Air Transportation

I really like aircraft.

 

My son, the pilot

But I hate flying.

So, here I'm dealing with a modern means of transpiration that I use a lot, dread taking, have a lot of familiarity with, have written about a lot here, and I find interesting.

I take airplanes all the time.  I've logged in more air miles than any member of my immediate family, and far more than my father, who was in the United States Air Force during the early 1950s.  As a kid, my fascination with aircraft lead me into the Civil Air Patrol, at which time I could imagine flying airplanes, prior to having to ride in them much.  But, while I like airplanes, and travel on them a lot, I really don't like flying.  Oh well.

Anyhow, as anyone who has ever stopped in this blog at all knows, I'm apparently interested in transportation topics, as they show up a lot. Recently I've been summarizing changes in transportation over the past century or so, and have discussed walking, water transportation, equine transportation and rail.  Here we'll look at one of the most revolutionary changes in how we get around.  It's one I've discussed here frequently, but its certainly worth taking another look at.

Trains were the fast transportation, and the basic means of interstate transportation, for most Americans after some point in the late 19th Century up in to the 1950s.  Now we wouldn't think of trains as fast, but they're a lot faster than equine transportation and water transportation, and prior to the Interstate Highway system, they were a lot more convenient and even more practical than automotive transportation, which tended to be local as a rule.  Now, as we know, for long distance transportation, aircraft are the default means of transportation for most people, with automobiles being a close second.  In much of the country, you couldn't board a passenger train if you wanted to.  And, with FeEx and the like also shipping by air, what the U.S. Postal Service started with air mail has become a major factor in mail and packages, paying a bit of a premium for shipping by air, of course.

 

FedEx Cessna at Natrona County International Airport.

How did this huge change come about?

Flight rose amazingly quickly. Faster, really, than any other means of transportation. And it evolved much quicker than any other as well.

Powered flight, i.e., the aircraft, only came about in 1903, as is well known.  Even prior to that, however, there were some who pondered the possibilities of air transportation on a grand scale.  Even prior to the American Civil War, one visionary took subscriptions for the construction of a dirigible to be powered by steam engines which would cross the Western prairies and mountains by air, safely (hopefully) delivering its passengers on the Pacific coast.  Of course, it was never built, but such a craft in fact did make a flight in Europe in 1852.

Dirigible patent, 1874.

In spite of their seemingly somewhat goofy nature, airships showed a lot of promise, which is why its somewhat surprising that in spite of a 50 year head start on the airplane, they really didn't get launched as a commercially successful means of transportation until After World War One.  There's undoubtedly a variety of reasons for that, with the weight and horsepower of available power plants being one, but they just didn't manage to really get started as a commercial endeavor by the time the Wrights flew in 1903.  They did get started as a military implement by 1900, however.

Given that airships had a big head start, you'd think the really primitive and scary nature of early aircraft would have still given them a big advantage, but aircraft evolved at such a rapid pace, it's stunning.

Early Air Transportation

The first attempt at an airliner was made by Igor Sikorsky, an early Russian aircraft designer who born in Ukraine and who later immigrated to the United States following the Russian Revolution.  He's most famously recalled today for being the founder of an American company that pioneered and dominated large helicopters for decades, but early on he designed large aircraft.  His airplanes were amazingly large for their era.  Sikorsky was a visionary, and he designed the Ilya Muromets to be an airliner in 1913, although World War One's arrival meant that it made but a single, fourteen hour, flight prior to his heavy designs being used for bombing during the Great War.  The early airliner was a luxury craft to a degree, even featuring a bathroom.

Multi engined 1913 design, the Ilya Muromets, the worlds first airliner, which made but a single flight in that role.  This airplane was designed only a decade after the Wrights first flight.

While the Ilya Muromet was a massive purpose designed aircraft, it would fall to the underpowered and utilitarian Curtis Jenny, the JN4, to be the first commercially used airliner, even though it isn't a big craft, and it wasn't designed for that. Elliot Air Service gets the credit for being the first commercial enterprise that moved people and items by air, using that craft.

The utilitarian Curtis Jenny, the United States first real military aircraft.  Built in large numbers during World War One, the airplane was really too underpowered for a combat role but is sparked the real dawn of American civil aviation.

The Curtis JN4 was an underpowered weak, but durable, aircraft whose real combat role would peak during the Punitive Expedition, where it was sued by the First Aero Squadron, an Army units whose trucks proved to be of nearly equal utility to this planes. But the Jenny would go on to become the first really popular civilian airplane in the world, being sold in large numbers in the United States and being pressed into every conceivable role by private pilots.  Jennys were used as trainers in the US during the  Great War but were pressed into the first really significant parcel delivery by air service in the US, by the Post Office, before World War One was over, with the Signal Corps Jennys being used to deliver mail starting in May, 1918.  Regular air mail would be a fully governmental service for the first eight years of its existence, with the air mail pilots being looked upon as glamorous, as individuals in dangerous occupations often are, but after that, the US went to commercial air carriers for the air mail, thereby encouraging private enterprise in this area.

Delivery of mail by air would seem to be a separate topic from passenger service, but in many ways it is not, as the early history of commercial air transportation dovetails the two, just as the late story of rail transportation also does. Passenger trains carried mail and people, and indeed mail hooks for railroads were set up along the rail lines so that trains didn't have to stop to pick up mail.  A video of that taking place, as a demonstration with a modern train, has just been posted on this site.  Moving mail by plane therefore was a natural extension of what was occurring by train, with a new means of transportation that began to compete with the train nearly immediately, or at least soon after World War One.

In order to make that competition realistic, of course, planes larger than the Jenny, and less scary than the Sikorsky, had to be developed, but they very soon were. Even late war aircraft had sufficiently evolved so that their conversion into airliners wasn't wholly unrealistic. The Farman Goliath, for example, was designed as a bomber but with a closed cockpit and fuselage, it made it possible to be converted into an airliner, a role which it was occupying by the early 1920s and still occupying at the end of that decade, a pretty amazing service life for an aircraft in the early history of commercial aviation.  In the 1920s, or even starting in the late teens just after World War One, some surprisingly modern monoplane passenger aircraft were introduced, however, and the future for some time was pretty set, with large biplane airliners, descendants of World War One bombers, yielding to more efficient monoplanes.

Starting in the mid 1920s, some really serious purpose built airliners started to be introduced.  Ford Motor Company introduced one of the earliest and best with the Ford Trimoter, relying on design lessons learned by its German born designer.  The Ford Trimotor almost immediately saw its twin spring up in Europe in the Fokker Trimotor, which is darned near the same aircraft as it was designed b the same people.  The Fokker and the Ford were amazingly reliable aircraft and they carried on in some locations for decades, with the last ones being retired only relatively recently.  In Europe, the type went on to be the basic cargo aircraft of the Luftwaffe during World War Two, although the military expression of the aircraft was hardly limited to the Germans, as variants were used by Switzerland, Spain, and the United States, amongst others.

United States Army Air Corps Fokker.

As good as the Trimotors were, a crash of one in 1931 would bring about a revolution in aircraft and the next great series of air liner.  TWA's Flight 599 crashed in a Kansas prairie on March 15, 1931, killing all eight occupants including legendary football figure Knute Rockne. Subsequent investigation revealed that structural failure of the wooden structured wings was the cause of the crash and the strict restrictions on such construction followed.  Taking that up as a challenge, Douglas Aircraft Company introduced the all metal DC-1 in 1933. The DC-1 soon yielded to the DC-2, after a single DC-1 was built, which came out in 1934.  Proving the type, DC-2 yielded to the most successful commercial aircraft of all time, the DC-3, of which a vast number were built.

