Sunday, October 11, 2015

Sunday Morning Scene: St. John the Baptist Church, Buffalo Wyoming.

St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church, Buffalo Wyoming




This extraordinary church is located in Buffalo Wyoming. Construction was completed on this long dreamed of Roman Catholic Church in 1950. The architecture is quite unique for Wyoming, and very striking. Adding to it, the church sits on fairly spacious grounds.

Friday, October 9, 2015

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: Sign the Pledge - Carry the Mail

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: Sign the Pledge - Carry the Mail: Sign the Pledge - Carry the Mail In today’s world, the idea of making a pledge has been nearly lost. Although in my little part of the ...

Lex Anteinternet: Trimming $200,000,000: the hiring freeze

Yesterday when I posted this:
Lex Anteinternet: Trimming $200,000,000:   Rainy Day in Cheyenne . Yesterday Governor Mead announced that he intends to trim $200,000,000 from next year's budget.
I failed to note that the State also put in place a hiring freeze.

What all that exactly means, I don't know, but it seems to mean that no vacant positions will be getting filled, which is a fairly drastic measure that will apparently save $18,000,000.  I'm not sure what I think about that, as if an agency is short handed, it's short handed, and making the working conditions of those remain accordingly worse may not be a great idea.  It is a fairly drastic measure.

Turning Point Documentary

Holscher's Hub: Southern Wyoming Barn

Southern Wyoming Barn

Thursday, October 8, 2015

Trimming $200,000,000


Yesterday Governor Mead announced that he intends to trim $200,000,000 from next year's budget.  That's $200,000,000 from a $9,300,000,000 budget, so while its a decline, it's still not a decline that even takes a billion out of the budget.  It's also, it should be noted, a budget that reflects revenue from more than one source.  I.e., not just coal and oil.

But those coal and oil revenues are dropping, and the budgetary chickens are starting to come home to roost. 

What will be trimmed hasn't really been announced yet, although there's some concern that the University of Wyoming will be among the state institutions hit. And it unfortunately comes at a time when a judiciary study shows that several Wyoming judicial districts could really use additional judges.

Even now I find some people in denial about the slow down having an impact, and I will say that in some cities around the state it seems construction is still going on like mad.  But certain signals are hard to ignore.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Lex Anteinternet: Toyota Landcruiser: The Prime Mover of the Third ...

Following up on our entry here:  Lex Anteinternet: Toyota Landcruiser: The Prime Mover of the Third World we reads today that the Treasury Department in investigating how it is that ISIL manages to have so many Toyota Hilux trucks.

I suspect that they just send agents in to dealerships in the Middle East and buy fleets.  It's not like that's illegal.  But I guess we'll see.

The disappearnce of the bridging company and the reappearance of infantry.

Yesterday a spokesman for the Wyoming Army National Guard announced that the 1041st Multi-Role Bridge Company will soon cease to exist.

The units is, rather obviously, just of company size, but it was somewhat unique for the Wyoming Army National Guard. The unit was created, if I recall correctly, back in the 1980s.  I can't recall if it existed or not while I was in the Guard, but I don't think it did.  I recall it existing at the time of the First Gulf War, however, but by that time the two battalions of the 49th Field Artillery here in Wyoming had been consolidated into a single battalion, which in turn meant that they had significantly fewer men than they had just a few years earlier. That reflected the downsizing in the military that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.  When that occurred, some armories were closed and in some regions of the states there were no more positions for artillerymen.  That was the case in southwestern Wyoming, which is where the bridging company was put in.  A friend of mine who was a career Guardsmen was in it for a time. The unit was activated for the First Gulf War, and the Second Gulf War, which the newly consolidated artillery was not, but because the wars did not develop as planned they were not deployed into combat.  If I recall correctly, during the second war the unit was held up due to problems with its anticipated deployment (i.e, it might have been anticipated that it would be sent to Turkey).  By all accounts it was a good unit.



