Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Old Picture of the Day: Massive Logs
Old Picture of the Day: Massive Logs: Today's picture shows an Old Timers cabin made from some pretty massive logs. I guess you build with what you have, and this guy ha...
Wednesday, February 3, 1915. Ottoman's held up.
Clara Dolores Lopp sitting in front of a shipment of cigarettes and cigars she arranged to have shipped to soldiers fighting in Europe. World War One would increase the use of cigarettes enormously which resulted in a marked increase in lung cancer by the 1930s.
The British kept the Ottomans from crossing the Suez Canal.
The Germans started a second siege on Osowiec Fortress.
Co conspirators in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Veljko Čubrilović, Danilo Ilić and Miško Jovanović were executed by hanging.
John Chilembwe was spotted by a police patrol and shot dead near Mulanje, Malawi.
Last edition:
Tuesday, February 2, 1915. Reinforcements.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Random Snippets. Even I know better than that. . .
I don't watch football much. Prior to being married, in my adult life I'd normally not even catch one game in an average year. Since being married, I tend to catch the Super Bowl, as my wife likes the game.
So I saw last night's.
Now, while I don't watch football much, I have seen football, and I can recall watching quite a few games or parts of games when I was young, as my father liked football a lot.
And I well recall teams being down by one touchdown down near the end zone, in the last minute of the game, running plays as rapidly as they could without even huddling.
Which is why I was stunned even before they blew it, when the Seahawks didn't do that in the last 50 seconds of the game. Geez, if even I know that, what were they thinking?
So I saw last night's.
Now, while I don't watch football much, I have seen football, and I can recall watching quite a few games or parts of games when I was young, as my father liked football a lot.
And I well recall teams being down by one touchdown down near the end zone, in the last minute of the game, running plays as rapidly as they could without even huddling.
Which is why I was stunned even before they blew it, when the Seahawks didn't do that in the last 50 seconds of the game. Geez, if even I know that, what were they thinking?
Tuesday, February 2, 1915. Reinforcements.
A company of New Zealand infantry was sent to reinforce Gurkha troops at Lake Timsah, Egypt.
Boer rebels surrendered to the Union of South Africa.
Werner Horn detonated a suitcase filled with dynamite on the Canadian side of the Saint Croix–Vanceboro Railway Bridge, causing minor damage.
The Imperial Russian seaplane carrier Orlitza was commissioned.
Last edition:
Monday, February 1, 1915. Suez Canal Besieged.
Labels: 1910s, 1915, 1915 at the Movies, Egypt, Movies, Ottoman Army, Personalities, Siege of Suez, Suez Canal, World War One
Sunday, February 1, 2015
Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Rail Transport in the Persian Corridor
Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Rail Transport in the Persian Corridor
And a look at rail in the Persian corridor during World War Two.
And a look at rail in the Persian corridor during World War Two.
Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Russian Rail Overview
Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Russian Rail Overview
Really interesting look at the Rail of the Soviet Union during World War Two. The USSR was extremely rail dependent. Everyone was, of course, but they were to a greater extent than most, although the Germans very
much were as well.
Really interesting look at the Rail of the Soviet Union during World War Two. The USSR was extremely rail dependent. Everyone was, of course, but they were to a greater extent than most, although the Germans very
much were as well.
Monday, February 1, 1915. Suez Canal Besieged.
An Ottoman force numbering 13,000 troops laid siege to the Suez Canal.
William Fox established Fox Film.
Wilhelm Fried Fuchs was born in Tolcsva, Hungary and was a Hungarian Jew. His family immigrated to the US when he was a boy. His movie company still exists in an evolved form.
Last edition:
Sunday, January 31, 1915. Gas!
Air Travel then and now. . .I'm not nostalgic about it, it's gotten better
The Missouri River, note the barges.
As noted, I fly quite a bit. And I have a long history with air travel too. I first boarded a commercial airliner as a baby, and I can recall flying out of Casper on Western Airlines and Frontier Airlines, in jet airliners, as a boy still in grade school. By the time I was junior high I'd flown on Western, Frontier, Air Canada, and others I can't recall. I can well recall when you could still get a flight on a 707 from Casper to Billings Montana.
