According to breaking news, ISIL increased its demand for the release of Kayla Mueller after the administration bargained for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in Afghanistan. Bergdahl is now charged by Army authorities with desertion in relation to his captivity and is set to stand trial in a court martial for the same.
This doesn't mean that the young woman, who was in Syria by her own volition, would have been freed by ISIL but for the administration securing the release of Berghdahl in the fashion which it did. But it is something people should stop and consider. Mueller was a devout Christian (something that the news media has largely ignored regarding her, and there is evidence that she was handed out as a war prize bride to an ISIL fighter by that entity, somewhat applying a practice that Mohammed sanctioned for his fighters in allowing them to take captive women for their own, in consolation for their separation from their spouses. ISIL has been dolling out Christian and Yazidi women to its combatants as "brides". That fate was most likely grim for Mueller but it may also have been keeping her alive. Of course, that status may also have kept her there.
At any rate, a person should pause to consider, in light of this, what unfortunate lesson was conveyed by the US bargaining with prisoners for the release of a man we will now try as a deserter.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: The return of a perennial bad idea, the transfer o...
The bad idea discussed here;
Legislators would do well to remember that past proposals that drew the ire of sportsmen came back to haunt the individuals who voted for them, in some instances. I suspect that this one would. I know that it will impact my view of anyone who has supported it and will be included amongst the things I consider in the future, when they run again for office.
Lex Anteinternet: The return of a perennial bad idea, the transfer o...: Every few years Wyoming and the other western states get the idea that the Federal government ought to hand over the Federal domain to the ...is still advancing, having gone form the Senate to the House. As it proceeds, its gaining opposition from Wyoming's sportsmen.
Legislators would do well to remember that past proposals that drew the ire of sportsmen came back to haunt the individuals who voted for them, in some instances. I suspect that this one would. I know that it will impact my view of anyone who has supported it and will be included amongst the things I consider in the future, when they run again for office.
Wednesday, February 24, 1915. Stuck.
Ernest Shackleton ordered his crew to build ice kennels for the expeditions dogs and covert teh interior of The Endurance, now stuck in the ice for the winter, into winter quarters.
Last edition:
Tuesday, February 23, 1915. Movies aren't speech (well, yes, they are).
Monday, February 23, 2015
Tuesday, February 23, 1915. Movies aren't speech (well, yes, they are).
The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915) that movies were not speech, upholding Ohio's film censorship board. The Court stated:
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Syllabus
Where provisions for censorship of moving pictures relate only to films intended for exhibition within the state and they are distributed to persons within the state for exhibition, there is no burden imposed on interstate commerce.
The doctrine of original package does not extend to moving picture films transported, delivered, and used as shown in the record in this case, although manufactured in, and brought from, another state.
Moving picture films brought from another state to be rented or sold by the consignee to exhibitors are in consumption and mingled as much as from their nature they can be with other property of the state, and subject to its otherwise valid police regulation, even before the consignee delivers to the exhibitor.
The judicial sense, supporting the common sense of this country, sustains the exercise of the police power of regulation of moving picture exhibitions.
The exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit like other spectacles, and not to be regarded as part of the press of the country or as organs of public opinion within the meaning of freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by the Constitution of Ohio.
This Court will not anticipate the decision of the state court as to the application of a police statute of the state to a state of facts not involved in the record of the case before it. Quaere whether moving pictures exhibited in places other than places of amusement should fall within the provisions of the censorship statute of Ohio.
While administration and legislation are distinct powers and the line that separates their exercise is not easily defined, the legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix the legal principles to control in given cases, and an administrative body may be clothed with power to ascertain facts and conditions to which such policy and principles apply.
It is impossible to exactly specify such application in every instance, and the general terms of censorship, while furnishing no exact standard
Page 236 U. S. 231
of requirements may get precision from the sense and experience of men and become certain and useful guides in reasoning and conduct. Whether provisions in a state statute clothing a board or Congress composed of officers from that and other states with power amount to such delegation of legislative power as to render the provisions unconstitutional will not be determined by this Court in a case in which it appears that such Congress is still nonexistent.
The moving picture censorship act of Ohio of 1913 is not in violation of the federal Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Ohio either as depriving the owners of moving pictures of their property without due process of law or as a burden on interstate commerce, or as abridging freedom and liberty of speech and opinion, or as delegating legislative authority to administrative officers.
215 F. 138 affirmed.
Appeal from an order denying appellant, herein designated complainant, an interlocutory injunction sought to restrain the enforcement of an act of the General Assembly of Ohio passed April 16, 1913 (103 Ohio Laws 399), creating under the authority and superintendence of the Industrial Commission of the state a board of censors of motion picture films. The motion was presented to three judges, upon the bill, supporting affidavits, and some oral testimony.
The bill is quite voluminous. It makes the following attacks upon the Ohio statute: (1) the statute is in violation of §§ 5, 16 and 19 of Article 1 of the constitution of the state in that it deprives complainant of a remedy by due process of law by placing it in the power of the board of censors to determine from standards fixed by itself what films conform to the statute, and thereby deprives complainant of a judicial determination of a violation of the law; (2) the statute is in violation of Articles I and XIV of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and of § 11 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Ohio in that it restrains complainant and other persons from freely writing and publishing their sentiments; (3) it attempts to give the board of censors legislative power,
Page 236 U. S. 232
which is vested only in the general assembly of the state, subject to a referendum vote of the people, in that it gives to the board the power to determine the application of the statute without fixing any standard by which the board shall be guided in its determination, and places it in the power of the board, acting with similar boards in other states, to reject, upon any whim or caprice, any film which may be presented, and power to determine the legal status of the foreign board or boards, in conjunction with which it is empowered to act.
The business of the complainant and the description, use, object, and effect of motion pictures and other films contained in the bill, stated narratively, are as follows: complainant is engaged in the business of purchasing, selling, and leasing films, the films being produced in other states than Ohio, and in European and other foreign countries. The film consists of a series of instantaneous photographs or positive prints of action upon the stage or in the open. By being projected upon a screen with great rapidity, there appears to the eye an illusion of motion. They depict dramatizations of standard novels, exhibiting many subjects of scientific interest, the properties of matter, the growth of the various forms of animal and plant life, and explorations and travels; also events of historical and current interest -- the same events which are described in words and by photographs in newspapers, weekly periodicals, magazines, and other publications, of which photographs are promptly secured a few days after the events which they depict happen, thus regularly furnishing and publishing news through the medium of motion pictures under the name of "Mutual Weekly." Nothing is depicted of a harmful or immoral character.
The complainant is selling and has sold during the past year for exhibition in Ohio an average of fifty-six positive prints of films per week to film exchanges doing business in that state, the average value thereof being the sum of
Page 236 U. S. 233
$100, aggregating $6,000 per week, or $300,000 per annum.
In addition to selling films in Ohio, complainant has a film exchange in Detroit, Michigan, from which it rents or leases large quantities to exhibitors in the latter state and in Ohio. The business of that exchange and those in Ohio is to purchase films from complainant and other manufacturers of films and rent them to exhibitors for short periods at stated weekly rentals. The amount of rentals depends upon the number of reels rented, the frequency of the changes of subject, and the age or novelty of the reels rented. The frequency of exhibition is described. It is the custom of the business, observed by all manufacturers, that a subject shall be released or published in all theaters on the same day, which is known as release day, and the age or novelty of the film depends upon the proximity of the day of exhibition to such release day. Films so shown have never been shown in public, and the public to whom they appeal is therefore unlimited. Such public becomes more and more limited by each additional exhibition of the reel.
The amount of business in renting or leasing from the Detroit exchange for exhibition in Ohio aggregates the sum of $1,000 per week.
