Sunday, December 14, 2014
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Jeans and Offensive Marketing
Just recently I commented on the year old topic of Jeans in this thread here, Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Levis, in which I commented on the insanity of $700.00 "designer jeans" Earlier this week, I posted on Froma Harrop's thesis that we might be seeing the end of the consumerist economy. Many times in the past here I've posted on trends and developments. Here, all dovetail in a story on pants.
Or, rather, the marketing of what are simply jeans.
Some company is marketing jeans in the United States under the brand name "True Religion".
I suspect that this is calculated to offend, but if it isn't, it certainly does. It also says how numb our society has become to being truly and unconscionably offensive.
Pants are religion, nor does the depiction of hip, young, pretty adults clearly in an extended adolescence have anything to do with religion. Indeed, as there isn't a religion on Earth that doesn't advocate selflessness and humility, what the subtle message of this marketing is, is anti religious, or perhaps more accurately the worship of cheesy slick consumerism as a religion. Critics of our consumerist economy have, at their most blunt, criticized consumerism for this very reason.
With the possibly relatively rare example of univeralists beliefs, which seek to incorporate all faiths of all types into a universal truth, and primitive religions that are basically animist in nature, a basic tenant of any faith would be that it is a "true religion" and indeed the True Religion. Indeed, it wasn't all that long ago that this was sufficiently understood so as to be incorporated into the an ironic line of dialog into a popular film, The Magnificent Seven. Now the concept of that is so vague that its being used in this fashion with the marketers counting on some vague recollection but not one sufficiently clear as to cause righteous indignation. It's frankly pathetic.
And its all the more pathetic when realized that this is undoubtedly directly offensive to all the of the monotheistic religions, each of which would maintain that they are the true faith. Here, again, the marketers benefit from the diluted nature of any strong understanding of beliefs in Western society, as the majority of people in Western society are some variant of Christian, and Christians have become used to being picked on in this fashion so that they don't generally react. One can only imagine what the reaction would be if a person marketed jeans as "True Islam" jeans, or "True Judaism". There would be an uproar, and justifiably so. But, as Islam and Judaism do both maintain that they are the true faith, calling something "True Religion" doesn't vary much from that, really.
Well, things like this should make for a good test of Harrop's thesis that we might be entering a post materialistic age. If we are, and if the numbers are as high as she maintains, then at some point people begin to buy jeans based on their quality and price, and not the clever marketing. Jeans marketed in this fashion can only appeal to a consumerist materialistic society, as its some weird sort of image that's being actually purchased, rather than the real product. As for me, I hope this product fails.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Lex Anteinternet: $40/barrel?
Lex Anteinternet: $40/barrel?: Driven by Saudi Arabian efforts, the price of petroleum oil is falling through the floor. When I last checked, it was down under $70...Now under $60/bbl nationwide, and at $53/bbl in the state.
And still dropping.
Thursday, December 11, 2014
The end of consumerism?
Froma Harrop, the supposedly liberal columnist, has opined in a recent op ed that Americans may be turning "post materialistic". If so, that's a massive shift in the dominant cultural view of Americans over the past half century, although it might be a return to a mode of thinking that was once the common one, or perhaps more accurately somewhat akin to an earlier one.
Harrop's article is provocative, and not surprisingly hasn't met with universal acknowledgment on the part of her readers. When she speaks of "post consumerism", what she speaks of is a type of non consumerist behavior focused on experiences and living, for lack of a better way of putting it, and which de-emphasizes material goods as a part of that, while not proposing that they be eschewed all together. Basically, she proposes a view of life and economics that those familiar with the writings of Belloc, Chesterton or the Southern Agrarians would recognize. Indeed, those who have persisted in admiring the Southern Agrarians, should they run across her article, must be rejoicing a bit that what they've advocated since the early 1930s is actually gaining ground, assuming that it is. The general thesis of "post materialism", apparently, de-emphasizes material acquisition in favor of simply living, with family, friends and experience taking precedence over items, particularly those which are temporary in nature.
