New Mexican ranchers making ice cream, 1940s. I wonder if this is cigarette flavor, given the smoking?
Quite frankly, I'm sick of corporate virtue signalling.
By the time any corporation expresses an opinion on something, most of the time, that's because the topic has jumped the shark and they want to pretend they were with you all the time. For the most part, the same corporations that are all in favor of some progressive issue today, would be all in favor of some retrograde issue if that was current. In other words, when some big corporation expresses its solidarity with some group today, you can generally figure they'd be in favor of oppressing the same group if that was the current trend.
Indeed, history amply proves that. Look through any 1940s vintage magazine and you'll see that every company going was hard backing the war effort. That was popular and good business. You'd be hard pressed to find most manufacturer's today, save for Jeep which has a close association with a military product, noting that.
There are some exceptions, and Vermont's Ben and Jerry's, the ice cream maker, is one. They're consistently left wing and have been all along. It's probably largely safe for them however, and it doesn't take away the logical question of why on earth would anyone care what an ice cream peddler thinks about social issues unless its directly tied to milk products in some strongly demonstrative fashion.
Well, that hasn't kept B&J from spouting off, just like other businesses do as well, which lead to an interesting recent B&J exchange with the British administration.
The UK, of course, has a parliamentary system of government to any one administration reflects its parliament. And British Parliamentarians are notoriously witty and blunt in verbal exchanges. Anyone who has never heard The Prime Ministers Question Time has really missed a real treat. They make Congress look really pathetic in terms or oration, to say the lease.
Twitter isn't oration, but a feature of British Parliamentary oration is the witty snappy, and often condescending and rude, retort.
Recently the British government imposed a travel ban on illegal entrants into the country on the basis of the pandemic. It is an odd thought as illegal entrants have no right to be in a country anyway you look at it. So it may have been a bit of a pretext. At any rate, they did it.
This prompted a tweet from Ben and Jerry's, which stated:
Hey @PritiPatel we think the real crisis is our lack of humanity for people fleeing war, climate change and torture.
The frozen sugary milk product vender added to that with an additional series of tweets and concluded, in regard to the use of the term, which is frankly an honest and correct term, "illegal aliens" with
PEOPLE CANNOT BE ILLEGAL
That last item is frankly namby pamby bullshit. People can't be illegal, but they can certainly commit illegal acts and there's nothing wrong with noting that. That doesn't mean that illegal aliens anywhere don't deserve sympathy, but the entire "undocumented worker" or "undocumented migrant" term favored these days by the press is camouflage for the fact that the demographic in question, wherever it is, violated a sovereign nation's immigration laws to enter a country, illegally. It also camouflages the fact that fact that most illegal aliens are economic migrants, and are pursuing a higher wage and standard of living. You can't really blame them for that, but that's quite a bit different from suggesting that right behind each one is a member of the Syrian secret police.
Because B&J was dealing with the British government, and not the American one, they were hit with a snappy retort. noting that it was "working day and night to bring an end to these small boat crossing and then noting that it was not concerned with
upsetting the social media team for a brand of overpriced junk food.
Ouch.
Following this, a Conservative Parliamentarian added:
Can I have a large scoop of statistically inaccurate virtue signalling with my grossly overpriced ice cream please.
Ouch again.
But a good point.
All Ben & Jerry's is, is an ice cream maker. Their opinions on social matters are completely irrelevant as an entity.
And it's worth noting that in terms of left wing virtue signalling, an ice cream maker doesn't have a lot of room to maneuver when traveling with the hard left, which trucks with those opposed to just about everything, including the keeping of cows, from which milk comes, and keeping the besotted public from eating sugary foods.
Which brings up this odd point. When we read about the history of something, we usually appreciate the sense of sight much more than anything else, as we have a "mind's eye". We don't have a "mind's smell", and while extraordinary smells are noted in fiction and history, its only when they're extraordinary. We are much more likely to have something described to us as to what it looked like than anything else, as that's principally how we perceive the world. We might get in what people heard as well in a description, particularly if its speech, but only rarely do we read as to what something smelled like. You can read, for instance, volumes and volumes of Westerns that contain a line about what horses in a corral look like, but as anyone who has been around such scenes in real life knows, there's a distinct smell that goes with that.
And indeed the entire world was full of smells a century ago that most of us don't even imagine today. I'd argue that the average person encountered many more smells on a daily basis, no matter where they lived or what they did, than they do now. Today, I'll get up, shave at some point, and go to work. In the course of doing that, I'm going to smell the coffee I make, smell the shaving cream I use, and maybe smell a little bit of fuel my motor vehicle burns on the way to work. I probably won't encounter any distinct smells until somebody makes lunch at work, if somebody does, and then again until I come home and smell dinner cooking, or maybe the grill on. Pretty minimal.
