Sunday, July 12, 2020

Turkey was once cited as an exception in the Islamic world in that. . .

it seemed to have a stable, and highly secular, government.

Mosaic in the Hagia Sophia of the Virgin Mary and Jesus.

In spite of the way headlines might cause people to believe otherwise, there are other Islamic nations that can make that claim now. At the same time, however, Islam has posed a challenge to political liberalization in areas in which it is strong.  Not all Middle Eastern nations with a Muslim majority, which is most of them, have Islamic or Islamic influenced governments by any means, indeed, not even a majority of them do, but contending with a faith that has seen no distinction between its religious laws and secular laws is a challenge for all of them.  This has brought about revolution in some, such as Iran, and civil war in others, such as Syria and Iraq.  The problem is never far below the surface.

Turkey was an exception as Ataturk aggressively secularized the nation, which he ran as a dictator, with the support of the Turkish Army.  That army, in turn, served to guard the political culture he created for decades after his death, stepping in to run the government whenever it regarded things as getting too far away from that legacy.  But with the election of Turkish Islamist leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan the country has been moving more and more in the other direction.

And now the Turkish supreme court, in this new era of Islamization, has ruled that Ataturk's 1935 conversion of the Hagia Sophia from a mosque into a museum was illegal.

Codex depicting the Sophia Hagia under construction.

What was overarchingly illegal, of course, was the occupation of the Hagia Sophia by Islam.  It's a Christian church.

The Hagia Sophia was completed as a Catholic cathedral in 537, having first seen construction in 360.  That is what it was until the Great Schism left it in the Eastern part of Christendom and it served as an Orthodox cathedral from 1054 to 1204, when it reverted to being a Catholic cathedral.  It served as an Orthodox cathedral.  In 1439 a murky end to the Schism was negotiated but which failed to really solve it. That a story for elsewhere, but in its final years the cathedral was once again an Eastern Catholic cathedral but one which also saw Latin Rite masses said in it. The last mass at the Cathedral was in 1453 literally during the fall of Constantinople, when the Ottoman Turkish forces broke into the cathedral and killed the Priests celebrating Mass.

The Ottoman Turks admired much of Byzantium and pressed the cathedral into service as a mosque, but keeping its numerous Christian and Byzantine symbols.  It was used as a mosque from 1453 to 1935, which Ataturk converted its use, as noted, into a museum.

This would mean that the church served as a Christian church for 916 years.  It was used as an Islamic mosque for 482 years.  If we take into account its service as a focus of Christian efforts, it was a Christian site for 1093 years.

Ataturk and his wife in 1924.

Like a lot of the things we discuss here, this story is complicated by World War One.  Going into the Great War Turkey was the Ottoman Empire and claimed to be the caliphate.  Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had been an Ottoman officer who came to see the Ottoman government he served in as effete, ineffective and anti modern.  He became the leader in what amounted to a rebellion against the Ottoman government over the issue of peace as that peace proposed to carve away large sections of Anatolia in favor its its ethnic minorities. This soon lead to the Turkish War of Independence which pitted the Turkish forces first against the Allies but, as time went on, principally against the Greeks.

The overplaying of the Allied hand in Turkey caused one of the great tragedies of the immediate post World War One world.  The Allied powers were, by that time, too fatigued to bother with a long protracted war and occupation of Anatolia, which is what defeating the Turks would really have meant. Their presence as victors, however, gave real hope to ethnic minorities inside of Turkey, with those minorities uniformly being Christian.  Moreover, they gave hope to the Greek government of amazingly recovering a portion of Anatolia that Greeks had not governed since 1453.  Not only did the Greeks seek to do so, but they sought to expand their proposed territory in Anatolia far beyond those few areas that had sizable Greek populations and into areas where those populations were quite limited. Giving hope to those aspirations, moreover, caused the struggle for that goal to rapidly become genocidal on both sides.

The European Allies lost interest pretty quickly in shedding blood for Greek territorial aspirations and in October 1922 the war came to an end in a treaty which saw 1,000,000 ethnic Greeks depart Anatolia as refugees, bringing nearly to an end a presence there that stretched back into antiquity, and which at one time had defined Greek culture more than Greece itself.  Some Greeks remained, but it was a tiny minority.  It was a tiny minority, however that continued to be identified by its Christianity, with both Orthodox and Catholic Greeks remaining.

