Hurt feelings?

There's a case pending, apparently, in the Federal District Court of Wyoming in which environmentalist have sued the Peabody Coal Company.  I don't know what the suit is about.

Apparently the plaintiffs included lyrics of the chorus from John Prine's classic "New" Grass folk song, Paradise, in their complaint.  For those not familiar with the song, those lyrics are:

And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away.

The defendant apparently moved to strike that part of the complaint, and now that motion is pending.

Well, I suppose it isn't proper pleading, but Peabody has been around a long time and its survived okay since 1971 when the song was released.  Apparently, according to an article in the Tribune, they've never liked the fact that they were the target of the song, and it is pretty pointed, but still, seems like moving to strike is fairly pointless.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Francis de Sales Roman Catholic Church, Denver...

Churches of the West: St. Francis de Sales Roman Catholic Church, Denver...:

Yet another photograph taken from a car window, this is St. Francis de Sales Roman Catholic Church in south Denver. This church, named after the Patron Saint of Writers, is also associated with a Catholic School which is about one block away. The church was built in 1911.

Stalin Central Time?

On August 15, the clocks in North Korea will go back half an hour. The country will officially enter a new time zone which it itself has created – according to the country's official KCNA news agency, it will be dubbed 'Pyongyang Time.' As with much of what the North Korean state does, the new time zone is being framed as a triumph over imperial history. Pointedly, Pyongyang Time will begin on 70th anniversary of Korea's liberation from Japanese occupation.

"The wicked Japanese imperialists committed such unpardonable crimes as depriving Korea of even its standard time while mercilessly trampling down its land," KCNA says.

From a press report.

Painted Bricks: What is it? Granger Wyoming

Painted Bricks: What is it? Granger Wyoming:

This is a fairly substantial structure in the small town of Granger, Wyoming.

 

Granger is an old locality for Wyoming.  It was a Pony Express stage stop, and the stage building is still there (which unfortunately I didn't realize until after I'd driven out of town).  The town is small, and the population of about 140 has stayed constant for the entire 20th Century and into the 21st.

Which makes a building like this a peculiarity.   When I took this photo, because of some of the features of the building, I thought it was an abandoned church, and I had intended to post it on our Churches of the West site.  But later I reconsidered as I'm not so sure of that.  It doesn't really have a steeple, not that all churches do.  It has some very church like features, but this could also have served some other purpose.  I'll note the other side made me, at the time, even more convinced this was a church, but as the house is now apparently used as a private residence, I didn't want to linger while photographing, particularly as a curious dog inside the building was taking note of me on the street.  I should also note, however, that on one side is a branch of the Sweetwater County Library, and on the other side is the Granger town hall.  Maybe this was a government building at one time?  Maybe it was a school?

So, what do we have here?  If you know, post the answer.

Friday Farming: Agriphemera: Planning A Subsistence Homestead(1934)

I was doing some early morning net surfing, having awakened far too early this morning, and ran across this:

Agriphemera: Planning A Subsistence Homestead(1934): There was a time when the U.S. government encouraged families to live on a small section of rural land and provide for their own ...

I'm really amazed that the U.S. Government was publishing an item on subsistence farming in 1934.  I wonder, would this reflect conditions in the Great Depression?

Beauty: Function or Form?

Heavily rusted mid 1970s Chevrolet pickup truck, with Colorado classic vehicle plate and rough trailer, but lifted and with good tires, on Homer Spit, Alaska.

New York Times: In Zimbabwe, We Don't Cry for Lions

Excellent article from the New York Times on how people closer to nature, and closer to lions, actually view them.

The war comes to some doorsteps

This has hit the Denver (although not the local Wyoming) news today. The FBI has issued the following warning, which is being reprinted in various papers and on the net:

Middle-Eastern Males Approaching Family Members of US Military Personnel at their Homes In Colorado and Wyoming, as of June 2015
5 pages
For Official Use Only
July 2, 2015
Download
(U//FOUO) In May 2015, the wife of a US military member was approached in front of her home by two Middle-Eastern males. The men stated that she was the wife of a US interrogator. When she denied their claims, the men laughed. The two men left the area in a dark-colored, four-door sedan with two other Middle-Eastern males in the vehicle. The woman had observed the vehicle in the neighborhood on previous occasions.
(U//FOUO) Similar incidents in Wyoming have been reported to the FBI throughout June 2015. On numerous occasions, family members of military personnel were confronted by Middle-Eastern males in front of their homes. The males have attempted to obtain personal information about the military member and family members through intimidation. The family members have reported feeling scared.
(U//FOUO) To date, the men have not been identified and it is not known if all the incidents involve the same Middle-Eastern males. If you have any information that may assist the FBI in identifying these individuals, or reporting concerning additional incidents; in Colorado please contact the FBI Fort Collins Resident Agency at 970-663-1028, in Wyoming please contact the FBI Cheyenne Resident Agency at 307-632-6224.
(U) This report has been prepared by the DENVER Division of the FBI. Comments and queries may be addressed to the DENVER Division at 303-629-7171.

