The Big Picture: Truck Company No. 28, Mexican Border

A questionable monetary message.

Other than my recent posts on the wars in the Middle East, I generally have abstained from any religious commentary in terms of religious messages themselves.  This blog isn't a forum for that.

However, I just can't help myself on this one.

This morning, I turned on the television and found a televangelist on whose message basically was that if you gave him money (no matter how much you might be hurting yourself) God was going to reward you with more money.

I know that there's a certain group of folks who believe this, but that message just isn't there in the Gospels.  Indeed, while I can't claim to be an expert, that message isn't in any of the three major monotheistic religions.

That definitely isn't the message of Christianity.  Far from it.  At best, a person might receive such a blessing, but Christianity's message is you reward is in the next world, not in this one, although aid in this one isn't impossible.  But take the lives of the Saints.  None of the Apostles got rich and died wealthy. Quite the contrary. They lived poor and died by violence.  Or take the Roman Martyrology, those saints whom Catholics remember at Mass at least in part. A long list of men and women whose ends were brutal.

I don't know why this offended me sufficiently to post about it here, but it does.  I've seen this guy on television before, and his message is always "send me money" and God will send you more. I don't know what the guy does with this money, but a message always focused on the concept that God is some sort of reverse bank where you give money and get more in return is pretty far from the Christian Gospel.

No, Seriously, How Contagious Is Ebola? : Shots - Health News : NPR

No, Seriously, How Contagious Is Ebola? : Shots - Health News : NPR

Not very, as it turns out (and as I already knew).

In order for Ebola to become the disease that the panicky wish to make, it would have to become airborne, like influenza. The chances of that are next no nil.

But what about west Africa then?

Well, poor living conditions, poor health infrastructure, poor resources. That explains it.  The disease is deadly, to be sure, and every person who dies from it is a tragedy. But this is the 1918 Flu Epidemic back a century later, or the Black Plague.

Narrative and the Grace of God: The New 'True Grit' - NYTimes.com

Narrative and the Grace of God: The New 'True Grit' - NYTimes.com

I see that I'm not the only one whose noticed this interesting aspect of this film.  This is also the case, very intentionally so of course, of the Coen's A Serious Man, although I find that to be a rather odd movie.

Sunday Morning Scene: First Baptist Church, Casper Wyoming

Churches of the West: First Baptist Church, Casper Wyoming:

First Baptist Church, Casper Wyoming. From Churches of the West.

The Big Speech: Chief Joseph's Surrender Speech

Chief Joseph, October 5, 1877

Tell General Howard I know his Heart. What He told me before I have in my heart. I am tired of fighting, Looking Glass is dead. too-Hul-hul-sote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold and we have no blankets. The little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food; no one knows where they are -- perhpas freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.

Replicating The North London Garage 1909 J. A. P. Engined Record Holder – Part X | The Old Motor

Replicating The North London Garage 1909 J. A. P. Engined Record Holder – Part X | The Old Motor

The French President addresss his Parliament, August 4, 1914

Gentlemen:
France has just been the object of a violent and premeditated attack, which is an insolent defiance of the law of nations.  Before any declaration of war had been sent to us, even before the German Ambassador had asked for his passports, our territory has been violated.  The German Empire has waited till yesterday evening to give at this late stage the true name to a state of things which it had already created.
For more than forty years the French, in sincere love of peace, have buried at the bottom of their heart the desire for legitimate reparation.
They have given to the world the example of a great nation which, definitely raised from defeat by the exercise of will, patience, and labour, has only used its renewed and rejuvenated strength in the interest of progress and for the good of humanity.
Since the ultimatum of Austria opened a crisis which threatened the whole of Europe, France has persisted in following and in recommending on all sides a policy of prudence, wisdom, and moderation.
To her there can be imputed no act, no movement, no word, which has not been peaceful and conciliatory.
At the hour when the struggle is beginning, she has the right, in justice to herself, of solemnly declaring that she has made, up to the last moment, supreme efforts to avert the war now about to break out, the crushing responsibility for which the German Empire will have to bear before history.  Our fine and courageous army, which France today accompanies with her maternal thought has risen eager to defend the honour of the flag and the soil of the country.
The President of the Republic interpreting the unanimous feeling of the country, expresses to our troops by land and sea the admiration and confidence of every Frenchman.
Closely united in a common feeling, the nation will persevere with the cool self-restraint of which, since the beginning of the crisis, she has given daily proof.  Now, as always, she will know how to harmonise the most noble daring and most ardent enthusiasm with that self-control which is the sign of enduring energy and is the best guarantee of victory.
In the war which is beginning, France will have Right on her side, the eternal power of which cannot with impunity be disregarded by nations any more than by individuals.
She will be heroically defended by all her sons; nothing will break their sacred union before the enemy; today they are joined together as brothers in a common indignation against the aggressor, and in a common patriotic faith.
She is faithfully helped by Russia, her ally; she is supported by the loyal friendship of Great Britain.
And already from every part of the civilised world sympathy and good wishes are coming to her.  For today once again she stands before the universe for Liberty, Justice, and Reason.
'Haut les coeurs et vive la France!'