Early in it she poses the possibility of a shift to this sort of view in a significant percentage of the population, noting a slow start to the typical Christmas big retail season:
Early in it she poses the possibility of a shift to this sort of view in a significant percentage of the population, noting a slow start to the typical Christmas big retail season:
Certainly, some of this frugality is a hangover from the economic trauma of six years ago. The recession smashed Americans’ comfort with debt, belief in real estate and faith in an ever-more prosperous future. Many feel the sting of stagnant wages. Even winners in this strengthening economy seem to be holding back.
But a more fundamental change may be afoot, a change in belief systems. Americans may be moving into an era of post-materialism. If so, retailing faces a whole different ballgame.
What does she mean by this? We're so used to the concept that capitalism equates with consumerism, that the two are indistinguishable to a lot of Americans, and particularly a lot of Americans in commerce and government. In fact, however, that's not the case, however, and as various social theorist and critics have long noted, its perfectly possible to have a capitalist economy that isn't consumerist. She then goes on to discuss the concept of "post materialism"
Post-materialism is defined as a reorientation of values away from the big-ticket luxuries, such as fancy cars, and toward self-expression and quality of life. It could mean choosing more free time over working longer to support a big home.
This trend is strongest in rich countries, where the basics of food, shelter and security are taken for granted. The World Values Survey shows Australia having the highest proportion of post-materialists, 35 percent, followed by Austria, Canada, Italy and then the United States, at 25 percent.
If this is the case, and frankly I have my doubts, it would truly be a revolutionary development, although one that a person can see having gained some steam in recent years. That 25% of the American population would self identify in this fashion would truly be stunning. But careful students of slow trends and thought in society might find that this isn't quite as surprising as might it might seem, and it might actually reflect the rise of Generation X and Generation Y and the beginning of the the decline of the Boomers.
Consumerism, what Harrop and others sometimes call "materialism", which is an apt description, wasn't always with us, in fact, in the form which we now see it, although it has been for about a century or so in the US, and the rests of the Western world to varying degrees. The super heated consumerism that we've had in recent memory, however, is really something that arose in the post World War Two world, although the roots of it were there before that. It's a complicated story, but if we look back into the 19th Century, what we tend to see is that almost all Western economic thought out side of Socialist thought. was highly family oriented and did not tend to acquisition oriented. This isn't universally true, to be sure, as in the unregulated economy of the industrial late 19th Century there were those who grew fantastically wealthy and exhibited a tremendous drive towards acquisition. But at every level, the thought that the function of people was to act as the purchasers of stuff was something that was not only not there, but which would have been regarded as highly offensive. Most common people viewed economic activity as a means of trying to support their family in a decent manner. Even socialism, which is highly materialistic in its world view, had this as its basic premise, albeit in a very materialistic manner.
It wasn't until after World War Two when this began to change in a significant manner. Consumerism was already there, but the goods starvation caused by the Great Depression and the Second World War created a post war consumer demand that was enormous in the US. Truth be known, it also created the same in Europe, but Europe was in such poor shape after the war this wouldn't really begin to express itself there until the late 1950s. The impact of the Depression and the war, combined with the American economic revival of the 40s and 50s, followed by the European economic recovery of the late 50s and 60s, caused a sort of one-two punch on how people valued goods and how they valued their own societies.
The real explosion in this view got really rolling in the 1970s, and in a manner that was highly ironic. The social upheaval in the 1960s seemingly espoused a very non materialistic view of the world, which at the same time rejected almost any traditional value. But that really didn't last very long and the youth trend of the 1960s towards rejection saw the commercial hedonism in advertising of the 1950s fully adopted by the 1970s. The same generational cohort that was responsible for the upheaval of the late 60s and early 70s very quickly adopted a hardcore consumerist, money generation ethos by the early 80s. Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" type of view was, ironically, a view espoused by many in the same generation that saw Woodstock as the pinnacle of their generations experience. Termed the "Me Generations" in the 1970s, this saw its expression in consumerist behavior in the late 1970s and has dominated American economic output ever since.