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: What's with all those dire warn...

 

 World War One era poster, from when coal heated most homes.

Earlier this week I published this:

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: What's with all those dire warn...: I was out of town this past week, so came home to a collection of newspapers. One of them related that Wyoming had lost 3,000+ oilfield jo...

Following that, there was an article in the Tribune about how the residents of the coal producing town of Gillette have continued to try to publicly back coal, against the trend of its decline.  The same day the Chinese came out with an announcement about a plan to combat climate change.

In this morning's paper I read that Alpha, a major coal company, has gone into receivership.  The bigger news, however (although that took top billing in the Star Tribune) is that President Obama released his plan for combating climate change which includes a significant drop in the use of coal in Wyoming, and the U.S., for power generation and a reduction of the use of fossil fuels in general.

The reaction by Wyoming's political leaders was predictable, if perhaps actually somewhat muted in some quarters. Governor Mead issued the following statement:

The Clean Power Plan is scientifically flawed and if implemented will not achieve minimum reductions. It is in fact damaging – not just to Wyoming, but the nation.  I will continue to fight regulations that are fundamentally bad for Wyoming and exceed the regulatory authority of the federal government.

That comment was brief, briefer than we might have expected.  That raises the suspicion that Mead felt obligated to reply, but didn't want to put too much effort into it.  Or perhaps he just issued a brief reply as the Clean Power Plan had just come out and there wasn't time for anything larger.   Maybe both.

I'm sure in the coming months there will be much local opposition to the President's plan, and there's absolutely no certainty that it will go into effect, but at some point, on something like this, I have to wonder if the course of events isn't fairly clear.  Coal has been in decline in regards to the type of use made of it for quite some time.  It hasn't been "King Coal" forever.  Weening the country, and the world, from most coal use would be a lot easier than weening it from petroleum oil.

When I was a geology student, coal was my focus.  Focusing on it today, no matter what we might say here in Wyoming, I think it's future is dim.  Not immediately, but not distantly either.  And as for petroleum and the local economy, with sanctions getting set to be removed from Iran, there's reason not to be too short term optimistic there either.

Defeated People

Some time ago I started an entry here on "defeated people", but because it seemed so negative, which was not my intent, I never published it.

It wasn't intended to be at all. Rather, the thread intended to look into the "post defeat" lives of the defeated.  We so rarely do that, but generally, people pick themselves up and move on.   But rarely does anyone look at that.  One of the reasons I so liked Cornelius Ryan's book is that he always included an appendix in his book listing where the principle individuals he interviewed now were, which was often illuminating.  Even badly defeated people often got back up on their feet and carried on.

This past week, as anyone who might stumble past this blog, I was in Alaska.  And in the course of that, stumbled across a community of Old Believers.  No matter what else a person might think of them, they're champions in this category as they've persevered against the odds, and defeat, for centuries. This caused me to reconsider adding this as a topic, rather than a single thread, so I'm going to add it as an occasionally recurring topical feature.

The lingerings of Russian Alaska

One of the maxims of Holscher's Laws of History is that "Everything last occurred more recently than you suppose".  Given that, I should have realized that there's be lingering aspects of Russian culture in Alaska.  Nonetheless, I was surprised to find this true.

The United States bought Alaska from Imperial Russia in 1867.  Quite a long time ago, by how we generally reckon things, but not all that long, really, in cultural terms.  Russia started penetrating into Alaska in the 1740s and things really got rolling in the 1780s, although their numbers were always limited.  Naturally, they brought with them the Russian Orthodox faith.

I guess I hadn't appreciated the extent to which Russian Orthodox missionaries operated in Alaska, but they certainly did, and they were successful.  And, for no real reason, I would have presumed that the influence of Russian Orthodoxy would have dramatically waned after the US purchase of the territory.  I knew that it remained a bit, but I thought just a bit.

 

Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord Church, Ninilchik Alaska. 

Well, I was wrong.