"Engineers from the South Carolina Army National Guard’s 125th Multi-Role Bridge Company (MRBC), train to slingload the unit’s Bridge Erection Boats (BEB) with a U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook on Strom Thurmond Lake at the Clarks Hill Training Site in Plum Branch, S.C., June 18, 2014. The airlift operations were part of the unit’s annual training where platoons trained to transport their boats by air in response to a natural disaster when transportation by road was not possible. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Brian Calhoun/Released)".  The Wyoming Army National Guard's MRBC unit had boats of this type and indeed was this type of unit.

It was announced that soldiers in the unit would be folded into a new Wyoming Army National Guard infantry company.

All this is really interesting in regards to what now calls itself "the Cowboy Guard" (when they were bigger, when I was in it, they didn't use that nickname).  

To start of with, this is an interesting example of the further contraction of the Army, even while we are fighting a war, which is fairly amazing. Granted, we aren't engaged in heavy combat to the same extent we were just a few years ago, but we are still fighting and yet we're still shrinking the military.  No doubt it's not anticipated that we'll need to deploy bridging units against ISIL, but none the less, this is fairly surprising.

On the other hand, the folding of the unit into infantry is perhaps telling.  In our recent wars the fighting has been done by infantry.  Indeed, we've gone from the situation of World War Two and Korea, in which infantry were heavily used and always in short supply, but where the majority of casualties inflicted in combat by the U.S. Army were inflicted by artillery, to a series of wars starting with Vietnam were infantry, and indeed small unit actions, have become increasingly important.  In terms of a long cycle, we've actually seen the reemergence of infantry, and indeed infantry squads, as perhaps the most significant element of our current wars.

"U.S. Army Soldiers wait to be picked up by UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters south of Balad Ruz, Iraq, March 22, 2009. The Soldiers are assigned to the 25th Infantry Division's 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team. DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Walter J. Pels."  Modern U.S. Army infantry.

It's also interesting as it is the first time that the Wyoming Army National Guard will have infantry in over 100 years.

I'm not exactly sure when the last Wyoming Army National Guard infantry unit was disbanded, but I suspect it was just prior to World War One.  The state's Guard was mostly infantry from statehood up until some point just prior to the Great War.  Artillery entered the Wyoming Guard nearly from the onset, and there were artillery units in the Guard here at least as early as the Spanish American War, but there were infantry units as well.  Oddly, the existence of the infantry units is hardly ever noted and even the State's Guard today doesn't list them in its official on line histories, but they were there.  Photographs of infantry units mustered for the Spanish American War and just prior to World War One are available at the State Archives and I've seen them.  I suspect that there were some infantry units right up through the mobilization for the border crisis with Mexico, but the one source I've seen that mentioned them is one that I don't own.  During World War One, however, the Wyoming Guard served as heavy artillery.  Infantry did not reappear here again until just now.

One of the things about infantry is that it's always needed, and while it isn't cheap, any longer, to train and equip infantry, it's cheaper to do so than other units, and a bit easier to train as well.  All of that is probably why infantry shows up in a state like Wyoming, which you would otherwise suspect to have been cavalry, early on, and the Wyoming Army National Guard was horse cavalry, and then horse mechanized cavalry, from the early 1920s up into World War Two, when it became mechanized cavalry.  Artillery came and stayed after that.  Now, with the  Guards continuing to shrink, infantry has returned, although only as a company.

In that took, however, the Guard sort of oddly recalls the Guard prior to World War One.  After World War One, the Guard existed in fairly large, statewide units.  Following the Cold War, it seems, the Guard here started to see the reemergence of small single purpose units, although some always existed. The reappearance of infantry in this fashion strongly resembles this old form.  Of course, the return to a small American military also recalls the historic norm. So in terms of trends, the past is sort of repeating, or rather perhaps echoing, the past here.

Mid Week at Work: Paleo-Zamboni


Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Railhead: The Denver City Cable Rail Way Buidling, Denver Co...

We recently posted this item on our blog about railroads and railroad structures:

The Denver City Cable Rail Way Building, Denver Colorado.


It's interesting to see how this sort of urban transportation has changed over the years.  Many cities, such as Denver, had cable cars or horse drawn trollies (the two being quite different, of course).   They later removed them.  My uncle once told me me about riding on the back of trollies into downtown Denver, but when I was a kid, there was no transportation in Denver at all, or at least none that I can recall from when we'd visit the city for some reason. That is, no public transportation.