Given that, I have experience with the "glory days" of jet travel that people are nostalgic about now.
I'm not. Air travel is a lot better now. Shoot, it's better than it was ten years ago.
The current jets are so fast that a lot of the nostalgia that people place in old time air travel is really misplaced. I can well recall when you received multiple drinks and food on flights. That's because those flights were really slow. Now, they're so much faster it isn't even funny.
This first became apparent to me on a flight some years ago to Oakland. I'd flown to California before and was amazed when we were boarded on a "regional airliner", probably some sort of Canadair jet. That jet zipped to the destination so fast I was stunned. The week before last I flew to Toronto, which I've done before, on a direct connection from Denver. Sure, it took over three hours, again on a regional jet liner, but that isn't too bad really. This past week I flew from Tampa to Denver on an airbus that flew so high that we flew over satellites (okay, not really, but it flew high) and it was as smooth as a bus. Very comfortable, and really nice plane. The Dreamliner is even more comfortable.
These planes are just super, and speedy. They get you where you need to go very quickly, and if there isn't endless warmed up meals form the galley, well so be it.
Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Mother of God Catholic Church, Denver Colorado
Churches of the West: Mother of God Catholic Church, Denver Colorado:
This small Roman Catholic Church is just off downtown Denver. A remarkable thing about this church is it's fairly close proximity, in modern terms, with other Catholic Churches in downtown Denver, however, this one is on the border between the business and residential districts.
This church was built as a Protestant church in about 1900 and saw use by various denominations until the 1940s, when the Archdiocese of Denver purchased it.
This small Roman Catholic Church is just off downtown Denver. A remarkable thing about this church is it's fairly close proximity, in modern terms, with other Catholic Churches in downtown Denver, however, this one is on the border between the business and residential districts.
This church was built as a Protestant church in about 1900 and saw use by various denominations until the 1940s, when the Archdiocese of Denver purchased it.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Movies In History: American Sniper
Given that it probably seems to those who stop in here that I see every "war movie" going, it will probably come as a surprise that: 1) I don't, and 2) I wasn't particularly inclined to see this one, but I don't really know why. It may be because I've known a couple of men, one particularly well, who had been snipers and they were profoundly unlikely to discuss it, which makes me feel just slightly odd about one who does. That isn't intended as a criticism, it's just a comment.
But I did see it last night, and because my wife wanted to, which is even more of a surprise. She recently read Chris Kyle's book, another surprise, and like it. I haven't read the book. Because she read the book, she wanted to see the movie.
Because I haven't read the book, I can't comment at all on how accurately the film depicts the events of the book. And I'm also not going to comment much on the surprising amount of controversy this film is generating, and from surprising quarters. I will say, however, that some of the criticism strikes me as very "parlor" in nature, i.e., the sort of slightly leftist commentary that comes from people whose view of conflict is very antiseptic. War is nasty, and that's just the way it. To depict that honestly, and to write about it, isn't something that deserves criticism. Nor does a person deserve criticism because they took an active part in it, which seems to be the basis of at least some criticism. It's interesting, indeed, how we're now at a point where that sort of criticism is not too uncommon in some quarters, when in earlier eras that would have been regarded as rather dishonorable.
Anyhow, what I will note is that this film, which depicts a lot of urban comment, is correct in material details, which it should be. It's pretty darned graphic, but not grossly over the top for the most part. Equipment appears to be generally correct with perhaps a few minor errors.
It depicts urban combat in a very gritty fashion, and it reminded me to a slight extent of Black Hawk Down, which in my view is the most accurate combat movie ever filmed. It's not Black Hawk Down, but it does a nice job with this story.
But I did see it last night, and because my wife wanted to, which is even more of a surprise. She recently read Chris Kyle's book, another surprise, and like it. I haven't read the book. Because she read the book, she wanted to see the movie.