About 12.5% of the population of Alaska is Orthodox.  80% of the population is Christian.  The Orthodox population rivals that of the Catholic population, which is really amazing as the Catholic Church is by far the largest of the apostolic churches in the United States.  That the percentage is this high is all the more amazing as the demographics of Alaska have undoubtedly changed significantly since 1974, when the oil pipeline brought in a large number of out of state workers, which would have increased the Protestant populations significantly and the Catholic population as well.  Therefore, if we look at the pre 1974 demographics, and the long term resident demographics, the percentage of Russian Orthodox would be even higher.

And this would be strongly reflected amongst Alaskan Native populations, who would make up the bulk of the Orthodox in Alaska.

All this goes to show that culture is indeed resilient, as we also previously noted in one of our laws of history.  In some places the Orthodox parishes have declined, but demographically, they're still strong.  I shouldn't have made the assumption that I did.

I actually found this out, I'd note, in a bit of a roundabout way, and I'd guess many who visit Alaska never realize this.  As I find church architecture interesting, and post photos of them to a blog, when I was in Alaska I ran across a reference to an Old Believer church near Homer and then did a short search and ran into a second Russian Orthodox Church.  The Old Believer church, I should note, does not represent an enduring Alaskan cultural feature, as they moved into the region in 1966 (and there are actually several Old Believer communities near Homer).  In looking up a Russian Orthodox Church I photographed in Ninilchik I was surprised to find that there'd been a church I'd missed in Homer itself, and not only there, but darned near everywhere.  There were a lot of them, as indeed there should be, as there are Catholic churches everywhere and nearly as many Alaskans are Russian Orthodox as are Catholic.

Which shows, I suppose, when observing something, a person must be open to observing the unexpected.

The Big Picture: Turnagain Sound, Alaska

While the world is wringing its hands over a Zimbabwean lion. . .

the horror of Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe goes on largely without notice.

This story broke while I was away from the news for an extended time (which I have come to more and more appreciate).  So, I return to the news with the story in full swing.  Many are in a frothy righteous indignation over the shooting of "Cecil the Lion".

I haven't followed the story that closely, but it does appear that the stalking of this lion was out of bounds.  He appears to have been tagged and if what little I know about the story is correct, it was an illegal hunt.  But the real news broke because the lion was known and so it's a convenient foil for the "animal rights" movement, a deeply unnatural, indeed anti natural, movement that despises people, and animals as they really are.

But the really amazing aspect of this is that people are seriously stating that the alleged law breaker should be extradited to Zimbabwe.  Seriously? People didn't work themselves into a lather about Amanda Knox, who is accused of killing a human being, in such a fashion and demand that she be extradited to democratic Italy, and they're arguing somebody should be extradited to the madness of Zimbabwe?

If anyone should be extradited in association with Zimbabwe, it's the president of that failed pathetic state, Robert Mugabe.  Mugabe took over the leadership of the country when Rhodesia surrendered itself to the inevitable, and the country looked to be full of democratic promise.  He took a prosperous land, with multiple ethnicities, and has presided over a government that has used violence against its political opponents (including his movements former brothers in arms), and which has engaged in the expropriation of land. He's destroyed the economy and made life miserable for its inhabitants, so that a person can truly say that, unlike South Africa, the country was truly better off before the revolution.

Africa has progressed enormously over the past 30 years.  Zimbabwe, however, has regressed and is a joke.  Extradite?  Yes, do so, but extradite Robert Mugabe to the Hague.

How is that people can care so much for one animal, while ignoring so much about their fellow human animals?  And how is it that people can stand, at least in theory, for the bringing of democratic rule to a nation, and then care so pathetically little when it fails to take root?  Africa is full of hope, Zimbabwe full of despair, and we should be full of shame over our misdirected priorities.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Grant Avenue Methodist Church and Community Center...

Churches of the West: Grant Avenue Methodist Church and Community Center...:

Aviation in Alaska

 

We recently went through the  Alaska Aviation Museum, and posted about that here:

Holscher's Hub: Alaska Aviation Museum:

It wasn't news to me that aviation is far more critical in Alaska than in the lower 48 (is this also true of northern Canada?  I'd guess it would have to be).  But the extent to which this is true, and has been for some time, is something that has to be seen to be believed.  Truly amazing.  Aircraft are a constant feature of any town in a way that simply doesn't occur elsewhere.  And quite clearly, this has been true for some time.

Indeed, we're going to be taking a look at transportation topics in relation to Alaska here in the near future. The treatment wont' be all that in depth, but it's revealing for a variety of reasons.

Anyhow, aviation in Alaska is amazing, and obviously has been for quite awhile.