Complainant has on hand at its Detroit exchange at least 2,500 reels of films which it intends to and will exhibit in Ohio, and which it will be impossible to exhibit unless the same shall have been approved by the board of censors. Other exchanges have films, duplicate prints of a large part of complainant's films, for the purpose of selling and leasing to parties residing in Ohio, and the statute of the state will require their examination and the payment of a fee therefor. The amounts of complainant's purchases are stated, and that complainant will be compelled to bear the expense of having them censored because its customers will not purchase or hire uncensored films.
The business of selling and leasing films from its offices
Page 236 U. S. 234
outside of the State of Ohio to purchasers and exhibitors within the state is interstate commerce, which will be seriously burdened by the exaction of the fee for censorship, which is not properly an inspection tax, and the proceeds of which will be largely in excess of the cost of enforcing the statute, and will in no event be paid to the Treasury of the United States.
The board has demanded of complainant that it submit its films to censorship, and threatens, unless complainant complies with the demand, to arrest any and all persons who seek to place on exhibition any film not so censored or approved by the censor congress on and after November 4, 1913, the date to which the act was extended. It is physically impossible to comply with such demand and physically impossible for the board to censor the films with such rapidity as to enable complainant to proceed with its business, and the delay consequent upon such examination would cause great and irreparable injury to such business, and would involve a multiplicity of suits.
There were affidavits filed in support of the bill and some testimony taken orally. One of the affidavits showed the manner of shipping and distributing the films, and was as follows:
"The films are shipped by the manufacturers to the film exchanges enclosed in circular metal boxes, each of which metal boxes is in turn enclosed in a fiber or wooden container. The film is in most cases wrapped around a spool or core in a circle within the metal case. Sometimes the film is received by the film exchange wound on a reel, which consists of a cylindrical core with circular flanges to prevent the film from slipping off the core, and when so wound on the reel is also received in metal boxes, as above described. When the film is not received on a reel, it is, upon receipt, taken from the metal box, wound on a reel, and then replaced in the metal box. So wound and so enclosed in metal boxes, the films are shipped by the film
Page 236 U. S. 235
exchanges to their customers. The customers take the film as it is wound on the reel from the metal box, and exhibit the pictures in their projecting machines, which are so arranged as to permit of the unwinding of the film from the reel on which it is shipped. During exhibition, the reel of film is unwound from one reel and rewound in reverse order on a second reel. After exhibition, it must be again unwound from the second reel from its reverse position and replaced on the original reel in its proper position. After the exhibitions for the day are over, the film is replaced in the metal box and returned to the film exchange, and this process is followed from day to day during the life of the film."
"All shipments of films from manufacturers to film exchanges, from film exchanges to exhibitors, and from exhibitors back to film exchanges, are made in accordance with regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, one of which provides as follows:"
" Moving picture films must be placed in metal cases, packed in strong and tight wooden boxes of fiber pails."
Another of the affidavits divided the business as follows:
"The motion picture business is conducted in three branches -- that is to say, by manufacturers, distributors, and exhibitors, the distributors being known as film exchanges. . . . Film is manufactured and produced in lengths of about 1,000 feet, which are placed on reels, and the market price per reel of film of a thousand feet in length is at the rate of 10 cents per foot, or $100. Manufacturers do not sell their film direct to exhibitors, but sell to film exchanges, and the film exchanges do not resell the film to exhibitors, but rent it out to them."
After stating the popularity of motion pictures, and the demand of the public for new ones, and the great expense their purchase would be to exhibitors, the affidavit proceeds as follows:
"For that reason, film exchanges came into existence, and film exchanges such as the Mutual Film Corporation are like clearing houses or circulating libraries, in that they purchase the film and rent it out to different exhibitors. One reel of film being made today serves in many theaters from day to day until it is worn out. The film exchange, in renting out the films, supervises their circulation."
An affidavit was filed, made by the "general secretary of the national board of censorship of motion pictures, whose office is at No. 50 Madison Avenue, New York City." The "national board," it is averred, "is an organization maintained by voluntary contributions, whose object is to improve the moral quality of motion pictures." Attached to the affidavit was a list of subjects submitted to the board which are "classified according to the nature of said subjects into scenic, geographic, historical, classical, and educational and propagandistic."
Page 236 U. S. 239
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Complainant directs its argument to three propositions: (1) the statute in controversy imposes an unlawful burden on interstate commerce; (2) it violates the freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by § 11, Article 1, of the Constitution of the State of Ohio; [Footnote 1] and (3) it attempts to delegate legislative power to censors and to other boards to determine whether the statute offends in the particulars designated.
It is necessary to consider only §§ 3, 4, and 5. Section 3 makes it the duty of the board to examine and censor motion picture films to be publicly exhibited and displayed
Page 236 U. S. 240
in the State of Ohio. The films are required to be exhibited to the board before they are delivered to the exhibitor for exhibition, for which a fee is charged.
Section 4.
"Only such films as are, in the judgment and discretion of the board of censors, of a moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved by such board."
The films are required to be stamped or designated in a proper manner.
Section 5. The board may work in conjunction with censor boards of other states as a censor congress, and the action of such congress in approving or rejecting films shall be considered as the action of the state board, and all films passed, approved, stamped, and numbered by such congress, when the fees therefor are paid, shall be considered approved by the board.
By § 7, a penalty is imposed for each exhibition of films without the approval of the board, and by § 8, any person dissatisfied with the order of the board is given the same rights and remedies for hearing and reviewing, amendment or vacation of the order "as is provided in the case of persons dissatisfied with the orders of the Industrial Commission."
The censorship therefore is only of films intended for exhibition in Ohio, and we can immediately put to one side the contention that it imposes a burden on interstate commerce. It is true that, according to the allegations of the bill, some of the films of complainant are shipped from Detroit, Michigan, but they are distributed to exhibitors, purchasers, renters, and lessors in Ohio, for exhibition in Ohio, and this determines the application of the statute. In other words, it is only films which are "to be publicly exhibited and displayed in the State of Ohio" which are required to be examined and censored. It would be straining the doctrine of original packages to say that the films retain that form and composition even when unrolling and exhibiting to audiences, or, being ready for
Page 236 U. S. 241
renting for the purpose of exhibition within the state, could not be disclosed to the state officers. If this be so, whatever the power of the state to prevent the exhibition of films not approved -- and, for the purpose of this contention, we must assume the power is otherwise plenary -- films brought from another state, and only because so brought, would be exempt from the power, and films made in the state would be subject to it. There must be some time when the films are subject to the law of the state, and necessarily when they are in the hands of the exchanges, ready to be rented to exhibitors, or have passed to the latter, they are in consumption, and mingled as much as from their nature they can be with other property of the state.
It is true that the statute requires them to be submitted to the board before they are delivered to the exhibitor, but we have seen that the films are shipped to "exchanges" and by them rented to exhibitors, and the "exchanges" are described as "nothing more or less than circulating libraries or clearing houses." And one film "serves in many theaters from day to day until it is worn out."
The next contention is that the statute violates the freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution. In its discussion, counsel have gone into a very elaborate description of moving picture exhibitions and their many useful purposes as graphic expressions of opinion and sentiments, as exponents of policies, as teachers of science and history, as useful, interesting, amusing, educational, and moral. And a list of the "campaigns," as counsel call them, which may be carried on, is given. We may concede the praise. It is not questioned by the Ohio statute, and under its comprehensive description, "campaigns" of an infinite variety may be conducted. Films of a "moral, educational, or amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved," are the words of the statute. No exhibition, therefore, or "campaign"
Page 236 U. S. 242
of complainant will be prevented if its pictures have those qualities. Therefore, however missionary of opinion films are or may become, however educational or entertaining, there is no impediment to their value or effect in the Ohio statute. But they may be used for evil, and against that possibility the statute was enacted. Their power of amusement, and, it may be, education, the audiences they assemble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of adults only, but of children, make them the more insidious in corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should degenerate from worthy purpose. Indeed, we may go beyond that possibility. They take their attraction from the general interest, eager and wholesome it may be, in their subjects, but a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. Besides, there are some things which should not have pictorial representation in public places and to all audiences. And not only the State of Ohio, but other states, have considered it to be in the interest of the public morals and welfare to supervise moving picture exhibitions. We would have to shut our eyes to the facts of the world to regard the precaution unreasonable or the legislation to effect it a mere wanton interference with personal liberty.