The DC-3 itself was only constructed from 1936 to 1942, under that name, but the start of World War Two meant that the military version, the C-47, was built until 1945.  Production of a larger version of the airplane was commenced in 1949, but so many DC-3s and C-47s were in the air, with over 16,000 of the type having been built, that the new version wasn't really needed.

The impact of the DC-3 can hardly be overstated.  The aircraft remained in service all the way into the 21st Century and chances are that a few are still flying commercial short hops somewhere.  The DC-3, a sturdy, reliable aircraft, was the airplane that really brought regular commercial air service to the United States and the world, or at least interstate and somewhat international air transportation.  If you were going to your local airport in the late 1930s, the 1940s, or the early 1950s, your chances of boarding a DC-3 were good. And if you were shipping parts of something by air from the mid 1930s to the 1950s, chances are it was going by DC-3. For that matter, this would also be true in much of the Third World well into the 1970s or later.

 C-47s being built during World War Two.  The last U.S. Air Force use of the C-47 would come during the Vietnam War, during which some were changed from air transport aircraft into air assault aircraft by being equipped with automatic cannons.  Nicknamed "spooky", they were later transferred to the Central Intelligence Agency and used over Angola in support of SWAPO during the 1980s.

Which isn't to say that the DC-3 did or could do everything.  For transoceanic travel in the 1930s a person was likely to board a Pan American Clipper, or a similar aircraft owned by British Overseas Airways, but only if they were rich.  Planes like this were "flying boats", a type that acknowledged the lack of runways and the need for larger passenger compartments in an era prior to World War Two expanding airfields absolutely everywhere.

 Flying boat, 1930s.

In the United States, it was Pan American that exploited this market and dominated.  Started in 1927 to deliver mail (that again) and passengers between the United States and Cuba, Pan American very early saw the practicality of expanding into near shore routes and it accordingly set the market for flying boats.  Buying the products of Sikorsky, Boeing and Martin in the 1920s and 1930s, its air fleet was actually surprisingly small, with any one run of aircraft being also fairly small. At the same time, however, if a person was going to engage in international air travel from the United States, Pan American was by default the airline that a person took.  With a captive market, and high operating expenses due to the unique limited run aircraft and very long routes, it was a luxury airline, with travel being expensive by its very nature.  In that era, for example the luxury of taking Pan American to Hawaii is something that we can hardly imagine now, and which was only dreamed of by most people then.

During this entire period, it should be noted, the first device that was thought of in terms of commercial air travel wasn't idle.  Air ships, like aircraft, had received a big boost during World War One, and just as big aircraft were used for the first time as bombers, so were airships. The Germans in particular developed and dominated this technology, with Zeppelins, giant airships filled with explosive hydrogen, being used, as dangerous as they were, as bombers.  Zeppelins were even used to bomb London, although the Germans did that with Gotha bombers as well.

 Early (1908) Zeppelin passenger airship.

Following the war, Zeppelins kept on keeping on and were being sued for trans Atlantic air travel out of Germany.  Serious thought was given to switching the craft to Helium, which doesn't explode, but this proved impossible after the Nazis took over Germany, as the U.S., which controls the globes Helium market, wouldn't allow export to Germany.  Hence the airships continued on full of explosive gas.

Aircraft, coming on strong, would have taken out airships as a means of trans Atlantic air travel anyhow, but the explosion of the Hindenburg on May 6, 1937, ended airships day as a commercial carrier forever.  Occasionally revived in concept, airships have never gone away, but their lasts really major world role came on during World War Two, when U.S. Navy blimps patrolled for submarines off of the Atlantic.  Even at that, however, light private aircraft used by the Civil Air Patrol had a pretty major role.

And then came World War Two.

But before going there, let's summarize the first 45 years of air travel.  Basically, what the story is, is as follows"

1.  Airships got really rolling around 1900, but they didn't expand into passenger or commercial service right away.

2.  The airplane was invented in 1903.

3.  Visionaries could see commercial air travel as being viable by 1913.

4.  By the 1910s militaries around the globe were developing military aircraft.

5.  The first passenger, and mail, service started in 1915.

6. It isn't really possible to separate mail service from passenger service early on, and mail service got really rolling in 1918.

7.  Passenger service got rolling in the 1920s as World War One vintage bombers were redesigned for passenger service, and then real passenger planes were introduce in the 1920s.

8. Air disaster lead to air innovation, and the Douglas DC 3 came in during the mid 1930s.

9.  Over water air flight opportunities were picked up by Pan American who soon expanded into luxury transoceanic flight.

10.  Elsewhere, such as in Europe, the story is largely the same, but with the market for aircraft already being international.

Transcontinental air mail route, 1924.

And, while this was going on, private pilots flying really risky odd aircraft in the teens bought various World War One surplus aircraft immediately after the war and the age of private pilot civil aviation was really on.light dangerous war surplus airplanes soon gave way to relatively inexpensive single engine airplanes, and by the start of World War Two the United States and Canada had a pretty big private pilot fleet.

And then World War Two happened.

World War Two

C-47, rebuilt after World War Two as a D.C. 3, being rebuilt.

We've noted here before that Holscher's Fourth Law of History is that "War Changes Everything".  And so it does. And so it was for civil aviation.

Aviation was advanced incredibly rapidly from 1903 to 1939, but it can't help but be noted that during 1914 to 1918, World War One, it received a big boost.  In a lot of ways, however, that boost kept on keeping on following the war.  The top of the line fighter aircraft of 1918 were already obsolete by the early 1920s, hopeless relics of an earlier era.  By the early 1930s, the military aircraft of 1920 were obsolete, and by 1939 the military aircraft of 1930 were largely obsolete.  The best civil aircraft of the 1930s made those of the 1920s look pretty inadequate, although commercial designs, such as the Fokker and Ford Trimotors that came in during the 1920s were still serving.  Commercial aircraft made or designed by Marin, Fokker, Boeing and Douglas that saw service in the 1920s and 1930s would all see military service during World War Two.

United States Army Air Corps C-47, an airplane that hauled equipment, men and even mules everywhere, during World War Two, and which saw service in about every Allied air force, including the U.S., Canadian, Royal New Zealand, Australian, British and Soviet air forces.  Perhaps the greatest single airplane ever made.

But the war would change certain things about air travel in a way that would soon revolutionize it, in spite of the production of so many airplanes that it could have rationally been assumed that the post war manufacture of them would have collapsed.

Post War Aviation

During the war, U.S., British, German, Canadian, and Australian engineers put in airfields absolutely everywhere.  Locations in the United States that had been served by only a tiny airport, if at all, suddenly had massive airfields designed for bombers, as the US had put them in for training.  Casper Wyoming is a good example. Served by a small airport prior to the war, that airfield wasn't even really flat.  But during the war, the U.S. Army built a massive air training facility just outside of town, with runways so long that they remain long enough for the biggest aircraft today.

C-17 Globemaster at the Natrona County International Airport, an airport that was built as an air base during World War Two.

In addition to this, however, in spite of the superb serviceability the pre war airliners gave as military cargo planes, the technological leap that aircraft had taken during the war not only meant that the prewar designs were implicitly obsolete, but also that people and nations that had become acclimated to advances in air power would expect the civilian employment of them.

When the war started, an airplane like the DC3 was a big serviceable and modern airliner.  The really big aircraft just prior to the war were military bombers, but none of them were suitable for airliners and only a few nations had them.  Going into World War Two, in fact, only the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and Japan had really large strategic bombers, and the USSR's were not all that nifty.  It's notable that all of the powers that had really significant bombers were naval powers with oceanic concerns, which had a lot to do with the development of that type of aircraft.  Of those nations, arguably the United Kingdom's bombers were the best going into the war.