Lex Anteinternet: What's with all those dire warnings

I was out of town this past week, so came home to a collection of newspapers.

One of them related that Wyoming had lost 3,000+ oilfield jobs.

We've had a variety of posts on this topic.  As we've been doing that, occasionally we'd read the articles that would relate that this down turn wouldn't be that bad.  At one time, we felt compelled to post an item entitled:

Lex Anteinternet: What's with all those dire warnings. . . .: and why are they on a blog that supposedly looks at history around the turn of the prior century? St. Francis Mission, Midwest Wyomin...

Well, the loss was higher than anticipated.

And now that a deal with Iran of some sort has been reached, and we can anticipate that the embargo on Iranian oil will cease, the trend is likely to amplify.

Mid Week At Work: We are all ignorant on some subjects.

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Albany County Courthouse, Laramie Wyoming.

Albany County Courthouse, Laramie Wyoming.

The trades and manual labor

Recently we've been posting about the Bond Issue and in that context, the school district's plan to seek to ask the voters to help fund technical and vocational training at the high school level has come up. 

Just prior to my noting that, I had an odd experience in which I woke up really early one morning and couldn't sleep, so I got up and turned on the television.  Good Will Hunting, which I'd never seen, was on, and even though I missed the beginning of it, I started watching and watched it to the end.  I must say it was a good film.  Part of the theme, and the reason I'm noting this here, is that the film argued that the exceptionally mathematically gifted protagonist should pursue a mathmatical career (although he ends up purusing his love first).  Indeed, in one major scence in the film his close friend argues that if he fails to do so and continues to work as a laberor, it would be a tragedy.

Well, would it?

I don't know.  Its easy for me to note what the movie argued but not so easy for me to opine on it.  I don't have laberor's job, and there's no doubt that most laborers do not get well paid.  The film does make an argument, in the form of a scene, to the effect that all labor has dignitiy, but it goes on to essentailly endorse the very widely held concept that jobs that involve no physical labor and all intellect are more worthy of those that do not.

I don't know what to make of that, other than to note that it is an extremely widely held concept. But a person ought to be careful about simply accepting it.  It's a very widely ingraned concept, however.

Unsolicited Career Advice for the Student No. 7. The perils of occupational predictions.

In spite of the title here, I'm not sure that this is really "career advice", so much as it is commentary and the recommendation to be cautious.

This post comes about due to the receent article in the Wyoming Lawyer about the Board of Law Examiners abondoning the Wyoming CLE requirement.  While I agree that the CLE was absurd, the BLE seems to be on the railroad track leading to the oblivion of local practice on this one.  This sort of "we have to do this as we have to do this" sort of process is really common.  People, once committed to a certain course of action, tend to stay that through even if it was never a good idea.  Quitting some things, quite frankly, is a good idea. And if the destionation is lousy, why go there. Get off the train somewhere else.

It's also prompted by having read some of the occasional commentary put out by local economic entites to the effect of "this brings in jobs".  I've also commented on that locally.  It amazes me the extent to which the "jobs" argument is so poorly analyzed.

Both of the factors mentioned above are important if you are starting out planning your career.  A couple of important trends seem to come to light when you do, which are:

1.  Technology is on the brink of premanently wiping out a lot of "good jobs'.

2.  The mega-urbanization of our economy has premanently exported jobs from towns and cities to big cities.

3.  Some professions that formerly had small town expression have permanently moved to mid sized cities where the professionals must have signficant infrastructure investment.

4.  With at least one profession, the law, the operation of technology and short sighted bar admisison policies will kill off the practice in rural areas.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Elizabeth of Hungary Catholic Church, and St. ...

Churches of the West: St. Elizabeth of Hungary Catholic Church, and St. ...:
 

Roosevelt Oklahoma farm goes back to basics

A Roosevelt Oklahoma farm goes back to basics.

C-SPAN Cities Tour - Casper: Teapot Dome Scandal

Mid Week at Work: Federal Adult Schools

The Press and Statute of Limitations Bogusity

I keep hearing press reports connected with one asserted crime or another, that because the allegations happened long ago, they are "past the statute of limitations", as if there's a national criminal statute of limitations that pertains to state criminal cases..

There isn't.

Many states do have statute of limitations for criminal acts.  But not all. Wyoming doesn't.  I'm sure we're not alone in that either.

Most recently, this has come up concerning the various news stories about Bill Cosby.  I won't go into that, but a common report is "the alleged actions are past the statute of limitations".  Maybe they are, but if they are, they're past the statute of limitations in California, presumably.  They wouldn't be past the statute of limitations in other locations, if the alleged acts allegedly occurred there, depending upon the location.