Ataturk and one of his twelve adopted children.

Ataturk's victory of the Allies did not prove to be a victory for Islam.  Taking an approach to governance that might be best compared to that of Napoleon Bonaparte, he was a modernizing and liberalizing force who sought to accomplish those goals effectively by force.  As part of that, he saw the influence of Islam as a retrograde force that needed to be dealt with.

Indeed, Ataturk's relationship with Islam has remained a source of debate and mystery, like much of his personal life in general.  He was born into an Islamic family and had received religious instruction, but its clear that he held a highly nuanced view of the faith.  He was not personally observant in at least some respects and was a life long heavy drinker, a fact which lead to his early death.  He spoke favorably of the role of religion in society but it was clear that role was not to extend to influencing government.  Comments he made about Islam suggest that he thought a reformed Islam needed to come about or even that he personally did not believe in its tenants.  He was quoted to a foreign correspondent to the effect that Turkish muslims didn't grasp what Islam really was because the Koran was in Arabic, and once they really were able to read it in Turkish, they'd reject it.

As part of all of this his approach to governance, therefore, was Napoleonic, being a liberalizer and modernizer by force.  Like Napoleon, his day ended short, although his rule was far more successful than Napoleon's and his Turkey became modern Turkey up until Turkey's current leadership, which seems intent to go backwards in time.

One of the things that Ataturk managed to do was to reach a treaty with Greece in 1930 in which Greece renounced its claims on  Turkish territory.  As Ataturk continued to advance modernization in the 1930s, the Hagia Sophia's occupation as a mosque came to an end in 1935.  It became a museum dedicated to the history of Anatolia and a spectacular example of Anatolia's history and culture.

Now that's coming to an end, along with what seems to be Turkey's long period of regional exceptionalism.

Hagia Sophia translates as Holy Wisdom. This move by the Turkish government is neither holy, nor wise.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Demetrius Ukrainian (Greek) Catholic Church. Fairfield, North Dakota

Churches of the West: St. Demetrius Ukrainian (Greek) Catholic Church. ...:

Monday, August 14, 2017


St. Demetrius Ukrainian (Greek) Catholic Church. Fairfield, North Dakota


This is St. Demetrius Ukrainian Catholic Church which is outside of Fairfield, North Dakota.  The church is over a century old and gives testament to the enduring Ukrainian presence in the prairie states and provinces of the West.


This is one of several Ukrainian Catholic churches in western North Dakota and its the first Ukrainian Catholic Church to be featured here (a prior entry on the topic of the Ukrainian Catholic Church referenced a biritual priest then in Lander Wyoming.  People with a casual familairity with the Catholic Church tend to believe that all Catholic Churches are "Roman" Catholic, but this is far from true.


Just as Catholic as "Roman" (Latin Rite) Catholic Churches, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, to give it its full name, is one of a collection of Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.  The Catholic Church features three major groupings of Rites based on this initial early transmission of the faith. These are the Latin, Antiochian, Alexandrian and Byzantine, with the Byzantine having derived from the Antiochean.  All still survive in spite of the rift created by the Great Schism which caused separate churches that are not in communion with Rome, typically called "Orthodox" churches, to also come into existence which also descend from all but the Latin Rite.  From these four groups come something on the order of twenty three Rites, of which the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is one.



The history of this particular Rite is not well known to me and it is difficult to fully know it without an in depth study.  This is part made confusing because it is one of the two major churches of the Ukraine, both of which use the Eastern Rite liturgical form, but only one of which is in communion with Rome.  The other major Ukrainian Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, is an Eastern Orthodox Church (usually called "the Greek Church" by native Ukrainians) which is regarded as a self governing church by the Russian Orthodox Church, but only by the Russian Orthodox Church.


The Ukrainian Catholic Church has an ancient history dating back to the Christianization of the Ukraine itself.  Because of the Ukraine's close association with Russia there has always been some tension between its status and that of the Russian Orthodox Church and this was greatly increased during the life of the Soviet Union as the USSR suppressed and drove underground the Ukrainian Catholic Church while favoring the Russian Orthodox Church.  Today the Ukrainian Catholic Church is claimed to have the allegiance of a minority but growing percentage of the population of the Ukraine, at the expense of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, but frankly telling what is what in regards to this history is difficult.


