Daylight Savings Time. M'eh

 World War One era poster promoting Daylight Savings Time.  The thought here is that people leaving work would now have more time to work on their gardens at home, which I suppose might have been true.

From 2013:

Today In Wyoming's History: March 10. Daylight Savings Time

Today In Wyoming's History: March 10: Today, for 2013, is the dread advent of Daylight Savings Time, in which the weary are deprived of an hour of sleep.

And the day in which those, who on the evening prior, received the promise that "no, I won't be hard to wake up" have been told a fib yet again, as those who must be awakened transfer their anger and wrath about the early arrival of the dawn to the human messenger.

Postscript:

I don't know if its a product of age, but I find it increasingly difficult to adjust to either end of Daylight Savings Time, and as a consequence, I'm not so fond of it.

I used to be able to very easily switch from one time to another, but now I invariably wake up early when we go forward in the Fall.  I've been waking up earlier and earlier in recent weeks anyway, but I really don't want to start routinely getting up at 4:00. But now, I'm wide awake at that time.

I really wonder about the value of Daylight Savings Time in this modern age.  Is there one?  I'd be just as happy if we chose to hence forth forgo it.  Outside of North America, do other nations have it?

For whatever reason, I've been finding myself waking up at 4:00 a lot recently, so this "fall back" season is really the pits.

Frankly, I think the entire Daylight Savings Time thing has long ago lost whatever value it ever had, if it ever had one.  I wish we'd knock it off and just keep the time straight. I'm skeptical that it ever really worked the way it was intended to anyhow.

There's debate on whose ideal Daylight Savings Time was in the first place.  Some attribute it, in modern times, to a New Zealander who advocated so as to be able to have more time to pursue his hobby of bug collecting, which he did in the evening. Others attribute it to an Englishman who liked to golf, and who lamented how so many Londoners had to sleep through part of the day.  Some even blame Ben Franklin, failing to understand that his suggestion didn't receive implementation anywhere and was more of an observation on Paris life, than a real suggestion. Indeed, in that era, adjusting the time would have made very little sense.

What is clear is that the Germans foisted this on the world during World War One, thereby putting it in the same category as Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and Poison Gas in my mind. This was to allow more daylight hours for industrial workers and an attendant fuel savings, somehow (probably less dark hours at work).  The Allied nations followed suit. Following the Great War, not all of them went back to natural time.

 United Cigar Company poster urging people to write Congress to pass a Daylight Savings bill. Why this company cared about this, I have not a clue.  One more reason, in my view, to disapprove of the tobacco companies.

The U.S. went to Daylight Savings Time in March, 1918, when we also adopted standard time zones.  Adopting time zones made sense, and perhaps Daylight Savings Time did in the context of the war.  Americans, however, hated Daylight Savings Time and Congress abolished it, overriding President Wilson's veto of the repealing act, after World War One.   It was a local option thereafter, except during World War Two when it was re-instituted on a national level.  In 1966, Congress brought it back, but did allow states to opt out.  Exempting out of it is obviously a problem in a country with interstate business travel as the norm, and only Hawaii and Arizona have done so over a long period, although some other states have toyed with it.

I know that opting out my state is impossible, but I wish it would.  The purpose of this law has long passed, and adjusting to time changes is a pain.

As far as I am concerned, "S. D." can just go.

Sunday Morning Scene: First Presbyterian Church, Casper Wyoming

Churches of the West: First Presbyterian Church, Casper Wyoming:

The First Presbyterian Church in Casper Wyoming, started prior to World War One, and completed after the war.  It's located one block away from the church depicted in this series last week.

Best Post of the Week of October 26, 2014

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

We think its one of our best of all time.

The Big Speech: Thomas Paine, the Crisis.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but "to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

Whether the independence of the continent was declared too soon, or delayed too long, I will not now enter into as an argument; my own simple opinion is, that had it been eight months earlier, it would have been much better. We did not make a proper use of last winter, neither could we, while we were in a dependent state. However, the fault, if it were one, was all our own; we have none to blame but ourselves. But no great deal is lost yet. All that Howe has been doing for this month past, is rather a ravage than a conquest, which the spirit of the Jerseys, a year ago, would have quickly repulsed, and which time and a little resolution will soon recover.