Consumerism/Materialism has received real criticism for a long time, and has been defined as a societal evil by its critics for years, receiving erudite analysis from everyone from hard left critics to the Popes at various times. And that consumerism or materialism pose real dangers to society really cannot be challenged. As recently analyzed in the Catholic Things You Should Know podcast, consumerism has given rise to a lack of attachment to goods and a lack of attachment to nearly everything by extent. It's been deeply challenged by moral theorist but its also been attacked by liberal economist as well. Environmentalist have also deeply attacked it, as it gives rise to a throw away culture that creates obvious environmental problems. And sociologist have been in the fray as well, noting that a consumerist economy seemingly erodes a societal attachment to any meaningful standards or thought and gives rise to a deeply unhappy population.
Consumerism, what Harrop and others sometimes call "materialism", which is an apt description, wasn't always with us, in fact, in the form which we now see it, although it has been for about a century or so in the US, and the rests of the Western world to varying degrees. The super heated consumerism that we've had in recent memory, however, is really something that arose in the post World War Two world, although the roots of it were there before that. It's a complicated story, but if we look back into the 19th Century, what we tend to see is that almost all Western economic thought out side of Socialist thought. was highly family oriented and did not tend to acquisition oriented. This isn't universally true, to be sure, as in the unregulated economy of the industrial late 19th Century there were those who grew fantastically wealthy and exhibited a tremendous drive towards acquisition. But at every level, the thought that the function of people was to act as the purchasers of stuff was something that was not only not there, but which would have been regarded as highly offensive. Most common people viewed economic activity as a means of trying to support their family in a decent manner. Even socialism, which is highly materialistic in its world view, had this as its basic premise, albeit in a very materialistic manner.
It wasn't until after World War Two when this began to change in a significant manner. Consumerism was already there, but the goods starvation caused by the Great Depression and the Second World War created a post war consumer demand that was enormous in the US. Truth be known, it also created the same in Europe, but Europe was in such poor shape after the war this wouldn't really begin to express itself there until the late 1950s. The impact of the Depression and the war, combined with the American economic revival of the 40s and 50s, followed by the European economic recovery of the late 50s and 60s, caused a sort of one-two punch on how people valued goods and how they valued their own societies.
The real explosion in this view got really rolling in the 1970s, and in a manner that was highly ironic. The social upheaval in the 1960s seemingly espoused a very non materialistic view of the world, which at the same time rejected almost any traditional value. But that really didn't last very long and the youth trend of the 1960s towards rejection saw the commercial hedonism in advertising of the 1950s fully adopted by the 1970s. The same generational cohort that was responsible for the upheaval of the late 60s and early 70s very quickly adopted a hardcore consumerist, money generation ethos by the early 80s. Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" type of view was, ironically, a view espoused by many in the same generation that saw Woodstock as the pinnacle of their generations experience. Termed the "Me Generations" in the 1970s, this saw its expression in consumerist behavior in the late 1970s and has dominated American economic output ever since.
Consumerism/Materialism has received real criticism for a long time, and has been defined as a societal evil by its critics for years, receiving erudite analysis from everyone from hard left critics to the Popes at various times. And that consumerism or materialism pose real dangers to society really cannot be challenged. As recently analyzed in the Catholic Things You Should Know podcast, consumerism has given rise to a lack of attachment to goods and a lack of attachment to nearly everything by extent. It's been deeply challenged by moral theorist but its also been attacked by liberal economist as well. Environmentalist have also deeply attacked it, as it gives rise to a throw away culture that creates obvious environmental problems. And sociologist have been in the fray as well, noting that a consumerist economy seemingly erodes a societal attachment to any meaningful standards or thought and gives rise to a deeply unhappy population.