We do not understand that a possibility of an evil employment of films is denied, but a freedom from the censorship of the law and a precedent right of exhibition are asserted, subsequent responsibility only, it is contended, being incurred for abuse. In other words, as we have seen, the Constitution of Ohio is invoked, and an exhibition of films is assimilated to the freedom of speech, writing, and publication assured by that instrument, and for the abuse of which only is there responsibility, and, it is insisted, that as no law may be passed "to restrain the liberty of speech or of the press," no law may be passed to subject moving pictures to censorship before their exhibition.
Page 236 U. S. 243
We need not pause to dilate upon the freedom of opinion and its expression, and whether by speech, writing, or printing. They are too certain to need discussion -- of such conceded value as to need no supporting praise. Nor can there be any doubt of their breadth, nor that their underlying safeguard is, to use the words of another, "that opinion is free, and that conduct alone is amenable to the law."
Are moving pictures within the principle, as it is contended they are? They indeed may be mediums of thought, but so are many things. So is the theater, the circus, and all other shows and spectacles, and their performances may be thus brought by the like reasoning under the same immunity from repression or supervision as the public press -- made the same agencies of civil liberty.
Counsel have not shrunk from this extension of their contention, and cite a case in this Court where the title of drama was accorded to pantomime, [Footnote 2] and such and other spectacles are said by counsel to be publications of ideas, satisfying the definition of the dictionaries -- that is, and we quote counsel, a means of making or announcing publicly something that otherwise might have remained private or unknown -- and this being peculiarly the purpose and effect of moving pictures, they come directly, it is contended, under the protection of the Ohio constitution.
The first impulse of the mind is to reject the contention. We immediately feel that the argument is wrong or strained which extends the guaranties of free opinion and speech to the multitudinous shows which are advertised on the billboards of our cities and towns, and which regards them as emblems of public safety, to use the words of Lord Camden, quoted by counsel, and which seeks to
Page 236 U. S. 244
bring motion pictures and other spectacle into practical and legal similitude to a free press and liberty of opinion.
The judicial sense supporting the common sense of the country is against the contention. As pointed out by the district court, the police power is familiarly exercised in granting or withholding licenses for theatrical performances as a means of their regulation. The court cited the following cases: Marmet v. State, 45 Ohio St. 63, 72-73; Baker v. Cincinnati, 11 Ohio St. 534; Commonwealth v. McGann, 213 Mass. 213, 215; People v. Steele, 231 Ill. 340, 344-345.
The exercise of the power upon moving picture exhibitions has been sustained. Greenberg v. Western Turf. Ass'n, 148 Cal. 126; Laurelle v. Bush, 17 Cal. App. 409; State v. Loden, 117 Md. 373; Block v. Chicago, 239 Ill. 251; Higgins v. Lacroix, 119 Minn. 145. See also State v. Morris, 1 Boyce (Del.) 330; People v. Gaynor, 137 N.Y.S. 196, 199; McKenzie v. McClellan, 116 N.Y.S. 645, 646.
It seems not to have occurred to anybody in the cited cases that freedom of opinion was repressed in the exertion of the power which was illustrated. The rights of property were only considered as involved. It cannot be put out of view that the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments published and known; vivid, useful, and entertaining, no doubt, but, as we have said, capable of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition. It was this capability and power, and it may be in experience of them, that induced the State of Ohio, in addition to prescribing penalties for immoral exhibitions, as it does in its Criminal
Page 236 U. S. 245
Code, to require censorship before exhibition, as it does by the act under review. We cannot regard this as beyond the power of government.
It does not militate against the strength of these considerations that motion pictures may be used to amuse and instruct in other places than theaters -- in churches, for instance, and in Sunday schools and public schools. Nor are we called upon to say on this record whether such exceptions would be within the provisions of the statute, nor to anticipate that it will be so declared by the state courts, or so enforced by the state officers.
The next contention of complainant is that the Ohio statute is a delegation of legislative power, and void for that, if not for the other reasons charged against it which we have discussed. While administration and legislation are quite distinct powers, the line which separates exactly their exercise is not easy to define in words. It is best recognized in illustrations. Undoubtedly the legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix the legal principles which are to control in given cases; but an administrative body may be invested with the power to ascertain the facts and conditions to which the policy and principles apply. If this could not be done, there would be infinite confusion in the laws, and, in an effort to detail and to particularize, they would miss sufficiency both in provision and execution.
The objection to the statute is that it furnishes no standard of what is educational, moral, amusing, or harmless, and hence leaves decision to arbitrary judgment, whim, and caprice; or, aside from those extremes, leaving it to the different views which might be entertained of the effect of the pictures, permitting the "personal equation" to enter, resulting "in unjust discrimination against some propagandist film," while others might be approved without question. But the statute by its provisions guards against such variant judgments, and its terms, like other
Page 236 U. S. 246
general terms, get precision from the sense and experience of men, and become certain and useful guides in reasoning and conduct. The exact specification of the instances of their application would be as impossible as the attempt would be futile. Upon such sense and experience, therefore, the law properly relies. This has many analogies and direct examples in cases, and we may cite Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183; Red "C" Oil Manufacturing Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U. S. 380; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. United States, 216 U. S. 177; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470. See also Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86. If this were not so, the many administrative agencies created by the state and national governments would be denuded of their utility, and government in some of its most important exercises become impossible.
To sustain the attack upon the statute as a delegation of legislative power, complainant cites Harmon v. State, 66 Ohio St. 249. In that case, a statute of the state committing to a certain officer the duty of issuing a license to one desiring to act as an engineer if "found trustworthy and competent" was declared invalid because, as the court said, no standard was furnished by the general assembly as to qualification, and no specification as to wherein the applicant should be truthworthy and competent, but all was "left to the opinion, finding, and caprice of the examiner." The case can be distinguished. Besides, later cases have recognized the difficulty of exact separation of the powers of government, and announced the principle that legislative power is completely exercised where the law "is perfect, final, and decisive in all of its parts, and the discretion given only relates to its execution." Cases are cited in illustration. And the principle finds further illustration in the decisions of the courts of lesser authority, but which exhibit the juridical sense of the state as to the delegation of powers.
Section 5 of the statute, which provides for a censor
Page 236 U. S. 247
congress of the censor board and the boards of other states, is referred to in emphasis of complainant's objection that the statute delegates legislative power. But, as complainant says, such congress is "at present nonexistent and nebulous;" and we are therefore not called upon to anticipate its action, or pass upon the validity of § 5.
We may close this topic with a quotation of the very apt comment of the district court upon the statute. After remarking that the language of the statute "might have been extended by description and illustrative words," but doubting that it would have been the more intelligible, and that probably by being more restrictive might be more easily thwarted, the court said:
"In view of the range of subjects which complainants claim to have already compassed, not to speak of the natural development that will ensue, it would be next to impossible to devise language that would be at once comprehensive and automatic."
In conclusion, we may observe that the Ohio statute gives a review by the courts of the state of the decision of the board of censors.
Decree affirmed.
[Footnote 1]
"Section 11. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right, and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted."
[Footnote 2]
Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U. S. 55.
This ruling, rather obviously, is not the current state of the law at all.
Pornographic content was already becoming a problem.
A court of inquiry started on the causes of the Singapore Mutiny.
Joseph Davilmar Théodore was forced to resign as President of Haiti following a counter-revolution.
Last edition:
Monday, February 22, 1915. Long shot.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Monday, February 22, 1915. Long shot.
The Russians counterattacked at Masurian Lakes, ending the battle.
Brigadier-General Sir John Edmond Gough died from a wound sustained when he was shot from over 1,000 yards away by an unknown German rifleman. He was 43 years old.