I have as little superstition in me as any man living, but my secret opinion has ever been, and still is, that God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. Neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils; and as I do not, I cannot see on what grounds the king of Britain can look up to heaven for help against us: a common murderer, a highwayman, or a house-breaker, has as good a pretence as he.

'Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world. Many a disguised Tory has lately shown his head, that shall penitentially solemnize with curses the day on which Howe arrived upon the Delaware.

As I was with the troops at Fort Lee, and marched with them to the edge of Pennsylvania, I am well acquainted with many circumstances, which those who live at a distance know but little or nothing of. Our situation there was exceedingly cramped, the place being a narrow neck of land between the North River and the Hackensack. Our force was inconsiderable, being not one-fourth so great as Howe could bring against us. We had no army at hand to have relieved the garrison, had we shut ourselves up and stood on our defence. Our ammunition, light artillery, and the best part of our stores, had been removed, on the apprehension that Howe would endeavor to penetrate the Jerseys, in which case Fort Lee could be of no use to us; for it must occur to every thinking man, whether in the army or not, that these kind of field forts are only for temporary purposes, and last in use no longer than the enemy directs his force against the particular object which such forts are raised to defend. Such was our situation and condition at Fort Lee on the morning of the 20th of November, when an officer arrived with information that the enemy with 200 boats had landed about seven miles above; Major General [Nathaniel] Green, who commanded the garrison, immediately ordered them under arms, and sent express to General Washington at the town of Hackensack, distant by the way of the ferry = six miles. Our first object was to secure the bridge over the Hackensack, which laid up the river between the enemy and us, about six miles from us, and three from them. General Washington arrived in about three-quarters of an hour, and marched at the head of the troops towards the bridge, which place I expected we should have a brush for; however, they did not choose to dispute it with us, and the greatest part of our troops went over the bridge, the rest over the ferry, except some which passed at a mill on a small creek, between the bridge and the ferry, and made their way through some marshy grounds up to the town of Hackensack, and there passed the river. We brought off as much baggage as the wagons could contain, the rest was lost. The simple object was to bring off the garrison, and march them on till they could be strengthened by the Jersey or Pennsylvania militia, so as to be enabled to make a stand. We staid four days at Newark, collected our out-posts with some of the Jersey militia, and marched out twice to meet the enemy, on being informed that they were advancing, though our numbers were greatly inferior to theirs. Howe, in my little opinion, committed a great error in generalship in not throwing a body of forces off from Staten Island through Amboy, by which means he might have seized all our stores at Brunswick, and intercepted our march into Pennsylvania; but if we believe the power of hell to be limited, we must likewise believe that their agents are under some providential control.

I shall not now attempt to give all the particulars of our retreat to the Delaware; suffice it for the present to say, that both officers and men, though greatly harassed and fatigued, frequently without rest, covering, or provision, the inevitable consequences of a long retreat, bore it with a manly and martial spirit. All their wishes centred in one, which was, that the country would turn out and help them to drive the enemy back. Voltaire has remarked that King William never appeared to full advantage but in difficulties and in action; the same remark may be made on General Washington, for the character fits him. There is a natural firmness in some minds which cannot be unlocked by trifles, but which, when unlocked, discovers a cabinet of fortitude; and I reckon it among those kind of public blessings, which we do not immediately see, that God hath blessed him with uninterrupted health, and given him a mind that can even flourish upon care.
I shall conclude this paper with some miscellaneous remarks on the state of our affairs; and shall begin with asking the following question, Why is it that the enemy have left the New England provinces, and made these middle ones the seat of war? The answer is easy: New England is not infested with Tories, and we are. I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall. And what is a Tory? Good God! What is he? I should not be afraid to go with a hundred Whigs against a thousand Tories, were they to attempt to get into arms. Every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.