But if I lived a century ago, there'd be a lot more. The stoves used for cooking gave off wood, and now I know coal, smells. Coffee still smelled. Lunch time meals had more smells. Horses in the street had their own smells, to which was added the smell of horse urine and horse flop. In big cities, in tenement districts, people kept chickens and livestock, which definitely have a smell. Washing was more difficult so clothing was more likely to have a smell. Men didn't use deodorant at the time and therefore for men in the workplace, and that was mostly men, they had a smell. Women of course would as well, but chances are that women were more likely to use perfume to cover their smells, which was its principal original purpose, and that stuff has a (horrible, in my opinion) smell. Men smoked in large numbers and women were just starting too, and that certainly has a smell.
I won't argue that we now have a poverty of smells. But the world, mid 20th Century, certainly had a lot more smells.
And among those smells were smoke. And some of that smoke was from coal fired stoves.
I'm going to expand on that a little bit. I.e., what did the world smell like to an average person, on an average day?
Well, it wouldn't be too much to say that it smelled a lot.
That may sound like an odd question, but it would have been significantly different than it is now.
On an average day now, I get up and make coffee. Indeed, the days which I don't have coffee in an average year vary from less than five to zero. I drink coffee. but only at home. I.e,. I don't drink it at the office.
Coffee has a distinct, and pleasant, smell.
Most days if I eat breakfast, which I don't always, it's just cereal. Cereal doesn't have much of a smell if any at all. Sooner or later I shave, and that means I use a scented shaving products as its all scented. I get dressed and go to work. As I can't stand the perfume that goes into laundry soap, my clothes don't smell like that.
I generally drive to work, although sometimes I ride my bike. If I bike, I encounter other smells than I might if I drive, although recently the top has been off my Jeep so I am catching scents coming and going, including the scents of the two flattened skunks that are down the highway. When I drive the Jeep, I also catch a lot of vehicle odors, which people inside other vehicles don't. I.e., I smell their exhaust, sometimes their burning brakes, burning oil, and the cigarettes that smokers open their windows to vent.
At work there are really no noticeable smells except the coffee made early in the day and then whatever people heat up in the microwave for lunch. Microwaved meals have a smell, of course. I once had a paralegal that intentionally burned oatmeal for breakfast every day which raised two questions; 1) why would a person like burnt oatmeal and 2) why didn't she eat on her own time? Another paralegal I had was on a weird diet that entailed heating boiled eggs in vinegar which, I assure you, stinks.
Sometimes I catch some distinct smells in the elevator during the day. Years ago I had a paralegal who wore copious amounts of perfume, which I can't stand, and you could definitely smell that. An old lawyer on another floor smoked cigarettes constantly, including the elevator, and you could smell that. When I first practiced law we allowed some people to smoke in their offices, where as now people have to go outside of the building to smoke, and of course that smell. One lawyer who worked for us years ago smoked cigars if he was close to trial for, I guess, stress relief, and cigars have a distinct odor.
When I leave the building at noon I catch the smell of the Mexican kitchen the restaurant across the street and the Chinese kitchen in the restaurant around the block. On the way home at the end of the day I can catch the smells of barbeques that have been heated up for summertime evening meals.
All pretty routine.
What if it was when we started this blog off, around 1910? Or what about later, around 1920?
If it were 1910, or 20, and in the summer, or for that matter the winter, the first thing that would happen would be a stove would be stoked. No stove, no coffee. I've imagined most stoves were wood fired, but I've found out in the last few days, I'm wrong. They were coal fired. Indeed, I now have to go back and correct something I wrote in my slow moving novel.
So, the first thing I do on any day would be to fire a stove with coal in order to make coffee. That would take some time.
And then I'd make coffee. And making that sort of coffee involves boiling coffee.
Portable gas camp stove. The coffee pot on the left is being used to boil coffee the old fashioned way. Ground coffee dumped in the pot and boiled.
This process would have taken some time. Fortunately for me, I'm a really early riser, so that would not have been a problem. This would have left the stove warm enough for anyone who wanted a cooked breakfast, which I doubt would have been me. Cereal was already around at the time and I could see myself having been an early adopter of it. If I did cook something, it would probably be oatmeal, which my mother called porridge (it took me a long time to realize that they are normally the same thing in most households), when she referred to it from her youth. She didn't like it.
World War One vintage advertisement boosting cereals for breakfast.
I have the sense that her mother, or prior to the Great Depression really setting in, her parents domestic help (they lost all of their money in this time period) made porridge for the family and in large quantities. This is what you ate for breakfast and that was your option. . . period. This would have been real oatmeal, not quick oats.
Quick oats were introduced in 1922, so they were around when my mother was a kid, but that's not what they had. They had real oatmeal. I like real oatmeal, but I have the sense that my grandmother was a poor cook and my mother certain was. I think my grandmother likely just boiled up a big batch of oatmeal and you ate it before you headed off to school in the morning, no matter when that was.
My father, on the other hand, never spoke of what they ate for breakfast, so I have no idea. I wish I would have asked him. He always drank a cup, just one, of coffee and it was always instant coffee. He always had cereal for breakfast. These were probably habits acquired early in life, and maybe that says something about what they ate in his parents homes.