Last edition:
Friday, February 19, 1915. Opening fire in the Dardanelles.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Cities and Yeoman's First Law of History
Research and the University of Colorado suggests that:
Can't say we're surprised. Yeoman's First Law of History at work again.
Our findings indicate the fundamental processes behind the emergence of scaling in modern cities have structured human settlement organization throughout human history, and that contemporary urban systems are best-conceived as lying on a continuum with the smaller-scale settlement systems known from historical and archaeological research.And;
What we found here is that the fundamental drivers of robust socioeconomic patterns in modern cities precede all that.And that wealth and monuments were easier to find in ancient cities, like modern ones.
Can't say we're surprised. Yeoman's First Law of History at work again.
Random Snippets: Saturday Night Live really isn't all that funny, and never has been.
Saturday Night Live is celebrating its 40th Anniversary right now, and it recently had a special in which all of its surviving old hands came in and reprized some of their famous skits. And everyone has some that they like. I, for example, like the memory of The Samurai Delicatessen, even if when I see it rerun it doesn't seem to be that funny. And some of the mock ads, or the some skits, I find genuinely funny. And nobody can deny, I think, that the mock political debates are hugely funny, as are occasionally the satires of individual Presidents (the ones of Clinton were hilarious).
Having said all of that, by and large, the show just isn't all that good.
Now, humor is very subjective, but for a lot of Saturday Night Live to be funny, you have to have both a sophomoric sense of humor that even most sophomores in college or in high school don't have, and I think it helps if you fit into a downtown, middle class, east coast urban demographic. That demographic seems to fill the population of television writers in general, and indeed years ago on NPR I had heard how a surprising number of comedy writers all come out of the same Ivy League school which is why they all have the same sense of humor from their college days, which never really changes. Humor is, I"m pretty sure, both genetic and cultural, and there's a lot of funny stuff out there which just isn't going to make it on to something like Saturday Night Live, let alone television in general. In contrast, there are entire acts that one demographic finds funny and another does not. Chevy Chase, for example, isn't funny. In anything. But somebody must think so.
But Saturday Night Live, in spite of not really being all that funny, by and large, is long running, and television likes to celebrate itself, and so it has been. And that's part of the appeal, I think, of Saturday Night Live. The culture believes its funny as to maintain otherwise would be to suggest that we've all been playing along.
Of course, it could all be subjective. My wife thinks Wayne's World is hilarious. I think its stupid. My son and I find the Grand Budapest Hotel to be very funny, my wife does not. Everyone here loves Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?, but one of my in laws can't stand it.
Having said all of that, by and large, the show just isn't all that good.
Now, humor is very subjective, but for a lot of Saturday Night Live to be funny, you have to have both a sophomoric sense of humor that even most sophomores in college or in high school don't have, and I think it helps if you fit into a downtown, middle class, east coast urban demographic. That demographic seems to fill the population of television writers in general, and indeed years ago on NPR I had heard how a surprising number of comedy writers all come out of the same Ivy League school which is why they all have the same sense of humor from their college days, which never really changes. Humor is, I"m pretty sure, both genetic and cultural, and there's a lot of funny stuff out there which just isn't going to make it on to something like Saturday Night Live, let alone television in general. In contrast, there are entire acts that one demographic finds funny and another does not. Chevy Chase, for example, isn't funny. In anything. But somebody must think so.
But Saturday Night Live, in spite of not really being all that funny, by and large, is long running, and television likes to celebrate itself, and so it has been. And that's part of the appeal, I think, of Saturday Night Live. The culture believes its funny as to maintain otherwise would be to suggest that we've all been playing along.
Of course, it could all be subjective. My wife thinks Wayne's World is hilarious. I think its stupid. My son and I find the Grand Budapest Hotel to be very funny, my wife does not. Everyone here loves Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?, but one of my in laws can't stand it.
Old Picture of the Day: Nethers, Virginia
Old Picture of the Day: Nethers, Virginia: Welcome to Nethers, Virginia Week. This week we will look at a little slice of American History that is lost forever. The experience t...
Old Picture of the Day: Japanese Surrender
Old Picture of the Day: Japanese Surrender: We wrap up World War II Week with this picture of the ceremony where Japan surrendered to the United States. This happened in 1945 aboar...
Old Picture of the Day: Iwo Jima
Old Picture of the Day: Iwo Jima: This is another picture from the War in the Pacific. The picture was taken during the Battle of Iwo Jima. The mountain in the backgrou...
Old Picture of the Day: USS Bunker Hill
Old Picture of the Day: USS Bunker Hill: Today's picture shows the USS Bunker Hill moments after it was struck by Kamikazes. The ship was supporting the invasion of Okinaw...
Old Picture of the Day: Battle of Okinawa
Old Picture of the Day: Battle of Okinawa: Today's picture shows a view from the Battle for Okinawa. Some of the most intense fighting of World War II occurred on Okinawa. T...
Old Picture of the Day: Normandy Invasion
Old Picture of the Day: Normandy Invasion: This is another picture of the Normandy Invasion. This picture was taken after the troops had established a beach head. It is amazing a...
Old Picture of the Day: D-Day
Old Picture of the Day: D-Day: Today's picture is an iconic image of soldiers as they approach Omaha Beach on D-day. The striking thing to me is that most of thes...
Friday, February 20, 2015
Agricultural Ignorance
As somebody with a foot in agriculture, and a foot outside of it, I have a view of both worlds and how people in one perceive the other. I don't know that this is always a good thing, but it is something I experience. One thing about it is it makes it plain how often one group mus-perceives the views and the status of the other. I've written about this a bit here before, often in the context of how those who have spent their lives in agriculture don't appreciate, in some circumstances, the unique gift they have in the modern world to be able to live on the land, and how they erroneously believe that "good" city jobs are the path to idle richness.
But perhaps a bigger misconception, in the West, is the one held by a select group of liberal environmentalist on how nature actually works, and how that dovetails with real agriculture. This ignorance, moreover, can bleed over to the general non agricultural population country wide, and can have, or threaten to have, really negative consequences. It also leads, in part, to the pretty pronounced distrust that agriculturalist have for "experts" outside of agriculture, and of those who brand themselves to be environmentalist. As somebody who is very familiar with farmers and ranchers, I've sometimes wondered why they seem so opposed to what would seem to be sensible conservation efforts, or what seems to be well established, if controversial, scientific matters. Or even, in some circumstances, environmental positions.
But, if you spend much time listening to environmentalist, you'd know why. They can be as blind and ignorant as anyone.
As an example, take the current issue of The New Republic. I've mentioned the magazine, now just past its 100th year, here before. This pat issue was an odd one anyway you look at it, but included in its oddity is an article blaming ranchers in the west, and more particularly the dreaded "public lands rancher", for drought in the West.
Stock tank, several years ago during a drought. The water is on, but no cattle are to be seen, a there weren't any in this pasture, which never looks any better than this, but which does support both deer and antelope, and seasonally, cattle.
Bull.
The thesis is, basically, that cattle drink up all the water and cause drought. Nonsense.
Cattle do require a lot of water, but everywhere the brake on range carrying capacity is grass, not water. Even in the arid West, in the parts I'm familiar with, there's generally enough water if there's enough grass. And if there's truly not enough water, all the cattlemen I'm aware of cut back on the number of cattle they have. In the modern West, I've never seen an instance of cattle drinking a water source dry. And generally, if there's that little water, there's not very much grass, and cattle numbers were accordingly cut back anyhow.
Beyond that, the old idea that use of water creates drought hearkens back to the long discredited views of the 20s and 30s that "rain follows the plow" or that trees cause rain. They don't. It was sincerely believed that production agriculture created rain clouds in the 1920s, and seriously advanced as a theory, to the detriment, and over the opposition of, cattlemen. In the 1930s, when the dust bowl had disproved this (and the plowed ground started going back to rangeland), the new theory about trees was advanced and the Federal government planted them all over in droughted areas under the naive belief that they'd cause rain, when in fact their water consumption did the opposite.