But, before the line of irrecoverable separation be drawn between us, let us reason the matter together: Your conduct is an invitation to the enemy, yet not one in a thousand of you has heart enough to join him. Howe is as much deceived by you as the American cause is injured by you. He expects you will all take up arms, and flock to his standard, with muskets on your shoulders. Your opinions are of no use to him, unless you support him personally, for 'tis soldiers, and not Tories, that he wants.

I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. A man can distinguish himself between temper and principle, and I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.

America did not, nor does not want force; but she wanted a proper application of that force. Wisdom is not the purchase of a day, and it is no wonder that we should err at the first setting off. From an excess of tenderness, we were unwilling to raise an army, and trusted our cause to the temporary defence of a well-meaning militia. A summer's experience has now taught us better; yet with those troops, while they were collected, we were able to set bounds to the progress of the enemy, and, thank God! they are again assembling. I always considered militia as the best troops in the world for a sudden exertion, but they will not do for a long campaign. Howe, it is probable, will make an attempt on this city [Philadelphia]; should he fail on this side the Delaware, he is ruined. If he succeeds, our cause is not ruined. He stakes all on his side against a part on ours; admitting he succeeds, the consequence will be, that armies from both ends of the continent will march to assist their suffering friends in the middle states; for he cannot go everywhere, it is impossible. I consider Howe as the greatest enemy the Tories have; he is bringing a war into their country, which, had it not been for him and partly for themselves, they had been clear of. Should he now be expelled, I wish with all the devotion of a Christian, that the names of Whig and Tory may never more be mentioned; but should the Tories give him encouragement to come, or assistance if he come, I as sincerely wish that our next year's arms may expel them from the continent, and the Congress appropriate their possessions to the relief of those who have suffered in well-doing. A single successful battle next year will settle the whole. America could carry on a two years' war by the confiscation of the property of disaffected persons, and be made happy by their expulsion. Say not that this is revenge, call it rather the soft resentment of a suffering people, who, having no object in view but the good of all, have staked their own all upon a seemingly doubtful event. Yet it is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice.

Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but "show your faith by your works," that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.

There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. Howe's first object is, partly by threats and partly by promises, to terrify or seduce the people to deliver up their arms and receive mercy. The ministry recommended the same plan to Gage, and this is what the tories call making their peace, "a peace which passeth all understanding" indeed! A peace which would be the immediate forerunner of a worse ruin than any we have yet thought of. Ye men of Pennsylvania, do reason upon these things! Were the back counties to give up their arms, they would fall an easy prey to the Indians, who are all armed: this perhaps is what some Tories would not be sorry for. Were the home counties to deliver up their arms, they would be exposed to the resentment of the back counties who would then have it in their power to chastise their defection at pleasure. And were any one state to give up its arms, that state must be garrisoned by all Howe's army of Britons and Hessians to preserve it from the anger of the rest. Mutual fear is the principal link in the chain of mutual love, and woe be to that state that breaks the compact. Howe is mercifully inviting you to barbarous destruction, and men must be either rogues or fools that will not see it. I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes.

I thank God, that I fear not. I see no real cause for fear. I know our situation well, and can see the way out of it. While our army was collected, Howe dared not risk a battle; and it is no credit to him that he decamped from the White Plains, and waited a mean opportunity to ravage the defenceless Jerseys; but it is great credit to us, that, with a handful of men, we sustained an orderly retreat for near an hundred miles, brought off our ammunition, all our field pieces, the greatest part of our stores, and had four rivers to pass. None can say that our retreat was precipitate, for we were near three weeks in performing it, that the country might have time to come in. Twice we marched back to meet the enemy, and remained out till dark. The sign of fear was not seen in our camp, and had not some of the cowardly and disaffected inhabitants spread false alarms through the country, the Jerseys had never been ravaged. Once more we are again collected and collecting; our new army at both ends of the continent is recruiting fast, and we shall be able to open the next campaign with sixty thousand men, well armed and clothed. This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils — a ravaged country — a depopulated city — habitations without safety, and slavery without hope — our homes turned into barracks and bawdy-houses for Hessians, and a future race to provide for, whose fathers we shall doubt of. Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.

ear.