Because I haven't read the book, I can't comment at all on how accurately the film depicts the events of the book. And I'm also not going to comment much on the surprising amount of controversy this film is generating, and from surprising quarters. I will say, however, that some of the criticism strikes me as very "parlor" in nature, i.e., the sort of slightly leftist commentary that comes from people whose view of conflict is very antiseptic. War is nasty, and that's just the way it. To depict that honestly, and to write about it, isn't something that deserves criticism. Nor does a person deserve criticism because they took an active part in it, which seems to be the basis of at least some criticism. It's interesting, indeed, how we're now at a point where that sort of criticism is not too uncommon in some quarters, when in earlier eras that would have been regarded as rather dishonorable.
Anyhow, what I will note is that this film, which depicts a lot of urban comment, is correct in material details, which it should be. It's pretty darned graphic, but not grossly over the top for the most part. Equipment appears to be generally correct with perhaps a few minor errors.
It depicts urban combat in a very gritty fashion, and it reminded me to a slight extent of Black Hawk Down, which in my view is the most accurate combat movie ever filmed. It's not Black Hawk Down, but it does a nice job with this story.
Blog Mirror: Engines of the Red Army in WW2, and Engines of the Wehrmacht
Engines of the Red Army in WW2
Interesting site featuring the owner's depictions of World War Two Red Army vehicles.
And "Engines of the Wehrmacht"
I fear that accurately listing every vehicle used by the German army would require listing every vehicle that existed in the 1910 to 1945 time frame, no matter where made.
And if you were the History Channel, you'd have to have a special category for "Secret Vehicles of the Wehrmacht", or "Alien Automobiles of the Wehrmacht".
As an aide, and its a complete aside, the author of this blog notes the correct name for the Red Army on his site, which is the first time I've ever seen what the correct name was. And, fwiw, I'd note that the meaning of "Wehrmacht" is commonly misunderstood, even by historians who should know better. The Wehrmacht were the German armed forces, not the Army. The German Army was (and is) the "Heer". The Wehrmacht included all of the German armed forces; including the Heer (Army), the Luftwaffe (the air force), the Kreigsmarine (the navy) and the Waffen SS (the "armed" SS). On that last group, the Waffen SS, the SS is an organization that's so complicated that its really difficult to actually define it other than that it was the uniformed branch of the Nazi party. Not all SS, however, were Waffen SS. The Waffen SS was essentially a rival armed force to the Heer, made up of volunteers (until the very end, when some were conscripted or transferred into the SS, but that was at the very end of the war), with the privso that if they were German (by culture), they had to be members of the Nazi party. That criteria would seem self evident, but there were also SS units made up of foreign Nazis, such as the Wiking (viking) division, which was made up of Norwegian volunteers, or SS units that were made up of odd cultures here and there that the Germans took into service, such as, ultimately, Cossacks serving with the Germans, in part, who were not members of the Nazi party but who were incorporated into the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) in SS formations.
That all leaves aside, of course, SS units that were basically interior Nazi elements, or the entire nasty subject of camp guards, which were also SS units.
Interesting site featuring the owner's depictions of World War Two Red Army vehicles.
And "Engines of the Wehrmacht"
I fear that accurately listing every vehicle used by the German army would require listing every vehicle that existed in the 1910 to 1945 time frame, no matter where made.
And if you were the History Channel, you'd have to have a special category for "Secret Vehicles of the Wehrmacht", or "Alien Automobiles of the Wehrmacht".