The Big Speech: Germany Declares War Against France, August 3, 1914.

M. Le President,
The German administrative and military authorities have established a certain number of flagrantly hostile acts committed on German territory by French military aviators.

Several of these have openly violated the neutrality of Belgium by flying over the territory of that country; one has attempted to destroy buildings near Wesel; others have been seen in the district of the Eifel; one has thrown bombs on the railway near Carlsruhe and Nuremberg.

I am instructed, and I have the honour to inform your Excellency, that in the presence of these acts of aggression the German Empire considers itself in a state of war with France in consequence of the acts of this latter Power.
At the same time, I have the honour to bring to the knowledge of your Excellency that the German authorities will retain French mercantile vessels in German ports, but they will release them if, within forty-eight hours, they are assured of complete reciprocity.

My diplomatic mission having thus come to an end, it only remains for me to request your Excellency to be good enough to furnish me with my passports, and to take the steps you consider suitable to assure my return to Germany, with the staff of the Embassy, as well as, with the Staff of the Bavarian Legation and of the German Consulate General in Paris.

Be good enough, M. le President, to receive the assurances of my deepest respect.

The Big Speech: Germany joins in, August 1, 1914

The Imperial German Government have used every effort since the beginning of the crisis to bring about a peaceful settlement.  In compliance with a wish expressed to him by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, the German Emperor had undertaken, in concert with Great Britain, the part of mediator between the Cabinets of Vienna and St. Petersburg; but Russia, without waiting for any result, proceeded to a general mobilisation of her forces both on land and sea.

In consequence of this threatening step, which was not justified by any military proceedings on the part of Germany, the German Empire was faced by a grave and imminent danger.  If the German Government had failed to guard against this peril, they would have compromised the safety and the very existence of Germany.
The German Government were, therefore, obliged to make representations to the Government of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias and to insist upon a cessation of the aforesaid military acts. Russia having refused to comply with this demand, and having shown by this refusal that her action was directed against Germany, I have the honour, on the instructions of my Government, to inform your Excellency as follows:

His Majesty the Emperor, my august Sovereign, in the name of the German Empire, accepts the challenge, and considers himself at war with Russia.

The Big Speech: Austria Declares War on Serbia, thereby starting the mass slaughter. July 28, 1914

The Royal Serbian Government not having answered in a satisfactory manner the note of July 23, 1914, presented by the Austro-Hungarian Minister at Belgrade, the Imperial and Royal Government are themselves compelled to see to the safeguarding of their rights and interests, and, with this object, to have recourse to force of arms.

Austria-Hungary consequently considers herself henceforward in state of war with Serbia.

Sunday, October 4, 1914. Declaring a Day of Prayer.

President Wilson declared a national day of prayer for the end of World War One.

PROCLAMATION OF PRESIDENT WILSON FOR DAY OF PRAYER. By the President of the United States of America. A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas great nations of the world have taken up arms against one another and war now draws millions of men into battle whom the counsel of statesmen have not been able to save from the terrible sacrifice; And whereas in this as in all things it is our privilege and duty to seek counsel and succor of Almighty God, humbling ourselves before Him, confessing our weakness and our lack of any wisdom equal to these things; And whereas it is the especial wish and longing of the people of the United States, in prayer and counsel and all friendliness, to serve the cause of peace : 

Therefore, I, Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States of America, do designate Sunday, the 4th day of October next, a day of prayer and supplication and do request all God-fearing persons to repair on that day to their places of worship there to unite their petitions to Almighty God that, overruling the counsel of men, setting straight the things they can not govern or alter, taking pity on the nations now in the throes of conflict, in His mercy and goodness, showing a way where, men can see none, He vouchsafe His children healing peace again and restore once more that concord among men and nations without which there can be neither happiness nor true friendship nor any wholesome fruit of toil or thought in the world; praying also to this end that He forgive us our sins, our ignorance of His holy will, our willfulness and many errors, and lead us in the paths of obedience to places of vision and to thoughts and counsels that purge and make wise.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, and of the independence of the United States of America the one hundred and thirty-ninth. 

Woodrow Wilson. By the President: William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State.

Ninety Three German scientists signed a proclamation in support of Germany and the war.  The document was met with consternation outside of Germany.

Last edition:

Saturday, October 3, 1914. The French hold at Arras.