That last item alone has been the subject of extensive analysis in recent years, all of which has demonstrated that the purchase of goods at bests only gives rise to a very temporary sense of happiness followed by the opposite, but on the other hand experiences, shared with close friends and family do the precise opposite. As that's highly demonstrated, what Harrop observes that people may be electing to do would be to elect to act wisely.
What she doesn't note, but what might very well be worth noting, is that this is arguably a generational change. Observers of Generations X and Y have noted for some time that they are seemingly unimpressed and unattached to much careerist thought, to a degree that is sometimes maddening to Boomers and the World War Two Generation. This has been frequently noted, but rarely addressed. They seem to have low attachment to their occupations, or at least to employers, and in some fields that have traditionally demanded big sacrifices of personal time, they just don't.
Less noticed is that they do seem very attached to experiences and friends. And they have slowly and conservatively adopted practices and modes of thinking that the Boomers claimed to liberally espouse in the 1960s, but didn't really seem to. As a generation, they're more interested in what we could regard as Distributist and Agrarian thought, with all sorts of "buy local", know your farmer, etc. etc., type of practices and thoughts. Activities that seemed in decline only a decade ago are now going the other way. Local produce and small scale farming are on the rise. Small, just middle class, businesses that have no hope of big time entrepreneurial success are as well. Hunting, a big activity in more rural and simpler times, has seen an enormous increase in recent years, with women joining the ranks in large numbers for the first time ever.
This would all seem to be a good trend, really, and its one that economist, sociologist and religious advocates have argued in favor of for a long time. Harrop, however, frets a bit about it, noting
Before going on, let’s put in a good word for consumption. The lust to amass stuff associated with The Good Life is not entirely bad. It fuels the economy, and if budgets aren’t broken in the process, a splurge now and then can at least temporarily raise the spirits — doubly so when done in the company of other merrymakers.
But she also goes on to note:
Sadly, many of today’s shopping experiences do not raise the spirits. Picking up a cheaply made import at a big-box store on a drab strip is not quite the same thing as shopping for toys on a festive Main Street. Surely, the sameness of mall shopping has driven many a consumer online, where prices are transparent, the selection broad and traffic is zero.
If her observations are correct, this is a massive shift, or perhaps a massive return, to the value system of an earlier era, but more so. Given that, those who have criticized materialistic thought might take some solace in her factual observations. If people are really making this philosophical shift, it will alter out economy, but it will also mean that people are electing to live deeper lives.
And if that's so, perhaps its not as surprising as it might at first seem. Entire generations have shifted the values of their times, their countries, and even the entire world. From time to time a large number of people do in fact adopt an outlook that has huge changes, sometimes positively, and sometimes negatively. If she's correct, and this reflects a change in outlook, rather than a simple lack of buying power, this might be a good development. It'd hard to see it as being a bad one.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Random Snippets. The Rocky Mountain News
Apparently Philip Anschutz is pondering reviving the Rocky Mountain News.
I hope he does. I always liked the news much better than the Denver Post.
I hope he does. I always liked the news much better than the Denver Post.
Monday, December 8, 2014
Lex Anteinternet: A Day In the Life: Today In Wyoming's History: De...
Yesterday we took a look at December 7, 1941, in this series. That was, of course, the day the United States was attacked by the Japanese Empire and it remains one of the most significant and well remembered days in recent American history. We looked at that topic here:
Lex Anteinternet: A Day In the Life: Today In Wyoming's History: De...: Today in this series we take a look at our entry from Today In Wyoming's History: December 7 : on the topic of the Japanese Attack on ..
But perhaps for many people December 8 was nearly as momentous. People were making decisions that would impact their lives for ever. What would we have been doing on that momentous Monday? That's what we look at here.
First of all, for a little background. My concept of this, in this thread or series of threads, is to look at ourselves in a fashion relatable to where we actually are in life in our modern lives. It's always fun to imagine that in any one era, we'd be in the thick of things, but for most people, most of the time, on the day of any one big event, that's probably not true.