Downtown, however, by the 1970s Denver's RTD ran a bus line up and down 16th Street, which was otherwise closed to traffic.  Within the last 20 years a light rail system has been put in, and the city is now putting in a rail system that will run out to Denver International Airport.

All these methods of transportation in Denver are similar in a way, of course. But notably dissimilar as well.

On another note, it's nice to see this interesting old building preserved and still in use, albeit for much different purposes, today.

Monday, October 5, 2015

The Big Picture: "At the Hejaz railroad near Baṭn al-Ghū, 514 km from Damascus, 1152 m above sea level." 1916


The war in Syria


ISIL has reported destroyed the ancient arches at Palmyra. 

As everyone knows, the bitter civil war in Syria continues on, with a growing humanitarian crises as the result.

Russia has now intervened, and in the past week the Russian air force has flown 60 combat missions in support of the Syrian government.  Western forces, in the same time period, report having flown about 16 against ISIL.  The Russian ones are directed at enemies of the Assad regime in general.

The Russians are taking a lot of Western criticism for propping up Assad, and their support has likely kept him from falling so far.  But close observers of this situation know that the Russians are gravely worried about ISIL recruitment of Chechen Islamic fighters, with those fighters returning to Chechnya.  They have reason to be concerned, as it does seem to be occurring.  The Russian position in Syria is no doubt self serving, but they may have a more realistic view of the potential victors than we do.

We seem to have thought, early on, that any opponent of a fascistic regime is a democrat. We certainly now know that's not true, as one of the primary victorious forces, so far, in Syria has been ISIL.  Chances are very good that should Assad, whom we justifiably have no love for, falls, the replacement will be some species of radical Islamic theocracy.  In the current environment, that may well prove to be something that's worse than Assad, and unlike Egypt, where we briefly saw that occur to a lesser degree, there's no long standing army with its own traditions and institutions that would be ready to step in and effect a coup in the name of some species of reason.  Should Assad go down, his army is going down with him, and if he goes down to ISIL, which is what seems the most likely outcome should he fall, that army's equipment will equip ISIL. 

And ISIL in turn will turn towards killing the Christians and likely anyone who is not a Sunni.

It's nice to believe, as Americans do, that at heart everyone is a democrat. But that can't be the basis for an international policy, as it isn't true.  In Syria, there's only one combatant with a serious chance of winning the war that's somewhat Western in its outlook. Unfortunately for us, that Western outlook is fascistic, which of course was a product of the West.  But we have to serious question whether we would prefer a fascist regime or an Islamic radical regime in power, and those are the choices.  Chances are, quite frankly, we're better off, or at least were better off before completely alienating it, with the fascistic one, which we could at least pressure and which would at least not have been an anti Christian, anti Druze, anti Shiia, anti Alowite, theocracy.

Lawyer population growth

The ABA reports:
The ABA chart generally measures the population of both active and resident lawyers as of Dec. 31, 2014. It shows the 10-year growth in Texas lawyer population was 24.6 percent, below that of Florida (53.3 percent), Utah (46.1 percent), North Carolina (33.7 percent), Arizona (30.6 percent), North Dakota (27.9 percent), Tennessee (27.8 percent), Wyoming (27.6 percent), Pennsylvania (27.4 percent, though a shift in the reporting agency yielded more accurate numbers), Georgia (25.7 percent), and Delaware ( 25.4 percent).
27.6% for Wyoming?

It'd be interesting to know what percentage of that was made up of actual Wyoming lawyers, as opposed to lawyers gaining admittance via the UBE but who don't actually live here.  At least based upon fairly well informed sources, recently what we are tending to see here are UBEers, that is lawyers who live elsewhere and get in simply because they've taken a test that doesn't actually test on Wyoming's law.  Many of them do not live here and do not intend to.  That's the real story, or at least a potential real story, behind these figures. And that's something that's worth looking at.