By the wars end, strategic bombing had caused the development of successive models or even generations of bombers, and the United States come out of the war with the best, if most problematic, bomber, the B-29.  The B-29 was generations ahead of the B-17 with which the US had entered the war, and the B-17 is indeed downright primitive in comparison to it.  The significant thing here is that during the war, four engined large aircraft had been completely proven and had developed considerably. And, additionally, new generations of air transport aircraft were also coming in.

At the same time, during the war, piston engines had become better and bigger.  More significantly, however, jet engines had also been proven. Introduced first by the British, in a plane that turned out to be significant but lackluster, it was the German ME262 that demonstrated that all future combat aircraft would be jets, at some point. And the introduction of jet engines meant, in spite of what might have been expected, that pretty soon every air fore, and every air line, would soon want fleets of jets.

That didn't happen right away. What happened at first is that the transport, and even the bomber, aircraft of World War Two came in right after the war as new, faster, and longer ranged, civilian aircraft.

Boeing Stratocruiser.  The Stratocruiser was one of two airliner versions of the B-29 which went into production in the late 1930s and which were retired in the early 1960s.  A luxury long distance airliner, they only carried a little over 30 people.  They were the replacement in the Pan American fleet for the flying boats.

These were soon followed by aircraft specifically designed as four engine commercial aircraft, such as the Lockheed Constellation.  The day of the flying boat ended nearly immediately, with the type relegated to odd search and rescue aircraft in various coast guards and navies.

 The four engined Lockheed Constellation started off as a military cargo plane in an era with the C-47 was the standard.  With modifications after the war, it would be the standard for airliners for a time.  A retired fleet of Constellations was parked at the end of a runway at our local airport for decades after they were no longer used in this role, and after that set had been briefly used as firefighting bombers.  One of them was the plane used by General MacArthur during the Korean War.

As new airplanes came in, competition between airlines increased.  Air travel seemingly came in everywhere.  And then, starting in the 1950s, jet airliners began to arrive.

Before we look at that, however, we have to look at two other areas, private and light air transportation, and a brand new aircraft, the helicopter.

As already noted, light aircraft had become big in the United States starting with the Curits Jenny. The US had a well developed private aviation community prior to World War Two, and indeed the country harnessed that population for anti submarine efforts during the war, in the form of the Civil Air Patrol.

Light airplane in Civil Air Patrol use during World War Two.

After the war light aviation took back off.  Cessna introduced the Cessna 120 and Cessna 140 right after World War Two, which introduced a basic type that it still makes today, although the 120 and 140 were tail draggers.  In 1956 it introduced the 172, which is the greatest light plane in aviation history.Still made today, with updates, the plane set the standard for light private aircraft.  With planes being affordable, at first, civil aviation really took off, so to speak.

The Jet Age

Introduced first by the British in the early 1950s, the U.S. introduced its first jet airliners by the late 1950s.  New fleets of piston engined airliners were obsolete nearly overnight.  By the 1960s they were rapidly on the way out, and by the 1970s only regional flights, if any, used piston engined aircraft.  By the late 1960s, jet airliners were the rule.

Still relatively expensiveness, jet air travel none the less totally supplanted long range train travel in the United States by the early 1970s, a process that had started off with big piston engined airliners like the Constellation.  Railroads discontinued passenger service most places, save for those places where local commuter rail continued to be viable.  Intrastate air travel and regional air travel also became more common, with turboprop aircraft being common there.  In most states local air travel became an option for at least business travelers.

Deregulation of the 1980s really ramped up air competition and the market became unstable but highly competitive.  Air prices steadily dropped and left us with the situation we have today, in which air travel has never been cheaper, or more uncomfortable.

Also in this age, but for a different set of reasons, the helicopter really came into its own.  An oddity in some ways when first developed, it proved itself during the Korean War and became an indispensable military tool by the Vietnam War.  Soon after the Vietnam War, one of the primary uses of the Army helicopter was carried over to civilian life, and the medical "dustoff" which sent in the Medivac UH-1 "Huey"  became a familiar site, with other helicopters, in the United States.  Now medical helicopters are in almost every town, and helicopters in all sorts of local uses, from traffic reporting to pipeline flying, are quite common.

Bell 206 helicopter flying a pipeline.

Private aviation, however, has taken a pounding since its glory days of the 50s and 60s.  By the 1970s law suits had taken their toll on the industry and Cessna even ceased offering light planes for awhile.  Federal intervention through statutory relief allowed it to reenter the market, but there's no doubt that lawyers and lawsuits pose as great of threat to light aviation as flak guns did to Allied bombers during World War Two, I'm sorry to say.

So this is basically where we are today.  In less than a century, given that early aircraft were both dangerous and really not practical for much, we've developed a wholly new means of transportation. That means of transportation had an incredibly rapid evolution, much the way, I suppose, personal computers have in our own age.  They displaced the train for long distance travel to a large extent, rendering the massive US rail passenger fleet obsolete.  They've become, moreover, a common tool of our daily life, and had been a not uncommon avocation for many who just liked flight.  Costs of air travel, except for the cost of being a private pilot, have decreased enormously, while at the same time its become faster and more uncomfortable.

 

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Mark's Episcopal Church (the original one)

Churches of the West: St. Mark's Episcopal Church (the original one):

Sunday, December 13, 1914. Austro Hungarian troubles.

The Austro Hungarian Army held back the Imperial Russian Army at Limanowa, but lost 12,000 casualties doing so.  The Russians suffered 30,000 casualties.

The Austro Hungarians withdrew from Belgrade.

Last edition:

Saturday, December 12, 1914. NYSE fully reopens.

Labels: 1910s, 1914, Art, Economics, World War One

Jeans and Offensive Marketing

Just recently I commented on the year old topic of Jeans in this thread here, Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Levis, in which I commented on the insanity of $700.00 "designer jeans"  Earlier this week, I posted on Froma Harrop's thesis that we might be seeing the end of the consumerist economy.  Many times in the past here I've posted on trends and developments.  Here, all dovetail in a story on pants.

Or, rather, the marketing of what are simply jeans.

Some company is marketing jeans in the United States under the brand name "True Religion".

I suspect that this is calculated to offend, but if it isn't, it certainly does.  It also says how numb our society has become to being truly and unconscionably offensive.

Pants are religion, nor does the depiction of hip, young, pretty adults clearly in an extended adolescence have anything to do with religion.  Indeed, as there isn't a religion on Earth that doesn't advocate selflessness and humility, what the subtle message of this marketing is, is anti religious, or perhaps more accurately the worship of cheesy slick consumerism as a religion. Critics of our consumerist economy have, at their most blunt, criticized consumerism for this very reason.

With the possibly relatively rare example of univeralists beliefs, which seek to incorporate all faiths of all types into a universal truth, and primitive religions that are basically animist in nature, a basic tenant of any faith would be that it is a "true religion" and indeed the True Religion.  Indeed, it wasn't all that long ago that this was sufficiently understood so as to be incorporated into the an ironic line of dialog into a popular film, The Magnificent Seven.  Now the concept of that is so vague that its being used in this fashion with the marketers counting on some vague recollection but not one sufficiently clear as to cause righteous indignation.  It's frankly pathetic.

And its all the more pathetic when realized that this is undoubtedly directly offensive to all the of the monotheistic religions, each of which would maintain that they are the true faith. Here, again, the marketers benefit from the diluted nature of any strong understanding of beliefs in Western society, as the majority of people in Western society are some variant of Christian, and Christians have become used to being picked on in this fashion so that they don't generally react.  One can only imagine what the reaction would be if a person marketed jeans as "True Islam" jeans, or "True Judaism". There would be an uproar, and justifiably so. But, as Islam and Judaism do both maintain that they are the true faith, calling something "True Religion" doesn't vary much from that, really.