So, in order to put a little structure to this historical exercise, I'll put some basic facts to it that relate to may life now. So, I'll assume that I'm looking at December 1941 in a manner relatable to December 2014. If that's the case, I'd be a lawyer, age 51, with two kids and a wife, living in Casper Wyoming.
That would also mean that I would have graduated from high school 33 years ago, which is a bit problematic here as 33 years prior to 1941, there wasn't a high school in in Casper Wyoming. There would be soon after that, but there wasn't then. There were some public schools, however. Assuming a basic 33 year prior date, would have put me, in this historical exercise, in the Class of 1908.
Going from there, in 1981, when I graduated from high school, I joined the Army National Guard, and I went to the local community college for three years before going on to the University of Wyoming. Assuming a kindred path isn't really certain, however, as in 1908 the Homestead Act was still in effect, and would be for some time, and it'd be hard to imagine not availing myself of that. But then, we do have cattle now, so perhaps I can work that into the mix somehow here. So I'll assume some connection with cattle in 08. I'll also assume that I decided to go on to the University of Wyoming in 08, which was an open institution, when Casper College wasn't around (and still wasn't in 1941). And I'll assume that I graduated after five years, like I did, putting me in the UW class of 1913. I stayed in the Guard as an artilleryman for six years, and oddly enough, the Guard at that time was also artillery. If I went on a similar path that'd put me in the Guard until 1914, but people tended to stay in it then, so I'll extend this imaginary exercise until 1915, which would have put me into the Punitive Expedition and the mobilization for World War One. My guess is that I would have served as an officer in World War One, mostly because being a college graduate was unusual here at that time. And I would have mustered out with the entire National Guard following the Great War, and probably wouldn't have gone back into it.
National Guardsman, 1915.
U.S. artillery in the field, Punitive Expedition.
Of course, I've omitted law school here, and if I graduated from UW in 1913, and had a gap of a year as a geologist as I did, that doesn't quite work out. So, to really make this work out I have to put myself in the UW graduating class of 1912 (not unrealistic) and going on to law school. At the time I graduated in in 1986 from UW, the oilfield economy had tanked (just like its threatening to do right now), so I went on to law school. Would I have done that in 12? The oilfield wasn't tanking in 12, but I can imagine reasons I might have done that. On the other hand, I might have not gone until after World War One, at which time the oilfield had definitely tanked.
Okay, so in this imaginary exercise I'm making myself dull and typical. In 1941 I would have been a 51 year old lawyer who owned cattle too, which is exactly what I am now. I'd have been a veteran of the National Guard, which I also am now, but I would almost certainly have been a combat veteran, which I definitely am not.
Okay, so on Monday, December 8, 1941, after an exciting and scary evening on December 7, what would I have done?
Well, at age 51 I'd be beyond regular service age, but having had prior service in this scenario (08 to 18 or 19), I would probably been able to get back in. The Army, Navy and Marine Corps did take back in veteran NCOs and officers under certain conditions, either because they had experience or because they had specialized training in their civilian life that was applicable to a big war. And I'm in pretty good shape, so the general advancement of age that otherwise took people in this category out of returned service, I'd probably have been okay. Things like transportation, logistics, and industry were often applicable and those guys could get in even without prior service. A law degree, on the other hand, would not fit this category,a s lawyers were of such sufficient supply that later in the war lawyers drafted into the Army often ended up as privates.
Anyhow, given that, what I've set out here, and knowing myself, my guess is that on this day I'd have probably planned on calling on the Army recruiter to see if I could get back in. By all accounts, a lot of other people had the same idea on that day.. In 1990 when the first Gulf War was up and rolling, I did contact my old Guard unit in case they were activated, but they were not. I didn't take that action after 9/11, but frankly like a lot of guys who have some service time, I've felt sort of guilty about it ever since, even though at the time there didn't seem to be a real service to offer in what looked like it'd probably be a short specialist campaign in Afghanistan. I think I'd feel like a slacker if I hadn't sought to go in World War Two. Indeed, knowing myself, and given that I have a fair number of Canadian relatives, I might have felt like a slacker by December 1941, given that Canada had been at war since September 1939.