This church predates the establishment of the USSR, of course, and reflects a strong late 19th Century and early 20th Century Ukrainian migration to the prairie regions of North America.  Coming from a wheat growing region and stemming from a population of independent small farmers, Ukrainians were reestablishing that pattern of life on the North American prairie.  It's perhaps telling that so many Ukrainian Catholic Churches are present in this region, rather than Russian Orthodox, and that either says something about the populations that migrated or the allegiance of Ukrainians at that time.


The Ukrainians have proved to be enduring as a culture in North American in these regions, which these churches show.  In terms of their organizational structure, while fully Catholic (any Catholic is free to worship at any Catholic church, irrespective of Rite) they are subject to their own jurisdiction. Therefore, they are not part of the Diocese of Bismarck, but rather the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Saint Nicholas of Chicago, which covers over half of the United States and all of the western United States.


Indeed, in recent years the Ukrainian nature of this Eastern Rite church, together with the Slavic and Eastern nature of the second major Eastern Rite Catholic Church in the United States, the Byzantine Catholic Church (sometimes called the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church) have increased.  In the late 19th Century the Church in the United States had a Latinization policy in an attempt to unite all Catholics in North America more fully under the belief that this would help incorporate Catholics into society more ably, but this has been reversed.  At the present time the Catholic Church has sought to preserve the Eastern Rites wherever possible and this has lead to a de-Latinization process and a revival of practices that never diminished in Europe.




Thursday, July 9, 2020

And now Brooks Brothers. . .

which has been in business since 1818, has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Well dressed New York lawyer, 1914.  Brooks Brothers suit?

The clothier is an iconic men's fashion institution, although it also makes clothing for women.  A privately owned company the entire time, in more formal eras it virtually set the pattern for really fine men's business wear.  Abraham Lincoln had suits made there, as did John F. Kennedy.  Theodore Roosevelt's size was on record there such that when the Spanish American War was declared, he ordered uniforms from the company.

I've had three Brooks Brothers suits myself, all of which were excellent suits.  By some odd law of nature, as soon as I acquire a really good suit, I gain weight, so I can't wear any of them anymore.  There's be no point in me keeping my size on record.

The company couldn't weather the storm of COVID 19 and the decline in American standards of dress.  It's going to close 200 outlets and hope to reorganize.

Another clothing institution having trouble is Levi Strauss, which saw a 62% decline in sales this past quarter.


Both Levis and Brooks Brothers have had to weather the changes in fashion over the past half century, but Brooks Brothers actually seemed to be handling it better, never forgetting that its flagship line were men's suits.  Levis, in contrast, only weakly defended its legendary brand, Levis blue jeans, which are now made overseas as a rule.  The company has seemed to lose its way in general.

Levis "Dockers", which the company introduced when business casual became a think.  I do like this product line.

Levis advertising, a symbol of the company, really hit rock bottom during the last couple of decades when it tried to really appeal to hipsters.  Perhaps its worst advertisement was a young, grungy, looking woman wearing Levis 501s and a wool cap just spouting nonsense.

Not from Sur La Table.

Also taking bankruptcy is a company called Sur La Table, a company that sells high end kitchen goods.  You'd almost think that in this stay at home era, it'd be doing good  Apparently not.

Also not from Sur La Table.

It's interesting how this company, which in some ways must have ridden the foodie boom of the last fifteen or so years, would be in trouble now.  Turns out, probably, that you cook with some pretty old fashioned generic stuff.


Not taking bankruptcy, but warning employees of possible furloughs, is United Airlines, who this past week gave that notice to 36,000 of its employees, 1/3d of its total work force.  Air travel, as everyone knows, has dropped way off due to COVID 19.


United is a major local carrier here and they've reduced their flights considerably.  I understand that, but its unfortunate as I really liked their Denver red eye, which is one of the cancelled flights.

July 9, 1920

Jackson Lake Dam and spillway on the Snake River near Moran, Wyoming.  July 9, 1920

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

How much did a good cowboy hat cost?