Friday Farming: Two farms, abandoned farm in foreground.

Two farms, late 1930s. Abandoned farm in the foreground.

This photograph came during an era, basically commencing in the 1920s, and which never really has ended, of farm consolidation. It slowed in the 1930s due to the Great Depression, as farmers that otherwise would have gone over to mechanization held off, due to the expense.

What were they thinking?

The news has been full of stories the past couple of days of the release of embarrassing photographs of celebrated female personalities, dressing this up in a somewhat more dignified manner than the situation commands.  One of the online "news" sources was quick to come out with a headline telling us that the celebrated figures are amongst those who are "not to blame".  Bull, they're exactly who should be blamed.

Yes, I'm not excusing the thieves who stole their images, but how darned dumb can you be?  If your photographed and filmed image is your stock and trade, you ought to be protecting that image. For that matter, if a person has any level of decency they should be protecting it.  If a person is a public figure of any kind, and they release a photograph of any kind in any electronic form, they're publishing it and it will get out.

I don't, therefore, feel too sorry for the victims of the crime.  I don't excuse the thieves, but a person should be at least half way aware of reality.

I do feel shame, however, for those whose acts were shameless at the time, and now are shamed.  In one way, in fact, I feel that their reaction is a good thing, in that they are embarrassed by something that should indeed be embarrassing.  We can only hope that the embarrassment is not just that these photographs intended for a limited audience were rained down from the cloud, but moreover that they are embarrassed about having done the act of having such photos taken, or taking such photos. 

An element of this, I'd note, is that some of the reaction to this story assumes a level of poor judgment and conduct, and that people should be protected from the consequences of their own poor judgments in this area.  It's not so much a warning about letting those without sin cast the first stone, but rather an assumption that everyone is universally guilty of the sin society should be careful to make sure everyone turns a blind eye towards it.  But not everyone takes photographs of themselves of this type and shares them, and nobody need do it.  You particularly do not need to do it if selling your image is part of your trade.  Granted, at least one of the person's allegedly violated by this trespass works in an industry in which she is practically fully revealed anyway, but that makes no difference.  Up until this, there's a certain element of personal digity retained, the taking away of which sparks the outrage, to a degree.

It also sparks a certain degree of misplaced feminist outrage.  At least one very left leaning electronic journal was quick to excuse the conduct of the violated, but really, some focus should be placed upon this conduct most of all by that quarter.  Women already have to struggle against the concept that they're objects, and everything in the entertainment and arts industry tends to objectify them.  Visual arts, in and of themselves, tend to favor only those whose appearance allures, but that factor is a much more pronounced aspect of those professions for women than for men.  To find that women will objectify themselves reinforces, in the very worst way, the negative lessons that so many pick up from our society as it is.  It only takes one such example to take the most professional and accomplished of women down a peg on the ladder of respect, and they all hurt in the process.

Again, none of this is to suggest that the thieves are justified in their actions.  Clearly they are not.  But we should be clear about the crime, which was to fully reveal to the general public the self objectification of the victims of the crime, thereby making the objectification deeper, more complete, and universally known.  That's very bad, but the errors in evidence here didn't start with them, although it was certainly completed by them.

A little dignity, in an age with so little of it, would be welcome.

Postscript

But wait. . . not so fast.

Well, one of the developments in this story has been that one of the victims has expressed "embarrassment".  And, there's been a host of those in print riding to the rescue to defend the embarrassed damsels by proclaiming those who have uploaded the photographs on the net to be debased.

This is interesting, in that it shows an element of shame remains, which isn't a bad thing. The ability to be shamed is the ability to acknowledge an element of guilt.  So, those who have objectified themselves acknowledge a degree of guilt over it, while those uploading their shame are being shunned.  All in all, maybe some good comes out of this.