It isn't, of course, that cattle don't drink water, they do, but precipitation in any one year, much of which in the West comes during the winter, isn't controlled by that. The snow that fell here over the past two days came from moisture stored up in clouds over the Pacific Ocean, not over a local stock pond.
And speaking of stock ponds, one of the real ironies of current environmental baloney on this topic is that it always cites to wildlife, when in fact the creation of ranch based water projects, and some farm based ones, actually caused and supported the boom in wildlife numbers in the middle of the 20th Century. Old accounts make it plain that prior to stock ponds much of the prairie was devoid of large wildlife as a rule. Small ponds changed that. And as wildlife habits differ from those of cattle, stock ponds benefit wildlife more than they do cattle. Indeed, I've been stopped by a game biologist years ago just so he could ask me about a windmill driven stock tank.
Deep down, I don't t hink that the opposition to agriculture in the West, and this sort of animosity is centered in the West in terms of its focus, really has much to do with the environment in real terms. If it did, environmentalist would be backing ranchers, not opposing them. Indeed, the irony of this is pointed out by one of the books written by an anti, a University of Wyoming law professor, who laments early in her book that her view from her house in Laramie is despoiled by a cow, which means that here house, at the time the book was written, was most likely relatively new in Laramie and in fact had directly despoiled the prairie itself. And that points out what I think is the real root of such views.
Almost all hardcore anti agriculture views of this type, just like hardcore veganism, or the like, come from deeply industrial supported urban lives. People who life in cities, even if they oppose it, are so deeply supported by industrialism that they can hardly grasp it directly. It often seems, however, that they sort of sense that, and as they feel uncomfortable with it, they strike out at something. With some, it causes them to view the wildlands preserved by Western ranching as parkland, for their hobby use, in a deeply industrial supported manner. The armies of Gortex clad weekend hikers up in the hills are there only because of their petroleum fueled lifestyles, and are even wearing industrially produced synthetic clothing. They're about as close to nature, in that sense, as workers in a chemical plant, but they don't acknowledge that. Perhaps they sense that, to a degree, but at any rate with urban jobs supported by an advanced industrial economy that has economic roots and supply lines across the globe, they react by wanting to drive ranchers and farmers, who actually live on the land, off it, and thereby convert the land into what they think will be an even bigger or more pristine park, but what will in fact be busted up into more little divisions and thereby destroy the land itself.
At some point this becomes a real problem, as a society so divorced from real nature, is really in trouble. And perhaps that's where another radical idea may be in order, at this point. There's a myth of government supported agriculture in this country, which is largely untrue except in certain specific instances. But the system of mega agriculture is supported in so far as the American economy is a corporatist capitalist economy. Some other nations, France being an example, go more for a distributist agrarian model in agriculture, recognizing that there's value in a densely populated nation in keeping a percentage of that population on the land, and grounded in reality. With our nation becoming so distant from nature, and yet with so many people yearning to be part of it, or part of agriculture, perhaps we should consider something of the same.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Friday, February 19, 1915. Opening fire in the Dardanelles.
The HMS Cornwallis and HMS Vengeance engaged Ottoman fortress guns in the Dardanelles.
Last edition:
Thursday, February 18, 1915. Last stand.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
1954 Bel Air
The other day, I posted my thread on automobiles. After I'd written it, I took this photo of a very nicely restored 1954 Chevrolet Bel Air.
I had a 1954 Chevrolet Deluxe myself, a picture of which is provided below.
I used mine as a daily driver, while I had it. It was a really neat car, and I should have kept it, although using it that way turned you into a full time mechanic.
Anyhow, the Bel Aire, which should have rear wheel well covers, but in the very nice example above does not, provides an example of something I didn't talk about in my recent entry. That 54 Bel Air is an automatic transmission.
Automatic transmissions go further back than that, but they weren't the transmission of choice for legitimate reasons. But about that time, they started to improve to the extent that they soon would be. Sluggish at first, by the 1960s they'd improved a great deal. By the early 1970s they were coming out in pickup trucks, and within the last decade they started to supplant standard transmissions in trucks, even 1 ton 4x4 trucks. You can still get standards, but its getting difficult to do so. Standards are gone in mid sized cards entirely, and when you find them in a car today, it's probably in a small sporty car.
Quite a change.
My 54 had a three speed transmission with column shift.
Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein...
I've been posting on the oil field slump here pretty regularly in a string of posts of which this one is part, Lex Anteinternet: The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men: Lex Antein.... It isn't the only one by any means, however.
Anyhow, in today's Tribune there's a story that on the very day that Halliburton's local lift division (pumps) was to move into their new quarters, they ended up laying off the entire local division. Pretty dramatic event really. How many people that is, is unclear, but the paper noted that at the end of the day there were 25 trucks in the lot that didn't leave. That would presumably equate with 25 lost jobs at least.
In fairness, it must be noted that Halliburton recently merged with Baker Hughes, and this might be principally due to that merger. The paper's article seems to suggest it probably is, based upon their overviews of Halliburton personnel, and that makes sense to me. Halliburton acquired Baker Hughes for a reason, and that reason was to acquire its business, but it would make sense that there was some overlapping business to start with. Indeed, as I think of Halliburton as a service company, I was surprised that it had a division that installed oilfield pumps. Chances are high that Baker Hughes, which started off as an equipment company, would be more likely to have a more developed line of business doing the same thing really, so that may explain it.
Still, even though the article still includes some people who take a "it may be temporary" and "things are still going on strong here (referring to South Dakota)", that things aren't going well in the oil patch right now is pretty evident. I'd guess that for those who were looking at going right from school into the oil patch, things are looking much different.
Anyhow, in today's Tribune there's a story that on the very day that Halliburton's local lift division (pumps) was to move into their new quarters, they ended up laying off the entire local division. Pretty dramatic event really. How many people that is, is unclear, but the paper noted that at the end of the day there were 25 trucks in the lot that didn't leave. That would presumably equate with 25 lost jobs at least.
In fairness, it must be noted that Halliburton recently merged with Baker Hughes, and this might be principally due to that merger. The paper's article seems to suggest it probably is, based upon their overviews of Halliburton personnel, and that makes sense to me. Halliburton acquired Baker Hughes for a reason, and that reason was to acquire its business, but it would make sense that there was some overlapping business to start with. Indeed, as I think of Halliburton as a service company, I was surprised that it had a division that installed oilfield pumps. Chances are high that Baker Hughes, which started off as an equipment company, would be more likely to have a more developed line of business doing the same thing really, so that may explain it.
Still, even though the article still includes some people who take a "it may be temporary" and "things are still going on strong here (referring to South Dakota)", that things aren't going well in the oil patch right now is pretty evident. I'd guess that for those who were looking at going right from school into the oil patch, things are looking much different.
Who is AARP pitching to?
A lot of mornings I iron a pair of pants, or a shirt, and turn on the television to catch The High Chaparral.
Who doesn't?
Anyhow, as I'm watching, by doing that, a really old television show, early in the morning, I'm watching something that is probably being watched, I guess, by a lot of retired folks. At least the advertisers must think so. And one of those advertisers is the American Association of Retired Persons.
AARP has an add that pitches its automobile insurance, through Hartford, to people "50 years old and older".
Really? Are a lot of Americans in their 50s retired? I really doubt it.
Oh, no doubt some are, but not most. AARP, which also sends out their "join AARP" stuff to you when you hit 50, seems to be fishing at the deep end of the pool there, but come on, how many Americans in their 50s are retired.
For that matter, fewer and fewer Americans in their 60s are retired and the retirement age is climbing.