Including worth looking at, in that story, is whether the growth in "Wyoming" lawyers means there's been a demand within the state for legal services that has correspondingly grown.  If that's the case, should we restore a state test so as to make sure that those legal consumers' needs are being served.  And should we also seek to make certain that those needs are filled by lawyers actually living withing the communities that they're serving, i.e., by Wyoming lawyers whose ties to the state are direct, as they live there.

Size, geography, facts and figures

"It only take the German post office one day to take a letter across Germany. . . why can't the U.S. Post office do that?"

Well, because Germany is the size of my state, not the United States.  Think about it.

"The U.S. has so much more violence than Australia or Canada, why don't we adopt their laws and then we'd have just as little crime as they do. . . "

No, we wouldn't.  The US has over ten times the population of Canada or Australia.

Ten times.

Given that, we should have ten times the crime. We don't.

"Cars only cost $4,000 back then, why don't they cost that now, darn it?"

Because $4,000 back then equates to about $30,000 now, and those cars were dead by the time they had 60,000 miles on them.  So the ones now are a better buy.

Just think, if we sell this house we bought 20 years ago, we'll have so much money we'll be able to buy a really expensive new one! 

No you won't.  If your house costs a lot more than when you bought, so will any replacement house, even an equivalent one.  Getting more for something that's going to cost you just as much more to replace isn't a good deal.



Monday at the Bar: Reading the (War's) Laws


Saturday, October 3, 2015

The disturbing problem and the shallow analysis

Just below here on this blog there's a very long post concerning "pecularized American violence".  I've bumped it up recently due to the horrific shootings in Oregon, and I've done that every time we've had an incident of this type, which in spite of a chart run in a major American newspaper that claims that these happen every day, is fairly rare.

The analysis I write then holds up now.  Every time things like this occur some really shallow analysis comes out by those who fairly instinctively want what is already declared to have been unconstitutional, that being some sort of "gun control".  As noted in that entry, the instrumentalties involved in these incidents are singularly un-new if you will, which means something else is going on.  I.e., if we see this odd sort of violent action more frequently (and actually, we don't, we see it less frequently than in the 1920s), we must have new things that are causing it.

What we never do, however, is to look at the human factor.  It's really interesting.  And we don't look at it throughout the Western world either, even though, in spite of what pundits like to claim, this is a Western world problem, not a uniquely American one.  Indeed, even the claim that its an American problem is so very shallow, as it tends to be based on an analysis like "we have ten times the incidents that Australia has had".  

Well, we have over ten times the population Australia has and by extension out to have ten times every kind of crime, generally. We actually do not, however.

What we also do not do, as it probably makes us uncomfortable, is take a look at men, and it's all men, who commit these crimes.  I did that in my earlier post and I'll do it here again, and in looking at it, I think I know why we don't look at it.  We can do something about these events, but it means we have to change things about our society that involve looking at it honestly, and that involve surrendering license.

Almost all of the men involved in these crimes fit into a fairly distinct group of people. They're all either mentally ill or struggling with mental problems and they are all displaced from society and yet have been shielded from it at the same time.  They all tend to have had their mental illness or debility detected fairly early, but nothing was done regarding it.  This is true of the perpetrators of almost all the recent episodes and includes the horrific Norwegian one of some time back.  For instance, the perpetrator of the attack in Oregon shares in common with the Norwegian one that they were both found unfit for military service, something that shows fairly clearly that they cannot fit in with other men.

 At least a couple of them have been abandoned by their fathers, in practical terms, and raised by over protective mothers.  The Norwegian, the Oregonian and the New England perpetrators were all men who were children of divorce.

This may not seem to tell us much, perhaps, but it does.

We know more about mental health than every before, but we do less as a society about it than ever.  As earlier pointed out, we essentially abandon the mentally ill to their families, or the streets, which is something we did not used to do. This was done in the name of the mentally ill themselves, under the thesis that it was a deprivation of their freedom and right to happiness to institutionalize them, when in fact they're not happy anyhow and abandoning them to themselves or the street does not change that, it makes it worse.