Canadian poster seeking the reenlistment of older, prior service, soldiers.
Anyhow, in 1941, the Army recruiter was in the Federal Courthouse, one block from my office, which also hosted the post office at that time. Federal Courthouses were sort of one size fits all affairs in that day.
Wintry view of the Federal Courthouse, as seen from my office.
I'd have probably have gotten to work about the usual time, around 8:00, and I can actually see the courthouse from one of the office windows. My guess is, however, that there was probably a line out the front door that morning, so I'd have probably tried again around 11:00 or so to see what that looked like. I'd care for lines much, and knowing that this was going to last awhile, I'd have just planned on later in the week if I couldn't have gotten in.
Newsstand, December 8, 1941.
But my guess is also that a person wouldn't have been able to get in to see the recruiter that morning, or maybe all day. Maybe I'd have gotten in later in the day, or maybe later that week, depending upon how things went. As for my son, no way I would have let a 17 year old enlist in the service.
Anyhow, because of my current age, chances are high that I'd end up in some administrative role in the U.S. or perhaps one in the service overseas, should I have succeeded in getting in. There's a ton of jobs of this type in the service, and they are necessary, but it isn't the sort of thing a person normally imagines themselves doing, and they don't make movies about it. In terms of film, the only example of such a portrayal I can think of is the clerk figure in 12 O'clock High, who interestingly enough is supposed to have been a lawyer who is a veteran of World War One. Occasionally, you'll read of the rare older individual who had a combat role in the age range I'm in, but frankly, World War Two, more than World War One, and certainly more than any war before or since, was a young man's war in terms of officers. Oddly, enlisted men were older than we sometimes suspect, with the average troop in the 20s or 30s, but that's the case with officer also. Officers over 50, at least in combat roles, were quite rare. Even general officers over age 50 were rare in the U.S. Army.
On December 8, however, I'd probably have spent most of the day at the office, or most of it, depending if I could have gotten in to the recruiter or not. And even if I had been able to, I suspect for that guys in my category, they'd have said come back in a couple of weeks when we have our act more together. It would have made for a pretty unproductive day at work, followed by a return home that evening that would have been both interesting and uncomfortable. I don't think the news of a person's intent in these regards would necessarily have been happy news, but it would have also been a tense evening of listening to the war news on the radio, and the news of the town from the family.
It's scary, somewhat, for a person my age to ponder this out. That's because, as noted, my son is 17. There's no way he would have escaped a titanic war like World War Two. And he would have been of the age in which really seeing the action would have been darned near inevitable. That's a scary thing to ponder.
And how about you? How would your day have gone.
On December 8, however, I'd probably have spent most of the day at the office, or most of it, depending if I could have gotten in to the recruiter or not. And even if I had been able to, I suspect for that guys in my category, they'd have said come back in a couple of weeks when we have our act more together. It would have made for a pretty unproductive day at work, followed by a return home that evening that would have been both interesting and uncomfortable. I don't think the news of a person's intent in these regards would necessarily have been happy news, but it would have also been a tense evening of listening to the war news on the radio, and the news of the town from the family.
It's scary, somewhat, for a person my age to ponder this out. That's because, as noted, my son is 17. There's no way he would have escaped a titanic war like World War Two. And he would have been of the age in which really seeing the action would have been darned near inevitable. That's a scary thing to ponder.
And how about you? How would your day have gone.
‘Lawyer Bubble’ author discusses what the future looks like for today’s new lawyers
‘Lawyer Bubble’ author discusses what the future looks like for today’s new lawyers
Interesting interview with the author of a book called "Lawyer Bubble" about the current practice and the future of the practice. Interesting angle on his view of different generations of lawyers.
Interesting interview with the author of a book called "Lawyer Bubble" about the current practice and the future of the practice. Interesting angle on his view of different generations of lawyers.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
A Day In the Life: Today In Wyoming's History: December 7
Today in this series we take a look at our entry from Today In Wyoming's History: December 7: on the topic of the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in 1941. When I posted this last year, I put in Mountain Time as well as Hawaii Time. Here I'll insert how my day likely would have gone had I been my current age, in my current location, on that Sunday, instead of this one.