My mother, when I was young, often tried to make breakfast which probably also reflects, to at least some degree, what the habit had been at home. I've mentioned the oatmeal but she also made pancakes. They were generally awful. Scrambled eggs was a favorite of hers as well, and she was fairly good at that and favored it herself her entire life. She never ate oatmeal.
Anyhow, after breakfast most people walked to work. Not too many drove a century ago, although if we take the later part of my time frame, that was changing.
Walking, like riding a bike, puts you out in the air where you smell a lot of smells. In the 10s and the 20s, prior to air-conditioning resulting in houses being all sealed up, that would have meant the cooking and stove smells of the houses you passed. Indeed, the entire town would have smelled, to some degree, like coal smoke.
This town would have also smelled like an oil refinery, and when I was a kid in the 60s and 70s, it did. When I was a kid the town had three oil refineries. Now it has one. Two out of those three, however, were downwind from the town, and the only remaining one is. We never smell it.
Midwest Refinery, which became the Standard Oil Refinery, in Casper Wyoming shortly before its massive World War One expansion.
At the time, people would state that the smell was "the smell of money". The upwind refinery was the largest of the three, but even then it wasn't anywhere near as large as it had once been.
I note this not as a criticism of anything, but rather to note something that would have have been common in all sorts of places. Indeed, in the 1910s and 1920s the town would have had three refineries and a stockyard which my family later owned. Most of those were all downwind of the town but they were there and they would contribute to the atmosphere, so to speak, as well as to employment.
For that matter, Cheyenne has a refinery and did at the time. It also had stockyards and a huge population of military horses. Laramie also had stockyards and, yes, at that time a refinery.
Cooking smells, industrial smells and heating smells permeated every town and city everywhere. And in the 1910 to 1920 period, the smell of animal waste was still a factor in daily life as a lot of things were still horse propelled. Automobiles, and automobile smells, were just coming in, but cars and trucks hadn't replaced horses yet.
Union Pacific "Big Boy" locomotive. These massive engines burned coal throughout their service life, never converting to oil like most steam engines.
And the major means of long distance transportation, locomotives, also had smells as at the time trains were all steam engines. Oil fired steam engines had come in for the most part, although coal fired ones still existed, but they were smellier anyway you look at it than diesels, which replaced the steam engines in the 1940s and 50s, were.
If you walk downtown for work you would likely stay there for lunch, and that added, no doubt, to the downtown cooking smells. We still have that, of course, but the town at that time had a lot of bars and restaurants and this helps explain why. There was more need. Office workers didn't have refrigerators in their offices and people who packed a lunch, and no doubt a lot of people did, ate fairly simple lunches. But lots of people simply went out at noon for something to eat, with in most places some of them sitting down in a cafe, which most bars doubled as, and in others people grabbing something from a street vender, which were common at the time. All of that, of course, added to urban smells.
And then late in the day, the walk home.
Exceedingly strange cigar advertisement, circa 1900.
Throughout it all was the smell of cigarettes and cigars, which were a huge item at the time in a way that we've now forgotten, even though that era has only recently passed. Prior to World War One cigars were the dominant tobacco product, but the Great War brought cigarettes in. Smoking, moreover, had been a male thing but now women were taking it up.
And then we have the people.
The people?
Yes. And that brings us to. . . plumbing.
We're so use to water being plumbed into the house that we nearly take it for granted. Indeed, one of the real oddities of Western movies that were made prior to the late 60s, and even on into the 70s, is how clean everyone is all the time. It's like they just took a shower and put on clean clothes.
They hadn't, most of time time.
Indeed, it wasn't until 1885 that a city in the United States had a comprehensive water system, that city being Chicago.
Prior to indoor plumbing, a pretty common practice for a lot of rural families was to bathe once a week. That's actually more than some people like to commonly believe. But it's a lot less than occurs now. Added to that, a lack of indoor plumbing was the norm on American farms and ranches into the 1930s. If that sounds like a long time, a lack of indoor plumbing of some types, including toilets was the norm in rural Italy until the 1960s.
If you lack indoor plumbing taking a bath, and that's what it would be, can really only be accomplished in two ways. One way is in an open body of water of some sort, another is a tub in the house of some sort.
By and large, in the era and society we're speaking of, people didn't wonder down to the river and take a bath once a week. When stuff like that shows up in movies, it's mostly as an excuse to have an odd movie scene. Having said that, in some regions near or what would become the United States this would occur outside of Indian populations, which of course had no other recourse for most of their history to any sort of other method. The notable exception was the Hispanic populations along the Rio Grande. While this falls outside of the area of our focus, we'll note it anyhow as it had an odd influence on American history. In the 1840s, when American troops were first stationed along the Rio Grande, which was disputed territory with Mexico, they would routinely gather on the river to watch Mexican women, more notably young Mexican women, bathe. Mexican authorities on the Mexican side of the river noticed this, and as they also noticed that Catholic troops were crossing the river to avail themselves of Mass on Sunday, it presented opportunities for them to induce desertion in the same way that Hessian troops were similarly induced during the Revolution. . . . free land. . . pretty girls. . . friendly population. . . .