As an aide, and its a complete aside, the author of this blog notes the correct name for the Red Army on his site, which is the first time I've ever seen what the correct name was. And, fwiw, I'd note that the meaning of "Wehrmacht" is commonly misunderstood, even by historians who should know better. The Wehrmacht were the German armed forces, not the Army. The German Army was (and is) the "Heer". The Wehrmacht included all of the German armed forces; including the Heer (Army), the Luftwaffe (the air force), the Kreigsmarine (the navy) and the Waffen SS (the "armed" SS). On that last group, the Waffen SS, the SS is an organization that's so complicated that its really difficult to actually define it other than that it was the uniformed branch of the Nazi party. Not all SS, however, were Waffen SS. The Waffen SS was essentially a rival armed force to the Heer, made up of volunteers (until the very end, when some were conscripted or transferred into the SS, but that was at the very end of the war), with the privso that if they were German (by culture), they had to be members of the Nazi party. That criteria would seem self evident, but there were also SS units made up of foreign Nazis, such as the Wiking (viking) division, which was made up of Norwegian volunteers, or SS units that were made up of odd cultures here and there that the Germans took into service, such as, ultimately, Cossacks serving with the Germans, in part, who were not members of the Nazi party but who were incorporated into the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) in SS formations.
That all leaves aside, of course, SS units that were basically interior Nazi elements, or the entire nasty subject of camp guards, which were also SS units.
Senate File 108 and the addressing of the unnecessary.
While I'm sure the Legislature gets more heat than it deserves, it is occasionally really hard not to cringe at certain legislative acts.
Indeed, it's hard not to cringe at certain legislative commentary. This year, for example, the local paper has been really upset by a couple of bills that seek to carve out a freedom of conscience defense for people who feel that they cannot perform services at same gender weddings, in spite of that having already been proven to be an issue in other states, but there's been no commentary in the paper, as far as I'm aware (and due to business travel, I may have missed it) seeking to restrict the Game and Fish from doing what it already cannot do.
That bill, Senate File 108, seeks to prevent Game Wardens from entering private lands without the permission of the landowners. In other words, it seeks to restrict what already can't be done. The draft bill states.
What motivates this is unclear, but a law enforcement officer already can't just walk onto private lands, so this bill is wholly unnecessary. Why somebody was worked up enough about this to write a bill preventing what's already prevented is not clear to me, but by taking this step, the law actually would preclude a Game Warden from entering any private land, such as Walmart for example, or the local sporting goods store. Clearly, that isn't what was meant, but the law in seeking to address a situation that doesn't need to be addressed, by extension could be acting to create a legal oddity that's a bit absurd.
Hopefully this bill will fail.
Just because its free, doesn't mean you have to take it (but then there's no harm in doing so).
More on air travel.
It's always been the case that when you fly in a plane, they give you the chance to have something to drink.
They used to also give you something to eat, if only peanuts. Truly.
Of course, flights used to be really long. The air time between Casper and Denver is now 35 minutes. Really short. When you had to take a prop aircraft, it was at least an hour. Even Denver to Tampa is just four hours, not really all that long.
Now, on a four hour flight, offering you something to drink makes a lot of sense. On a 35 minute flight, it really doesn't, but they do it anyhow. And as an observer of people, I notice that a very large percentage of people take it. I'm not really sure why, as they attendant barely has time to give you the drink, for you to drink it, and then to pick up the refuse. Indeed, on at least one occasion I've seen the drink distribution run into the final approach, to be followed, therefore by an immediate pick up.
Surely, you don't really normally need something to drink on a flight that short. It's really short. But probably over half the passengers on a plane take something to drink, no matter how short, or rough, the flight is. A person barely has enough time to get their drink, drink it, and have the attendant pick it up. And on a rough flight, and I've been on a few, more than a few people seem too dazed to notice that their drink is about to go flying on to their neighbor at any one time.
On the other hand, it's harmless too, usually, and probably a remnant of that day when air travel was slower, and you always got something to eat. Some people look back on that fondly, but frankly I'm so impressed by the modern speed of aircraft its not even funny. Casper to Denver in 35 minutes? Wow. And even a trip from Denver to Tampa or Toronto just doesn't take that long anymore. That's truly amazing.
On the other hand, it's harmless too, usually, and probably a remnant of that day when air travel was slower, and you always got something to eat. Some people look back on that fondly, but frankly I'm so impressed by the modern speed of aircraft its not even funny. Casper to Denver in 35 minutes? Wow. And even a trip from Denver to Tampa or Toronto just doesn't take that long anymore. That's truly amazing.
