably have had to leave the state in the 80s to look for work elsewhere, which many people did. And right now, many people are probably about to do.
The big difference between then and now, quite frankly, is that in 1986 there were still jobs in the US for men who had just a high school degree. Getting into the Army was pretty easy in 86, as we had a big Army, and Navy, and Air Force. You could get into police work with an Army discharge. You could work for the Fire Department with a high school diploma, if you could get in. And nationwide there were still jobs that didn't require much more than a high school diploma. Here, in town, you could work for one of the three refineries we then had, for example.
Well, those jobs have really evaporated for the most part, the recent batch of oilfield jobs notwithstanding. Now, in this country, without some post high school education, you're going to work a service job and that's the way it is. And it's not going to pay well.
Indeed, even all the old jobs that remain, that didn't require post high school training, now do. There's certification for everything. And even jobs like the police department's now require at least a two year degree. You need an education, young man (or woman) if you don't want to be stuck working at the convenience store.
Our international competitors already know this. In Canada, the government already funds what amounts to two years of post high school study. A German college of mine keeps urging my son to look at Germany as a place to study, as four years, he says, would be gratis. We live in a competitive world, and we have to decide if we want a first world workforce, or a third world one. And I mean third world. Already the third world is coming up, and education to the high school level isn't a rare thing there anymore.
So this is a direction I feel we should go in, and we probably need to. Yes, I know its expensive, as much as $60,000,000,000 over a decade, but then I also know that this fiscal year the United States will spend $337,000,000 on our small fleet of F35 fighters. The two are not, of course, analogous, and we are constantly in debt, but a nation that feels that it can spend the way we do on all sort of things, can invest presumably in education.
But if we do so, and we should, there are of course some things to keep in mind.
The nature of Community Colleges.
It's important to keep in mind here that the proposal isn't to fund "a college education", but rather to fund two years at community college. It's easy for some to confuse the two, and they tend to get confused.
The Tom Hanks op ed linked in below does a really good job of describing community college, and what community colleges are about. Colleges aren't universities, for one thing, and that's important to keep in mind. Indeed, universities are technically made up of colleges, such as the College of Arts and Sciences or the College of Education, or the College of Engineering, or the College of Law. Good community colleges (and there are good and bad) typically have the first two years for most widely held bachelors degrees, so you can go on to a four year school from there, but they also have a lot of programs that have taken the place of trade schools. Casper College, for example, has a welding program, a truck driving program and a diesel mechanics program, none of which the University of Wyoming do.
That's significant, as it means that a person who isn't really seeking a four year degree can still get the certification that is necessary for them to pursue a decent job, which might otherwise be difficult to get, particularly once they're out of school and wish to start working.
But frankly another aspect of the community college is that it flat out allows a lot of people to get a start who just couldn't otherwise, and that too is very significant.
It's a really popular idea in our culture to speak of people "leaving for college" as if that's a right of passage. Even movies tap into it, such as American Graffiti. But that model is a bit obsolete and was never fully accurate. The truth is that the first few years after high school can be really tough. By and large, a lot of people have no idea what they are going to do in life, and they have a vague sense that going to university will give them direction. Often it really doesn't. The story of somebody going to school and failing nearly immediately is a pretty common one. A lot of those people never make it back. Community colleges do a much better job with many people in this stage of their lives than universities do.
To include me.
I hadn't intended to go to Casper College, like I did. I had intended to go to the University of Wyoming and I enrolled there. I changed my mind when I went down to UW for an orientation and looked around and felt so out of sorts, I just gave up on that plan then and there.
I had planned on going to UW as they had a good geology department, my intended (and actual) major, and they had college ROTC. At that point in time, I had a vague plan of taking ROTC and getting a commission in the Army, serving as an officer for a couple of years, and then deciding what I would do post that.
As it happened, I came back and enrolled in Casper College, and its a good thing I did.
For one thing, at CC I found that I had to make up nearly an entire high school career in mathematics that I'd managed to get through high school without taking. I did that in less than a semester, but I doubt very much that if I'd gone to UW I would have been successful at that crash remedial work. And living at home while I was going to CC for two years let me really get into college, which I wasn't too sure about at first.
Indeed, that two years stands as two of the best of my life in some ways. I lived at home and had low expenses but worked at CC at the same time, and I'd joined the Guard (to make up for my delay in entering ROTC). I had enough cash, therefore, to get by, without really needing much. I liked the course work and when I wasn't in school or studying I was hunting. I was sort of living the life, and knew it.