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Joseph C. O'Mahoney Federal Courthouse, Cheyenne W...

Joseph C. O'Mahoney Federal Courthouse, Cheyenne Wyoming




Cheyenne's modern Federal courthouse.

I'm sorry, but these newer courthouses (this one must have been built in the 1970s, really just leave a lot to be desired externally.  Inside, it's very nice.  but outside, it looks just like a Federal office building.

Randon Snippets: The Horror of It All.

Putting walnuts in to chocolate chip cookies should be a crime.

Just saying.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Unknown Church, Riverton Wyoming

Churches of the West: Unknown Church, Riverton Wyoming:

It's All Natural! Except for us.

Just a second ago, on television, there was an advertisement for a dog food that was "natural".  It had no "chicken byproducts".

I wasn't aware that chickens were, ispo facto, unnatural, although I'll concede that they are a rather weird bird, but that's besides the point.  What's so fascinating is that we live in an era, and one that stretches back quite a few decades now, that's obsessed with the natural, even while we ourselves don't apply the same logic to ourselves.  It's really odd.  Either we like nature and accept it, or we don't. You can't really have cafeteria naturalism.

Evidence on our obsession with what's natural is everywhere, and frankly, I'm not criticizing it.  There's is indeed a lot of reason to be focused on the natural. We ourselves are part of nature, and there's better and better evidence that the more we depart from nature, the worst off we are (even as we strive to continue to create a very unnatural world). 

So eating a more natural diet makes a great deal of sense, and we know what the loose parameters of a natural diet are (and it isn't, by the way, vegan or vegetarian, which are highly unnatural diets for people who are uncomfortable with nature).  And getting out in nature, we know, is not only a good idea, it might actually be necessarily for our well being.

 A fellow with an actually natural diet.

So we've developed a lot of "natural foods". Some people have become "locavores", eating only what they can acquire locally, and thereby bypassing the unnatural food distribution system.  "Grass fed" beef is in, and I'm down with that, as I've been eating grass fed beef (and antelope, and deer, etc.) for decades.  Quite a few people insist their clothes be "natural", which means not a petroleum byproduct.  People buy vegetables that are "organic", by which they mean free of unnatural chemical exposure.

The Amish must be looking around thinking; "Ach, was ist das?"

 Amish, who live pretty natural, although that's not usually what non Amish backers of "natural" mean by natural.

Some of us, many of us now, join one or more organizations devoted to natural causes.  The Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Initiative, are just a few.  Radicals look towards Green Peace or the Earth Justice League.

But we omit nature from ourselves. That is, our own selves. And the more radically natural we are, the more likely we are to do that. Why is that?

What do I mean?

Well, the most natural thing a person encounters every day is themselves.  No matter how unnatural of environment you live in, you are natural.

For most of us, that probably doesn't impact us in any particular way, but we should consider this.  We are, no matter how a person conceives of it, as certain type of animal.  We may be, and I'd argue we are, a very special animal with an immortal soul, but nonetheless, we're an animal.  More particularly, we're a mammal, and a primate, with very special attributes.

And those attributes are governed to a fairly large extent by our DNA. That is, our genes determine much of what we are.

This has been, of course, argued about for decades.  Is it nature or nurture that determines our personalities, etc.  Both, no doubt. But that our genetic makeup determines much of what we are in some very fundamental ways cannot be doubted.  Included amongst these are our genders, and what that means.

That's a hugely unpopular readily right now, in certain quarters, but it's a reality nonetheless.  There are no "men trapped insides of women's bodies", or vice versa. There are men, and women.  That's biology.

That doesn't mean that some women and some men, in fairly low statistical numbers, don't have inclinations that are contrary to their genetic makeup in terms of gender in varying degrees that cause them to think they want to be the other.  It may very well be the case that they do.  And that doesn't make them inhuman, nor should it subject them to abuse. But it also should be required that such inclinations are part of their natural animal nature.  Pretending that they are is going against nature.  And at the point where society is providing people with "therapies" to achieve a gender transformation (to the extent that can actually occur), it's doing something deeply unnatural.  If it requires chemistry or surgery to achieve (and maintain), it isn't natural.

Indeed, we know that human beings are afflicted in varying numbers with all sorts of unnatural inclinations and impulses, some harmless, and some not.  For example, some people actually seek surgery to remove a limb, seized by the belief, somehow, that they'd be happier without it.  This is a self detructive belief, and unnatural, but they have it.