Anyhow. . .
The first hotel in the US to have individual room plumbing was the Tremont in Boston which had that as a feature as early as 1829.
The modern toilet wasn't invented until 1910.
John Kohler, founder of the bath tub. He died in 1900 at age 56, but his company lives on.
Swiss immigrant John Kohler, who worked in his father in law's iron business, got the bright idea of putting feat on a cast iron trough and calling it a "bathtub" in 1883. The idea was a hit and by 1887 most of the company's output was in plumbing items. Home bathing had arrived in a more modern fashion, but it wasn't until 1900 or so that house plans routinely featured indoor plumbing. That shows, in part, that cities and towns had put in water systems by that time, but it also shows that a lot of people were relying upon older methods of bringing water into houses at the turn of hte prior century.
Indeed, it wasn't until the 1920s that new homes routinely featured indoor plumbing including bathrooms with toilets and bathtubs. It'd be a safe bet, however, that from 1900 until 1920, and then on into the 1930s, lots of houses were renovated for indoor plumbing. By World War Two, however, indoor plumbing, including bathtubs were an American norm to such an extent that an entirely new concept of cleanliness existed in the United States, including expectations associated with it.
Indeed, this brings up an odd topic related to what we're discussing here that fits into the time period we're referencing.
"A french girl forming acquaintance with a soldier". Lots of French girls would form such acquaintances during World War One and World War Two, but by and large American troops found France itself primitive and dirty in World War Two where as they did not in World War One. Indeed, quite a few American troops brought home Russian brides from their service in Russia during World War One, where as they same population would have been regarded as hopelessly primitive by World War Two.
During World War One American soldiers were uniformly impressed with the French and romanticized the Italians. Those troops who entered into Germany at the end of the war also were with the Germans, by and large, and to such an extent that American authorities had to take steps to keep American soldiers from getting too friendly with German civilians.
The story is different however, in regard to World War Two. During World War Two Americans were glad to liberate the French but, both as to the rural French and the Italians, they were shocked by how "dirty" they were. This is extremely common in regard with the Italians, whom by World War Two were regarded as absolutely primitive. The view of the common French civilian wasn't very much different, even though that is rarely recalled today. Both were regarded as very dirty. In contrast, Americans were by and large hugely impressed with German towns and civilians, who were often regarded as "clean like us". The exception were combat troops who had seen a lot of action against the Germans and troops who had participated in the liberation of concentration camps. The latter troops detested the Germans, but not because they were dirty.
The reason this is of note is this. The French and Italians had not become dirty in the twenty years between World War One and World War Two. They just hadn't introduced indoor plumbing at the same rates as Americans had. For Americans, by World War Two, routine, and indeed daily, bathing had become the norm and indoor toiletry also was. For rural Italians this wouldn't become the case until the 1960s. For the French it likely did in the wake of World War Two, but it hadn't before that.*
So basically, what that tells us, is that it wasn't really until just about a century ago that the concept of daily bathing came in, in the U.S. Indeed, it also tells us that in the 1910 to 1920 time frame plenty of people remained on the prior routine of a bath once a week.
Soap making company Jas S. Kirk of Chicago showing a munch of manly French soldiers mass bathing under the watchful eye of an officer. They advertised as being soap and perfume makers and chemists. The connection between the three is an honest one and the soap industry employs a lot of chemists. Indeed, I went to law school with a former soap company chemist whose job had been perfecting perfumes for soaps.
Now, we've already addressed this a little bit, but people have a smell. People walking work will sweat. People doing manual labor of some sort definitely will. People around coal burning stoves will pick up the coal smell, just as people around wood burning stoves will pick up the wood smoke smell. People around horses pick up their smell. And people around clouds of cigarette and cigar smoke pick up that smell.
Now, people are, of course, cognizant of all of that, which is once again part of the reason that women wear perfume. Perfume stinks. Yes, I mean stinks, as in it has a stench. It's stench is just supposed to be less vile than what the wearer would otherwise smell like, or at least be more ladylike.
Cologne advertisement from 1877.
Of course, by the time we're speaking of, and some time prior, men's cologne also existed, but I don't really know how far back. It's a difficult subject to really research, but it appears that men's cologne's go back at least to the 19th Century as do the closely related "after shave" products. The latter had the purpose of being an antiseptic when shaving with straight razors posted a danger for infection, which in barbershops in less hygienic days it did. Cologne however was just designed to cover your smell.
While we haven't researched it, it's probably safe to say that women used perfume a great deal more than men used cologne and, by this point in time, aftershave. Indeed, cologne and aftershave are nearly things of the past now and when I run into them, I'm always surprised. Men wearing something smelly of that type has crossed into the effete, which wasn't the case in stinkier times, but I suspect that most of the time most men, at any point in time, didn't use cologne. Most women probably occasionally used perfume, which in fact was once a common gift for women. Having said that, in an era when the majority of women didn't work outside the home, most of them probably didn't wear it most days either.