At some point, it seems, a party has to hit rock bottom in order to bounce back.  That's really unpleasant for those experiencing it, but then we're all guilty of behavior we regret.  The fact that we have a situation here where people are actually drawing a line, and the line is more or less the same on both sides of the line drawing, may mean that bottom has been reached and some push back begins.  If so, that's a strike in women's favor, as it means that there's a point at which being treated like an object just won't be tolerated any more.

Postscript II

Today we learn that some artist has determined to use life size blow ups of these images for a gallery display.

Okay, enough is enough.  Nobody deserves that, and that's totally unwarranted.  It was naive to think that these stolen images wouldn't hit the net, but to have them blown up to life size and put on display is depraved and shameful.

Postscript III

This odd story has continued on, but I've let it sit as I've thought enough was said about the entire embarrassing mess.  But today, the actress involved is reported as having made some comments in print that I thought were intelligent and noteworthy.   She compared the viewing of the photographs, or the searching, to an assault.

You know, I think that's right.  And she deserves credit for noting it in that fashion.

Of course, if we do that, we should make the logical extension. The intentional distribution of such photos by people who they are of (which did not occur here) would also be equivalent to specialized immoral and illegal behavior. That we're starting to look at this, in this sense, is a good thing, however, really.

Postscript IV

This story has died down, and I should let this thread die down here, but a couple of items or comments are perhaps in order.

On the item immediately above, it turns out the written comments also include a comment by the actress to the effect that as she was separated by distance from her boyfriend, a partial motivation was to give him  photos to look at, of that type, so he wouldn't go out and find photos elsewhere, assuming that every man must be looking at that stuff.

Well, bad psychological concept there.

Additionally, today's news indicates that a supposed comedienne has posted an instagram photo of herself without a shirt in a supposed act of protest against sexism.  Hmmm. . . . , sound like Chelsea is completely out to lunch or is confusing public display with protest.  About 190% of the men who go searching for that photo will be not looking at it for its political content.  Of note there's a certain eastern European protest group that takes that approach as well, and it isn't their message that makes up their appeal really.  These groups could use a basic course in how the psychology of this stuff really works.

1947 Dodge WDX Power Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1947 Dodge WDX Power Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1947 Dodge WDX Cantrell Woody Power Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1947 Dodge WDX Cantrell Woody Power Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1960 Dodge WM300 Power Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1960 Dodge WM300 Power Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1955 Dodge C1 Power Wagon Crew Cab. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1955 Dodge C1 Power Wagon Crew Cab. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1957 Dodge W200 Power Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1957 Dodge W200 Power Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1957 W100 Dodge Power Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1957 W100 Dodge Power Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1959 Dodge W200 Power Wagon Utiline | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1959 Dodge W200 Power Wagon Utiline | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1968 Dodge W300 Power Wagon Utiline | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1968 Dodge W300 Power Wagon Utiline | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1941 Dodge WC-12 Weapons Carrier | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1941 Dodge WC-12 Weapons Carrier | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1941 Dodge WC12 Closed Cab | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1941 Dodge WC12 Closed Cab | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1941 Dodge WC-10 Carryall, 8th Air Force | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1941 Dodge WC-10 Carryall, 8th Air Force | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1953 Dodge M-37 USMC | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

1953 Dodge M-37 USMC | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The Duggers. Yawn.

The Duggers come to my house every morning.  And the other evening they came here for a wedding of one of the daughters.

No, not in person.  On my television set. Somehow they've pushed out the early morning news and the female residents of the house follow their old episodes on television.

I don't understand the popularity of their show whatsoever really.  What it tells me in part is that, in spite of what sociologist like to claim, and in spite of what feminist wanted, the age old interests remain and are genetic in nature.  Women of all ages are really interested in domesticity including watching the weddings, marriages, and child rearing of other families.  Men may take an interest, but not enough to watch an hour of a bunch of people we don't know.

Beyond that, I really truly think the Duggers popularity, combined with all the vast number of shows that are somewhat related (all those wedding dress shows, the show on the worlds most boring couple, Guiliana and Bill, etc.) are a symptom of something basically human becoming rather rare.  Its weird, and its disturbing.