I did end up going to UW after graduating from Casper College, and even at that my introduction to US's geology department was really a smooth one, but I did fine. I doubt, however, that I would have made it had I just went straight to US. I never did enter ROTC, finding that my time as a NCO in the Guard answered the questions I had about service life, or maybe just satisfied my curiosity about the Army, or maybe the combined experience in general told me something about myself, so I lost interest in doing that.
At any rate, that worked for me.
One thing, however, I do want to note is that I"m not saying, and would not say, that going to college means you'll have a happy life. I also think that too often education is confused with happiness. Indeed, I think people confuse monetary success with happiness, and they aren't the same. A good education, if truly a good one, does broaden a person's perspective and that makes a difference, but all too often modern educations really aren't all that broad. And some of those educations aren't useful, which is a problem in and of itself. As university educations have become increasingly common, they've become devalued by becoming easier in some instances, and some majors are, frankly, worthless. So poor planning and unrealistic goals can lead to an expensive four years that doesn't translate into anything.
Which isn't to say that for most people, some college isn't a good thing.
And in the modern world, most nations recognize that and do something about it. We have to too, if we wish to continue to be competitive. That doesn't mean that everyone needs a four year degree, or that even everyone should avail themselves of the two year opportunity. But making it available may be something that becomes increasingly critical in the world of the very near future.
But if we do so, and we should, there are of course some things to keep in mind.
The nature of Community Colleges.
It's important to keep in mind here that the proposal isn't to fund "a college education", but rather to fund two years at community college. It's easy for some to confuse the two, and they tend to get confused.
The Tom Hanks op ed linked in below does a really good job of describing community college, and what community colleges are about. Colleges aren't universities, for one thing, and that's important to keep in mind. Indeed, universities are technically made up of colleges, such as the College of Arts and Sciences or the College of Education, or the College of Engineering, or the College of Law. Good community colleges (and there are good and bad) typically have the first two years for most widely held bachelors degrees, so you can go on to a four year school from there, but they also have a lot of programs that have taken the place of trade schools. Casper College, for example, has a welding program, a truck driving program and a diesel mechanics program, none of which the University of Wyoming do.
That's significant, as it means that a person who isn't really seeking a four year degree can still get the certification that is necessary for them to pursue a decent job, which might otherwise be difficult to get, particularly once they're out of school and wish to start working.
But frankly another aspect of the community college is that it flat out allows a lot of people to get a start who just couldn't otherwise, and that too is very significant.
It's a really popular idea in our culture to speak of people "leaving for college" as if that's a right of passage. Even movies tap into it, such as American Graffiti. But that model is a bit obsolete and was never fully accurate. The truth is that the first few years after high school can be really tough. By and large, a lot of people have no idea what they are going to do in life, and they have a vague sense that going to university will give them direction. Often it really doesn't. The story of somebody going to school and failing nearly immediately is a pretty common one. A lot of those people never make it back. Community colleges do a much better job with many people in this stage of their lives than universities do.
To include me.
I hadn't intended to go to Casper College, like I did. I had intended to go to the University of Wyoming and I enrolled there. I changed my mind when I went down to UW for an orientation and looked around and felt so out of sorts, I just gave up on that plan then and there.
I had planned on going to UW as they had a good geology department, my intended (and actual) major, and they had college ROTC. At that point in time, I had a vague plan of taking ROTC and getting a commission in the Army, serving as an officer for a couple of years, and then deciding what I would do post that.
As it happened, I came back and enrolled in Casper College, and its a good thing I did.
For one thing, at CC I found that I had to make up nearly an entire high school career in mathematics that I'd managed to get through high school without taking. I did that in less than a semester, but I doubt very much that if I'd gone to UW I would have been successful at that crash remedial work. And living at home while I was going to CC for two years let me really get into college, which I wasn't too sure about at first.
Indeed, that two years stands as two of the best of my life in some ways. I lived at home and had low expenses but worked at CC at the same time, and I'd joined the Guard (to make up for my delay in entering ROTC). I had enough cash, therefore, to get by, without really needing much. I liked the course work and when I wasn't in school or studying I was hunting. I was sort of living the life, and knew it.
One of the geology classrooms at the University of Wyoming, in the 1980s.