The inside of my 30 year old working cowboy hat.

I know that Stetson's were "expensive", but hat does that actually mean?

I'm speaking, of course, of the early days. The late days after Stetson made the Boss of the Plains up until, let's say, 1940.

Apache couple, man is wearing a Boss of the Plains Stetson.  The Boss of the Plains was introduced by John B. Stetson in 1865 and was inspired by a hunting trip out West.  Contrary to widespread claims to the contrary, which photographs make extremely evident, it was not the first "cowboy hat" as broad brimmed hats been worn for centuries and various hats of the type we now consider cowboy hats had been around for a long time.  It was an innovation, however, as it was a really high quality broad brimmed hat of a simple style.  The design was hugely popular although it had competition right from the onset and it wasn't long before competing styles of cowboy hats were being made by every hatter, including Stetson.  This photograph was taken in January 1898, showing how long the style endured.  Indeed, it can still be purchased today.

And I mean working hats.

It's a harder to determine thing than a person might suspect for quite a variety of reasons.  Indeed, it's really easy to be mislead.

In about 1915, we can tell that un-described Stetson hats, i.e,. they were likely dress hats, not cowboy hats, started at about $3.50 and ranged up to about $6.00 in advertisements in Wyoming newspapers.  In today's prices, that's actually a price between $88.00 and $152.00.  Starting in about 1920, however, Stetson's, also un-described, ranged from around $10.00 to $20.00.  In today's money, that comes out to about $128.00 to $256.00.  That's roughly equivalent to a lower to mid range Stetson today.

Having said that, a Stetson catalog that depicts cowboy hats, republished on the Fedora Lounge website, and with some input from knowledgeable folks, lists prices in 1922 as starting as ranging between $35.00 and $45.00, per dozen, for the grade of hats that cowboy hats were, which was interestingly of a higher quality fur felt than many dress hats. That ranged, accordingly, from $534.00 to $686.00, per dozen.

That's wholesale on those later prices.  It works out to about $44.50 to $57.00 a piece, wholesale.  I don't know what retail markup was.

And for a working hat.

Of course, today's Stetson's, according to hat aficionado's, isn't the hat of 1920, or even the hat of 1990.  It isn't as of high of quality.  And at least based on my casual observations of the hats I had made in the 1980s, that's true.

That does make me feel better about spending money on a high quality hat. And they do last for years and year.

But it's also the case that prices have really, really climbed, as quality overall has apparently declined, as hat wearing itself declined.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Related threads:

Caps, Hats, Fashion and Perceptions of Decency and being Dressed.

Santaella Coffee Processing Site, Highway 139, Kilometer 10.6, Maraguez, Ponce Municipio, PR


Something from Forbes magazine to remember every time Apple updates the Iphone

Apple, a company I dipise, but whose product the Iphone I'm compelled by fate to use, recently updated the Iphone.

Of course they did. The (expletive delted here) at Apple who work in the phone department are constantly updating it when it doesn't need to be. So it has a new camera? Big freakin' deal.  It's a phone, not a Hazleblad.

Steve Jobs Was A Jerk, You Shouldn't Be





Steve Jobs was a major, world-class jerk. A friend who knows about these things -- but not Steve -- wonders if he wasn't at least a borderline sociopath.
If you define that as someone who does evil things and doesn't feel remorse, the picture of a smirking Steve Jobs does begin to emerge.
Jobs was busy changing the world and minor annoyances like people's feelings didn't fit into his plan. If you had something he wanted, Steve could be charming. But Steve did things his way, almost for himself, building the things he wanted and if we loved them, that was good too. If not, it took a long time for Steve to accept that customers were right and he was wrong.
Sociopath or mere megalomaniac, Steve Jobs was a one-off, a hugely successful genius who changed the world to be how he thought it should be. That is something only Steve could get away with and we are better off for it.
People rallied around his genius and accepted his demands and abuse because Jobs really was smarter than everyone else in the room and 99.98 percent of the planet. Steve delivered on his vision and if basking in his reflected glow required joining a company with a bizarre culture that reflected Steve's personality, people still flocked to him.
Apple's reputation as a "mean"  and obsessively secretive company is a reflection of Jobs, not the people who work there. Lots of nice people work at Apple, but that doesn't mean they could persuade Steve to bring back the corporate philanthropy program that he killed

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Hooray! Bidding for the checkerboard.