Well, things like this should make for a good test of Harrop's thesis that we might be entering a post materialistic age.  If we are, and if the numbers are as high as she maintains, then at some point people begin to buy jeans based on their quality and price, and not the clever marketing.  Jeans marketed in this fashion can only appeal to a consumerist materialistic society, as its some weird sort of image that's being actually purchased, rather than the real product.  As for me, I hope this product fails.

Saturday, December 12, 1914. NYSE fully reopens.

Save for bond trading, the New York Stock Exchange fully reopened.

Last edition:

Friday, December 11, 1914. Victory in the Pacific

Labels: 1910s, 1914, Allied Powers, German Kriegsmarine, Pacific, Royal Navy, United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, World War One

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Prices at the Dawn of the Gasoline Age, Dusk of the Equine

Society of the Military Horse • View topic - Prices at the Dawn of the Gasoline Age, Dusk of the Equine

Lex Anteinternet: $40/barrel?

Lex Anteinternet: $40/barrel?:   Driven by Saudi Arabian efforts, the price of petroleum oil is falling through the floor.  When I last checked, it was down under $70...

Now under $60/bbl nationwide, and at $53/bbl in the state.

And still dropping.

Horses In History: Coney Island Ponies ~1904 | Simply Marvelous Horse World

Horses In History: Coney Island Ponies ~1904 | Simply Marvelous Horse World

Friday, December 11, 1914. Victory in the Pacific

First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill declared the Pacific won for the Allies.

Last edition:

Thursday, December 10, 1914. Austro Hungarian retreat.

Labels: 1910s, 1914, Aircraft, Austro Hungarian Army, Battle of Kolubara, Bosnia, Mormon, Personalities, Royal Navy, Serbian Army, World War One

The end of consumerism?

Froma Harrop, the supposedly liberal columnist, has opined in a recent op ed that Americans may be turning "post materialistic".  If so, that's a massive shift in the dominant cultural view of Americans over the past half century, although it might be a return to a mode of thinking that was once the common one, or perhaps more accurately somewhat akin to an earlier one.

Harrop's article is provocative, and not surprisingly hasn't met with universal acknowledgment on the part of her readers.  When she speaks of "post consumerism", what she speaks of is a type of non consumerist behavior focused on experiences and living, for lack of a better way of putting it, and which de-emphasizes material goods as a part of that, while not proposing that they be eschewed all together.  Basically, she proposes a view of life and economics that those familiar with the writings of Belloc, Chesterton or the Southern Agrarians would recognize.  Indeed, those who have persisted in admiring the Southern Agrarians, should they run across her article, must be rejoicing a bit that what they've advocated since the early 1930s is actually gaining ground, assuming that it is.  The general thesis of "post materialism", apparently, de-emphasizes material acquisition in favor of simply living, with family, friends and experience taking precedence over items, particularly those which are temporary in nature.

Early in it she poses the possibility of a shift to this sort of view in a significant percentage of the population, noting a slow start to the typical Christmas big retail season:

Certainly, some of this frugality is a hangover from the economic trauma of six years ago. The recession smashed Americans’ comfort with debt, belief in real estate and faith in an ever-more prosperous future. Many feel the sting of stagnant wages. Even winners in this strengthening economy seem to be holding back.

But a more fundamental change may be afoot, a change in belief systems. Americans may be moving into an era of post-materialism. If so, retailing faces a whole different ballgame.

What does she mean by this?  We're so used to the concept that capitalism equates with consumerism, that the two are indistinguishable to a lot of Americans, and particularly a lot of Americans in commerce and government.  In fact, however, that's not the case, however, and as various social theorist and critics have long noted, its perfectly possible to have a capitalist economy that isn't consumerist.  She then goes on to discuss the concept of "post materialism"

Post-materialism is defined as a reorientation of values away from the big-ticket luxuries, such as fancy cars, and toward self-expression and quality of life. It could mean choosing more free time over working longer to support a big home.

This trend is strongest in rich countries, where the basics of food, shelter and security are taken for granted. The World Values Survey shows Australia having the highest proportion of post-materialists, 35 percent, followed by Austria, Canada, Italy and then the United States, at 25 percent.

If this is the case, and frankly I have my doubts, it would truly be a revolutionary development, although one that a person can see having gained some steam in recent years.  That 25% of the American population would self identify in this fashion would truly be stunning. But careful students of slow trends and thought in society might find that this isn't quite as surprising as might it might seem, and it might actually reflect the rise of Generation X and Generation Y and the beginning of the the decline of the Boomers.

Consumerism, what Harrop and others sometimes call "materialism", which is an apt description, wasn't always with us, in fact, in the form which we now see it, although it has been for about a century or so in the US, and the rests of the Western world to varying degrees.   The super heated consumerism that we've had in recent memory, however, is really something that arose in the post World War Two world, although the roots of it were there before that.  It's a complicated story, but if we look back into the 19th Century, what we tend to see is that almost all Western economic thought out side of Socialist thought. was highly family oriented and did not tend to acquisition oriented.  This isn't universally true, to be sure, as in the unregulated economy of the industrial late 19th Century there were those who grew fantastically wealthy and exhibited a tremendous drive towards acquisition.  But at every level, the thought that the function of people was to act as the purchasers of stuff was something that was not only not there, but which would have been regarded as highly offensive.  Most common people viewed economic activity as a means of trying to support their family in a decent manner. Even socialism, which is highly materialistic in its world view, had this as its basic premise, albeit in a very materialistic manner.

It wasn't until after World War Two when this began to change in a significant manner.  Consumerism was already there, but the goods starvation caused by the Great Depression and the Second World War created a post war consumer demand that was enormous in the US.  Truth be known, it also created the same in Europe, but Europe was in such poor shape after the war this wouldn't really begin to express itself there until the late 1950s.   The impact of the Depression and the war, combined with the American economic revival of the 40s and 50s, followed by the European economic recovery of the late 50s and 60s, caused a sort of one-two punch on how people valued goods and how they valued their own societies.

The real explosion in this view got really rolling in the 1970s, and in a manner that was highly ironic.  The social upheaval in the 1960s seemingly espoused a very non materialistic view of the world, which at the same time rejected almost any traditional value. But that really didn't last very long and the youth trend of the 1960s towards rejection saw the commercial hedonism in advertising of the 1950s fully adopted by the 1970s. The same generational cohort that was responsible for the upheaval of the late 60s and early 70s very quickly adopted a hardcore consumerist, money generation ethos by the early 80s.  Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" type of view was, ironically, a view espoused by many in the same generation that saw Woodstock as the pinnacle of their generations experience.  Termed the "Me Generations" in the 1970s, this saw its expression in consumerist behavior in the late 1970s and has dominated American economic output ever since.

Consumerism/Materialism has received real criticism for a long time, and has been defined as a  societal evil by its critics for years, receiving erudite analysis from everyone from hard left critics to the Popes at various times.  And that consumerism or materialism pose real dangers to society really cannot be challenged.  As recently analyzed in the Catholic Things You Should Know podcast, consumerism has given rise to a lack of attachment to goods and a lack of attachment to nearly everything by extent.  It's been deeply challenged by moral theorist but its also been attacked by liberal economist as well.  Environmentalist have also deeply attacked it, as it gives rise to a throw away culture that creates obvious environmental problems.  And sociologist have been in the fray as well, noting that a consumerist economy seemingly erodes a societal attachment to any meaningful standards or thought and gives rise to a deeply unhappy population. 