I did end up going to UW after graduating from Casper College, and even at that my introduction to US's geology department was really a smooth one, but I did fine. I doubt, however, that I would have made it had I just went straight to US. I never did enter ROTC, finding that my time as a NCO in the Guard answered the questions I had about service life, or maybe just satisfied my curiosity about the Army, or maybe the combined experience in general told me something about myself, so I lost interest in doing that.
At any rate, that worked for me.
One thing, however, I do want to note is that I"m not saying, and would not say, that going to college means you'll have a happy life. I also think that too often education is confused with happiness. Indeed, I think people confuse monetary success with happiness, and they aren't the same. A good education, if truly a good one, does broaden a person's perspective and that makes a difference, but all too often modern educations really aren't all that broad. And some of those educations aren't useful, which is a problem in and of itself. As university educations have become increasingly common, they've become devalued by becoming easier in some instances, and some majors are, frankly, worthless. So poor planning and unrealistic goals can lead to an expensive four years that doesn't translate into anything.
Which isn't to say that for most people, some college isn't a good thing.
And in the modern world, most nations recognize that and do something about it. We have to too, if we wish to continue to be competitive. That doesn't mean that everyone needs a four year degree, or that even everyone should avail themselves of the two year opportunity. But making it available may be something that becomes increasingly critical in the world of the very near future.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Wednesday, January 27,1915. Ottoman Suez raid, First US nautical loss of World War One.
The Ottomans took the main coastal road between Qantara at the Suez Canal and El Arish that bordered Ottoman Palestine.
The US barque William P. Frye was detaomed by the German cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich off of the coast of Brazil. She was carrying 189,950 US bushels (1,768,300 US gal) of wheat, bound for Queenstown, Falmouth, or Plymouth in the United Kingdom.
The Germans scuttled her the following day after the captain refused to thrown the cargo overboard. The crew and passengers, including women and children, were released when the German ship put in at Newport News on March 11 due to engine trouble, at which time the US learned of the event, sparking outrage.
She was the first US ship sunk during World War One.
Last edition:
Tuesday, January 26, 1915. Suez and the Rockies.
Labels: 1910s, 1915, British Empire, Colorado, Egypt, National Park Service, Ottoman Army, Suez Canal, World War One
Monday, January 26, 2015
UW College of Law Dean Finalists Plan Public Presentations | News | University of Wyoming
UW College of Law Dean Finalists Plan Public Presentations | News | University of Wyoming
Jacquelyn Bridgeman has been acting as the Interim Dean, and I was really hoping would become the dean. Obviously that won't be the case.
The candidates are Klint Alexander, lecturer in international law at the Vanderbilt University Law School; Donald Judges, associate dean and professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law; Rodney Smolla, visiting professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, former president of Furman University and former dean of the Washington and Lee University School of Law; and Andrew Strauss, associate dean and international law professor at the Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Del.
Tuesday, January 26, 1915. Suez and the Rockies.
Ottoman forces attacked January 26, 1915 El Qantara, Egypt on the Suez Canal.
Chilembwe rebels raided a Catholic mission at Nguludi, Nyasaland.
Rocky Mountain National Park was established.
Last edition:
Monday, January 25, 1915. The telephone menace spreads.
Labels: 1910s, 1915, Africa, British Empire, Egypt, German Kriegsmarine, Imperial Russian Navy, law, Lighter than air aircraft, Ottoman Empire, Satire, Sinai, technology, telephone
Automotive Transportation I: Trucks and Lorries
Truck Train, May 1920.
We have, in this continuing series on transportation, looked at trains, planes, ships, and shoe leather. We're going to start looking at the type of transportation now that's just part of the regular background of our lives, for most of us. Automobiles.
In doing this, I've broken the topic up into two, and perhaps oddly, I've started with trucks and lorries. That probably seems backwards, but for what we're doing it really isn't. Transportation by truck has been a major change in the basic distribution system for the nation.
First of all, we probably better get some basic definitions down. I've used, in the caption to this entry, terms that are somewhat unique to differently localities. A "truck" is to Americans and Canadians what a "lorry" is to the English. I don't know why, but they are. And that's sort of illustrative of what we're trying to address here, which is the commercial vehicle. A unique hauling vehicle designed to move objects and operated by people, rather than an automobile designed to haul principally people. We'll get to cars, or sedans, later.