Of course, it could be argued that medicine itself is unnatural, and some do, but I don't think that's really the case.  Human desires to cure maladies are a human trait, and demonstrably go back to ancient times, indeed far back into our ancient origins.  Ancient humans with knit bones demonstrate that we were setting breaks as far back as we've existed, and occasionally an ancient skeleton will show up with evidence at an attempt for fairly exotic surgery.  That people can develop, and synthesize, medicines is not unnatural.

But it does lead to some oddities in this area.  One is that there's a big business in for "natural remedies". These are all sorts of herbs and whatever that are supposedly natural.  Near my work there's a store that sells such things and some of the impacts of them that are claimed are simply amazing.  One recently claimed to do something at the "cellular" level.  I hope not, that would be scary indeed.  The point here however, is that people will buy something that's only barely less natural than the stuff they're trying to avoid at the doctor's office or the pharmacy.  Lots of medicines are, actually, fairly natural. 

Not all are in impact, however.  That's an interesting thing to.  Modern westerners (Americans and Europeans) spend a lot of money on pharmaceuticals that are designed to frustrate a certain natural cycle.  That's interesting, as that's a medicine that's actually anti-natural.  It's weird to think that there are, undoubtedly, women who eat all natural foods, wear organic cotton, maybe go the "natural remedies store", but take an anti natural pharmaceutical.  Indeed, I have to suspect that the fact such pharmaceuticals are so widely accepted now is that they were introduced in the early 1960s, when there was a huge admiration for anything chemical or medical and people didn't worry much about the impact of anything of that type.  It took Silent Spring and DDT to take us there.

In another area, we've written a lot recently about the "natural law".  Now some would maintain that there's no such thing as a natural law, but the best evidence would certainly be contrary to that. As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in The Antelope, the state can and does create statutes that contravene or stand opposed to the natural law.  But we seem not to even note that, which is interesting.

One of the big ones we live with every day is the institution of the "corporation".  Corporations are legal creatures of the state, and basically they evolve out of the partnership.  Partnerships do comport with nature, ad people combining to act in concert with partners is clearly a natural human activity. But corporations are deemed by law to be "persons" before the law.  I'm not saying that's good, or bad, but it is rather weird, and clearly not natural.

The fact that we've built such big cities that are seperated from nature is unnatural.  Indeed, this entire era in which we are so concerned about living naturally would have had a hard time coming about if this wasn't the case, as people who live more closely to nature, aren't cognizant of that in the same way or to the same extent.  That is not to say that they aren't aware of it, just differently.

It's also not to say that towns and villages aren't natural. They are, and have existed since time immemorial.  But super huge cites, such as we have now, that can only exist with the technological advances we have now, aren't really natural.  They have existed for quite some time, but that doesn't make them natural really.  And certainly the modern cubicle life isn't natural.  Indeed the separation from nature that the city life creates is one of the sources of modern depression and potentially the cause of much that we see in human stress and oddity.

So the point?

To offend everyone in the western world?

No, this is simply one of those observational posts.   I'm afflicted with an analytical mind, by nature, and therefore I'll take an analytical thread where it goes.  And this one amuses me.  We live in an era when people can be really aggressive about being "natural".  But we live in a very unnatural society.  I think it ought to be more natural, truly I do.  But in making that observation, I'm well aware that a lot of the people stomping their feet about being "natural", are hugely unnatural.  A person can be, I suppose, selectively natural.  But you have to be aware of that.  Wearing Birkenstocks while eating a free range yogurt vegan diet makes you anti natural, not natural.  And if you choose going natural, and demand that we go natural as far as possible, you have to separate your politics from your nature, and go where that leads you.  Otherwise, what you have to do is to admit that you feel that accommodations against nature should be made, which is fine, but you should admit that you're doing it so that you are clear and honest about what you are doing, at least to yourself.

Tufts Magazine / fall 2013. "American nations"

Tufts Magazine / fall 2013

Interesting view.  Is it correct?

Feebleness in war; muddled thinking in the face of domestic terrorism

The Republic of Vietnam feared its population for most of the war, but following the defeat of the Communist forces in the Tet Offensive of 1968, it realized that, militarily, the tide had turned and started to plan to issue military weapons to the population out in the countryside, much like Switzerland does with its own population.  It didn't get around to it, but it planned to do it, as it realized at that point, with the war effectively won, as long as the United States continued to supply air power in the event of a North Vietnamese assault, it could trust its population to repel local aggression.  The fact that South Vietnam fell in the face of a massive North Vietnamese assault in 1975, when the United States failed to supply air power, doesn't moot the point, but actually tends to support it.