Governor and Top Elected Officials Unanimously Support Bid to Invest in Wyoming Land 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon and the members of the State Loan and Investment Board (SLIB) have unanimously supported the submission of a bid to purchase Wyoming land with a goal of returning additional revenue to the state.

The non-binding bid is only another step towards the purchase, and is not final. The bid will now be submitted to Occidental Petroleum for the purchase of land and minerals, and may include the entirety of the land offered or a portion. The Board’s vote requires additional public meetings prior to final approval of any purchase, the highest possible return, and a report detailing non-confidential aspects of the transaction. The non-binding bid authorized by the SLIB is confidential at this time to protect the integrity of the bid process and to allow the board to submit a bid.

“This is a unique and substantial opportunity to invest in Wyoming-based revenue-generating assets,” Governor Gordon said. “We owed it to the people of Wyoming to properly evaluate its potential, listen to their concerns and weigh carefully whether this investment would benefit Wyoming’s portfolio. That is our fiduciary responsibility to our state– to make sure we get the highest rate of return for the citizens of Wyoming,”

The Governor and the four other members of the SLIB (Secretary of State Ed Buchanan, Treasurer Curt Meier, Auditor Kristi Racines and Superintendent of Public Instruction Jillian Balow) took public comment during a special meeting and received input from financial experts, including Chief Investment Officer Patrick Fleming and the State’s investment consultant. They emphasized that final approval would only come if there was agreement that the state was likely to see increased investment returns from the purchase.

“As the Governor mentioned, our job is to maximize the return on our investments,” Treasurer Curt Meier said. “If we can negotiate a purchase price in line with the recommendations of the Investment Funds Committee and avoid an over-concentration of illiquidity, this opportunity could be a great addition to the State's portfolio and benefit our citizens for decades.”

The Governor and SLIB’s intention at this time is to use funds already invested through Wyoming’s Permanent Funds for the purchase, if the bid is accepted. Those funds are constitutionally tied up and the core of the funds is available for prudent investments only, as guided by state statute, and is not available to help offset the current budget shortfalls or to directly pay for the costs of running the State Government.

The state’s bid submission is due to Occidental Petroleum on July 8.

--END--

How many trousers?

This is an odd question, but I wonder if we look at the average middle class person of a century ago, or even a half century ago, how many pairs of pants they owned.

Tailor measuring trousers, San Angelo Texas, late 30s or early 40s (note the short brimmed cowboy hat).  This only occurs in the modern US when a man buys a fairly decent suit.  My guess is that most American men today have never had this experience, and my guess is that most American men after 1920 and before 1950 did.

Truly.

What brings this about is a recent trip (now not all that recent, given that this was a draft post that was stacked up in the queue) with my son and daughter to purchase jeans for my son. We bought four pairs.

Four pairs of cotton trousers.  I.e., "jeans".

Levi Strauss advertisement circa 1904.  I don't know what "spring bottom" pants were but Levis were uncommon at the time and not, as we might imagine, the largest blue jean manufacturer.  It's interesting to note that they could be had in gray at the time.

I wonder if it were 1919 how many pairs of trousers a person would have?

Four pairs isn't a lot, and its into even a lot to buy at one time.  My son gets by with an economy of trousers so for him, my guess is that right now he doesn't have many more than that.  I've often thought, as my working years are getting ready to slip into a fourth decade, that if I was retired or occupied another line of work that was less subject to the evaporating American dress code, that I'd get buy with many fewer.  I don't need a lot of Levis or Lees, and if I had my ruthers, almost everyday, that's what I'd wear.

I'd probably still have some additional trousers, mind you, as I have some GI cargo pants that I wear hunting, heavy Carhartt overalls for some and winter use.  And a man really ought to have some formal clothing so you need a suit.  But I could get by with less.

Teenage office worker, 1917.  I'll bet that kid didn't have more than a couple of pairs of trousers and they were all wool.  As he was working indoors, and writing, he was probably well on his way to some sort of long lasting white collar job that would require a college education today.