Labels: 1910s, 1914, Arras, Art, British Commonwealth, British Empire, Canadian Army, J. C. Leyendecker, World War One

The Big Speech: President Wilson's Address to Congress, April 20, 2014

Gentlemen of the Congress:

It is my duty to call to your attention to a situation which has arisen in our dealings with the General Victoriano Huerta at Mexico City which calls for action , and to ask your advice and cooperation in acting upon it.

On the 9th of April a paymaster of the U.S.S. Dolphin landed at the Iturbide Bridge landing at Tampico with a whaleboat and boats' crew to take off certain supplies needed by his ship , and while engaged in loading the boat was arrested by an officer and squad of men of the army of General Huerta.... Admiral Mayo regarded the arrest as so serious an affront that he was not satisfied with the flag of the United States be saluted with special ceremony by the military commander of the port.

The incident can not be regarded as a trivial one, especially as two of the men arrested were taken from the boat itself - that is to say, from the territory of the United States - but had it stood by itself it might have been attributed to the ignorance or arrogance of a single officer.  Unfortunately, it was not an isolated case.

A series of incidents have recently occurred which can not but create the impression that the representatives of General Huerta were willing to go out of their way to show disregard for the dignity and rights of this Government and felt perfectly safe in doing what they pleased, making free to show in many ways their irritation and contempt...

The manifest danger of such a situation was that such offences might grow from bad to worse until something happened of so gross and intolerable a sort as to lead directly and inevitably to armed conflict.  It was necessary that the apologies of General Huerta and his representatives should go much further, that they should be such as to attract the attention of the whole population to their significance, and such as to impress upon General Huerta himself the necessity of seeing to it that no further occasion for explanations and professed regrets should arise.

I, therefore, felt it my duty to sustain Admiral Mayo in the whole of his demand and to insist that the flag of the United States should be saluted in such a way as to indicate a new spirit and attitude on the part of the Huertistas.

Such a salute, General Huerta has refused and I have come to ask your approval and support in the course I now propose to pursue.  This Government can, I earnestly hope, in no circumstances be forced into war with the people of Mexico.  Mexico is torn by civil strife.  If we are to accept the tests of its own constitution, it has no government.  General Huerta has set his power up in the City of Mexico, such as it is, without right and by methods for which there can be no justification.

Only part of the country is under his control.  If armed conflict should unhappily come as a result of his attitude of personal resentment toward this Government, we should be fighting only General Huerta and those who adhere to him and give him their support, and our object would be only to restore to the people of the distracted Republic the opportunity to set up again their own laws and their own government.

But I earnestly hope that war is not now in question.  I believe I speak for the American people when I say that we do not desire to control in any degree the affairs of our sister Republic.  Our feeling for the people of Mexico is one of deep and genuine friendship, and every thing that we have so far done or refrained from doing has proceeded from our desire to help them, not to hinder or embarrass them.

We would not wish even to exercise the good offices of friendship without their welcome and consent.  The people of Mexico are entitled to settle their own domestic affairs in their own way, and we sincerely desire to respect their right.  The present situation need have none of the grave implications of interference if we deal with it promptly, firmly, and wisely.

No doubt I could do what is necessary the circumstances to enforce respect for our Government without recourse to the Congress, and yet not exceed my constitution powers as President; but I do not wish to a in a manner possibly of so grave consequence except in close conference and cooperation with both the Senate and House.

I, therefore l come to ask your approval that I should use the armed forces of the United States in such ways and to such an extent as may be necessary to obtain from General Huerta and adherents the fullest recognition of the rights and dignity of the United States, even admit the distressing conditions now unhappily obtaining in Mexico.

There can in what we do be no thought of aggression or of selfish aggrandizement.  We seek to maintain the dignity and authority of the United States only because we wish always to keep our great influence unimpaired for the uses of liberty, both in United States and wherever else it may employed for the benefit of mankind.

Preventing being spotted by U-boats?

My old Hamilton field watch, being worn "upside down".

Recently I scratched the top of my wrist where it contacts my watch, and so as a result I've been wearing my watch face down, or upside down compared to the way most people normally wear it.  To my surprise, while it seems strange to wear it that way, it's fairly comfortable.

Anyhow, a colleague of mind who normally wears his watch this way told me that he was trained to do that during World War Two, when he was in the Navy. The thought was that the luminescent faces of watches might be seen by U-boats scanning the seas at night, and if the watches were worn that way they'd be less likely to be facing outwards.  

I wonder if that training was widespread, and if it was really based on a real danger?  The faces of these watches aren't really all that bright, and I'd think the risk pretty small.  Not that the Navy wouldn't seek to prevent the danger.

Saturday, October 3, 1914. The French hold at Arras.

It was Saturday, and J. C. Leyendecker painted a worrying Uncle Sam reading the newspaper. 

The French line held the Germans at Arras.

The first Canadian troops set sail for the United Kingdom.