Trucks are as old as the internal combustion engine, which itself dates to basically the second half of the 19th Century. The history of the internal combustion engine is surprisingly convoluted and long, and there are different early engines that could compete for the claim of being the very first such engine. Suffice it to say, for our purposes, the introduction of the internal combustion engine had its way paved by a different type of engine, really, that being the steam engine. And in fact, the steam engine, along with electric motors, competed with early internal combustion engines for the role of individual vehicle power plant for quite some time. As early as the 1870s, at any rate, such familiar names as Benz and Daimler were introducing internal combustion engines that would be recognizable as ancestors to the current ones. Rudolph Diesel had designed the early variants of the engine that bears his name by 1893. Even such theoretically advanced engine features such as the supercharger were 19th Century inventions.
So the early engines were around in the late 19th Century, but what it took to really get the vehicles up and rolling, so to speak as viable alternatives to horse and locomotive was cheap fuel, which oddly enough is rapidly reaching the pinnacle of its cheapness in our very own era. And that took petroleum exploration. As this isn't a history of petroleum exploration, we'll forgo looking into that in this thread. Perhaps we'll look at it at some time in the future. What it also took, however, was an affordable set of vehicles.
Trucks came in, therefore, quite early, but as practical machines they really began to make their appearance felt just prior to World War One. By that time, there were some really stout industrial trucks chugging around, and that's basically what they were doing, around American cities. They were the competitor to draft horses pulling wagons and carts.
They did not all operate exactly the same way that modern trucks do. Some did, with engine and transmission, but others were chain driven, like motorcycles were (and some still are). But as heavy as they were, they tended to be pretty prone to maintenance problems and they were, in some ways, more comparable to industrial machines than to the modern trucks we have today.
They also didn't stray much into the sticks. They didn't have the range for it, and they were too expensive for many rural users. Nonetheless, they began to come into military use just prior to World War One. The U.S. First Aero Squadron was the first fully motorized unit of the U.S. Army and saw deployment in the Punitive Expedition, where its trucks proved as great of value, if not greater, than its aircraft.
U.S. Army Truck Company 28. Punitive Expedition.
Trucks went on to see widespread use by every army during the Great War and while they did not displace the horse in any role, they were basically proven by the end of the war. This was so much the case that the United States Army, as part of a grand experiment, ordered a convoy of various types of trucks and vehicles then its possession to cross the United States in 1919, just one year after the conclusion of the war.
British brewery truck, an early example of a truck directly replacing a role generally filled by horses, in use here to haul cannon parts.
Light trucks in use by the U.S. Army, World War One.
At the same time, the pickup truck very much made its appearance. At first most pickups were converted cars, with conversions of Model Ts being quite common. But as the type proved so utilitarian soon major automobile manufacturers began to offer them, and they became a staple for small businesses, farms and ranches. All were two wheel drive at this point.
That convoy proved to be an epic ordeal, which served as much as anything to demonstrate that American roads were really all local, and in some cases nearly impassable, affairs. But the fact that the trucks did make it proved a point, and it wasn't all that long thereafter when a true interstate highway system was put into the works. Indeed, the it already was as Congress had first entered the picture legislatively in 1916, with the Federal Road Aid Act of 1916. In 1921 Congress passed a new act, the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921 which provided matching funds for highway construction and acted to have the Army target highways that were vital to national defense. Therefore, contrary to the general supposition that this first occurred under the Eisenhower Administration, in fact the Army became involved in highway construction, in a fashion, in 1921. In 1922 the Army had identified 20,000 miles of road that it considered vital.
Road construction boomed in the 1920s, and by the 1930s thousands of miles of paved, or concrete, roads had been put in and the road age had really arrived. Many of the old dirt public roads, which could really only serve local purposes, and which took hours of travel in order to go even modest distances, were replaced with paved roads that greatly increased the speed of travel. Small stores and gas stations, in turn, popped up everywhere, as vehicles of the era really only held a modest amount of gasoline. With the increase in roads everywhere, an increase in truck traffic came in as well.
Fairly typical commercial trucks, 1940.
Fairly typical commercial trucks, 1940.
At first, and for a very long time, most truck traffic really remained only local. However, even by the 1930s tractor trailers had become relatively common, having made their appearance some time before. So the beginning of longer hauls were there. These trucks were somewhat modest in size compared to the ones we see now, but they were there and they were used, although more often for intrastate hauls or relatively short hauls, by modern standards.