In speaking of perfume, of course, we're speaking about applying the smelly stuff directly to oneself, but it's in a lot of soaps.
Commercial soap of the type we are familiar with was, oddly enough, a product of World War One and was a German innovation. That's when detergent type soaps came in and started to replace soaps made of fats and lye, which were the norm before that.
Soapine advertisement from 1900. It used good old fashioned whale fat.
Today, most soaps are detergent based soaps, having followed the German innovation, but not all are. Some eclectic folks still use really old fashioned lye based soaps, and one really old soap brand, Ivory, is still around. I like Ivory as its devoid of perfumes.
Ivory soap ad from 1898. It's been the same since 1879.
Soaps like Ivory don't have a noticeable smell, which is one of the things that are nice about them. But the norm with commercial soaps is to add perfume to them. We don't even notice it unless we're sensitive to perfumes (and I am). Lye soap, on the other hand, has a definite smell to it and people who use it alot smell like it.
Something that has a smell, as it is perfumed, are deodorants and antiperspirants. These were not introduced until the 1960s but went on to rapid general acceptance thereafter. Interestingly, I can recall there being a little bit of a negative reaction to it in some quarters, some of which was perhaps prescient. For example, I can recall my father's friend Father Bauer, who shared a common rural Nebraska childhood with my father, commenting on how things were declining and referencing it, looking back on a day, in his recollection, when you could tell that a man at the end of the day had worked a hard honest day by the smell of his sweat.
People would take exception to that now, but there is something to it. Since that time we've gone from one male grooming product to another, to the point where it's really fairly effete and absurd.
We've been talking, of course, about personal hygiene, but part of that story involves washing clothing. We've douched on this before, but not in depth. It was part of our examination on how domestic machinery revolutionized work for women, and therefore we really did't need to look at it much beyond that. Suffice it to say, clothes washing was incredibly laborious work, and it mostly fell to women. We noted there, in part:
So I'm covering old ground here, but a century ago, "steam laundries" were a big deal as they had hot water and steam. You could create that in your own home, of course, but it was a chore. A chore, I might note, that many women (and it was mostly women) endured routinely, but many people, for various reasons, made use of steam laundries when they could.
Women working in a commercial laundry. Laundry workers were often female or, oddly enough, Chinese immigrants.
Working in a laundry, we'd note, was hard grueling work, but it was also one of the few jobs open to women, all lower class economically women, at the time.
Laundry workers and suffragettes marching, 1914.
Of course, women, and again it was mostly women, did do laundry at home as well, which was also hard, grueling, work.
Pearline, a laundry soap, advertisement from the 1910s which urged parents to "train up" children to use it.
In short, washing clothes, as we've dealt with elsewhere in other contexts, was a pain. That meant you washed less often, quite frankly.
That might not have been that big of a deal, particularly if you could take your clothes to the steam laundry, if you had a lot of clothes, but people didn't.
Washing machines are a really recent domestic machine. They're so common now that we don't even think of them, but the electric washing machine wasn't patented unil 1904. Before that, people were washing at home, but by hand. Sales of electric washing machines exploded in the 1920s and remained strong, if reduced, during the Great Depression. And no wonder. As we've noted, they had an impact not only on domestic work, but what people wore.
For our discussion, this matters as it it related to, once again, smell. People had fewer changes of clothes and washing them was hard. Outerwear, like wool coats and vest worn daily, were rarely cleaned. Shirts, socks and undergarments were. In that context, celluloid collars, which seem so strange to us today, made sense. Collars on white shirts really stain. They really, really stain if you wear the same shirt for several days in a row. Detachable collars could easily be scrubbed clean and if you had several collars you could wear the shirt for several days, with coat over it as was typically the case, longer.
"Wash Days" were a common feature of domestic life, with that typically being a week day. That weekly "wash day" is still pretty common, but it doesn't mean what it once did. The scrubbing and hard work, followed by hanging things on a line, or perhaps a rack, aren't at all what they once were.
So what does this leave us with?
Well, clearly, there were a lot more smells to encounter in 1910, or 1920, than there are now. But, by the same token, we hardly notice most of the smells we encounter now. If we were transported back in time a century, we'd notice the smells immediately, as they'd be so strong, and out of our daily experience, today. But did they then?
One of the interesting things about it is the photograph of Leon Trotsky with American admirers.
Trotsky in the photo looks like an aged professor. Not like the leader of the Red Army he once was. He doesn't look like somebody that Stalin would bother to hunt down and have assassinated.
But Stalin did just that.
Trotsky retained admirers well after his exile and indeed into this very day. Among the hard left functuaries who obtained employment roles in FDR's New Deal Administrations, along with closet Communists, were closet Trotskyites, a species of Communist. Both were a tiny percentage of those in the alphabet administration, of course, but they were both there. The difference between the two, and it was a significant one, is that conventional Communist had somebody to report to and receive orders from, with that somebody forming a chain back to Moscow. Trotskyites didn't, and therefore they never posed any kind of real threat to the U.S. of any kind.