It's weird and disturbing as the popularity of these shows seems to indicate that in an era when women in particularly are more separated from traditional families and traditional roles, at some level the deep attracting to some elements definable appeal, and people who would claim the opposite should give some thought to that.  The Duggers portray what is basically as semi rural Southern family, dressed, on the female side, in a fashion that recalls the 1920s and 1930s.  They're sort of like the female characters in The Waltons times five. So what we see there is that something that was norm, nor nearly the norm, for most people not all that long ago is now deeply fascinating to people who aren't experiencing anything too close to it now and that its also so novel that it merits a television show.  The wedding dress shows likewise show women doing something that most women did, and did only once, not all that long ago, and much less expensively.  Now the novelty of it both fascinates and builds a formerly relatively routine event up into a colossally expensive and novel one.  Guiliana and Bill is the urban flipside of the Duggers, presenting the concept that young, hip urban (and exceedingly boring) couples can have it all, including an overendulged infant, all while remaining hip, cool, and boring.

Now, don't get me wrong here.  I'm not condemning any of these people (well, okay, I am Guiliana and Bill as they're as dull as wallpaper paste). Rather, I think this shows something that tells us something, and not necessarily something good, about what has become unusual or novel in our society.

ISIS and Vietnam - NYTimes.com. Oh no, not this analogy again

ISIS and Vietnam - NYTimes.com

Thomas Friedman has drug out the the shopworn American military comparison.  Anything, anywhere, at anytime, we're doing overseas, recalls Vietnam.

No.  It doesn't.

It's really time for this shopworn argument to be put back on the shop, preferably in a used argument shop, behind the styles of the 1970s.  It's tired.  It's worn.  And its usually wrong.

It isn't the case that absolutely everything has a really useful Vietnam War analogy.  And it isn't even really the case that most arguments recalling the war are well grounded in historical sense anyhow.

Friedman's basic argument is that we didn't understand the nature of the conflict on the ground.

It’s a long, complicated story, I know, but a big part of it was failing to understand that the core political drama of Vietnam was an indigenous nationalist struggle against colonial rule — not the embrace of global communism, the interpretation we imposed on it.

The North Vietnamese were both communists and nationalists — and still are. But the key reason we failed in Vietnam was that the communists managed to harness the Vietnamese nationalist narrative much more effectively than our South Vietnamese allies, who were too often seen as corrupt or illegitimate. The North Vietnamese managed to win (with the help of brutal coercion) more Vietnamese support not because most Vietnamese bought into Marx and
Lenin, but because Ho Chi Minh and his communist comrades were perceived to be the more authentic nationalists.

That's not completely inaccurate, but it's not completely accurate either.  The North Vietnamese population wasn't solidly communist until it was heavily suppressed following the French defeat in Indochina, after which quite a few North Vietnamese moved to South Vietnam.  Even at that, this is a good argument for the French effort in northern Indochina, but not such a good one for the US war in South Vietnam.  In the South, the war was much more complicated than that.

And its an example of a war having a military result, rather than a political one.  Pundits like to make the argument that Friedman makes here, but the truth of the matter is that the back was broken on the communist effort in South Vietnam by 1968.  The U.S. populace lost faith in the war due tot he desperate last gasp of the Tet Offensive, but militarily, the NVA and the VC had shot their bolt, and they didn't recover for years.  Following Test, the South Vietnamese army actually was able to take over the fight, although it still required air support.  In 1972 it beat back a North Vietnamese invasion, with U.S. air cover.  In 1975 it couldn't beat back a conventional armored invasion, as we refused it air support.

The real lesson there is that the American population is fickle and looses interest in a war that's not won quickly.  Our enemies, on the other hand, have patience.  The enemy we're fighting in Iraq and Syria right now has been, in some ways, waiting since the 5th Century for victory.  They figure that they can out wait us and we'll grow tired and go home.  In Vietnam we did. That's the real less of the Vietnam War.