Last edition:

Friday, October 2, 1914. The Sultan of Swat.

Labels: 1910s, 1914, Arras, baseball, French Army, German Army, World War One

Ranchers v. the U.S. Army and what it revealed.

My mother in law loaned me a copy of Cowboy magazine, which had been loaned to her, and asked me to read an article in it.  The article concerned efforts of southern Colorado ranchers to resist an effort by the Army to expand the training ranges associated with Ft. Carson, following up on a successful Army effort to do that earlier. The net result of the effort would have made approximately 10% of Colorado a training range.

What was so interesting about the article is what ranchers and those who spend a lot of time on ranches already know.  Ranching is sustainable by its very nature, and by extension, it preserves wildlands.  Opponents of ranching like to claim its destructive to the land, but in fact, as the article points out, profit margins in ranching are so low that a person has to be absolutely attune to the land to make it work, and by extension, that preserves it.  This is particularly the case for multi-generational ranching, which in most places in the west, is what we have.

What the article also pointed out, and what is also true, is that even though ranchers know this, there's a deep sense of suspicion on their part that generally prevents scientist from coming in and studying this. That did happen here, but only because some dynamic organizers got it done.  Otherwise, the story that the land was tired, the ranchers wanted out, and the Army would be better stewards of the land and cultural artifacts would have prevailed.  Ranchers should take note of this everywhere.

Now, like the ranchers in this story themselves, I have to note that preserving the land for agriculture does not make a person unpatriotic.  These guys weren't opposing national defense, they were preserving the land and their living, and that's what everyone is fighting for.

Friday Farming: The Immigrant Farmer.

Italian immigrant in his field, about 1940.  A scene truly of the past, as a poor immigrant today would be highly unlikely to ever have sufficient assets enough to purchase a farm.  For that matter, most native born American citizens never will.

Friday, October 2, 1914. The Sultan of Swat.

The French withdrew from Douai.

Babe Ruth doubles for his first big-league hit.

Last edition:

Thursday, October 1, 1914. Carranza suggests a meeting and the Battle of Arras starts.

Labels: 1910s, 1914, Arras, Colorado Coalfield War, French Army, German Army, Ludlow Massacre, Mexican Revolution, Venustiano Carranza, World War One

The Jurisdictional Agony of the D. C. Circuit. Wolves

I'm really sick of the  Federal District of Columbia judicial circuit.

What brings this comment about is the decision by Judge Amy Berman Jackson that the plan worked on seemingly forever by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the State of Wyoming allowing the state to assume control over the management of wolves in Wyoming failed as the reliance upon Wyoming's regulatory scheme was "arbitrary and capricious."

Now, to be fair to Judge Jackson, what is being missed in this decision is that the holding of the Court was very limited.  The court upheld nearly everything that the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service did, and really the only thing that the Court found fault with was that, in its words:

.

The record reflects that the FWS specifically relied on the representations in the Addendum as the basis for its conclusion that Wyoming would do what the agency has determined it must do:  manage above the 10/100 minimum.  The Court finds that under those circumstances the reliance on mere assurances was inappropriate and it rendered the FWS decision arbitrary and capricious.

The rest of the opinion upholds everything that the Fish & Wildlife Service did. The judge's opinion, while I feel it is in error, isn't exactly hostile or shocking.  The impact, however, of the opinion is enormous.  A process that has taken years to develop, which allows the State of Wyoming to manage the wolf population, and which allows wolves to be taken as predators outside of their recovery area, and managed through hunting in the recovery era, has been upset for at least the second time.  This now means that in the entire state stockmen are once again at the mercy of wolves, and cannot do anything really if wolves prey on their livestock.  And it means the employees of the State who are working in this area are now surplus to their agencies (last time the new head of this project, for the state, who had been the head for the FWS, resigned his state position and took a position with the Federal government again), and the FWS must not involve itself and its personnel once again.

That's the impact, but if the judge's ruling isn't patently in error, what is my complaint?

Well, what my compliant is that with the D. C. Circuit, the states, and their residents, have to put up with being judged by a jurist with no connection to the state at all, in a remote locality, where distance and conditions will never be favorable to a state, and where the jurists inherent knowledge is unlikely to exist on such topics.  Federal courts were set up in individual states for a reason, and there's a reason that the system provides the judges are to be drawn from the states, except, of course as to the  District of Columbia.