Indeed, Trotskyites then, and now, can be placed into the category of Socialist Oddballs, fo which the Socialist world is jam packed. A feature of Socialist Oddballism is adherence to a theory "that's never been tried", which gives the adherent the comfort of not having to confront failure. Every type of Socialism every tried, anywhere, has massively failed, which is why it isn't used by any serious nations today.
Trotskyism is no exception. It would have failed and Trotsky's immediate goals while a figure in the Soviet Union were a failure. We've just been reading about one of them here, his war against the Poles. Trotsky nearly succeeded in overrunning Poland, to be sure, but in his view, the next step was Berlin. When the war on Poland failed, and failed big, he proposed an invasion of India.
All of which was nutty, but Trotsky benefits from the James Dean Effect, just like another Communist failure, Che Guevara. Dying before nature took them out, they're preserved by what people imagine them to be, just like the young actor who frankly wasn't all that great, rather than what they really were.
American Trotskyism has an odd twist to it, however, that should be mentioned. Quite a few young American Trotskyites evolved, oddly enough, into Neoconservatives. Over time, they became disillusioned with the nut job aspects of Socialist theory, but they interesting didn't become disillusioned about changing the world, and changing the world through intervention. Neoconservatives, including some former Trotskyites, rose up into administrative power in the 1980s and introduced into Conservatism the concept of nation building.
On This Date in Sports August 20, 1920, the American Professional Football Association, precursor to the NFL, formed.
The Akron Pros, one of the teams in 1920.
I don't care anything about football, but a lot of people do, and this marks a notable event. Note that one of the players on the champion 1920 team depicted above, was black, meaning that in that very early season, football was integrated. The drafting of the first black athlete into the NFL is generally regarded as having occurred in 1949, but in fact very early on blacks were part of the professional sport.
Advertisement for 8MK from August 31, 1920.
The first commercial radio station in the United States, 8MK (at the time) began broadcasting on this date in 1920. The radio station, now WWJ, first broadcast on an amatuer license out of Detroit, where William E. Scripps, the newspaper publisher, started the station as a new radio station.
It's still in business and its still news radio for the Detroit area.
In the Great Lakes area, on the same day, the SS Superior City collided with the Willis L. King in Whitefish Bay, resulting in the loss of 29 lives.
Far outside the United States, the British representative in Palestine announced a proclamation extending his governance into Jordan. The British rapidly repudiated the effort and denounced it.
[August 20, 1920] The high commissioner's first visit to Transjordan. Reading of "The Durbar", a proclamation annexing Transjordan, in Es-Salt
Note: This was teed up to run prior to the Governor's recent announcement confirming that the land had, in fact, been sold to another party.
This is one of those stories where I feel that I've really missed something
For the basic outline of what this is about, in the 1860s Congress gave a big swatch of property to the Union Pacific Railroad in an every other section pattern. That is, every other square mile, for several miles north and south of the railroad, was given to the Union Pacific. The huge swatch of territory involved in this goes all the way across Wyoming and into Nebraska, Utah, and Colorado.
It's big.
It's referred to as a "checkerboard" because that's the pattern it has on the ground, all across the state and into neighboring states.
Part of the UP checkerboard down around Medicine Bow.
It also effectively blocked up land in Wyoming along the path like nothing else. The United States retained the other parts of the checkerboard for homesteading, but due to a variety of factors, much of it was never claimed by homestead entrants. And while the thought was that the UP would sell the land to agriculturalist and thereby be helped in recouping its investment, much of it was never sold either. Indeed, if you could homestead in the neighboring section for free, why would you buy from the UP?
Not that the UP didn't benefit. It did. It leased the surface to ranchers and, over time, the land proved to be rich in mineral wealth, particularly coal, oil and natural gas. The UP made a bundle on it in that fashion.
Ultimately the UP's mineral branch separated and became another company, Anadarko Petroleum. A few years ago Anadarko pulled out of Wyoming to concentrate on the Permian Basin in Texas. When it did, it sold the checkerboard to Occidental Petroleum. It went into debt to purchase it.
Occidental has been in financial trouble in recent years, which doesn't make it unique in the oil and gas industry by any means, and it is now seeking to sell the checkerboard itself.
Enter the State of Wyoming.
Or maybe not.
Somehow the land was made available to the State, and Governor Gordon went before the legislature in the last session to seek approval to make an offer to Occidental. At that time opposition developed to the purchase, although I frankly don't understand it. The money was coming from the permanent mineral trust fund and was regarded as an investment. But conservative criticism developed ranging from the land costing too much to this simply being something the state shouldn't be getting into.
I frankly thought the criticism was wrong headed right from the start. Or, looking at it perhaps more realistically, far too short sighted. The state would make its money back over time without a doubt. And the value of the land will go up with out a doubt. Weighting the cost in the short term makes sense if you are a human being, and in the case of most legislatures that means you are going to be dead in 20 or so years, but it doesn't make sense if you are a political entity that will live on and on.
It simply doesn't..