And we've gone from a society with real standards that became one with almost none.  More on this in a minute, but here we have seen several people with mental illnesses who were allowed to acquire firearms.  Being adjudged to have a mental illness disqualifies a person under U.S law from owning a firearm, but as we simply refuse to do that, this safety measure is now absent from actual controls.  Being discharged from the U.S. Army as being mentally unqualified to be a soldier ought to have a real effect here.  But it does not.  It should disqualify a person from owning a firearm, just has having been diagnosed with a mental illness should require some sort of database entry so that it can be caught on background checks.  Instead we turn a blind eye towards this and then wonder how things get out of control. The recent New England, Virginia, Oregonian and Colorado shootings all fit this category.

Additionally, we gone from a society in which it was difficult for men to abandon children to one in which many men never even know their fathers and the fathers don't even have any social expectation that they have obligations towards their offspring.  In spite of decades of self centered narcissistic crap to the contrary, it's very well established that psychologically children are much better off being raised by their two committed parents from birth to adulthood.  This is so much the case that its been shown that children are even better off growing up in a household where the two parents are at odd and can not get along, rather than by one parent, with that one parent almost always being the mother.  For our own social disillusionment purposes we now pretend that single mothers are heroic, but often they're simply creating problems for their children.  And the more recent phenomenon of serial men floating in and out of women's lives leaving children in the wake seems undoubtedly tied to violence against the children, as the repeat headlines about a child being murdered by the mother's "boyfriend" gives ample evidence of.

Additionally, the evidence is quite strong that being raised by only one parent (or where one parent is effectively the only one there as the other has checked out mentally) gives rise to numerous problems which differ on a gender basis.  Part of that seems to be tied to the increasing phenomenon of gender confusion in our society. Children raised by one parent almost always lack development in some area simply by default, and through no fault of their own.  Males seem particularly prone to problems if there is not a male father figure in the home.  It's part of our DNA, no doubt, but boys who grow into men without a strong male figure in their lives suffer for it, with some, a minority no doubt, becoming effeminate lost souls as a result, and others become aggressive troubled souls.  Most are probably simply wounded in other ways and make due, but they shouldn't have to.

The net result is that we've produced a class of troubled young men throughout the Western world who crave what men have always craved, meaningful work, a family, and a male role, but they can't find their way into it.  Instead, they find their way to the basements' of their mothers' homes where they brood and play video games, served by a doting mother who doesn't know what to do.

All of this is, oddly enough, easier to address than we suppose. But we aren't going to do anything about it, as doing something about it means it is we who must change, rather than pretending that some implement magically causes all of this.

All of this has arisen in the era of declining and alternative families.  Fairly clearly, the traditional family was the brake on such developments.  Bolstering that would mean nothing more than reviving much of the domestic law that existed prior to 1950. And reviving much of the social standards.  Divorce was harder to obtain.  Producing children out of wedlock was regarded as socially shameful.  Men could not easily escape the children they'd helped produce.  Adults have altered all this to suit their individual self centered desires, none of which acknowledges that this body of law and conduct existed to protect children, and hence society, not individuals.

And a place has to be found for men to work who can't join the technological revolution.  Not everyone can or will, and leaving them discarded to the basement isn't the answer.  People complain about their jobs, but there's no good evidence that most people do well without one.  At least men seem to need to have an occupational identity, and not all are going to find that as computer programmers, as they can't.

Regarding computers, creating, or even encouraging, a society in which people retreat to hours of computer interaction is simply insane.  If an instrumentality it to be banned, the video game out to be it, particularly the violent video game.  Minds that once found distraction in books, work, or even cheap magazines or simply watch girls at a basketball game now stew in solitary violent isolation.

Finally, the long term decline in participation in society, whether through sports, or activities that are collective, or fraternal organizations, or through the churches, has to reverse.  Not every society has become as basement dwelling anti social as ours, and the less this occurs  the less likely such events are.  People have praised the decline of the pub and saloon cultures that once existed for men, but they did give men, including those living in the margins, a sense of at least belonging to something. The abandonment of churches as they stand for the proposition that self worth is not defined by selfish need has caused huge suffering as well.  

My prediction, however, is that none of this will be examined.  It's easier to pretend that implements that exist in society in the millions can magically be removed and all will be better.  Not hardly.  But by not looking at ourselves, and realizing that we need community and require institutions that demand self restraint, just rains too much on our parade.