The D. C. Circuit was afforded with jurisdiction on suits against states because it was feared that plaintiff's would get "hometowned"  if they were always required to file suit against a state, in the state.  That may have reflected the conditions in the court system when the law was created, but it no longer does.  Originally, any Federal Court was likely to be far from Washington D. C.  That's still true, but it isn't true that Federal judges sit in remote vacuums in their states.  Being appointed to the Federal bench is a difficult and arduous process, and it isn't the case, and hasn't been for decades, that the Federal judges, who sit for life and who cannot be removed by the states, are likely to be excessively partisan to their states.  The entire Senate sits in review of these judges and its not unusual at all for the Senate to hold up an appointment it doesn't like or to just keep it from occurring. Wyoming has experienced that on one recent occasion, holding up an appointment for so long that ultimately the appointed lawyer withdrew his name and had to restart his process, basically because one party didn't like some things he had supported as a legislator.  On the D. C. Circuit, however, it isn't the case that any state process exist to even get a name to the Senate. The states have no impact.

Its not an accident that groups and organizations that want to go after states invariably file suit in the District of Columbia. Every time they do, they are likely to draw a judge who has no connection, and therefore no life experience based knowledge, on the state they're suing.  Take this judge for example.

This particularly judge graduated from Harvard Law in 1979, making her part of the group of Ivy League Federal jurists that have become so prominent in recent decades.  She worked as a Federal law clear and in the Justice Department up until entering private practice in 1986, which she stayed with until appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2010.  She probably was a really good lawyer, and she does have a fair amount of private practice experience, but not experience here, where her decision will have an impact on everyone.

And because of this background, Harvard Law, law clerk, U.S. Attorney, she's a member of a club that's insulated from the lives of most people most places, and even lawyers west of the Mississippi.   Lawyers here, including the judges, and including the  Federal judges, are not Harvard law graduates and most have had pretty conventional state careers before their appointments.  Frankly, I'd rather have judges like that every time rather than those Harvard pros with rarefied careers.  I'm already of the opinion that generally Ivy League lawyers are a different species of lawyer to start with, and less connected with the real world than the rest of us, and I don't think that's a good thing for a judge.  In recent decades the U.S. Supreme Court has tended to be drawn from this class, which isn't a good thing in my view.  This isn't to say that the Justices are all bad guys, but when people get frustrated as the opinions seem to be so rarefied, and the debate so ethereal, well they should consider the ultimate source of the legal training and experience involved in creating them.  In some former instances some of the lawyers lived some pretty colorful lives, they'd been solders (one had even been a Confederate soldier), politicians (one had been a President), and even entertaining jurist (one carried a handgun frequently out of the concern a jealous husband would catch up with him).  Now, they're less colorful and more remote.

They also aren't likely to be familiar with the hard efforts of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in any fashion, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

To add to this, D. C. does a lot of whining about not having the full rights that states do, often failing to realize that it is, after all, a Federal reservation and it isn't supposed to be a state.  Here too, however, that shows how obsolete this system is.  It's original purpose largely now gone, there's really no reason that the city can't just be absorbed by a neighboring state for voting purpose and the district completely abolished.  It wouldn't be missed at all, and all of the legal causes and controversies that presently exist within it could just as easily be filed in the native circuit if they were local, or in the proper states if they were not.  Want to sue Wyoming?  Sue it in Wyoming.  Want to sue the Federal government?  Sue it where you live.  Or sue where the controversy actually exists.

Year and years ago, while in law school I worked on an article with Professor Robert Keiter about Wolf Recovery.  While doing that I interviewed the Wyoming's sitting Agriculture secretary, who was not only opposed to reintroduction, but thought it would be stopped.  At that time, I was in favor, but with a caveat.  It wasn't wolves I was worried about, as my thought that the reintroduction of a native species helped secure the ongoing preservation of wildlands, but it was the people that came with the wolves that I worried about.  That is, their backers who didn't live here and who would make it impossible to live with the wolves.  I was proved right on that, and some of those people are the Federal jurist an antiquated court structure provides jurisdiction to, far from the impact of their decisions.

In the U.S., it would be a sign of a pack of interest groups loose in the woods.

In Praise of the Dutch Oven

Ranch cook, early 20th Century, cooking with two dutch ovens. This photo has appeared here before, on a t thread about the speed of cooking.

Dutch ovens are the greatest cooking implement of all time.  If a person had only one cooking implement, it would have to be a cast iron dutch oven.  They'll do everything.

Dutch oven being used as a frying pan, with green peppers, onions and venison, cooked on an outdoor gas range.  Seasoned with seasoning salt, a great easy meal

They make, for example, a great frying pan of the high walled variety, much like that high walled type of frying pan called a "chicken fryer".  Indeed, in the country of their origin, the Netherlands, a type of evolved dutch oven, the braadpan, is mostly used as a frying pan.

Potatoes with skin on, being fried in a dutch oven.

Dutch ovens also make a fine pie tin, and make for excellent pies, if you adjust your cooking time properly. And by properly, we mean double the time.

Clean dutch oven, about to be used as a pie tin.

Pie crust in dutch oven.