Update: Today In Wyoming's History: January 30
Today In Wyoming's History: January 30: 2015 The Federal government announced the sale of the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Center grounds, formerly the Teapot Dome Naval Petroleum Reserve, to Standard Oil Resources Corporation. Teapot Dome, of course, is famously known in most places of the scandal that occurred during Warren G. Harding's administration.
Sunday, January 31, 1915. Gas!
The Germans used poison gas in warfare for the first time, firing shells loaded with xylyl bromide, tear gas, against the Russians at the Battle of Bolimów.
Cold weather prevented it from being effective.
The day saw huge casualties as the German attacks failed, and the Russians countered, which also failed.
The British, alerted to the presence of the Ottomans, prepared defenses for the canal.
Thomas Merton OCSO, whom I frankly have mixed feelings about, was born in France on this day.
Last edition:
Wednesday, January 27,1915. Ottoman Suez raid, First US nautical loss of World War One.
Friday, January 30, 2015
The Window Seat
When you book a flight, you get to choose your seat, unless you book too late and end up getting simply what's left. When that occurs, you almost invariably get an aisle seat, or if the plane is big enough, a middle seat.
Which raises this question, why do people who book window seats close their windows so they don't have to look out them?
I hate flying. I like airplanes, but I do not like riding in them. Nonetheless, I do a fair amount, and when I do, if I can, I book a window seat. That's because I'm fascinated by terrain and geology, and you get to see a lot of that from the air.
But this view isn't universally shared, however, and I've noticed of late a fair number of people will rapidly shut their windows so they don't have to look out them, which then means that the trip has all the joy of traveling in a can.
Oddly, the window seat is otherwise one of the most uncomfortable seats. It's hard to get in and out of. the aisle seat is the easiest. If you don't want to see something, why not take that one?
Indeed, I've noticed some people can be aggressive about this. Recently I was on a really long flight and got up to use the facilities (it was hours and hours long). When I got back to my seat, the guy in the aisle, who was a really fussy traveler anyhow, had mostly closed my window. As I try not to be rude, I just looked out the remaining 1/5th that was available.
Anyhow, commercial air travel is a really grim experience, by and large, but getting to look out the window is neat. If you don't like doing that, leave the window for somebody who does.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
President Obama's Community College Proposal
Note: I started this post before the recent State of the Union Address. That means that the tax aspects of that speech, which are really another topic, had not been made yet. As its hard to discuss this topic, without discussing that one, I thought I'd note that.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Me, in 1986. I'd just graduated from University when this photo was taken in South Korea. Being in the Guard meant that I qualified for tuition assistance, and they even sometimes paid for my books.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Casper College Geomorphology class, field trip, 1983.
As everyone surely knows, the President recently proposed that the Federal government should fund two years at a community college for every American. I imagine that this will have some qualifiers, such as you need to be qualified by having a high school degree or a GED, and you can't be 51 years old, but that's the general idea.
As folks here know, or no doubt suspect, I read things quickly which means I can read a lot, and of the things I've been reading a lot of is criticism of this idea. I've frankly been surprised by some of the quarters I've seen that criticism coming from. I understand a general conservative opposition to it, based on the view that Federal funding of many things is out of control and needs to be reigned in, but I've also been surprised, for example, in reading the comments by people who are what I'd regard as religious conservatives, or social conservatives, who are, in some cases, extremely worked up about this, as I'd otherwise suspect that this proposal fits in with their greater social views.
Well, let me note that where I live it basically doesn't matter, as here in Republican Wyoming, bastion of conservatism and free enterprise, we already fund college and even university for our resident high school graduates. On this one, we're as socialist as can be. Drag out the red banner Wyoming!
Now, I'm not criticizing my native land, which I truly love. I think this is a good thing. I only note that as if this fails, it doesn't impact the people I know. We're already on board with this one, here.