That last item alone has been the subject of extensive analysis in recent years, all of which has demonstrated that the purchase of goods at bests only gives rise to a very temporary sense of happiness followed by the opposite, but on the other hand experiences, shared with close friends and family do the precise opposite. As that's highly demonstrated, what Harrop observes that people may be electing to do would be to elect to act wisely. 

What she doesn't note, but what might very well be worth noting, is that this is arguably a generational change.  Observers of Generations X and Y have noted for some time that they are seemingly unimpressed and unattached to much careerist thought, to a degree that is sometimes maddening to Boomers and the World War Two Generation.  This has been frequently noted, but rarely addressed.  They seem to have low attachment to their occupations, or at least to employers, and in some fields that have traditionally demanded big sacrifices of personal time, they just don't.

Less noticed is that they do seem very attached to experiences and friends.  And they have slowly and conservatively adopted practices and modes of thinking that the Boomers claimed to liberally espouse in the 1960s, but didn't really seem to.  As a generation, they're more interested in what we could regard as Distributist and Agrarian thought, with all sorts of "buy local", know your farmer, etc. etc., type of practices and thoughts.  Activities that seemed in decline only a decade ago are now going the other way.  Local produce and small scale farming are on the rise. Small, just middle class, businesses that have no hope of big time entrepreneurial success are as well.  Hunting, a big activity in more rural and simpler times, has seen an enormous increase in recent years, with women joining the ranks in large numbers for the first time ever.

This would all seem to be a good trend, really, and its one that economist, sociologist and religious advocates have argued in favor of for a long time.  Harrop, however, frets a bit about it, noting

Before going on, let’s put in a good word for consumption. The lust to amass stuff associated with The Good Life is not entirely bad. It fuels the economy, and if budgets aren’t broken in the process, a splurge now and then can at least temporarily raise the spirits — doubly so when done in the company of other merrymakers.

But she also goes on to note:

Sadly, many of today’s shopping experiences do not raise the spirits. Picking up a cheaply made import at a big-box store on a drab strip is not quite the same thing as shopping for toys on a festive Main Street. Surely, the sameness of mall shopping has driven many a consumer online, where prices are transparent, the selection broad and traffic is zero.

If her observations are correct, this is a massive shift, or perhaps a massive return, to the value system of an earlier era, but more so.  Given that, those who have criticized materialistic thought might take some solace in her factual observations.  If people are really making this philosophical shift, it will alter out economy, but it will also mean that people are electing to live deeper lives. 

And if that's so, perhaps its not as surprising as it might at first seem.  Entire generations have shifted the values of their times, their countries, and even the entire world.  From time to time a large number of people do in fact adopt an outlook that has huge changes, sometimes positively, and sometimes negatively.  If she's correct, and this reflects a change in outlook, rather than a simple lack of buying power, this might be a good development.  It'd hard to see it as being a bad one.

Random Snippets. The Rocky Mountain News

Apparently Philip Anschutz is pondering reviving the Rocky Mountain News.

I hope he does.  I always liked the news much better than the Denver Post.

Thursday, December 10, 1914. Austro Hungarian retreat.

Nobel Prizes were awarded to German physicist Max von Laue, American chemist Theodore William Richards and Austro-Hungarian physiologist Róbert Bárány.

The Serbians reached the lower Drina, forcing most of the Austro Hungarian troops to retreat towards Bosnia.

The HMS Ark Royal, the Royal Navy's first aircraft carrier, was commissioned.

Joseph Smith III, the eldest son of Mormon founder Joseph Smith, and head of the conservative and more conventional Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church), died at age 82.  He was a lifelong opponent of polygamy and denied his father's involvement in it, something rather difficult to do.

Last edition:

Tuesday, December 8, 1914. Battle of Falkland Islands.

Labels: 1910s, 1914, Austro Hungarian Army, Battle of Kolubara, Battle of the Falkland Islands, Falkland Islands, German Kriegsmarine, Royal Navy, Serbian Army, the spoken word, Woodrow Wilson, World War One

Mid Week At Work: Merchant Marine Recruiting Poster.

Tuesday, December 8, 1914. Battle of Falkland Islands.

Woodrow Wilson delivered his second annual address to Congress, stating:

The session upon which you are now entering will be the closing session of the Sixty-third Congress, a Congress, I venture to say, which will long be remembered for the great body of thoughtful and constructive work which it has done, in loyal response to the thought and needs of the country. I should like in this address to review the notable record and try to make adequate assessment of it; but no doubt we stand too near the work that has been done and are ourselves too much part of it to play the part of historians toward it.

Our program of legislation with regard to the regulation of business is now virtually complete. It has been put forth, as we intended, as a whole, and leaves no conjecture as to what is to follow. The road at last lies clear and firm before business. It is a road which it can travel without fear or embarrassment. It is the road to ungrudged, unclouded success. In it every honest man, every man who believes that the public interest is part of his own interest, may walk with perfect confidence.

Moreover, our thoughts are now more of the future than of the past. While we have worked at our tasks of peace the circumstances of the whole age have been altered by war. What we have done for our own land and our own people we did with the best that was in us, whether of character or of intelligence, with sober enthusiasm and a confidence in the principles upon which we were acting which sustained us at every step of the difficult undertaking; but it is done. It has passed from our hands. It is now an established part of the legislation of the country. Its usefulness, its effects will disclose themselves in experience. What chiefly strikes us now, as we look about us during these closing days of a year which will be forever memorable in the history of the world, is that we face new tasks, have been facing them these six months, must face them in the months to come, face them without partisan feeling, like men who have forgotten everything but a common duty and the fact that we are representatives of a great people whose thought is not of us but of what America owes to herself and to all mankind in such circumstances as these upon which we look amazed and anxious.

War has interrupted the means of trade not only but also the processes of production. In Europe it is destroying men and resources wholesale and upon a scale unprecedented and appalling, There is reason to fear that the time is near, if it be not already at hand, when several of the countries of Europe will find it difficult to do for their people what they have hitherto been always easily able to do,—many essential and fundamental things. At any rate, they will need our help and our manifold services as they have never needed them before; and we should be ready, more fit and ready than we have ever been.

It is of equal consequence that the nations whom Europe has usually supplied with innumerable articles of manufacture and commerce of which they are in constant need and without which their economic development halts and stands still can now get only a small part of what they formerly imported and eagerly look to us to supply their all but empty markets. This is particularly true of our own neighbors, the States, great and small, of Central and South America. Their lines of trade have hitherto run chiefly athwart the seas, not to our ports but to the ports of Great Britain and of the older continent of Europe. I do not stop to inquire why, or to make any comment on probable causes. What interests us just now is not the explanation but the fact, and our duty and opportunity in the presence of it. Here are markets which we must supply, and we must find the means of action. The United States, this great people for whom we speak and act, should be ready, as never before, to serve itself and to serve mankind; ready with its resources, its energies, its forces of production, and its means of distribution.

It is a very practical matter, a matter of ways and means. We have the resources, but are we fully ready to use them? And, if we can make ready what we have, have we the means at hand to distribute it? We are not fully ready; neither have we the means of distribution. We are willing, but we are not fully able. We have the wish to serve and to serve greatly, generously; but we are not prepared as we should be. We are not ready to mobilize our resources at once. We are not prepared to use them immediately and at their best, without delay and without waste.