Friday, October 2, 2015

Canadian politics. Being baffled.

I have a lot of Canadian cousins, aunts and uncles. Therefore, I read some of the Canadian news.  It emphasizes to me how little we understand about the politics of another nation.  I suppose, by extension, they don't understand ours.

For example, the Canadian election is coming up, and I've been reading a lot of posts by people who just hate Stephen Harper.  I mean hate him.  I have no idea why.

I don't hate our politicians, for that, matter, but somehow Harper draws the same sort of ire in some quarters that nearly every American President since Jimmy Carter has.  Surely, Harper is not a bad or evil man, is he?

On another topic, the Parti Quebecois has proposed to banning public workers from wearing religious headgear, such as skull caps or Islamic head scarves.  This to promote secular society.

Can they do that?  They couldn't here.  I'm amazed that such a thing would even be proposed, let alone in Canada, and let alone by the Parti Quebecois, but there you have it.  I'm sure it won't occur, but what a baffling thought.

The "Homestead" movement


 Nebraska homesteaders, 1884.

While most folks probably rush by in their daily lives oblivious to the Homestead movement, or Homesteaders in 2015, as I'm a fan of agriculture and all things agrarian, I've taken note of them.

But I wonder about them.

 Nebraska homesteaders, 1886.

For those (almost everyone) who wonders what I'm talking about, and who associate Homesteading with Little House on the Prairie, there's a subculture in the US today that uses this term to describe a small agrarian unit, but with no precision.  It's more than a little confusing.

Of course, by using the term "agrarian", I'm probably adding to the confusion. A lot of people associate the work "agrarian" with "agriculture", and they are not the same.

 Nebraska homesteaders, 1889.

Agrarian refers to a certain type of economics, which does tend to be farming centric, but which isn't really limited to farming. Used properly (as it tends to be by people who are agrarians) it refers to a Distributist economy focused on small freeholders, the majority of whom are farmers.

Eh?

Okay, basically that means an agrarians look towards the same sort of economy that Thomas Jefferson wrote about as being the foundation for democracy.  Individual heads of households who own and operate their own farms, with those farms basically being subsistence farms.  If that sounds a lot like Distributism, that's because Distributist are Agrarians in terms of their agricultural thought, and they too were agriculture focused, but not to the same extent.  Agrarian farmers ("yeomen") in Agrarian thought weren't precluded from selling their surplus, but the basic idea was that by and large they and their families survived on the fruits of their own land and labor, and hence they were independent men.  That's why Jefferson thought them the core of a democracy, a thought that wasn't unique to him by any means.

 American farmer plowing with oxen.  Use of draft animals remained common in American agriculture up until the 1950s, but most of the modern "homestead" community (but not all), is tractor dependent, which means they're tied into the larger economy pretty directly but they might not realize it.

There truly were a lot of yeomen in the United States for a very long time, but the Great Depression, in part due to economic polices of that era, and the policies of the Department of Agriculture in the 1950s, tended to finish them off, although there are still farmers who could be considered agrarians today.  Almost all farmers who farmed land they owned, prior to mid 20th Century, were various degrees of yeomen, with the degree to which that was true varying considerably from region to region, but more or less true everywhere.  Big exceptions, we should note, existed in the form of "farmers" who leased the land to tenant farmers, neither of which can be considered yeomanry. That was always true, I'd note, as "Planters" in the Old South were not agrarians, so for instance Jefferson, the great American admirer of yeomanry, wasn't a yeoman by any stretch of the imagination.

Okay, so now we know what a yeoman is, but what does that have to do with being a "Homesteader".

Good question, and its not even entirely clear to me.

 How it was done, well into the 20th Century.

"Homesteading", to most people, is associated with the late 19th Century after Congress passed the first Homestead Act. That allowed individuals to obtain a workable piece of the public domain (you could also simply buy land from the Federal government as well), under certain conditions, those conditions all tending towards working the land. The act aided small farmers, which most Americans were.  Put another way, most Americans at that time were in agrarian families, to varying degrees.   The concept of homesteading had been around since colonial times, but in that final version of it, the Federal government took a direct role in it for anyone willing to work the land, irrespective of whether they'd ever served the government or even if they were American citizens.