Which has nothing to do with why I think this was a great idea.
And has everything, I suspect, to do with why some people think it was a horrible idea.
More on that in a moment.
When the legislature first heard of it, it approved it in the House right away, and then the opposition became organized and it bogged down.
Much of the questioning at that point was centered on the price. Frankly, to most outsiders familiar with land values the prices being discussed looked really good. I.e., it looked like the state as about to get a great deal. But comments were made, as are sometimes heard from the ill informed, which seem to assume that ranch land values are frozen in the 1950s. It's odd.
Following that, Governor Gordon withdrew it from legislative consideration taking the position that he could act without legislative approval, which may be correct in this instance. Nobody challenged that.
And it looks like they, whoever they are, will get it.
Some are rejoicing, including some whose rejoicing I can't grasp. Take into account, for example, the statement from the Powder River Basin Resource Council:
Powder River Statement on Wyoming’s Failed Occidental Petroleum Land Bid
Powder River Basin Resource Council says Wyoming has been saved from a potentially serious financial blunder.
Powder River Basin Resource Council expressed optimism that Wyoming’s bid for millions of acres of land and mineral rights has apparently failed. Occidental Petroleum (OXY) is negotiating with another bidder instead.
“Luckily, Wyoming seems to have dodged a bullet, and escaped what was shaping up to be a very costly investment mistake – sinking maybe a billion dollars of public money into land and minerals. This ill-conceived use of our state’s “permanent” investment funds would have broken an elementary investing rule of sovereign wealth funds, by doubling down on Wyoming’s primary source of existing revenue. And that mistake would have been magnified in this economy where our foundational revenues are sinking fast,” said Bob LeResche, Powder River Board member.
“We remain concerned that there has never been transparency from the state in this process. The Administration and a few insiders hatched this idea behind closed doors, and the Governor vetoed legislation that required public review. The only reason we know what little we do is that the public, organizations such as Powder River, and the press forced disclosure of how a few politicians and bureaucrats were intending to spend Wyoming’s Permanent Mineral Trust Fund. It is unfortunate that the government has wasted so much time and so much money on this speculative deal.
“This so called ‘bold bid’ looks more like we may have averted a bold blunder. We hope that now our government can concentrate on its real job, such as diversifying our economy, slowing the plunge in our revenues, and revising our unsustainable tax structure. And we hope that the managers of our assets can improve their returns without resorting to further unconventional investments like ‘the biggest land purchase in state history.’”
That statement makes their view clear, but I still don't get it.
Here's why.
That big swath of land right through the middle of the state which is effectively off limits to average people.
Because every other section is private, the public land can't be legally accessed.
Now, not all that land remains in Occidental hands. Some sections were ones in which Occidental only owns the mineral estate. But that's still worth a lot.
But the fact that Occidental is the surface owner of a lot of it, and every other section was public lands, essentially meant that you simply couldn't get to the public lands. It's not legal to "step over a corner", as so many Wyomingites believed at one time, and a decreasing number continue to believe.
This would have changed all that.
I frankly can't see a downside to this sale. Perhaps we're about to enter a new energy realm in which coal and oil don't matter anymore, although that's presuming a lot, and the mineral estate will suddenly be worthless. Okay, if that's the case, the economic value of the land would be hugely reduced. But most analysts think that petroleum will continue to matter for a long time. Even the most optimistic environmentalist would generally conceded that petrochemicals will matter for a long time, and for that reason petroleum will matter for a long time.
And the land has value beyond that. It has leasing value for grazing, and it has logging value in some places.
But most of all, in my view, it has hunting, fishing and camping value.
Boston 1775: How I Zoomed My Summer Vacation: It’s the part of August in New England when the sky is overcast, the air has a chill, and hurricanes sometimes pass by. Back when I was gr...
Governor expresses disappointment in Wyoming lands going to another buyer
Governor of Wyoming sent this bulletin at 08/19/2020 03:13 PM MDT
August 19, 2020
CONTACT: Renny MacKay, Policy Director
307.777.7437 | renny.mackay@wyo.gov
Governor expresses disappointment in Wyoming lands going to another buyer
CHEYENNE, Wyo. – Governor Mark Gordon and the members of the State Loan and Investment Board (SLIB) participated in the bid process to pursue a once-in- a-generation opportunity to purchase land for the public and diversify Wyoming’s investments. The goal was to bring the lands originally given to the Union Pacific Railroad under state control and bring in additional revenue to the state. The land for sale included roughly 1 million acres of surface land and 4 million acres in mineral rights.
Today Occidental Petroleum, the owner of those lands and minerals, announced that it has signed a purchase agreement with Orion Mine Finance for those land and minerals in southern Wyoming. Although not a final sale, Governor Gordon said he has formally withdrawn Wyoming’s bid.
“I thank Occidental Petroleum for the forthright way they communicated,” Governor Gordon said.