To speak plainly, we have grossly erred in the way in which we have stunted and hindered the development of our merchant marine. And now, when we need ships, we have not got them. We have year after year debated, without end or conclusion, the best policy to pursue with regard to the use of the ores and forests and water powers of our national domain in the rich States of the West, when we should have acted; and they are still locked up. The key is still turned upon them, the door shut fast at which thousands of vigorous men, full of initiative, knock clamorously for admittance. The water power of our navigable streams outside the national domain also, even in the eastern States, where we have worked and planned for generations, is still not used as it might be, because we will and we won't; because the laws we have made do not intelligently balance encouragement against restraint. We withhold by regulation.

I have come to ask you to remedy and correct these mistakes and omissions, even at this short session of a Congress which would certainly seem to have done all the work that could reasonably be expected of it. The time and the circumstances are extraordinary, and so must our efforts be also.

Fortunately, two great measures, finely conceived, the one to unlock, with proper safeguards, the resources of the national domain, the other to encourage the use of the navigable waters outside that domain for the generation of power, have already passed the House of Representatives and are ready for immediate consideration and action by the Senate. With the deepest earnestness I urge their prompt passage. In them both we turn our backs upon hesitation and makeshift and formulate a genuine policy of use and conservation, in the best sense of those words. We owe the one measure not only to the people of that great western country for whose free and systematic development, as it seems to me, our legislation has done so little, but also to the people of the Nation as a whole; and we as clearly owe the other fulfillment of our repeated promises that the water power of the country should in fact as well as in name be put at the disposal of great industries which can make economical and profitable use of it, the rights of the public being adequately guarded the while, and monopoly in the use prevented. To have begun such measures and not completed them would indeed mar the record of this great Congress very seriously. I hope and confidently believe that they will be completed.

And there is another great piece of legislation which awaits and should receive the sanction of the Senate: I mean the bill which gives a larger measure of self-government to the people of the Philippines. How better, in this time of anxious questioning and perplexed policy, could we show our confidence in the principles of liberty, as the source as well as the expression of life, how better could we demonstrate our own self-possession and steadfastness in the courses of justice and disinterestedness than by thus going calmly forward to fulfill our promises to a dependent people, who will now look more anxiously than ever to see whether we have indeed the liberality, the unselfishness, the courage, the faith we have boasted and professed. I can not believe that the Senate will let this great measure of constructive justice await the action of another Congress. Its passage would nobly crown the record of these two years of memorable labor.

But I think that you will agree with me that this does not complete the toll of our duty. How are we to carry our goods to the empty markets of which I have spoken if we have not the ships? How are we to build tip a great trade if we have not the certain and content means of transportation upon which all profitable and useful commerce depends? And how are we to get the ships if we wait for the trade to develop without them? To correct the many mistakes by which we have discouraged and all but destroyed the merchant marine of the country, to retrace the steps by which we have.. it seems almost deliberately, withdrawn our flag from the seas.. except where, here and there, a ship of war is bidden carry it or some wandering yacht displays it, would take a long time and involve many detailed items of legislation, and tile trade which we ought immediately to handle would disappear or find other channels while we debated the items.

The case is not unlike that which confronted us when our own continent was to be opened up to settlement and industry, and we needed long lines of railway, extended means of transportation prepared beforehand, if development was not to lag intolerably and wait interminably. We lavishly subsidized the building of transcontinental railroads. We look back upon that with regret now, because the subsidies led to many scandals of which we are ashamed; but we know that the railroads had to be built, and if we had it to do over again we should of course build them, but in another way. Therefore I propose another way of providing the means of transportation, which must precede, not tardily follow, the development of our trade with our neighbor states of America. It may seem a reversal of the natural order of things, but it is true, that the routes of trade must be actually opened—by many ships and regular sailings and moderate charges—before streams of merchandise will flow freely and profitably through them.

Hence the pending shipping bill, discussed at the last session but as yet passed by neither House. In my judgment such legislation is imperatively needed and can not wisely be postponed. The Government must open these gates of trade, and open them wide; open them before it is altogether profitable to open them, or altogether reasonable to ask private capital to open them at a venture. It is not a question of the Government monopolizing the field. It should take action to make it certain that transportation at reasonable rates will be promptly provided, even where the carriage is not at first profitable; and then, when the carriage has become sufficiently profitable to attract and engage private capital, and engage it in abundance, the Government ought to withdraw. I very earnestly hope that the Congress will be of this opinion, and that both Houses will adopt this exceedingly important bill.

The great subject of rural credits still remains to be dealt with, and it is a matter of deep regret that the difficulties of the subject have seemed to render it impossible to complete a bill for passage at this session. But it can not be perfected yet, and therefore there are no other constructive measures the necessity for which I will at this time call your attention to; but I would be negligent of a very manifest duty were I not to call the attention of the Senate to the fact that the proposed convention for safety at sea awaits its confirmation and that the limit fixed in the convention itself for its acceptance is the last day of the present month. The conference in which this convention originated was called by the United States; the representatives of the United States played a very influential part indeed in framing the provisions of the proposed convention; and those provisions are in themselves for the most part admirable. It would hardly be consistent with the part we have played in the whole matter to let it drop and go by the board as if forgotten and neglected. It was ratified in May by the German Government and in August by the Parliament of Great Britain. It marks a most hopeful and decided advance in international civilization. We should show our earnest good faith in a great matter by adding our own acceptance of it.

There is another matter of which I must make special mention, if I am to discharge my conscience, lest it should escape your attention. It may seem a very small thing. It affects only a single item of appropriation. But many human lives and many great enterprises hang upon it. It is the matter of making adequate provision for the survey and charting of our coasts. It is immediately pressing and exigent in connection with the immense coast line of Alaska, a coast line greater than that of the United States themselves, though it is also very important indeed with regard to the older coasts of the continent. We can not use our great Alaskan domain, ships will not ply thither, if those coasts and their many hidden dangers are not thoroughly surveyed and charted. The work is incomplete at almost every point. Ships and lives have been lost in threading what were supposed to be well-known main channels. We have not provided adequate vessels or adequate machinery for the survey and charting. We have used old vessels that were not big enough or strong enough and which were so nearly unseaworthy that our inspectors would not have allowed private owners to send them to sea. This is a matter which, as I have said, seems small, but is in reality very great. Its importance has only to be looked into to be appreciated.

Before I close may I say a few words upon two topics, much discussed out of doors, upon which it is highly important that our judgment should be clear, definite, and steadfast?

One of these is economy in government expenditures. The duty of economy is not debatable. It is manifest and imperative. In the appropriations we pass we are spending the money of the great people whose servants we are, not our own. We are trustees and responsible stewards in the spending. The only thing debatable and upon which we should be careful to make our thought and purpose clear is the kind of economy demanded of us. I assert with the greatest confidence that the people of the United States are not jealous of the amount their Government costs if they are sure that they get what they need and desire for the outlay, that the money is being spent for objects of which they approve, and that it is being applied with good business sense and management.

Governments grow, piecemeal, both in their tasks and in the means by which those tasks are to be performed, and very few Governments are organized, I venture to say, as wise and experienced business men would organize them if they had a clean sheet of paper to write upon. Certainly the Government of the United States is not. I think that it is generally agreed that there should be a systematic reorganization and reassembling of its parts so as to secure greater efficiency and effect considerable savings in expense. But the amount of money saved in that way would, I believe, though no doubt considerable in itself, running, it may be, into the millions, be relatively small, small, I mean, in proportion to the total necessary outlays of the Government. It would be thoroughly worth effecting, as every saving would, great or small. Our duty is not altered by the scale of the saving. But my point is that the people of the United States do not wish to curtail the activities of this Government; they wish, rather, to enlarge them; and with every enlargement, with the mere growth, indeed, of the country itself, there must come, of course, the inevitable increase of expense. The sort of economy we ought to practice may be effected, and ought to be effected, by a careful study and assessment of the tasks to be performed; and the money spent ought to be made to yield the best possible returns in efficiency and achievement. And, like good stewards, we should so account for every dollar of our appropriations as to make it perfectly evident what it was spent for and in what way it was spent.