On that, it probably comes as a surprise to most people that it was actually the 20th Century that saw the most homesteading of this type in the US.  The period just before, and during, World War One, saw the peak of homesteading.  It continued on until the Great Depression, when the Homestead Acts were repealed, with the final homesteads being "proved up" in the lower 48 in the 1950s.  The act actually continued on in Alaska until 1986, which given the attitudes and desires I had in my youth, it may or may not be a good thing that I was not aware of (particularly as in 1986 I graduated from the University of Wyoming with a degree in geology and into unemployment).  Alaska does retain a state homestead statute, although the units it applies to are principally used by people who use them for vacation homes.  Michigan revived a type of homestead at one time some years ago for the impoverished Upper Peninsula, but I don't know that ultimately became of that.

 Sheep herders, Wyoming.  This is still done, where there are sheep (which there are many fewer of than even when I was young), but rarely are Americans the herders. They aren't willing, generally, to do it, at least at the wages it pays.  Peruvian herders may now be the most common.

Obviously members of the Homesteading Movement don't mean this sort of homesteading, although perhaps they sort of associate their efforts with it.  You can't go out on the Public Domain today and file a claim under the Homestead Act of 1862 or the Desert Lands Act or the Stock Raising Homestead Act.

Most people couldn't make a go on a small portion of land either, which is where my problem sort of starts with this movement. What people seem to be suggesting is that they move off the grid to some degree, and they live by the fruits of their farming labors.  But living off a few acres in 1862 was quite a bit different than trying to do the same in 2015.

A lot of them seem to acknowledge that, and for that reason, a lot seem to cross into what some call "hobby farming".  I have my own problems with that, and in regards tot his, if you are working a day job in town and farming a small plot on the side, are you really "homesteading"?  I don't think so.

 Typical farmer of the late 1930s, early 1940s.

Beyond that, what's the motivation for "homesteading"? That's an interesting topic in and of itself.

For some, it's just a disgust or disdain with the modern materialistic world.  A person can't be faulted for that really, as materialism and consumerism aren't all they're cracked up to be by a huge measure.  For some its a certain type of idealism, that's now wholly unrelated really do  turning of the back to materialism.  For some other, and tied into the other factors mentioned above, it's tied in to religious sense that finds the current Western world intolerant or inconsistent with their religious beliefs.  Along those lines, I've seen blogs by Anglican homesteaders, Catholic homesteaders and various other Protestant homesteaders.  I suppose, in a way, the rural Old Believer communities of Alaska express this goal in sort of a way, and perhaps the various Anabaptist groups like the Amish are also a long lasting example of this.  Indeed, it's not uncommon in at least Catholic homesteading movement circles to cite the Amish as a practical example, even tough the theology involved is considerably different.

 Old Believer village in Alaska, a model for religious homesteaders?

And not only is it different, it's interesting in that in Europe the Distributist movement that existed prior to World War Two had a strongly agrarian element to it, that fit in well with the concerns of modern Catholic and Anglican adherents to the same, particularly as the agrarian distributist of that time considered this topic in the context of a desire for small scale economic independence and family rural isolation (in the European context) due in part to a belief that the aggressive Capitalist and Socialist economic forces of the time were inherently anti-Christian.

But whatever its origin, how well does the practice of these folks fit the reality for farming?  The evidence would be not very well.

Almost every single example of this I run across is either not practiced in the full, and hence its questionable if its practiced at all, or it's a failure.  At least two Catholic writers who publish blogs, one of whom is very dedicated to the concept, have failed at it.  Others of all ilks actually seem to mix it heavily with non farm activity, which perhaps doesn't mean it isn't "homesteading", but which at least raises the question as to whether or not it's actually hobby farming.

 Illustration for the front piece of a Chesterton book.  A Distributist, Chesterton, like other English Distributist, imagined "Three Acres and a Cow" for English (Catholic) agrarian farmers.  This view was similar to that of freed slaves following the Civil War, who imagined Forty Acres and a Mule as the ideal set of circumstances.