Indeed, while I don't know how many pairs of blue jeans I have, I have several. And do to work requirements I have several pairs of colored jeans as well, as I can get away with black jeans here for some legal work (which isn't the case for lawyers everywhere in the country).  And I have some khakis, which are also lawyer legal wear, and I need some more as I've retired several sets recently. And of course when fully suited up for battle I wear a suit, although I've noticed that this practice is declining for a lot of settings even in the formal legal world, to my surprise.

Anyhow, that means I have more trousers than I had if my main occupation was punching cattle, to be sure.

And in the case of the female denizens and satellites of the domicile, that's very much true.  Women have a lot of pants.

 The trousers part of this 1914 photograph eludes me, as they don't look like trousers, but women's fashions have always been mysterious.  For some reason, I suspect that if this same fashion was introduced today, it'd sell.

I've noted that from time to time to my wife, who always counters with "you have a lot of shoes". I do. But that is partially for the same reason.  If I could wear just what I want to everyday, I'd still have a selection, but I'd omit having more than one pair of dress shoes.  I have four, or five if I count my old Army low quarters which I still wear on odd occasion.

Anyhow, it'd be easy to imagine that this has always been the way the world worked, or the modern world, by which, here, we more or less mean the post 1890 world. But I don't think so.

Man working in the Aero factory during World War Two cutting sheepskin panels for flight jackets.  Note, he's wearing a tie and his clothing isn't otherwise what we'd regard as "work" clothing.

I don't know that with certainty, but my guess is that men had a two or three pairs of trousers at the most, save for the wealthy and upper middle class.  By the 1910s, men who worked indoors were wearing suits, but based upon contemporary photographs, their weekend trousers were the same as their weekday trousers.  Maybe the older pairs of earlier pants that they'd worn to work in some instances.  Indeed, even when my father was a young man in the 1940s and 50s I know that suits typically came with two pairs of trousers, which isn't the case anymore.

Worker demonstrating zipper placement on an Army extreme cold weather high altitude flight coat.  These parkas were of very limited issue and are really only found in photographs of men serving in otherwise already cold climates, such as Alaska.  This worker, who appears in other photographs of this series, is just that. An industrial tailor who is wearing what today would be quite formal clothing.

All this is speculation, of course.  I don't know for a fact how many pairs of trousers men owned in a century ago (the average woman, of course, owned none at all, which raises questions about how many dresses, etc., they owned).  And we should keep in mind that for certain types of things, including certain types of outdoor work or outdoor activities, clothing was unique, which is part of the reason those activities had a certain glamour to them in some circumstances.  After all, when they sang:

I see by your outfit
You are a cowboy

They cold see just that.  They could also see if you were a logger, a hunter, or a dedicated outdoorsman, in varying degrees.

But for most men pants meant wool pants, and I suspect that the trousers they wore on the weekends weren't much different if different at all than those they wore during the week.

And, ironically, I also guess that the average number of trousers of all types, including juvenile knee pants, i.e., the infantile shorts American men now affect, owned by the average American today vastly outnumbers the number owned on average in that more formal era.

The Week. Old Injuries and Old Addictions (Coffee, that is)

(Note, this thread was a draft that was on hold since some date in 2019. . . was doing some checking on old drafts and realized I hadn't posted it).

The past week, well two weeks, haven't been the greatest on Earth for me.

Not the worst either.  And all of these problems are in the nature of "First World" problems.  I.e,. they aren't real problems at all.

For Lent I gave up any alcohol, save in social settings.  This is not a particularly big deal save for the fact that as a lawyer, I am actually fairly frequently in social settings where having a beer is the  norm (or alternatively a cocktail, but I'm not a cocktail guy really, so I'll usually have a beer).  What giving up alcohol reminds you of is how often that's the case.

Other than that, it was no big deal.  I just didn't buy any beer, and still haven't, to bring home over Lent.  We have a lot of whiskey here right now which came in as gifts, but as I rarely drink it, that doesn't present a challenge to my Lenten resolutions.  I like beer on the other hand, but not so much that I need to be like people who give up smoking for Lent and then resume at 12:01 on Holy Saturday.  As more and more the evidence is, or might be, or could be, that any alcohol isn't really good for you, pretty advanced moderation is probably generally a good idea.