“I am disappointed that Wyoming was not the ultimate buyer of the Union Pacific Land Grant lands and minerals. We worked hard to prepare a responsible, good faith bid, which we believe would have augmented Wyoming’s investment returns, bringing in more revenue to keep taxes in Wyoming low. Had Wyoming’s bid been accepted, the rate of return was expected to be in the range of 8% to 12%, depending on the assets and how quickly the economy recovers. This predicted rate of return is currently better than our current average rate of return.”
The purchase also would have provided many other benefits to Wyoming citizens by making it easier to manage checkerboard lands in southwestern Wyoming, furnishing more and better public access for recreation and hunting, and giving Wyoming more tools to oversee development assuring multiple use, including grazing and development of traditional and non-traditional energy resources.
“We felt the purchase would have been a good investment at the bid we submitted,” Treasurer Curt Meier said. “However, we believe our existing investment opportunities will also serve the needs of the state and its constituents. Exceeding our target bid was a risk we were not willing to take.”
The Governor and other members of SLIB planned to use Wyoming’s Permanent Funds for the purchase. The Constitution requires that those funds are only available for prudent investments, as guided by state statute, and are not available to help offset the current budget shortfalls or to directly pay for the costs of running the State Government.
Just a few days prior to this, the defeat, dismantling, and Communization of Poland appeared absolutely inevitable. Had that occured, and it appeared inevitable, with Trotsky at the helm of the Red Army, the open question really would have been whether German Communist would have rose in rebellion against the republican socialist Weimar government and the Red Army crossed into Germany.
Now it was questionable whether the Red Army could form a stable defensive line against the Poles. The collapse of the Soviet Union was once again a real possibility.
It was a stunning reversal of fortunes in very little time.
On the same day, a rebellion broke out in German Silesia on the part of Poles. This involved German sentiments in the region as Germans had broken out in celebration. . . and looting upon reading a false report on the fall of Warsaw. The anti Polish feelings were so strong among Germans in this mixed ethnicity region that they assumed the end had come for Poland and were glad of it. When it soon became clear that this was not the case, Poles rose up in rebellion.
Which meant that universal suffrage now included women. Tennessee, "the Volunteer State", brought the amendment over the bar.
It was a close vote, passing by a margin of four, and only after some last minute changes in position came about.
Which shows, I suppose, that people, and by that we can suppose that to principally be men, were still not fully convinced that women should vote. On the same day, North Carolina declined to pass the amendment.
Given the monumental nature of the 19th Amendment, a person could be justified in believing that its passage was the only think on people's minds that day, but of course that view would be wrong. On the same day the fate of Poland remained in the headlines, and very much in the minds of Polish Americans as well.
Joseph P. Tumulty addressing crowd of American citizens of Polish birth or extraction, who called at the White House to present resolutions to President Wilson asking him to continue the present national policy in support of Polish independence.
Polish Americans wanted the US to do something about the fate of Poland, but there was really little the country could in fact do. Proposed military interventions had been considered by the UK and France, but Weimar Germany had blocked them. Therefore, the 1st Division, pictured below, didn't have to worry about imminent deployment.
1st Division, Camp Zachary Taylor, Kentucky. August 18, 1920.
. . . the oldest man ever to take office as President for his initial term is. . . Donald Trump.
He was 70 years old when he first took office. Older than any other U.S. President at that time.
But just barely. Ronald Reagan was almost 70 when he took office. Indeed, he's the only septuagenarian to have been sworn into office for his initial term.
In fact, only one other President has been in his 70s and served at all, that being Ronald Reagan, who spent most of his 70s in the Oval Office.
Presidents achieving the status of being sworn in, for their first terms, in their 60s were:
William Henry Harrison at age 68, who died just a month after taking office. Had he lived his full term, rather than a month, he was have been the only other President other than Reagan and Trump to be in their 70s and in office.
James Buchanan, at age 65.
George H. W. Bush, at age 64
Zachary Taylor at age 64
Dwight Eisenhower, recently retired from the U.S. Army, at age 62.
Andrew Jackson at age 61.
John Adams at age 61
Gerald Ford at age 61
Henry Truman at age 60.
In contrast, more men in their 40s have taken office, although only barely. They are:
Theodore Roosevelt, age 42.
John F. Kennedy, age 43.
Bill Clinton, age 46.
Ulysses S. Grant, age 46.
Barack Obama, age 47.
Grover Cleveland, age 47.
Franklin Pierce, age 48.
James A. Garfield, age 49
James K. Polk, age 49.
The oldest a President has ever been, and still in office, was Ronald Reagan, who left the office at age 77. That would mean that Biden, should he win, will be older than the highest age obtained by a sitting President at the time of taking office, should he do so. And in any event, whomever wins this go around, should he serve an entire term, will surpass Reagan's record.
Is that an admirable thing? Eamon de Valera was 90 when he left office as the President of Ireland, assuming that role at age 75. But the President of Ireland is the head of state, and not the country's active leader. In contrast, Ronald Reagan died at age 93, and some have claimed that he was exhibiting the signs of the Alzheimer's he'd ultimately develop by the time he left office. Surely a President with that condition would be problematic.