Switzerland has, of course, done just that for eons.  Israel does something similar, allowing the issuance of military type arms to some of its population in hostile areas, leading to some fairly incongruous photographs of that occurring in some areas, on occasion.  The same policy was pretty effectively followed, no matter what you think of its cause or government, by South Africa before apartheid was thankfully ended, when it faced a domestic terrorism problem in the countryside.

Which leads me to the bonehead comment of the New York Daily News today that today's domestic terrorist attack in Tennessee should lead to tighter gun control.

Baloney.

Terrorism isn't the same as conventional crime, no matter how violent.  It's not even the same as organized crime.  It may be criminal, but it's character is entirely different.

Terrorism is a type of guerrilla war.  Just because it's vile doesn't make it any less so. That's what it is.  Crime is a violation of the law.  War is the extension of politics by other means.  While a terrorist act may be criminal, they're done in the furtherance of political goals.  That's why they occur.  Moreover, no matter how loosely organized, they're done in the furtherance of political goals by some sort of organized entity.  The terrorist acts we've seen recently have been organized, at least in terms of influence, by the Islamic State in Syria and the Levant.  They don't need to have a central command to be responsible for them.  Their goal and means are clear, and the people who sign up as soldiers in their cause can enlist at any time, any where, without ISIL ever knowing it.  And they're not irrational or insane when they do so.

Gun control as a means of controlling violence is of highly dubious utility no matter what so many New Yorkers like to imagine. But as a means of controlling terrorism, it's insane.

The proof is more than ample.  Terrorist have never had any problem obtaining arms. The examples are too numerous to dispute.  The first example of modern terrorism is provided by the Irish Republican Army, with Michael Collins being the architect of a modern terrorist war.   The IRA had no trouble at any point in obtaining small arms, nor did its successor the Provisional IRA.  Nor did the Red Brigades or the Bader Meinhoff Gang.  Nor did the Viet Cong.  Nor did the Front de Libération Nationale.  Nor did the Irgun, Nor has ISIL in France.  Nor will ISIL, and ISIL inspired groups, here.  Such laws may, at best, require a terrorist to undergo more effort, but what they mostly do in this context is disarm the population that that terrorists propose to attack.

And why would they.  Unlike conventional criminals, terrorist share with dedicated volunteer soldiers a willingness to die for their cause, no matter what their cause might be. That's a distinction that's quite different from conventional criminals, which to seek to perpetuate their crimes for personal gain.  Terrorist do not, and often don't expect to live to see the victory they hope for.

With that being their mindset, no obstacle to obtaining arms will be effective. So, in contrast, society has to be prepared to suffer without recourse, surrender, or effectively resist.  We're doing the first right now.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that American have the right to keep and bear arms, a right that eastern states in particular like to attack.  It's sometimes snarkily noted that "we don't live on the Frontier anymore, and people don't have to protect themselves against Indian attacks".

Well, perhaps we do.

Average people in Paris found themselves effectively in that situation recently, with no ability to act.  In France, the average citizen can't carry a handgun for protection.  France was ideally set up for an ISIL inspired attack.  Its not that easy in a lot of the United States. And in at least Massachusetts the recent terrorist attack by two individuals had the impact of shutting the city down, something that may have been contributed to by an effectively disarmed population.

Such events are, of course, rare.  Even when they do occur, they actually impact very few people. But they will become more common. This won't be the last domestic terrorist attack that ISIL or ISIL inspired people launch in the United States, or in Europe.  For Americans, those who want to blame everything on the easy availablity of guns should realize that this is a situation that no police force can protect us from, and the military cannot either.  We have to do it ourselves, or be prepared to do it. For European nations that have so effectively disarmed the population, this is even more the case.

Most people, given the option of carrying something, would not.  Indeed, the overwhelming majority of people will not, or even cannot due to occupations that make it impractical.  Even people who might be totally qualified to do so by training, etc., generally will not. But calls to ban things are naive in the extreme.  Mao said that in the guerilla war, the geurilla swam amongst the population like fish.  They do, and even though most of us will never encounter one of the fish, some undoubtedly will in the future.  If even a tiny percentage of the population was capable of defending itself, it would make a difference for everyone.  Not might, it would.  At some point, an armed population is just hard to attack.  That doesn't mean such attacks would stop, but they might be stopped more quickly, or even deterred in some instances.  Day long spectacles like we had in Boston or Paris would likely be rarer.