Tractor trailer combinations, 1930.
Trucks delivering tucks, 1931.
At the same time, the pickup truck very much made its appearance. At first most pickups were converted cars, with conversions of Model Ts being quite common. But as the type proved so utilitarian soon major automobile manufacturers began to offer them, and they became a staple for small businesses, farms and ranches. All were two wheel drive at this point.
Very early example of a truck that would come to be thought of as the pickup truck.
Pickup truck in farm use, 1930s.
Truck and trailer, late 1930s.
None of which is to say or suggest that trucks supplanted horse and mule drawn wagons by this point. They were starting too, quite clearly, but horse and mules remained very much in evidence the entire time.
Also contrary to widely held belief, the post Great War period, followed by the Twenties and the Great Depression did not see the Army supplant horses entirely by any means, but it did see the artillery branch, specifically the field artillery, take a huge interest in trucks.
Various nations artillery branches has started to use trucks as "artillery tractors" during World War One, with every major army using some. The heavier the piece, the more likely that an army was using an artillery tractor to tow it. Following World War One, the U.S. Army in particular had an enormous interest in trucks. Indeed, the artillery was arguably more interested in trucks than any other branch of the Army.
What the artillery branch found was that there really weren't any artillery tractors of the type that it wanted, and that it new could be built. Available trucks, for the most part, were two axle, two wheel drive, low geared trucks. All wheel drive trucks did start coming in during this period, but they were very heavy indeed, and mostly used for very rugged rural enterprises, such as logging. The artillery wanted a truck that was all wheel drive, but still capable of effective road use. As there wasn't such a vehicle, it set out inventing one.
And it was successful, which oddly put the Federal government, for awhile, in the truck manufacturing business. While these 6x6 artillery tractors proved to be immediately successful, they also proved to be very expensive, and in a nation with such a massive automobile industry, it soon came to be the case that nobody could see a really good reason why the Federal government should be operating a truck company, so this line of truck, during the 1930s, was contracted out as a type to various civilian manufacturers.
Right about the same time, the Army, having seen the utility of 6x6 trucks, began to desire 4x4 trucks as well, and these were also contracted for. Just prior to the United States entering World War Two the Army had adopted and was purchasing, therefore, a wide range of all wheel drive trucks, ranging from the newly adopted and very small 1/4 ton truck, the Jeep, to 4x4s and 6x6s. Other armies were likewise experimenting with fall wheel drive vehicles but no other nation did to the same extent as the U.S, which by the wars end was at any rate supplying at least some trucks to every Allied army.
Four wheel drive trucks brought about a revolution in transportation in rural quarters that has already been addressed by this blog, so we won't go back into it, other than that to say after World War Two every major U.S. automobile manufacturer, and there were more major ones at that time, had experience in building 4x4s. And as they were offered to civilians, they slowly came to be a major automobile type were today, they are very common. In my region of the country it's so rare as to see a 2x4 pickup truck that its actually a bit surprising now when a newer one is encountered. They aren't something you see much, and most automobile lots have only 4x4s for sale here, as a rule. This hasn't always been the case, but it certainly is the case now.
Also contrary to widely held belief, the post Great War period, followed by the Twenties and the Great Depression did not see the Army supplant horses entirely by any means, but it did see the artillery branch, specifically the field artillery, take a huge interest in trucks.
Various nations artillery branches has started to use trucks as "artillery tractors" during World War One, with every major army using some. The heavier the piece, the more likely that an army was using an artillery tractor to tow it. Following World War One, the U.S. Army in particular had an enormous interest in trucks. Indeed, the artillery was arguably more interested in trucks than any other branch of the Army.
What the artillery branch found was that there really weren't any artillery tractors of the type that it wanted, and that it new could be built. Available trucks, for the most part, were two axle, two wheel drive, low geared trucks. All wheel drive trucks did start coming in during this period, but they were very heavy indeed, and mostly used for very rugged rural enterprises, such as logging. The artillery wanted a truck that was all wheel drive, but still capable of effective road use. As there wasn't such a vehicle, it set out inventing one.
And it was successful, which oddly put the Federal government, for awhile, in the truck manufacturing business. While these 6x6 artillery tractors proved to be immediately successful, they also proved to be very expensive, and in a nation with such a massive automobile industry, it soon came to be the case that nobody could see a really good reason why the Federal government should be operating a truck company, so this line of truck, during the 1930s, was contracted out as a type to various civilian manufacturers.