Not that the AARP is the only organization that does this sort of thing. Some years ago I had the occasion to have to interact with The American Legion, and during that an individual who was effectively recruiting for them asked me if I ever had any service, and if I'd like to join. I have nothing against The American Legion but I didn't think I wanted to join, as I'm not a combat or wartime veteran after all. I told the person I had been in the Guard but I was sure I wasn't eligible. Well, it turned out that for some weird reason I was. My period of Guard service had overlapped some bad event, I think our involvement in Lebanon (I was in basic training at that time, which actually put you in the Regular Army for that period of time), so I could be a Legion member. But why? Doesn't seem what they'd want.
Of course, organizations need members to be effective, so I guess I can't blame them for trying. But I'm not retired. Based upon my observations of other lawyers I know, my chances of retiring are really slim at that.
Who doesn't?
Anyhow, as I'm watching, by doing that, a really old television show, early in the morning, I'm watching something that is probably being watched, I guess, by a lot of retired folks. At least the advertisers must think so. And one of those advertisers is the American Association of Retired Persons.
AARP has an add that pitches its automobile insurance, through Hartford, to people "50 years old and older".
Really? Are a lot of Americans in their 50s retired? I really doubt it.
Oh, no doubt some are, but not most. AARP, which also sends out their "join AARP" stuff to you when you hit 50, seems to be fishing at the deep end of the pool there, but come on, how many Americans in their 50s are retired.
For that matter, fewer and fewer Americans in their 60s are retired and the retirement age is climbing.
Not that the AARP is the only organization that does this sort of thing. Some years ago I had the occasion to have to interact with The American Legion, and during that an individual who was effectively recruiting for them asked me if I ever had any service, and if I'd like to join. I have nothing against The American Legion but I didn't think I wanted to join, as I'm not a combat or wartime veteran after all. I told the person I had been in the Guard but I was sure I wasn't eligible. Well, it turned out that for some weird reason I was. My period of Guard service had overlapped some bad event, I think our involvement in Lebanon (I was in basic training at that time, which actually put you in the Regular Army for that period of time), so I could be a Legion member. But why? Doesn't seem what they'd want.
Of course, organizations need members to be effective, so I guess I can't blame them for trying. But I'm not retired. Based upon my observations of other lawyers I know, my chances of retiring are really slim at that.
Thursday, February 18, 1915. Last stand.
German troops surrounded the Russians in the Augustów Primeval Forest in western Poland. Their last stand allowed the retreating Russian 10th Army to reform their defenses.
German exclusion zones went into effect.
Frank James died at age 72 at the Missouri family farm.
Last edition:
Wednesday, February 17, 1915. Putting a mutiny down.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Random Snippets. It snows in the winter.
In much of North America, indeed in darned near all of it, it snows every winter.
In the northern 2/3s of the US, it snows without fail every winter. And in the top half of that, it snows a lot.
This is not news.
So why the panic on the press about something that happens, without fail, absolutely every year? It's really absurd.
In the northern 2/3s of the US, it snows without fail every winter. And in the top half of that, it snows a lot.
This is not news.
So why the panic on the press about something that happens, without fail, absolutely every year? It's really absurd.
Wednesday, February 17, 1915. Putting a mutiny down.
French, Japanese and Russian sailors and marines landed in Singapore to help the British quell a rebellion by troops of the Indian Army.
Two German Zeppelins went down in Denmark.
Last edition:
Monday, February 15, 1915. The Singapore Mutiny.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Lex Anteinternet: Civil Holidays
Today is President's Day. I worked it. I always do. I'm sure I've never had it off in any job I ever had, save for the period of time during which I was employed part time by the Army National Guard. I'm sure I would have had it off, if I were working on this day otherwise.
I looked at these types of holidays this past October in this thread:
Lex Anteinternet: Civil Holidays: Leann posted an item on her blog about Columbus Day, urging Congress to consider changing it to Indigenous Peoples Day . I'll confess ...President's Day is a Federal holiday that came about due to the amalgamation of Washington and Lincoln's birthdays as a holiday, both of which occurred in February. They were great men and they certainly deserve a Federal holiday. But how many take it off? Did you?
Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: The Islamic State in Iraq and th...
Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: The Islamic State in Iraq and th...: As of today, the situation discussed here has gone from bad to worse. ISIS, or ISIL, depending upon the term you use, has taken the city o...And now this horror has spread on to the Libya, where ISIL beheaded 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians simply for being Christian. Egypt has retaliated with airstrikes against ISIL in Libya. This is significant in two ways. One, it shows that ISIL's reach is expanding. Secondly, Egypt has now joined Jordan as a Middle Eastern, Moslem majority, country that's now actively engaged in warfare with ISIL.
To my surprise, 10 to 15 percent of Egyptians are reported as being Coptic Christians, a much higher percentage that I would have guessed. Generally they're second class citizens, but all Egyptians appear to be rallying to their cause.
Not unrelated, a Moslem terrorist also struck at a free speech event in Egypt. Armed with an automatic weapon in a society which strictly controls access to firearms, he had a pretty free hand so the fact that the casualties were as low as they were is truly amazing. This event should have the added impact of causing European nations to further wake up to the fact that Islamic extremists are both in their midst, and at war with their open societies. While I am sure it won't have this effect, it should also cause nations in Europe to ponder their gun control provisions and consider the example of the US, which is the opposite of what they imagine, in that as gun control provisions have very much waned in the past 30 years gun violence has actually declined (which is also contrary to what many Americans imagine). On a continent which now finds itself at war with a quasi invisible radical fifth column, with access to automatic weapons coming out of the Middle East, allowing the population to protect itself deserves some consideration.
Automotive Transportation II: Cars
Cars. Automobiles that is.
With this entry, we pick up where we left off with trucks and where we started off with walking. That is, our series of posts on changes in transportation.
![[Two men in the first American automobile, 1890's]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uQ-UQKCSoXrdkMrGS6QTM082wT2A6pgklJ8Fdl0bt8_G77hg3JqcheJ79fQORWeOLQT6jabiTqR5iet9flMAUCnpqVpORqrFrmjHhwenQRBus5jnchQ5epDgjAggo9GQt9f8w1F89koaKL=s0-d)
![[1907 Buick]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_twgmApqUynhWh4ckkBHe6fGGfqQ-rA4QKjwa0Xkm_BaU_r5aUgoXIFzs2_gISxtuETIBBpfKEeRtwwDku39IUhHE19wl5TdDbdoWt5k8F6PnsjMEauKnFR2v3ItthJfQVHjP2HpcKcMfhr=s0-d)
While the US automobile industry took a pounding during the Great Depression, and while some automobile makers on the margins, like Jordan, were casualties, as were brand names like LaSalle that were made by bigger makers (General Motors in that example), the American automobile industry endured the Depression surprisingly well. In the late 1930s, when global rearmament commenced due to the German threat in Europe, surplus North American capacity in existing operating plants meant that North America had a vehicle production capacity like non other. The United States, and to a lesser extent Canada, became the supplier of vehicles to the Allies. Moreover, North American capacity was so vast that it simply dwarfed Axis production. While every army that fought in the war used vehicles, including vehicles in the "car" class, American production alone was so vast that every single Allied army as equipped to some extent with American vehicles. To take the classic "car" class American vehicle of the war (although in military terms its a 1/4 ton truck), the Jeep as an example, Jeeps were found in the armed forces of every single Allied army during the war, including the Red Army. Indeed, the Red Army was almost entirely dependent upon American motor vehicles for transportation by the end of the war.
It can't be said that cars advanced, like trucks did, during World War Two. By and large, the cars that came out right after World War Two were the same models that were being offered in 1941. No new automotive technology was really developed that was applicable to cars during the war, except for the perfection of conventional four wheel drive, which showed up, in terms of cars, only in Jeep class vehicles. Regarding those, of course, the Jeep did go into civilian production by Willys, with Willys always having been a manufacturer that specialized in rural vehicles. It soon had competitors from overseas, interestingly enough, demonstrating the global spread of the Jeep during World War Two.
By the late 1940s, however, American cars did begin to evolve towards big. Cars of the 1920s and 1930s, save for touring cars, were surprisingly small. Cab space was often quite tight, even in cars that appear externally large. This began to rapidly change in the late 1940s, however.