December 7
Today is, by State Statute, WS 8-4-106, Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. The Statute provides:
(a) In recognition of the members of the armed forces who lost their lives and those who survived the attack on Pearl Harbor, territory of Hawaii on December 7, 1941, December 7 of each year is designated as "Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day". The day shall be appropriately observed in the public schools of the state.
(b) The governor, not later than September 1 of each year, shall issue a proclamation requesting proper observance of "Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day".
(c) This section shall not affect commercial paper, the making or execution of written agreements or judicial proceedings, or authorize public schools,businesses or state and local government offices to close.
Your Recollections: What about you?
Do you have any personal recollections about December 7, 1941? Either first hand, or that you recall hearing from family and friends? And, by that, not just Pearl Harbor stories, but I'd be very interested to learn of any family recollections from those at home, on that day. Wyoming is three hours ahead of Hawaii, did your family hear it that morning, or later in the day? Just after church, or while tuning in fora football game? Any recollection is welcome.
1941 US military installations were attack in Hawaii by the Imperial Japanese Navy bringing the US formally into World War Two.
It was a surprisingly warm day in Central Wyoming that fateful day. The high was in the upper 40s, and low in the lower 20s. Not atypical temperatures for December but certainly warmer than it can be.
Events played out like this:
0342 Hawaii Time, 0642 Mountain Standard Time: The minesweeper USS Condor sighted a periscope and radioed the USS Ward: "Sighted submerged submarine on westerly course, speed 9 knots.”
I would have been up at that time of the day, probably shepherding the family towards getting them out the door for Mass.
.jpg)
USS Condor
0610 Hawaii Time, 0910 Mountain Standard Time: Japanese aircraft carriers turn into the wind and launch the first attack wave.
Chances are by this time, I'd be just about to leave Mass, or would have left Mass. Now we usally swing by a grocery store and buy donuts, then go home, but at that time I'm not sure if there was a grocery store that was open here on Sundays. I somewhat doubt it, in which case we'd all just head home.
0645-0653: Hawaii Time, 0945-0953 Mountain Standard Time: The USS Ward, mostly staffed by Naval Reservists, sights and engages a Japanese mini submarine first reported by the USS Connor, sinking the submarine.The Ward reports the entire action, albeit in code, noting: "“We have dropped depth charges upon sub operating in defensive sea area" and “We have attacked, fired upon, and dropped depth charges upon submarine operating in defensive sea area.”
We'd probably have just been finishing breakfast and reading the newspaper.
.jpg)
USS Ward
At this point in time, most Wyomingites would be up and enjoying the day. A large percentage would have gone to Church for the Sunday morning and have now started the rest of their Sundays.
0702 Hawaii Time, 1002 Mountain Standard Time: An operator at the U.S. Army's newly installed Opana Mobile Radar Station, one of six such facilities on Oahu, sights 50 aircraft hits on his radar scope, which is confirmed by his co-operator. They call Ft. Shafter and report the sighting.
If possible, I'd have headed out the door with my son to go duck and goose hunting. But if the weekend went exactly like this weekend, in which I branded yesterday, have some work that I probably ought to do today, and where my wife wishes to put up a Christmas tree, maybe not. We'll see, perhaps.
0715 Hawaii Time, 1015 Mountain Standard Time: USS Ward's message decoded and reported to Admiral Kimmel, who orders back to "wait for verification."
0720 Hawaii Time, 1020 Mountain Standard Time: U.S. Army lieutenant at Ft. Shafter reviews radar operator's message and believes the message to apply to a flight of B-17s which are known to be in bound from California. He orders that the message is not to be worried about.
Hopefully, I'd be checking the creeks and ponds for ducks.