Coffee's another matter, apparently.

I just ran out of coffee sometime prior to Holy Saturday and I'm not going to make a special trip to the grocery store to buy it.  So I didn't.  I worked on Good Friday, the first day I'd run out, and thought I was doing fine but in reality I was really sleepy in a weird sort of way all day.

Anyhow, having gone a day without it, I just thought I'd keep on keeping on.  One less thing to buy at the grocery store.  Saturday I was less weirdly sleepy.  But still sleepy.  Oddly, I found that coffee is such a part of my morning routine that what was mostly missed is just drinking coffee.  Odd.  Anyhow, as I've been getting very  little sleep of late, this seemed like a good thing to omit.

And so into Sunday morning, by which time I'd actually bought a bag of Boyers as I had to go to the grocery store anyhow and my son tagged along with me, and he's picked up the coffee affliction.  So I had one cup.

Made quite a difference.

Monday I had an early morning trip to Gillette.  So I made a pot and drank it before I went.

I'm drinking coffee now.

Back into the coffee habit, I guess.

In my case, I don't know that this is good.  I do think that my work day is tense enough that I don't need a morning stresser.  I'll have to ponder this.

Adding to the stress is that on Saturday I re-injured my back.

I broke a couple of vertebrae when I was 13 in a skiing accident.  I broke both bones in my lower right leg in the same accident and the cracked vertebrae weren't detected at the time.  That injury was detected upon the occasion of my breaking a couple of ribs and collapsing a lung in my late 30s or early 40s.  An extra showed that the vertebrae had naturally fused as a result of the accident.

I've had as an adult the affliction, from time to time, of "aching back", but it wasn't up until then that I knew what actually caused it. As they are fused, it's nothing to be concerned about, as I've gotten along all these years just fine.  It rarely bugs me that much.

But on Saturday I sat in a camp chair that put all sorts of weird stresses on my back and by mid afternoon I was an absolute mess. By nighttime I was in agony.  I couldn't sleep hardly at all.  The next day I resorted to Tylenol which I rarely do.  Entire years go by where I don't take a painkiller.  But I had to take them for a couple of days.

I'm fine now, but that was the pits.

The Long Range Desert Group in North Africa. These guys needed to hydrate.

On odd stressers, yesterday I was in a deposition with a younger lawyer who believes in "hydrating".  I think hydrating, unless you are in an atholetic endeavor, is one of those modern items of baloney advaice that experts afflict people with in dietary fashions.  If you are thirsty, drink something.  Otherwise, being in the basement of a bank all day taking depositions doesn't require you to drink a half gallon of water.

What that will do, however, is make sure that you to go to the old latrine. . . a lot. We must have taken a zillion near emergency bathroom breaks. That's just embarrasing.

I speant most of my early youth outdoors as much as possible and still do if I can find time.  Before I went to basic training, I never carried water in the field.  Indeed, I only really started to after I had kids.  That's not really the smartest thing to do, but I do know that I can go all day without water, as I've done it a zillion times, in fairly active situations.  I'm not saying that's smart, and I now carry a canteen.  Even at that, however, I still come home usually with most of the water I took with me.

I hate those plastic water botters that show up everywhere now.  It's a weird modernism.  Bottling water in plastic is the antithesis of good planning in accordance with a concern for hte environment and its just goofy.  Anyhow, when a deposition starts at 9:00 the first concern I don't have, ever, is if there's anything to drink.  I don't ask for coffee myself in such situation and I certainly don't expect a basket or bucket of water.  I wouldn't drink half a gallon of it either.  We're not crossing the Sinai for goodness sakes.

Vintage Coffee Grinder

Doggone this thing is cool.

Vintage coffee grinder.

Was this a common design?

The Reassessors: St. Moses the Black

St. Moses the Black was an Ethiopian gang leader in the second half of the 4th Century. While fleeing the authorities he took refuge in a Christian monastery.  Impressed with monks, he converted to Christianity and became a monk himself, living in an Egyptian monastery.

He is reputed to have died at the hands of Berber robbers at age 75, remaining behind in non violent defense of the monastery, and noting that his probable death was a suitable one, having once lived by the sword himself.