Apples in pie shell, prepared in accordance with the recipe found in Patrick McManus' book, Watchyougot Stew.  Bottle of Wyoming Whiskey in the background, for the secret ingrediant.

 

Secret ingredient being poured in, 1.5 shot   Why Wyoming Whiskey?  Well, nobody here likes bourbon and the secret recipe calls for whiskey. We've always used Irish whiskey, but as we had this, and nobody likes bourbon, we used it.

 

Pie crust on top of pie.

Three slices, because, as Mr. Nighlinger allows in the Cowboys, you need two for steam, and one "because your Momma did it that way."

 

Finished pie.

In some English speaking countries, dutch ovens are called casserole dishes, and they can be used for a similar purpose.  Here we have a cast iron enameled dutch oven used in that fashion for what we call an apple cobbler, but which is probably more correctly something else.

Bread bottom, prepared to the Bisquick shortbread recipe, but omitting the sugar.

Bread filling in bottom of pan.

Apple mixture on top of shortbread dough, made exactly to the same recipe as the pie filling.

Shortbread topping, covering apples.

Nearly fnished.

Finished cobbler.

Not surprisingly, they also make a great oven for cooking bread and biscuits, or in a campfire.

 Dutch oven biscuits.

Bread being placed in dutch oven. Sheepherders bread, which is a simple soda bread, is cooked in this fashion and is very good.

Commentary on Career Advice. Caveat Auctor.

Immediately below here, I have a post on Bad Advice, and perhaps this is in that category, so I'll go ahead and add it to this mid week entry.  This topic is commentary on career advice.  It isn't career advice, it's advice on the advice.

 Great Depression era career poster. During the depression there was a fair amount of attention given to student and adult career education.  This one actually promoted the field of drafting.

It would not be true to say that I get a lot of people asking me for career advice, and by and large I don't think most people do either.  I get a little of that, from time to time, as I'm sure most professionals do, and it tends to fall into two groups.  One set comes from people pondering a career, the second set comes from their parents or a parent.  FWIW, I tend to find that when people ask themselves, their more sincere in asking, and because I think most people don't ask anyone at all about potential careers, I tend to think they're truly very much searching. When parents ask I tend to find that they're seeking affirmation of an opinion they've already given, and they're not really that interested in a sincere opinion.

Perhaps somewhat related to that, I find that career commentary itself is much more common within a career, and those conversations constitute insider knowledge.  That commentary also falls into two groups, one being observational about the career itself, and the other being observations on new entrants into the career as a class.

A third set of commentary is that which people independently put out about any one field. I suppose this post fits into that category sort of, although its not propaganda, and this sort of gratis unsolicited advice is the most dangerous of all such advice.  It might be accurate, or it might reflect the strongly held view of the individual.  I'll touch on that in a moment, but people who independently give such advice tend to fit into one of three categories, those being; 1) somebody who is some species of recruiter, whether or not they're officially that, and therefore have a vested interest in promoting the career to anyone who will listen and who tend towards propoganda; 2) Unicorn riders who have a happy view about things to such a degree its absurd; and 3) people who are in black despair and have nothing really good to say about anything, but who have focused on their career as the epicenter of their discontent.  The fourth group here is the rarest, that being those people who truly are their brother's keepers and who seek to advise accordingly.

So why am I mentioning this?

Well, partly because as I get older I'm slipping into the fourth category just mentioned above.  Over time, a person either becomes numb to things, only know those things, or begins to worry about things, and I guess at age 51 I'm in the latter category.  Having teenage kids, I'm amazed by how to this day there is so little effort to actually help kids find a career that will work for them.  When I was in high school the amount of effort devoted to this by officialdom in the school district was a negative number, and it doesn't seem to have risen up to much above single digits right now.  That's flat out bad.  Yes, I suppose most people can and do find their own way, but a little help might be warranted.  When you see somebody headed off for a career of some sort based on a book they read, or a movie they saw, it's really hard not to start worrying.

But it occurs to me that the first thing a person should note on this topic that whenever a person starts to ask for, or even receive, career advice, there are certain massive caveats that apply to it.  So, that's what this post is about.  The topic, basically, is Caveat Auctor.

Or in other words, Listener Beware.

So, what should a person be so wary about?

1.  How well do you know the person who is giving you advice?

This is important in two context, one is people you solicit for advice. The other is the professional recruiter.  Let's start with people you solicit.

As noted above, I only very rarely get approached by anyone who is looking at career stuff, but on odd occasion I do.  Interestingly, I've been asked, at various times, whether the questioner should 1) become a lawyer (the most common question); or 2) enter the Army; or 3) pursue a career in agriculture.  My guess is most professionals get asked something about their own profession from time to time.

Okay, so what to note about this?