In part that might reflect an enormous improvement in roads that occurred during the 1930s. Automobiles of the 1930s were still all suitable for rural roads. They had high clearance, compared to modern cars, and they were relatively stiffly suspended. During the 30s, however, most highways most places had become modern, and urban paving was the norm. This in turn reflected itself in the late 1940s with cars starting to have lower and softer suspensions, and in turn they grew larger as well. Larger engines also began to make the appearance, particularly in Fords which had pioneered the V8 engine. Chevrolet's remains 6 cylinders at first, but in the mid 1950s Chevrolet also introduced a V8 for its regular car line. By the late 1950s V8s had become the American norm, even though 6 cylinder vehicles were still available. Also during the 1950s some American cars had become simply enormous.
They probably bordered on absurdly enormous, and they began to shrink back down in the 1960s. By that time, however, the Station Wagon had evolved into a family vehicles that was very large and designed to carry an entire family and their stuff. Station wagons were a staple of the 1960s and early 1970s, before being eclipsed by smaller vehicles and mini-vans in the 1980s. At the same time, the same vehicle that had evolved into the station wagon had also evolved into Carry Alls and Suburbans, large family vehicles that were built on truck frames and which really were a type of truck. Suburbans are still with us, even though station wagons are not.
Cars of the 1970s were generally powerful vehicles reflecting an American love of the open road. Racing inspired cars even entered the public market by the late 1960s, and were sold throughout the 1970s, in the form of "muscle cars", sports cars with a high power to weight ratio that were capable of speeds in excess of any legal limit.
Still, the 1970s ushered in a change when the price of gas, and gas shortages, made fuel economy an American concern for the first time. As fuel economy had been a concern everywhere else in the world, this made foreign imports really viable. The Japanese and European manufacturers, devastated by World War Two, had largely recovered and had been focusing on their domestic markets, which demanded fuel economy. Cars like the Datsun, Toyota, or Fiat were suddenly marketable in the US, and the Japanese in particular, who had focused on making really good small cars, were able to make huge inroads into the American market. The American market was permanently changed, and the number of American manufacturers declined to a "big three".
The shock of the fuel, and following fiscal, crises took American manufacturers a very long time to adjust to, but they have. That takes us to the current market. If the Model A was a "modern car", as I've referred to it here, cars of the last ten years, with many American cars being prime examples, are "post modern". So much safer, longer lasting, and better than anything that's come before them, they can't even really be compared to cars of the 80s or 90s. They are much, much better, longer lasting, and safer. Oddly, Americans are now less interested in cars as well, which reflects perhaps a new post modern view of them. For the first time, really, Americans now view cars the same way Europeans have for a long time, just a way to get around, if they really need one.
Body by Fischer.
With this entry, we pick up where we left off with trucks and where we started off with walking. That is, our series of posts on changes in transportation.
Allegedly the first American automobile. In the 1890s cars started to be manufactured, and as they were fairly primitive, some were also built at home. Perhaps the first car in Wyoming was built by Laramie physician, Dr. Frinfrock.
Perhaps this one is the most obvious, and perhaps it nearly completes the circle, sort of, we began with walking. We have another yet to go, but to most people the revolution brought about by cars is the most obvious. Perhaps for that reason, and also for the reason that we've really touched heavily on this topic in numerous prior posts, we're not going to really dwell on it as much. There's no real reason to belabor the obvious too much.
The common myth, which we've already explored and pretty much destroyed, is that everyone rode horses until cars came about, and then everyone switched to them. As we know, there was never an era when everyone rode horses, and in the United States, bicycles were they really early rival for urban personal transportation to the horse, not the automobile. Bikes were cheap, easy to store, and easy to maintain. Early automobiles, by contrast, were extremely expensive and hard to maintain. And as a rule, people weren't going all that far, in modern terms, anyhow.
Which isn't to say that automobiles didn't have a toehold by the late 19th Century. They did. And in a role that the early nickname for them reveals. They weren't called the "horseless carriage" for nothing. That's exactly what they were.
Buick, 1907. Note the right hand drive.
Automobiles, even if not extremely widely spread, for economic reasons, did command interest pretty rapidly. Their advantage was in fact revealed by their nickname, as was their basic design. They were horseless carriages. Just as horsed carriages, however, were beyond the means of most, the horseless carriage was as well, although they did spread down into the middle class early on. In terms of the amount needed to acquire one, they were amazingly expensive, which makes it surprising to see how widespread they really were. A multiplicity of manufacturers made an appearance early on, some of which are still with us today.
![[The First Oldsmobile]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_unrZ14Jy0pF0ZM9aVyKKSHSFhVXeaBaDcUuYipT_DWUe6xgugOBgeSOxhySjv2tdZKfuBgfAjVbiKNrn7mrANkJAXfPOuFl_rvEfEl5NeVB4dOAZ42vp4prhlX1gI0XPghSMvhKnuQ4ESJ=s0-d)
1897 Oldsmobile.
As is well know, it was Henry Ford who sought to change all of that. Before Ford, cars were virtually all hand made, even if made to a single design. Ford applied the techniques along employed in some other industries, such as the firearms industry, and acted to mass produce a car, that car being, as everyone well knows, the Model T. Aiming that car specifically at a mass market, it was targeted to be affordable to the men making it, and as time when on, and production efficiency increased, the price of the Model T dropped.
Early Model T touring car.
The Model T was truly a revolution in autos. The Tin Lizzy, introduced in 1908, was a tough, durable, but primitive automobile. It bridged the gap from truly primitive vehicles before it, and more modern ones that would follow it, but the fact that it was readily available to so many in the American, indeed the global, market meant that for the first time many people could afford a car, and they did buy one.
Later model Model T, still in use in the late 1930s.
With the Model T, the introduction of cars came extremely rapidly. Before that, cars had been the domain of the wealthy, the eccentric, or the pioneering. After that, they came increasingly to be everywhere, occupying both a place in the carriage house and on the more humble curb. And contrary to the common myth, Ford catered to its market, making the Tin Lizzy in a variety of models, with touring cars (open topped multiple seat vehicles) and roadsters (two seat convertibles), being amongst the options. Multiple colors were also offered.
Like any revolutionary device, however, whether it be a mass produced car or a smart phone, imitators were soon to follow, of course.
Like any revolutionary device, however, whether it be a mass produced car or a smart phone, imitators were soon to follow, of course.
Manufactured all the way up to 1927, the Model T became obsolete nonetheless surprisingly fast. By 1915, Ford engine parts supplier the Dodge Brothers were operating a rival automobile company. General Motors started operating in Flint Michigan the same year that Ford introduced the Model T. Chrysler would form in 1925. Louis Chevrolet opened his car plant in 1911. The wagon make Studebaker, beat them all to the punch and had been working on automobiles since 1897, and even manufactured electric automobiles in the first decade of the automobile age. By the 1920s there were dozens of automobile manufactures offering a mind numbing number of vehicles.
Legendary Jordan advertisement that launched modern advertising.
Indeed, in this era it was the automobile industry, with the Jordan Motor Car Company leading the charge, that introduced modern advertising. Advertising based on nothing other than image alone, which is exactly what that company did with its famous "Somewhere West of Laramie" advertisement, featuring the legendary enigmatic starting phrase that "Somewhere west of Laramie there's a bronchobusting, steer-roping girl who knows what I'm talking about." Those reading the ad probably didn't know what Jordan was talking about, but they knew that they wanted one of his coupes.
While the car didn't replace the horse in many of its roles, the car had come to dominate the urban streets by the 1920s. The age of the bicycle was over in the United States, and urban horses were very much on the way out in urban areas for conventional personal transportation. Cars had taken over the taxi trade, and cars were now in the police patrolling role. Cars had come in where the bike had started too, and they were offering daily, if somewhat expensive, transportation to hundreds of dangerous novice drivers. The future appeared pretty clear, and Americans were crazy about cars.