Or at a bare minimum, government offices, and particularly recruiting stations, ought to have armed men. Why it hasn't become a policy, during a time of terrorist war, to require recruiters to have sidearms in their stations is beyond me.  That's crazy.  Members of the military are now targets everywhere, but they're also amongst the least likely to be armed while in the US.  That policy should end.

Random Snippets: The most dreaded domestic question a lawyer can be asked.

I have matters scheduled out for years, and in a typical day I have things from beginning of the day to the end. And not just the workday, the day.

None the less, like every other lawyer, I get this question at home:  "What's your schedule like today?"

The atomic bomb of interrupting questions.  The day's been planned out time wise like a Swiss watch, and somebody who had something planned is. . . .attempting to pass it on to you at the lat moment.

Uff.

I suppose it was always so.

Is anyone going to read Go Set A Watchman?

I really like the book To Kill A Mockingbird.

I'm not as keen on the film. The movie has achieved iconic status, but frankly it isn't as good as its reputation.  It's not horrible, but frankly it cheapens the book.  All the characters in it, except for Scout, as played by Mary Badham, and Boo Radley, played by Robert Duval, just aren't played that well.  The set, except for the courtroom interiors, aren't done that well either.  Gregory Peck's Atticus Finch practically lacks a human dimension, he's so noble, which isn't the case for Atticus Finch in the novel.  I'd be tempted to say that he's too saintly in the movie, but that's not right either, as an examination of the lives of the saints shows them to be pretty human as well (St. Jerome had a problem with his temper and kept a pet lion, St. Augustine of Hippo had to judge civil matters all day long and then wrote at night, St. Bernadette came from an extremely poor family and struggled with a secret ailment that caused severe pain, St. Peter was married and according to some had a daughter who had a crippling condition, St. Peter and St. Paul had a big falling out and then came back together after reconciling).  Atticus Finch is all noble in a seersucker suit in the movie, but in the book he's a middle class widower who is a lawyer who takes in food items for pay and doesn't always do very well in court.  He's a real lawyer in the book.

And I do like the book.

Which is why I'm not going to read Go Set A Watchman.

Anyone who has been following this story knows that Go Set A Watchman features the same father and daughter that To Kill A Mockingbird does.  Set in the late 1950s, this book, however, we are told, portrays the father differently.  It portrays him as a racist.

Some are arguing that this changes their view of the portrayal of Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird, but they're missing the point entirely.  The real point is that this book, Go Set A Watchman, isn't a sequel (it was written first).  It's a rejected novel using a character with the same name. But that doesn't make it the same character.

Anyone who has ever written knows that an author rejects some of his own work.  Editors reject more, and when they do that, qutie frankly, they're usually right.  In this case, Harper Lee's editors rejected the novel, and sent her back with suggestions to write a new one.  That new one became To Kill A Mockingbird. This book was intended to be published, and in this form it shouldn't have been.

It's not that a later book by Lee, often wished for, or an earlier book by Lee, isn't worth publishing.  But a rejected work that uses the same names, but not the same characters, is damaging to the better work.  Lee, in writing her second, published, novel apparently rethought her topics and it is widely believed that she based the character of Atticus Finch, in that novel, on her father.  There's no suggestion that the Finch character in the second book was intended to do that, and to do so, would suggest she had a very complicated relationship with her father.

Indeed, one of the things known, but not often really appreciated, is that almost all of the characters in To Kill A Mockingbird are very closely based on real people.  Finch was based on her father.  Scout was based on Lee herself.  Scout's young friend was based on Truman Capote (who based a character in one of his books on her).  Boo Radley, according to Capote, was  based on a young man who in fact lived in their neighborhood.  Lee was a very good writer, but a lot of the effectiveness of her writing in To Kill A Mockingbird was based on the fact that she was writing about people who were extremely familiar to her.  I'd question whether that's true of Go Set A Watchman, which in contrast was written about near contemporary events that I suspect Lee hadn't personally observed to the same extent, and in the same way, that her first published work did.

One of the things about great artists is that not everything they produce is great, but because they are great, we wish to relate everything they do to their greatness.  The best artists of any kind, writers, painters, etc., destroy their failed or inferior works.  There's a reason for that.  This novel, Go Set A Watchman, was written first, and it wasn't worth publishing, according to the original publisher.  She used the same names, but basically new characters, in a new setting, for her new, and now classic, novel.  Go Set A Watchman was intended to be, by the publisher, nothing more than a writing exercise never to see publication.  Lee's later greatness doesn't overcome that fact, and this novel should have been left unpublished.