Marines riding in heavy 4x4 truck early in World War Two. This type would soon be supplanted by 6x6 trucks.
World War Two era Dodge 4x4 truck. With very little in the way of change, this model would go into civilian production immediately after World War Two.
Following the Second World War the U.S. saw a rising expansion of over the road trucking. By the late 1950s the US was, additionally, overhauling its Interstate highway system via the Defense Department's budget with new "defense" highways, which were much improved compared to the old Interstate highway system. With the greatly improved roads, by the 1960s, interstate long haul trucking was in an advance state of supplanting the railroads for a lot of American freighting. At the same time, the diesel engine supplanted the gasoline engine for semi tractors. A very uncommon engine for motor vehicles in the United States prior to the 1950s, diesels started coming in somewhere in that period and by the 1960s they'd completely replaced gasoline engines for over the road semi tractors. Now, of course, diesels have become fairly common for heavy pickups as well, and are even starting to appear in the U.S. in light pickup trucks in spite of the higher cost of diesel fuel.
Mack tractor, 1942.
The change was dramatic, although few people can probably fully appreciate that now, as we are so acclimated to trucking. Thousands of trucks supplanted thousands of rail cars, and entire industries that were once served only by rail came to be served by truck. The shipping of livestock, for example, which was nearly exclusively a railroad enterprise up into the 1950s is now done entirely by truck, a change which had remarkable impacts as rail shipping required driving the livestock to the railhead, whereas with the trucks they are simply scheduled to arrive at a ranch at a particular time. Likewise, businesses that at one time located themselves near rail lines, so that they could receive their heavy products by rail, no longer do, as they receive those items by trucks. For example, pipeyards, once always near a railhead, are not always today.
Not that the railroads have disappeared. Indeed, in recent years they've once again been expanding, as they're very cost efficient and even more "green" than trucking, as they point out. But trucks have, in the past 60 years, gone from something that was really for short hauls, for the most part, to something that is now common for long hauls, and indeed the bulk of American shipping is now done by truck. Trucks have an advantage in being able to go more selectively and directly from "port to port", and the surface on which they travel is of course, put in by the public, making it a partially subsidized industry. So they aren't going away soon, in spite of a revitalized rail industry.
And trucks have became part of the American vehicular fleet in a way that would have been hardly imaginable even 50 years ago. As they've become more comfortable to drive, and easier to drive, they've been a common family vehicle, which is not what they once were. Pickup trucks used to be pretty much only owned by people who had some need of them, even if that need was recreational. Now, they're common everywhere. Indeed, the Ford F150, Ford's 1/2 ton pickup truck, has been the best selling vehicle, that's vehicle, not truck, for the past 32 years. So, so common have trucks become in the United States that one model of 1/2 tone truck is the number one single high selling model of vehicle. Pretty amazing for a vehicle that started off as utilitarian and industrial.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Monday, January 25, 1915. The telephone menace spreads.
Lightly armed rebels following John Chilembwe were defeated by the Kings African Rifles.
The Ottomans advanced on Qantara on the Sinai.
Alexander Graham Bell, in New York City, called Thomas A. Watson, in San Francisco, in the first US long distance telephone call.
The German Navy sustained its first Zeppelin loss when an ice up airship went down over the Baltic after bombing Libau, Russia. The Imperial Russian Navy captured the crew.
The United States Supreme Court determined a pardon is only valid if the person it is the subject of accepts it.
Last edition:
Sunday, January 24, 1915. The Battle of Dogger Bank.
Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Unidentified, Denver Colorado
Churches of the West: Unidentified, Denver Colorado:
Central Denver has a large number of traditional styled churches, of which this is one. Taken from my pickup truck window while stopped at an intersection, I was unable to identify it.
Central Denver has a large number of traditional styled churches, of which this is one. Taken from my pickup truck window while stopped at an intersection, I was unable to identify it.
Saturday, January 24, 2015
The return of a perennial bad idea, the transfer of Federal lands to the state.
Every few years Wyoming and the other western states get the idea that the Federal government ought to hand over the Federal domain to the states. The states don't propose to buy, please note, but just get it.