If the person you are asking is somebody you know professionally, or that your friends or relatives know professionally, you should take their advice with a grain of salt if their employment depends on those people.  In other words, you are unlikely to get the unvarnished truth from somebody you do not know really well, if that person is in business, and needs the business, and you are the business or are associated with the business.

Let's take an example.  You are thinking of becoming an accountant.  Your father's business, Amalgamated Duluth Widgets and Law Ornaments, Uses Al Gebra as an accountant.  He looks to have a neat career, and you muscle up the courage to ask him about it. Good for you.  However, if it is the case that Al has a secret drinking problem caused by his despair over his career, and his regret that he didn't become a Yak Herdsman in Mongolia, he's probably not going to tell you that if putting food on his table depends on ADWLO.

Now, it might be the case that Al actually loves his job.  I'm not saying he doesn't.  I'm just saying that a person should consider this.  If you don't know him personally, chances are that he may be careful about what he tells you, or tell you nothing really at all.  Of course, he might tell you nothing really at all, even if he loves his job, as he knows that just because he loves it, doesn't mean that you will.  Indeed, that's the scary thing.  If you love doing something, but know somebody else might not, maybe its' just better to say nothing at all?

I think this danger is less, however, for people whose jobs don't depend on customers, of which there are a lot.  I can't think of all the examples, but let's say you are thinking about becoming a fireman and so you ask a fireman you don't know super well.  He's not going to get fired if he tells you the disadvantages of the career (I think), so I think this danger would be less..  However, I will say that generally people tend not to say negative things about their work unless they know a person really well.

Here, however, there's also a danger.

Any time you ask this question, you must be aware that a person's view is always unique to them.  And that makes a huge difference.

I've known one or two people whose personalities were so rosy, I truly think they'd be happy doing anything. That is truly a blessing, but it also means that their advice would be suspect.  If you were to ask them if they liked their jobs killing surplus kittens at the pound, they probably would, as they're just incapable of being unhappy.  Conversely, there are certain people whose view is so dark, they couldn't be happy about anything.  Those people would look down a job that paid a vast amount doing whatever you can think of, as they just view the world that way. So their view is also suspect.  If you don't know a person fairly well, either of those situations could apply, although I frankly think it's easier to tell a chronically unhappy person from a chronically blissful person.  Or maybe it isn't, as I suspect most really unhappy people probably don't announce that.

2.  What is their experience?

I think people asking about careers often forget that most people's experience in their profession is pretty limited.  As a trial lawyer, for example, it's probable that I know a lot more about other occupations than I do about the jobs some other types of lawyers do, as one of the pluses (or at least I feel its a plus) of my line of work is that I get to learn about the jobs of a lot of other people.

About our own lines of work, however, we usually know what we do.  So when a person asks "what's it like to be a . . . ?" you have to keep that in mind.  Asking a person what its like to be a "lawyer" will probably result in a different answer for a trial lawyer, than a divorce lawyer, or prosecutor.  And most of us don't have a really good idea what members of our profession do, if they don't do what we do.  A policeman in Chicago knows what its like to be a policeman in  Chicago, I suspect, and probably not what its like to be a sheriff's deputy in Raton New Mexico.  A game warden in Massachusetts is probably occupying a different job from a game warden in Wyoming, and for that matter, a game warden might not really be too familiar with what an officer from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife does.  A surgeon probably has a different life than an ophthalmologist, I'd guess.  A heavy engine mechanic doesn't do the same thing as a small engine mechanic.  The point is, you have to keep this in mind, and you probably have to keep asking too, to get a complete picture.

As part of this, I think it matters to be aware of what stage a person is in their career, and how careers change.  For example, looking at the law again, a person usually graduates with a JD in their 20s, but you don't spend much of your 20s practicing law.  Quite a few lawyers practice pretty actively well into their 60s.  But the overall experiences of a lawyer in their 60s might not reflect the conditions of a lawyer who is their 30s, and may very well not reflect the conditions that will dominate in that younger lawyers career.  I guess this is a way of saying that at some point our advice on careers tends towards the out of date, whether we know it or not.

There are certain professions (non legal) that I've really heard people express this view about.  People now in them, in their 40s, note that the careers have changed so much, they neither recognize them or like them anymore.  I doubt that they could have done anything about that, but the lesson here is that if you are entering a profession its good to know what people with some experience, but maybe not decades of it, think about it.  Keep in mind that overall, by the end of things, most people spend the same amount of time in their 30s, 40s and 50s than they do in their 60s and 70s.  So if you have a person finishing out a career saying its great, it'd be nice to know that they also thought that in their 30s and 40s.  And not too many people finish an entire career and want to admit that they wished they hadn't.  Of course, most people probably don't finish out an entire career they didn't like.  Or at least I hope not.