But I also point it out because, living in a state that's adopted this, to use some of our oil largess (which is now declining, of course) I've seen it up close and personal. This didn't exist back in when I was a young college student. At that time, there was only one state institution that was funding college education, and that state entity was:
Me, in 1986. I'd just graduated from University when this photo was taken in South Korea. Being in the Guard meant that I qualified for tuition assistance, and they even sometimes paid for my books.
The National Guard.
Yes, the Wyoming Army National Guard and Air National Guard provided tuition assistance to its troops, and if well funded, they even provided funds for books. And of course, you also got a monthly paycheck.
Of course, you had to do something in return, which was agree to be shot at, if need be. But, I did it, and I frankly really liked it. One of the big mistakes I've made in my life was dropping out of the Guard when my enlistment was up. I wish I hadn't, and had kept on and done twenty. But that's water under the bridge now.
Now, of course, a person who was looking for college cash wouldn't need to consider the Guard as Wyoming will pay.
Okay, well so what? Well, frankly, the state helping to educate its young is one of the best things that this state does. Our economy is cyclical, and we're heading into a bust. When the photo above was taken, I was a Sergeant in the Army National Guard. I was also the holder of a Bachelor in Science in geology and couldn't find a job as we were in a bust. You could argue that I'd panned unwisely, but I"d also note that my Guard unit was full of men who were unemployed from the oilfield. Their life was tougher, as their jobs were gone, and the Guard was helping them hold on. Indeed, at that time our Guard unit was a collection of middle aged Vietnam veterans, a tough, intelligent, and lively bunch of men who, in some instances, had fallen on hard times. If we had to fight, it was comforting to know that a lot of those men had indeed fought before, and they were pretty experienced fellows.
Point being, however, is that even back in 1986 having an education at least got you somewhere, in a state that was having a depression. I went on to law school, and after graduating in 1990, I've never been out of work. I'm not rich, and I never will be, but without my education, I'd be in a hard spot for sure. I'd probably have had to leave the state in the 80s to look for work elsewhere, which many people did. And right now, many people are probably about to do.
The big difference between then and now, quite frankly, is that in 1986 there were still jobs in the US for men who had just a high school degree. Getting into the Army was pretty easy in 86, as we had a big Army, and Navy, and Air Force. You could get into police work with an Army discharge. You could work for the Fire Department with a high school diploma, if you could get in. And nationwide there were still jobs that didn't require much more than a high school diploma. Here, in town, you could work for one of the three refineries we then had, for example.
Well, those jobs have really evaporated for the most part, the recent batch of oilfield jobs notwithstanding. Now, in this country, without some post high school education, you're going to work a service job and that's the way it is. And it's not going to pay well.
Indeed, even all the old jobs that remain, that didn't require post high school training, now do. There's certification for everything. And even jobs like the police department's now require at least a two year degree. You need an education, young man (or woman) if you don't want to be stuck working at the convenience store.
Our international competitors already know this. In Canada, the government already funds what amounts to two years of post high school study. A German college of mine keeps urging my son to look at Germany as a place to study, as four years, he says, would be gratis. We live in a competitive world, and we have to decide if we want a first world workforce, or a third world one. And I mean third world. Already the third world is coming up, and education to the high school level isn't a rare thing there anymore.
So this is a direction I feel we should go in, and we probably need to. Yes, I know its expensive, as much as $60,000,000,000 over a decade, but then I also know that this fiscal year the United States will spend $337,000,000 on our small fleet of F35 fighters. The two are not, of course, analogous, and we are constantly in debt, but a nation that feels that it can spend the way we do on all sort of things, can invest presumably in education.
But if we do so, and we should, there are of course some things to keep in mind.
The nature of Community Colleges.
It's important to keep in mind here that the proposal isn't to fund "a college education", but rather to fund two years at community college. It's easy for some to confuse the two, and they tend to get confused.