For those who aren't aware, starting really in the 1860s with the Homestead Act the Federal government started taking a different approach to vast tracks of land it acquired by the surrender, acquisition or simply the theft, of lands held by aboriginal title. Aboriginal title was that title held by the native inhabitants, i.e., the Indians. The Federal government recognized that title, as the Crown had also, but regarded it as a subservient, less perfect, form of title. Basically, it was inferior as people who lived a wild, aboriginal life, weren't regarded as civilized, and therefore they couldn't have a civilized title. The concept sort of was that they didn't really know what they had or how they had it, but they did have something.
From very early in the country's history it was the law that only the Federal government, heir to the rights of the Crown, could dispose of aboriginal title. States and territories couldn't do it. Up until the Homestead Act, the Federal government generally handed over most of the land it had to the new state upon statehood, but not all of it. The land it kept were "reservations", and not just of the "Indian Reservation" type. Washington D. C., which it acquired by donation, is one such Federal Reservation, or was, in spite of its ceaseless nonsensical whining about wanting to become the only city state in the country, thereby elevating a bad idea to statehood level.
Starting with the Homestead Act, however, the Federal government decided that it would keep much of the Federal domain and allow farmers to acquire it directly from the Federal government. This was done in order to encourage the settlement of lands otherwise regarded by most people as wastelands. The thesis was that by making the land free, or darned near free, people would be encouraged to give farming or livestock raising on it a go. The Homestead Act was followed by the Mining Law of 1872, which did the same for mining, with mining given a preferential place over everything else.
This was the system for most of the West until the Taylor Grazing Act when Congress recognized that the Dust Bowl conditions in the West then in play, combined with darned near full homesteading, was wrecking everything. So, it operated to prevent further homesteading entries and to lease the land to agricultural interests. A law that provided for leasing of oil and gas rights was already in existence. Finally, in the 1980s (I believe) the Mining Law of 1872 was altered to prevent further land patenting.
This system has worked really well. The Federal government has been a really good steward of the land and the fact that it belongs to all of us has meant that its been open to agriculture, hunting, fishing, and recreation.
So why would the state's have a problem with that?
Well, they do. Partly that's because the state's see the Federal domain as a source of income, and partially its because local interests always naively imagine the land ending up in their hands. People who depend on the Federal domain often have a problem sharing it, and they somehow imagine that if it went to the state, it'd go to them, and they'd own it.
And that's why this is a hideously bad idea.
In reality, allowing Wyoming to own the Federal domain would mean, sooner or later, that it would sell it into private hands. Those backing the bill in the legislature to support this concept deny that, but that is what would happen. Local pressure from local interest would scream and cry for this until hit happened. And then they'd be stunned when the land all went to big monied interest elsewhere.
For those who support agriculture, mineral extraction and recreation in this state, which is darned near everyone who lives here, there's no better way to mess that up than to support transferring the Federal domain to Wyoming. Wyoming is always selling little bits and pieces of what it does own, and sooner or later, it'd do that with all the land it owns. And at that point, locals would basically own nothing, and be able to go nowhere.
This idea is terrible. The legislature will almost surely pass it. Let's hope that Congress doesn't support it. If it were ever to get through, however, this would be the time. If that's the case, when the day comes when you can't go anywhere on what the Federal government once owned, remember the names of those who proposed this idea and ask them what they were thinking, unless of course you support the concept, and then you can ask yourself.
Postscript
This bill has now been amended such that the proposal is no longer to study the transfer of the lands, but rather transfer the management of them.
That's certainly a much more reasonable, sort of, prospective, but this too is a poor idea. After all, if the Federal government is paying for the management of the lands, why opt to take on the expense and burden of that task? The answer would no doubt be that there would be more local control, which is true, and which is why the state has chosen to administer such things that it can, such as the Occupational Health and Safety regulations. Nonetheless, taking on this burden here, which is well done by the Federal government, seem to be a rather poor idea.
Lex Anteinternet: A legal Gerontocracy?
Like a vampire from a movie, the topic I wrote about last legislative session here, is back again:
Lex Anteinternet: A legal Gerontocracy?: There's a bill pending in Wyoming's legislature which proposes to remove the mandatory retirement age for the judiciary, whic...
All my original comments apply to this still bad idea. Just like last year, the concept of changing the retirement age for judges from 70 years to 75 is still a bad idea.
When legislators backing this concept were interviewed by the Tribune this go around, one of them made the comment that "people are living longer", which is frequently the ill thought out excuse for such things. People are not, of course, living longer, they aren't dying as young, which isn't quite the same thing.