It is not expenditure but extravagance that we should fear being criticized for; not paying for the legitimate enterprise and undertakings of a great Government whose people command what it should do, but adding what will benefit only a few or pouring money out for what need not have been undertaken at all or might have been postponed or better and more economically conceived and carried out. The Nation is not niggardly; it is very generous. It will chide us only if we forget for whom we pay money out and whose money it is we pay. These are large and general standards, but they are not very difficult of application to particular cases.

The other topic I shall take leave to mention goes deeper into the principles of our national life and policy. It is the subject of national defense.

It can not be discussed without first answering some very searching questions. It is said in some quarters that we are not prepared for war. What is meant by being prepared? Is it meant that we are not ready upon brief notice to put a nation in the field, a nation of men trained to arms? Of course we are not ready to do that; and we shall never be in time of peace so long as we retain our present political principles and institutions. And what is it that it is suggested we should be prepared to do? To defend ourselves against attack? We have always found means to do that, and shall find them whenever it is necessary without calling our people away from their necessary tasks to render compulsory military service in times of peace.

Allow me to speak with great plainness and directness upon this great matter and to avow my convictions with deep earnestness. I have tried to know what America is, what her people think, what they are, what they most cherish and hold dear. I hope that some of their finer passions are in my own heart,—some of the great conceptions and desires which gave birth to this Government and which have made the voice of this people a voice of peace and hope and liberty among the peoples of the world, and that, speaking my own thoughts, I shall, at least in part, speak theirs also, however faintly and inadequately, upon this vital matter.

We are at peace with all the world. No one who speaks counsel based on fact or drawn from a just and candid interpretation of realities can say that there is reason to fear that from any quarter our independence or the integrity of our territory is threatened. Dread of the power of any other nation we are incapable of. We are not jealous of rivalry in the fields of commerce or of any other peaceful achievement. We mean to live our own lives as we will; but we mean also to let live. We are, indeed, a true friend to all the nations of the world, because we threaten none, covet the possessions of none, desire the overthrow of none. Our friendship can be accepted and is accepted without reservation, because it is offered in a spirit and for a purpose which no one need ever question or suspect. Therein lies our greatness. We are the champions of peace and of concord. And we should be very jealous of this distinction which we have sought to earn. just now we should be particularly jealous of it because it is our dearest present hope that this character and reputation may presently, in God's providence, bring us an opportunity such as has seldom been vouchsafed any nation, the opportunity to counsel and obtain peace in the world and reconciliation and a healing settlement of many a matter that has cooled and interrupted the friendship of nations. This is the time above all others when we should wish and resolve to keep our strength by self-possession, our influence by preserving our ancient principles of action.

From the first we have had a clear and settled policy with regard to military establishments. We never have had, and while we retain our present principles and ideals we never shall have, a large standing army. If asked, Are you ready to defend yourselves? we reply, Most assuredly, to the utmost; and yet we shall not turn America into a military camp. We will not ask our young men to spend the best years of their lives making soldiers of themselves. There is another sort of energy in us. It will know how to declare itself and make itself effective should occasion arise. And especially when half the world is on fire we shall be careful to make our moral insurance against the spread of the conflagration very definite and certain and adequate indeed.

Let us remind ourselves, therefore, of the only thing we can do or will do. We must depend in every time of national peril, in the future as in the past, not upon a standing army, nor yet upon a reserve army, but upon a citizenry trained and accustomed to arms. It will be right enough, right American policy, based upon our accustomed principles and practices, to provide a system by which every citizen who will volunteer for the training may be made familiar with the use of modern arms, the rudiments of drill and maneuver, and the maintenance and sanitation of camps. We should encourage such training and make it a means of discipline which our young men will learn to value. It is right that we should provide it not only, but that we should make it as attractive as possible, and so induce our young men to undergo it at such times as they can command a little freedom and can seek the physical development they need, for mere health's sake, if for nothing more. Every means by which such things can be stimulated is legitimate, and such a method smacks of true American ideas. It is right, too, that the National Guard of the States should be developed and strengthened by every means which is not inconsistent with our obligations to our own people or with the established policy of our Government. And this, also, not because the time or occasion specially calls for such measures, but because it should be our constant policy to make these provisions for our national peace and safety.

More than this carries with it a reversal of the whole history and character of our polity. More than this, proposed at this time, permit me to say, would mean merely that we had lost our self-possession, that we had been thrown off our balance by a war with which we have nothing to do, whose causes can not touch us, whose very existence affords us opportunities of friendship and disinterested service which should make us ashamed of any thought of hostility or fearful preparation for trouble. This is assuredly the opportunity for which a people and a government like ours were raised up, the opportunity not only to speak but actually to embody and exemplify the counsels of peace and amity and the lasting concord which is based on justice and fair and generous dealing.

A powerful navy we have always regarded as our proper and natural means of defense, and it has always been of defense that we have thought, never of aggression or of conquest. But who shall tell us now what sort of navy to build? We shall take leave to be strong upon the seas, in the future as in the past; and there will be no thought of offense or of provocation in that. Our ships are our natural bulwarks. When will the experts tell us just what kind we should construct-and when will they be right for ten years together, if the relative efficiency of craft of different kinds and uses continues to change as we have seen it change under our very eyes in these last few months ?

But I turn away from the subject. It is not new. There is no new need to discuss it. We shall not alter our attitude toward it because some amongst us are nervous and excited. We shall easily and sensibly agree upon a policy of defense. The question has not changed its aspects because the times are not normal. Our policy will not be for an occasion. It will be conceived as a permanent and settled thing, which we will pursue at all seasons, without haste and after a fashion perfectly consistent with the peace of the world, the abiding friendship of states, and the unhampered freedom of all with whom we deal. Let there be no misconception. The country has been misinformed. We have not been negligent of national defense. We are not unmindful of the great responsibility resting upon us. We shall learn and profit by the lesson of every experience and every new circumstance; and what is needed will be adequately done.

I close, as I began, by reminding you of the great tasks and duties of peace which challenge our best powers and invite us to build what will last, the tasks to which we can address ourselves now and at all times with free-hearted zest and with all the finest gifts of constructive wisdom we possess. To develop our life and our resources; to supply our own people, and the people of the world as their need arises, from the abundant plenty of our fields and our marts of trade to enrich the commerce of our own States and of the world with the products of our mines, our farms, and our factories, with the creations of our thought and the fruits of our character, this is what will hold our attention and our enthusiasm steadily, now and in the years to come, as we strive to show in our life as a nation what liberty and the inspirations of an emancipated spirit may do for men and for societies, for individuals, for states, and for mankind.

The British won a lopsided naval battle in the Battle of the Falklands Islands.  

The Serbs started to win a lopsided land battle in the Battle of Kolubara, 

Last edition:

Monday, December 7, 1914. End of the Maritz Rebellion and calling for a Christmas Truce.

Labels: 1910s, 1914, 1914 Christmas Truce, Maritz Rebellion, Serbia, World War One, Yugoslavia

Lex Anteinternet: A Day In the Life: Today In Wyoming's History: De...

Yesterday we took a look at December 7, 1941, in this series.  That was, of course, the day the United States was attacked by the Japanese Empire and it remains one of the most significant and well remembered days in recent American history.  We looked at that topic here:

Lex Anteinternet: A Day In the Life: Today In Wyoming's History: De...: Today in this series we take a look at our entry from  Today In Wyoming's History: December 7 : on the topic of the Japanese Attack on ..