The Tom Hanks op ed linked in below does a really good job of describing community college, and what community colleges are about. Colleges aren't universities, for one thing, and that's important to keep in mind. Indeed, universities are technically made up of colleges, such as the College of Arts and Sciences or the College of Education, or the College of Engineering, or the College of Law. Good community colleges (and there are good and bad) typically have the first two years for most widely held bachelors degrees, so you can go on to a four year school from there, but they also have a lot of programs that have taken the place of trade schools. Casper College, for example, has a welding program, a truck driving program and a diesel mechanics program, none of which the University of Wyoming do.
That's significant, as it means that a person who isn't really seeking a four year degree can still get the certification that is necessary for them to pursue a decent job, which might otherwise be difficult to get, particularly once they're out of school and wish to start working.
But frankly another aspect of the community college is that it flat out allows a lot of people to get a start who just couldn't otherwise, and that too is very significant.
It's a really popular idea in our culture to speak of people "leaving for college" as if that's a right of passage. Even movies tap into it, such as American Graffiti. But that model is a bit obsolete and was never fully accurate. The truth is that the first few years after high school can be really tough. By and large, a lot of people have no idea what they are going to do in life, and they have a vague sense that going to university will give them direction. Often it really doesn't. The story of somebody going to school and failing nearly immediately is a pretty common one. A lot of those people never make it back. Community colleges do a much better job with many people in this stage of their lives than universities do.
To include me.
I hadn't intended to go to Casper College, like I did. I had intended to go to the University of Wyoming and I enrolled there. I changed my mind when I went down to UW for an orientation and looked around and felt so out of sorts, I just gave up on that plan then and there.
I had planned on going to UW as they had a good geology department, my intended (and actual) major, and they had college ROTC. At that point in time, I had a vague plan of taking ROTC and getting a commission in the Army, serving as an officer for a couple of years, and then deciding what I would do post that.
As it happened, I came back and enrolled in Casper College, and its a good thing I did.
For one thing, at CC I found that I had to make up nearly an entire high school career in mathematics that I'd managed to get through high school without taking. I did that in less than a semester, but I doubt very much that if I'd gone to UW I would have been successful at that crash remedial work. And living at home while I was going to CC for two years let me really get into college, which I wasn't too sure about at first.
Indeed, that two years stands as two of the best of my life in some ways. I lived at home and had low expenses but worked at CC at the same time, and I'd joined the Guard (to make up for my delay in entering ROTC). I had enough cash, therefore, to get by, without really needing much. I liked the course work and when I wasn't in school or studying I was hunting. I was sort of living the life, and knew it.
I did end up going to UW after graduating from Casper College, and even at that my introduction to US's geology department was really a smooth one, but I did fine. I doubt, however, that I would have made it had I just went straight to US. I never did enter ROTC, finding that my time as a NCO in the Guard answered the questions I had about service life, or maybe just satisfied my curiosity about the Army, or maybe the combined experience in general told me something about myself, so I lost interest in doing that.
At any rate, that worked for me.
One thing, however, I do want to note is that I"m not saying, and would not say, that going to college means you'll have a happy life. I also think that too often education is confused with happiness. Indeed, I think people confuse monetary success with happiness, and they aren't the same. A good education, if truly a good one, does broaden a person's perspective and that makes a difference, but all too often modern educations really aren't all that broad. And some of those educations aren't useful, which is a problem in and of itself. As university educations have become increasingly common, they've become devalued by becoming easier in some instances, and some majors are, frankly, worthless. So poor planning and unrealistic goals can lead to an expensive four years that doesn't translate into anything.
Which isn't to say that for most people, some college isn't a good thing.
And in the modern world, most nations recognize that and do something about it. We have to too, if we wish to continue to be competitive. That doesn't mean that everyone needs a four year degree, or that even everyone should avail themselves of the two year opportunity. But making it available may be something that becomes increasingly critical in the world of the very near future.
But if we do so, and we should, there are of course some things to keep in mind.
The nature of Community Colleges.
It's important to keep in mind here that the proposal isn't to fund "a college education", but rather to fund two years at community college. It's easy for some to confuse the two, and they tend to get confused.