While it is good that people aren't dying as young, what the impact of that has been, in undeniable part, is that a lot more people are living with dementia than they used to. This is something that backers of this sort of thing have got to face. And this isn't an abstraction to me. My own mother, God bless her, is now well over 75, but she lives with this, and as an impact of that, so do I. Dementia strikes different people, who are afflicted with it, at different ages, and a lot of people are afflicted with it. By pushing the envelope on the ages of judges, we're pretty much guaranteeing that some will be so impacted while on the bench. When that happens, what do we do, impeach them? That's not a very dignified end of their service.
And, while I hesitate to say it, perhaps its time to note that at some point the Baby Boomer Generation has to loosen its grip on absolutely everything. Prior generations did, allowing them to step up to the plate, but as a generation they are remarkably reluctant to. Recent changes in Social Security eligibility, for example, have not impacted them. Our current crop of Presidential candidates are all Boomer retreads, or seem to be, again.
This is not to take a shot at the generation, but it's notable that now that they are the generation principally occupying the bench, a Legislature which probably is principally made up of the same generation, now thinks it'd be a good idea to have judges in eyesight of 80 years old, thereby effectively keeping their own generation on the bench. At some point, things have to go to the young, and even as it is right now that would mean that there'd be a lot of lawyers in this state in their 40s, which isn't exactly young, who'd never get the chance to serve.
This is a terrible idea. At age 70, a person ought to be able to go on to something else in life. If they still want to work, they can. If they don't, they shouldn't have to. But if they're in a public office in the judiciary, by that age they're well outside of the generational cohort they're judging, and it's time to turn it over to somebody younger.
To Our Glorious Dead. A commentary about an uniformed comment I hear fairly frequenlty
On our Some Gave All blog, I have posted an entry on the All Wars Memorial Toronto Ontario Old City Hall and York County Courthouse Memorial, Toronto Canada.
The reason I further note this here is best reflected by the commentary one of my teachers, an English teacher, made to the class back when my son had her in middle school, that comment being that Canada never has fought a war.
What a moronic comment.
This memorial, as the link above discusses, is in honor of the Canadians who lost their life in World War One (which the Canadians were in much longer than we were), World War Two (which the Canadians were in much longer than we were) and the Korean War. Just because Canada didn't fight in the Vietnam War doesn't mean it's never been in any wars. Not by a long shot.
Memorials like this one aren't unique to Toronto. I have to presume that the people who make such comments have never been to Canada, and haven't ever read any history either.
The changing interior of a city.
Churches of the West: Anglican Church of the Holy Trinity, Toronto Ontario
Every once in a while you'll see
something that really demonstrates how a town has changed over the
decades. This is one such scene.
This is an Anglican church in Toronto, and its an old one. Probably because I was seeking to take the photo of the church, you can't tell really how its surrounded on all sides, and I mean all with big tall buildings. It's right in the middle of them. An artifact of a less built up town.
From what my relatives tell me, Toronto has indeed changed a great deal. It was, at one time, a very English city, but no more. It's a huge city, and very vibrant. Things are being built all over, and the town has a very cosmopolitan international feel to it.
Sunday, January 24, 1915. The Battle of Dogger Bank.
The Royal Navy defeated the Imperial German Navy's Kaiserliche Marine in the North Sea, sinking the German armoured cruiser SMS Blücher with a loss of 792 sailors and disabling the German battleshp SMS Seyditz, with a loss of 159 men, in the Battle of Dogger Bank.
People like to claim that the German and British fleets basically did nothing during the Great War as to surface actions outside of the Battle of Jutland, but it simply isn't true. The Battle of Dogger Bank was a major action in which the Royal Navy bested the Germans.
The SMS Blücher sinking.
More realistically, the Germans were simply bested by the British routinely until prudence demanded that it stay in safe harbors as to surface vessels.
The Germans, it might be noted, used Zeppelins in the battle, but without much effect.
Rebel leader and Baptist minister John Chilembwe split up his forces, sending one group to the towns of Blantyre and Limbe in hopes of capturing weapons from stores owned by the African Lakes Company. The other group went to a plantation owned by the A. L. Bruce Estates, also for weapons.
On the same day, Chilembwe requested German aid, a naive assumption about German goals in the war.
Last edition:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)