Indeed, by the 1920s, the car was changing the very nature of the streets. Paving wasn't new to cities by any means, and streets had been paved with cobble stones back into antiquity, but cars changed the amount of acreage that was paved. Paving is unnecessary for animal transportation to an extent, although it serves wheeled vehicles, including wagons, of any type. But cars very much favor paving, and the process of paving the urban landscape was well in swing by the 1920s. While already discussed, of course, in terms of trucking, the increased number of cars also aided in the linking of towns via paved roads, something that wasn't really needed prior to the internal combustion engine.
Indeed, by the 1920s, the car was changing the very nature of the streets. Paving wasn't new to cities by any means, and streets had been paved with cobble stones back into antiquity, but cars changed the amount of acreage that was paved. Paving is unnecessary for animal transportation to an extent, although it serves wheeled vehicles, including wagons, of any type. But cars very much favor paving, and the process of paving the urban landscape was well in swing by the 1920s. While already discussed, of course, in terms of trucking, the increased number of cars also aided in the linking of towns via paved roads, something that wasn't really needed prior to the internal combustion engine.
Paving machine, about 1920.
Although Ford expanded its Model T production overseas, Europeans and other peoples were not nearly as enamored with cars as Americans. Perhaps because their cities had been so long established for other means of transpiration, and perhaps because of their economic situation simply being different, while cars very much came into European societies by the 1920s, they didn't achieve the same overarching status that they did in the United States and Canada at the same time. Americans were just berserk over automobiles by the 1920s, willing to spend a fair amount of their incomes to obtain one, and to maintain one. Europeans generally were not. A real difference in modern American (and Canadian) culture, vs. European cultures, had already become clear in that regards.
Dusenberg touring car.
From fairly early on, cars took on a multiplicity of types. Big Touring Cars were built for over the road trips with at least a few passengers, with some of the roads being pretty bad being considered, were a popular early type. From the widely available Model T touring car, to expensive automobiles, these cars were larger serviceable cars. Some European manufacturers, aiming for a different market, setting the standard for size and durability. Rolls Royce, fore example, built a touring car so durable that it was the platform for the excellent British armored cars used in World War One. In contrast, coupes and roadsters, two seaters, were offered by most car companies even if only on a model that was otherwise built as a touring car, offering motorist a car that that had previously been occupied by the horse drawn dog cart. In other words, an automobile really aimed at single men, or occasionally businessmen who didn't transport more than a single passenger. Hard sided cars, with permanent roofs, began to replace touring cars by the late 1920s, in the form of sedans, which has been the standard for cars ever since. By the 1930s, very large cars then known as "station wagons", "depot hacks", "estate cars", "suburbans" or "carryalls" served the purpose of durable taxi, or hack, from train stations and hotels. While some of these names are recognizable now, in terms of their descendants, none of them were, at that time, what they later became. Indeed, a person would have to go to a vintage car show or watch an old movie in order to see one.
Model T sedan.
![[Side view of a Ford roadster]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t3J3sZW8JljL8XFmgE0gSayMxj3t7bfrJFdO_nn6VkZbp2HNaYPpwUO2iX_mOdPOpf30OHKTEZXzhJd1YE-NA7qFWmrsUmLNdmK-jr1XbOwFpw-3HOhnnZrvPn3HUqdztFUDIwL-rlr8c=s0-d)
Model T roadster.
Model T roadster.
With competition heated for automobiles in the US in the 1920s, its no surprise that innovation was rapid as well. By 1927 the durable Model T was clearly wholly obsolete, and Ford, for the second time in its history, introduced an automobile called the "Model A". Originally Ford used that name for a primitive vehicle built from 1903 to 1904, but starting in 1927, it came back out with its second Model A. A really modern car, the Model A was a huge success but was only built until 1931. Starting the in 1932, the Model B took over, with their being an engine option for the first time which not only allowed the purchaser to buy something other than a 4 cylinder engine, but to actually have that choice be a V8 engine. The era of the modern car had really arrived. By the mid 1930s, all the car manufacturers then in business, and in spite of the Great Depression weeding a number of them out, there remained a lot, was changing models yearly, rather than sticking with a single long manufactured model.
"LongBeachFord" by Los Angeles Times photographic archive, UCLA Library. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LongBeachFord.jpg#mediaviewer/File:LongBeachFord.jpg
Model A.
In Europe, the production of cars had likewise increased, and the spread of automobile manufacturing had commenced in Japan as well. Nowhere but the US was the market as advanced as in the US, but it was there. American manufacturers themselves spread to Europe with Ford's entry into the European market being particularly notable. As in the US, there were a multiplicity of types, but as a rule European cars were simply not as widely purchased by their public. Price was part of the reason, and this inspired Nazi Germany to actually create a program whereby a worker could set aside funds in the hopes of acquiring a cheap German car, that car being Ferdinand Porsche's Volkswagen, or 'People's Car". None were ever delivered during the horror of the Third Reich, although the Volkswagen plant did produce a car that was Jeep sized during the war, with that car being the Kubelwagen. The VW "Bug" of course, would revive after the war and live on, Model T like, forever.
The 1937 Cord, an extremely advanced luxury car of the 1930s which would not survive the Depression.
1937 Chrysler Airflow.
It can't be said that cars advanced, like trucks did, during World War Two. By and large, the cars that came out right after World War Two were the same models that were being offered in 1941. No new automotive technology was really developed that was applicable to cars during the war, except for the perfection of conventional four wheel drive, which showed up, in terms of cars, only in Jeep class vehicles. Regarding those, of course, the Jeep did go into civilian production by Willys, with Willys always having been a manufacturer that specialized in rural vehicles. It soon had competitors from overseas, interestingly enough, demonstrating the global spread of the Jeep during World War Two.
M38A1, which in its civilian expression was the CJ5. The CJ series of Jeeps went into production right after World War Two and while the designators have changed to YJ and TJ, they've basically never stopped.
In part that might reflect an enormous improvement in roads that occurred during the 1930s. Automobiles of the 1930s were still all suitable for rural roads. They had high clearance, compared to modern cars, and they were relatively stiffly suspended. During the 30s, however, most highways most places had become modern, and urban paving was the norm. This in turn reflected itself in the late 1940s with cars starting to have lower and softer suspensions, and in turn they grew larger as well. Larger engines also began to make the appearance, particularly in Fords which had pioneered the V8 engine. Chevrolet's remains 6 cylinders at first, but in the mid 1950s Chevrolet also introduced a V8 for its regular car line. By the late 1950s V8s had become the American norm, even though 6 cylinder vehicles were still available. Also during the 1950s some American cars had become simply enormous.
1954 Chevrolet Deluxe.
1950s vintage Pontiac Super Chief.
Still, the 1970s ushered in a change when the price of gas, and gas shortages, made fuel economy an American concern for the first time. As fuel economy had been a concern everywhere else in the world, this made foreign imports really viable. The Japanese and European manufacturers, devastated by World War Two, had largely recovered and had been focusing on their domestic markets, which demanded fuel economy. Cars like the Datsun, Toyota, or Fiat were suddenly marketable in the US, and the Japanese in particular, who had focused on making really good small cars, were able to make huge inroads into the American market. The American market was permanently changed, and the number of American manufacturers declined to a "big three".
The shock of the fuel, and following fiscal, crises took American manufacturers a very long time to adjust to, but they have. That takes us to the current market. If the Model A was a "modern car", as I've referred to it here, cars of the last ten years, with many American cars being prime examples, are "post modern". So much safer, longer lasting, and better than anything that's come before them, they can't even really be compared to cars of the 80s or 90s. They are much, much better, longer lasting, and safer. Oddly, Americans are now less interested in cars as well, which reflects perhaps a new post modern view of them. For the first time, really, Americans now view cars the same way Europeans have for a long time, just a way to get around, if they really need one.
Body by Fischer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)