The Tom Hanks op ed linked in below does a really good job of describing community college, and what community colleges are about. Colleges aren't universities, for one thing, and that's important to keep in mind. Indeed, universities are technically made up of colleges, such as the College of Arts and Sciences or the College of Education, or the College of Engineering, or the College of Law. Good community colleges (and there are good and bad) typically have the first two years for most widely held bachelors degrees, so you can go on to a four year school from there, but they also have a lot of programs that have taken the place of trade schools. Casper College, for example, has a welding program, a truck driving program and a diesel mechanics program, none of which the University of Wyoming do.
That's significant, as it means that a person who isn't really seeking a four year degree can still get the certification that is necessary for them to pursue a decent job, which might otherwise be difficult to get, particularly once they're out of school and wish to start working.
But frankly another aspect of the community college is that it flat out allows a lot of people to get a start who just couldn't otherwise, and that too is very significant.
It's a really popular idea in our culture to speak of people "leaving for college" as if that's a right of passage. Even movies tap into it, such as American Graffiti. But that model is a bit obsolete and was never fully accurate. The truth is that the first few years after high school can be really tough. By and large, a lot of people have no idea what they are going to do in life, and they have a vague sense that going to university will give them direction. Often it really doesn't. The story of somebody going to school and failing nearly immediately is a pretty common one. A lot of those people never make it back. Community colleges do a much better job with many people in this stage of their lives than universities do.
To include me.
I hadn't intended to go to Casper College, like I did. I had intended to go to the University of Wyoming and I enrolled there. I changed my mind when I went down to UW for an orientation and looked around and felt so out of sorts, I just gave up on that plan then and there.
I had planned on going to UW as they had a good geology department, my intended (and actual) major, and they had college ROTC. At that point in time, I had a vague plan of taking ROTC and getting a commission in the Army, serving as an officer for a couple of years, and then deciding what I would do post that.
As it happened, I came back and enrolled in Casper College, and its a good thing I did.
For one thing, at CC I found that I had to make up nearly an entire high school career in mathematics that I'd managed to get through high school without taking. I did that in less than a semester, but I doubt very much that if I'd gone to UW I would have been successful at that crash remedial work. And living at home while I was going to CC for two years let me really get into college, which I wasn't too sure about at first.
Indeed, that two years stands as two of the best of my life in some ways. I lived at home and had low expenses but worked at CC at the same time, and I'd joined the Guard (to make up for my delay in entering ROTC). I had enough cash, therefore, to get by, without really needing much. I liked the course work and when I wasn't in school or studying I was hunting. I was sort of living the life, and knew it.
One of the geology classrooms at the University of Wyoming, in the 1980s.
I did end up going to UW after graduating from Casper College, and even at that my introduction to US's geology department was really a smooth one, but I did fine. I doubt, however, that I would have made it had I just went straight to US. I never did enter ROTC, finding that my time as a NCO in the Guard answered the questions I had about service life, or maybe just satisfied my curiosity about the Army, or maybe the combined experience in general told me something about myself, so I lost interest in doing that.
At any rate, that worked for me.
One thing, however, I do want to note is that I"m not saying, and would not say, that going to college means you'll have a happy life. I also think that too often education is confused with happiness. Indeed, I think people confuse monetary success with happiness, and they aren't the same. A good education, if truly a good one, does broaden a person's perspective and that makes a difference, but all too often modern educations really aren't all that broad. And some of those educations aren't useful, which is a problem in and of itself. As university educations have become increasingly common, they've become devalued by becoming easier in some instances, and some majors are, frankly, worthless. So poor planning and unrealistic goals can lead to an expensive four years that doesn't translate into anything.
Which isn't to say that for most people, some college isn't a good thing.
And in the modern world, most nations recognize that and do something about it. We have to too, if we wish to continue to be competitive. That doesn't mean that everyone needs a four year degree, or that even everyone should avail themselves of the two year opportunity. But making it available may be something that becomes increasingly critical in the world of the very near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)