Why is that?

Well for one thing, even while there are farms and ranches today that are very self reliant (and some that are not), but they're all market farms.  The market controls the price of farmland, and frankly ranchland is priced at playground prices now, rather than by agricultural production.  The point is that farmers and ranchers have always engaged in agriculture in a the context of their economic community, and today that means production agriculture.

If a person is conversely hoping that they can live like 19th Century yeomen, they're probably fooling themselves and are definitely fooling themselves if they have a family.  But even if they don't, they likely are.  Yeomen of earlier eras, even in the first half of the 20th Century, were largely part of the national and regional economies.  What that tells us is that they lived tolerably within the range of their economic potentials in eras when there a lot more poor, the poor were poorer, the middle class was often near slipping down into poverty, and there were very few who were wealthy.

Indeed, it's been noted here before that the last year that American farmers had economic parity with their urban cousins was 1919.  That's because, in part, farmers had done extremely well during World War One.  So well, in fact, that there'd been a flood of urbanites into the farming belts, most of whom attempted to engage in grain farming.

After that, however, middle class urban dwellers began to exceed rural residents in their standard of living, and that by extension forced things out in the countryside.  At first big urban changes were easy to ignore.  People in town might have cars, but they weren't all that useful, at first, in the countryside.  People in town might have radios, but that wasn't much to a person who lived beyond the range of the station.  People in town might get to go to the movies during the week, but farmers could still catch them on Saturday or could go to something that a fellow agriculturalist was putting on by way of entertainment nearer to their farms or ranches.  All that began to change, however, by the 1930s.  Indeed, it would have changed more rapidly but for the Great Depression.

And that was because farmers are part of the population, after all.  At some point it becomes impossible to not live in the larger economic community.  "Living off the grid" may be all fine as a dream, or even as a reality for a dedicated person or perhaps a dedicated family, but for most it isn't really possible.  Most people can't home-school, for example, so they need to be able to go to town for their kids and that means having a car.  Most farmers will need to sell their products and that means having cell phones and computers. It also means having vehicles.  It's charming and romantic to imagine farmers going to town in a Model A flatbed like a scene out of the Waltons, and farmers and ranchers do use a lot of old vehicles, but that's less common than it used to be and they need to have some functional vehicle as well which means a modern truck.  In short, being a farmer in the market, even though they nearly all save where they can, is more expensive in 2015 than it was in 1955, or 1915.

And unless a person is completely self sufficient, at which point they're purely making a statement by their lifestyle or strictly living according to a personal philosophy, they're going to need to make some money, and hence the problem.

In order to make that money, you have to sell to somebody. And that person has to be willing to pay your price. For small units, and particularly those with children, that puts you at a huge disadvantage in most markets.  Indeed, most of the "artisanal" locavore type of farming that homesteader types imagine can actually only occur very close to urban centers, and in some instances large urban centers.

Indeed, it's interesting that one of the loudest voices for traditional farming lives in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, a bucolic location we associate heavily with farming but which is also quite near some large population centers.  I've noted that a farmer whose blog I follow, who failed at this, tried the same thing in rural Kansas. But in rural Kansas, the market likely simply isn't there.  People in that setting might buy some vegetables from you, but they're probably more likely to price things out, by necessity, at the Safeway.  And many others (but not all) who assert they are homesteaders, are actually doing it on a hobby basis.

So, I guess, my skepticism here is brought about by the fact that so many "homesteaders" seem to come from the non agricultural community and they don't seem to know what they're getting into.  They're romantics, or in some cases romantic fugitives.  But farming has never been an endeavor for fugitives really, or at least it is rarely so.

Which doesn't mean that farmers aren't in many cases pretty darned self sufficient, or that there's not a lot of merit to it.  But I often wonder if the people who imagine living on a classic American Farm realize that farm was part of a larger economic community?



It isn't that I'm not  sympathetic. And I think the dream of owning your own piece of farm ground and living from it, on your own labor, and in a simple way, is an age old American, indeed North American, one.  But I wonder to what extent those trying to enter it in the 19th Century, or even the 18th Century way, but living in the 21st, are realistic.