But perhaps for many people December 8 was nearly as momentous.  People were making decisions that would impact their lives for ever. What would we have been doing on that momentous Monday?  That's what we look at here.

First of all, for a little background.  My concept of this, in this thread or series of threads, is to look at ourselves in a fashion relatable to where we actually are in life in our modern lives.  It's always fun to imagine that in any one era, we'd be in the thick of things, but for most people, most of the time, on the day of any one big event, that's probably not true.

So, in order to put a little structure to this historical exercise, I'll put some basic facts to it that relate to may life now. So, I'll assume that I'm looking at December 1941 in a manner relatable to December 2014.  If that's the case, I'd be a lawyer, age 51, with two kids and a wife, living in Casper Wyoming.

That would also mean that I would have graduated from high school 33 years ago, which is a bit problematic here as 33 years prior to 1941, there wasn't a high school in in Casper Wyoming.  There would be soon after that, but there wasn't then. There were some public schools, however.  Assuming a basic 33 year prior date, would have put me, in this historical exercise, in the Class of 1908.

Going from there, in 1981, when I graduated from high school, I joined the Army National Guard, and I went to the local community college for three years before going on to the University of Wyoming.  Assuming a kindred path isn't really certain, however, as in 1908 the Homestead Act was still in effect, and would be for some time, and it'd be hard to imagine not availing myself of that.  But then, we do have cattle now, so perhaps I can work that into the mix somehow here.  So I'll assume some connection with cattle in 08.  I'll also assume that I decided to go on to the University of Wyoming in 08, which was an open institution, when Casper College wasn't around (and still wasn't in 1941).  And I'll assume that I graduated after five years, like I did, putting me in the UW class of 1913.  I stayed in the  Guard as an artilleryman for six years, and oddly enough, the Guard at that time was also artillery.  If I went on a similar path that'd put me in the Guard until 1914, but people tended to stay in it then, so I'll extend this imaginary exercise until 1915, which would have put me into the Punitive Expedition and the mobilization for World War One.  My guess is that I would have served as an officer in World War One, mostly because being a college graduate was unusual here at that time. And I would have mustered out with the entire National Guard following the Great War, and probably wouldn't have gone back into it.

 National Guardsman, 1915.

U.S. artillery in the field, Punitive Expedition.

Of course, I've omitted law school here, and if I graduated from UW in 1913, and had a gap of a year as a geologist as I did, that doesn't quite work out.  So, to really make this work out I have to put myself in the UW graduating class of 1912 (not unrealistic) and going on to law school.  At the time I graduated in in 1986 from UW, the oilfield economy had tanked (just like its threatening to do right now), so I went on to law school.  Would I have done that in 12?  The oilfield wasn't tanking in 12, but I can imagine reasons I might have done that.  On the other hand, I might have not gone until after World War One, at which time the oilfield had definitely tanked.

Okay, so in this imaginary exercise I'm making myself dull and typical.  In 1941 I would have been a 51 year old lawyer who owned cattle too, which is exactly what I am now.  I'd have been a veteran of the National Guard, which I also am now, but I would almost certainly have been a combat veteran, which I definitely am not.

Okay, so on Monday, December 8, 1941, after an exciting and scary evening on December 7, what would I have done?

Well, at age 51 I'd be beyond regular service age, but having had prior service in this scenario (08 to 18 or 19), I would probably been able to get back in.  The Army, Navy and Marine Corps did take back in veteran NCOs and officers under certain conditions, either because they had experience or because they had specialized training in their civilian life that was applicable to a big war. And I'm in pretty good shape, so the general advancement of age that otherwise took people in this category out of returned service, I'd probably have been okay. Things like transportation, logistics, and industry were often applicable and those guys could get in even without prior service.  A law degree, on the other hand, would not fit this category,a s lawyers were of such sufficient supply that later in the war lawyers drafted into the Army often ended up as privates.

Anyhow, given that, what I've set out here, and knowing myself, my guess is that on this day I'd have probably planned on calling on the Army recruiter to see if I could get back in.  By all accounts, a lot of other people had the same idea on that day..  In 1990 when the first Gulf War was up and rolling, I did contact my old Guard unit in case they were activated, but they were not.  I didn't take that action after 9/11, but frankly like a lot of guys who have some service time, I've felt sort of guilty about it ever since, even though at the time there didn't seem to be a real service to offer in what looked like it'd probably be a short specialist campaign in Afghanistan.  I think I'd feel like a slacker if I hadn't sought to go in World War Two. Indeed, knowing myself, and given that I have a fair number of Canadian relatives, I might have felt like a slacker by December 1941, given that Canada had been at war since September 1939.

 

Canadian poster seeking the reenlistment of older, prior service, soldiers.

Anyhow, in 1941, the Army recruiter was in the Federal Courthouse, one block from my office, which also hosted the post office at that time.  Federal Courthouses were sort of one size fits all affairs in that day.

 

 Wintry view of the Federal Courthouse, as seen from my office.

I'd have probably have gotten to work about the usual time, around 8:00, and I can actually see the courthouse from one of the office windows.  My guess is, however, that there was probably a line out the front door that morning, so I'd have probably tried again around 11:00 or so to see what that looked like.  I'd care for lines much, and knowing that this was going to last awhile, I'd have just planned on later in the week if I couldn't have gotten in.

 Newsstand, December 8, 1941.

But my guess is also that a person wouldn't have been able to get in to see the recruiter that morning, or maybe all day.  Maybe I'd have gotten in later in the day, or maybe later that week, depending upon how things went.  As for my son, no way I would have let a 17 year old enlist in the service.

Anyhow, because of my current age, chances are high that I'd end up in some administrative role in the U.S. or perhaps one in the service overseas, should I have succeeded in getting in. There's a ton of jobs of this type in the service, and they are necessary, but it isn't the sort of thing a person normally imagines themselves doing, and they don't make movies about it.  In terms of film, the only example of such a portrayal I can think of is the clerk figure in 12 O'clock High, who interestingly enough is supposed to have been a lawyer who is a veteran of World War One.  Occasionally, you'll read of the rare older individual who had a combat role in the age range I'm in, but frankly, World War Two, more than World War One, and certainly more than any war before or since, was a young man's war in terms of officers.  Oddly, enlisted men were older than we sometimes suspect, with the average troop in the 20s or 30s, but that's the case with officer also.  Officers over 50, at least in combat roles, were quite rare.  Even general officers over age 50 were rare in the U.S. Army.

On December 8, however, I'd probably have spent most of the day at the office, or most of it, depending if I could have gotten in to the recruiter or not.  And even if I had been able to, I suspect for that guys in my category, they'd have said come back in a couple of weeks when we have our act more together.  It would have made for a pretty unproductive day at work, followed by a return home that evening that would have been both interesting and uncomfortable.  I don't think the news of a person's intent in these regards would necessarily have been happy news, but it would have also been a tense evening of listening to the war news on the radio, and the news of the town from the family.

It's scary, somewhat, for a person my age to ponder this out.  That's because, as noted, my son is 17. There's no way he would have escaped a titanic war like World War Two.  And he would have been of the age in which really seeing the action would have been darned near inevitable. That's a scary thing to ponder.

And how about you?  How would your day have gone.

‘Lawyer Bubble’ author discusses what the future looks like for today’s new lawyers

‘Lawyer Bubble’ author discusses what the future looks like for today’s new lawyers

Interesting interview with the author of a book called "Lawyer Bubble" about the current practice and the future of the practice.  Interesting angle on his view of different generations of lawyers.