Maybe another thing to consider is when people retire and why.  That almost never matters to people in their 20s, but it starts to by the time you are in your 40s.  By your 50s, you'll notice your friends who were in some government jobs retiring, and its hard not be be envious about that.  In some other professions, people never seem to retire, and it might be worth knowing why that is.  Either they really love what they do, became what they do, or they can't afford to retire.

Finally, career impetus varies by generation, something that I've  heard made as a career observation in different careers more than once, but which really matters for a person's view.  People who grew up in the Great Depression (now mostly retired) tended to have very strong views about the simple value of work over everything else, and I've actually noted the same thing with people who came of age here in the 1970s and 1980s.  Work became so tight, that the simple concept of actually having a job dominated over everything else, and to many of those people, that's still true.  So, they'll heavily value an occupation in which there has been steady work and are often amazed by younger generations that do not.  By the same extension, people who came of age in the Great Depression often have very distinct ideas about the concept of dignity in professions, conceiving of it as its own reward, but are also very accepting of class distinctions. They also will sometimes value distinctions over income, and because they started working in booming economies after World War Two, they also tend to think that a person will become a financial success because they will. The Boomer Generation that came of age in the 1960s and often started careers in the 1970s, however, is ironically (given their Hippie reputation) often highly money oriented and have had the impact of converting careers, in some instances, into very money centric businesses.

In contrast to this, the generations that started entering the work force in the mid 1990s and every sense tends to value work place stability and career longevity not at all, and it also sometimes seems comfortable with money being pretty fluid.  One thing that lawyers my age and older tend to note is that new lawyers quit jobs and even the entire practice of law fairly frequently, fairly often, and fairly early.  This has lead to the claim that that generation is lazy, but it isn't.  It just is looking for something else.  For those sorts of people, freedom in fluidity must be pretty important, and if they're talking to an older generation, they might want to consider that that wasn't important, or not even admired, in earlier eras.

Motivational poster from the 1920s, urging employees not to change jobs. This poster expresses a value that tends to be contrary to the one held by people who have entered the work force post 1995 or so.

3.  What's their motive for giving you advice?

If you just asked them for advice, their honor and interest in their motivation.

 British Army recruiting poster from  World War One. This poster is absolutely true, for its era.  Being a farrier was a career, albeit one that was about to see a big reduction in numbers due to mechanization.  But the Army wasn't taking these guys in as a job program, it was fighting the Germans.

But for people who are basically recruiters, and I'd include anyone associated with a school with that, they have an additional motivation, which is to get paying customers in classroom seats.

That doesn't mean that everyone who is in that role is dishonest.  I've heard of university professors in some cases dissuading people from majoring in a particular field, and I've actually heard some professors do just that.  But when you hear really rosy predictions about a field from a department were employment opportunities are lacking, buyer beware.  I myself once had the experience of being in the hospital with pneumonia at Ft. Sill Oklahoma in which I was in a ward in which everyone else was a missile crewman who had enlisted in the Army under the belief that they were going to get to study computers.  Yes, missiles in 1981 did have computers, but. . . .

Note, none of this advice tells you to major or not major in any one field, or to go into one career or another.  I frankly won't do that.  When people do ask me this question, I generally try to tell them what I do or what I know, but I don't encourage them or discourage them from doing anything.  I don't really want the responsibility for one thing.  I guess I give advice the same way that I used to read the movie reviews in The New Republic, i.e., for informational purposes, and to make up my own mind.  What I am saying, however, is that when such advice is given, consider the advice, and consider the person giving it and what you know about them.  I also feel, FWIW, that a person should really try to get advice from somebody who will give them a full opinion, and that getting real experience in a field is the best teacher.

Thursday, October 1, 1914. Carranza suggests a meeting and the Battle of Arras starts.

Venustiano Carranza called on revolutionary leaders to meet for convention in Mexico City,

The Battle of Arras began with a French assault on German positions.

Canadian William Lyon Mackenzie King, a future Prime Minister,  and then director for the Rockefeller Foundation since June, was assigned to head an inquiry the Colorado mining strife of 1914.

Last edition:

Wednesday, September 30, 1914. A World War.

Labels: 1910s, 1914, Aircraft, Arras, British Army, French Army, Imperial Japanese Navy, Indian Army, Siege of Tsingtao, World War One

Mid Week At Work: Bad Advice

One of those dread motivational posters of the past.

Some of these posters, while all a little cheesy, have good advice.  This one doesn't, however.  It's universally agreed by industrial psychologist that employers and employers are better off taking their time off.  Paradoxically, Americans are terrible at actually taking their time off, and most Americans do not take off all of the time they're entitled to during a year.

I'm one of the worst offenders.  In a typical year, I don't take a real vacation and I probably work at least half the Saturdays in a year.

On this poster, it's important to keep in mind that Saturday as a day off was a recent achievement for labor, so it wasn't fully accepted at the time.