0733 Hawaii Time, 1033 Mountain Standard Time, 1233 Eastern Time: Gen. George Marshall issues a warning order to Gen. Short that hostilities many be imminent, but due to atmospheric conditions, it has to go by telegraph rather than radio. It was not routed to go as a priority and would only arrive after the attack was well underway.
0749 Hawaii Time, 1049 Mountain Standard Time: Japanese Air-attack commander Mitsuo Fuchida looks down on Pearl Harbor and observes that the US carriers are absent. He orders his telegraph operator to tap out to, to, to: signalling "attack" and then: to ra, to ra, to ra: attack, surprise achieved. This is interpreted as some as Tora, Tora, Tora, "tiger, tiger, tiger" which it was not. Those who heard that sometimes interpreted to be indicative of the Japanese phrase; "A tigergoes out 1,000 ri and returns without fail.”
0755 Hawaii Time, 1055 Mountain Standard Time: Commander Logan C. Ramsey, at the Command Center on Ford Island, looks out a window to see a low-flying plane he believes to be a reckless and
improperly acting U.S. aircraft. He then notices “something black fall out of that plane” and realizes instantly an air raid is in progress. He orders telegraph operators to sendout an uncoded message to every ship and the base that: "AIR RAID ON PEARL HARBOR X THIS IS NOT DRILL"
We'd probably still be out, checking ponds and creeks.
0800 Hawaii time, 11:00 Mountain Standard Time. B-17s which were to be stationed at Oahu begin to land, right in the midst of the Japanese air raid.
0810 Hawaii Time, 11:10 Mountain Standard Time. The USS Arizona fatally hit.
_burning_after_the_Japanese_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor_-_NARA_195617_-_Edit.jpg)
USS Arizona
0817 Hawaii Time: 11:17 Mountain Standard Time. The USS Helm notices a submarine ensnared in the the antisubmarine net and engages it. It submerges but this partially floods the submarine, which must be abandoned.
_NH67686.jpg)
USS Helm
0839 Hawaii Time. 1139 Mountain Standard Time. The USS Monaghan, attempting to get out of the harbor, spotted another miniature submarine and rammed and depth charged it.
USS Monaghan
0850 Hawaii Time. 11:50 Mountain Standard Time. The USS Nevada, with her steam now up, heads for open water. It wouldn't make it and it was intentionally run aground to avoid it being sunk.
USS Nevada
0854 Hawaii Time. 1150 Mountain Standard Time. The Japanese second wave hits.
0929 Hawaii Time. 1229 Mountain Standard Time. NBC interrupts regular programming to announce that Pearl Harbor was being attacked.
If we had a truck with a radio (and of course it'd have been a two wheel drive truck), this is when we first would have learned of anything out hunting. But most pickups didn't have radios, and as my seven year old truck is the most basic one I could find, I doubt a truck I would have owned in 1941 would have had one. If I'd been driving a rough equivalent, say a 1934 Dodge, probably not.
At home, however, my wife would have had the radio on, she would have learned of the attack and started worrying right then. We have, after all, a 17 year old son.
0930 Hawaii Time. 1230 Mountain Standard Time. CBS interrupts regular programming to announce that Pearl Harbor was being attacked.
0930 Hawaii Time. 1230 Mountain Standard Time. The bow of the USS Shaw, a destroyer, is blown off. The ship would be repaired and used in the war.
Explosion on the Shaw.
0938 Hawaii Time, 1238 Mountain Standard Time. CBS erroneously announces that Manila was being attacked. It wasn't far off, however, as the Philippines would be attacked that day (December 8 given the
International Date Line).
Out hunting, we wouldn't have been back yet. At home, the anxiety would have been increased.
10:00 Hawaii Time, 13:00 Mountain Standard Time
The USS West Virginia at Pearl Harbor on this day.
1300 Hawaii Time. 1600 Mountain Standard Time. Japanese task forces begins to turn towards Japan.
A third wave was by the Japanese debated, but not launched.
Wyoming is three hours ahead of Hawaii (less than I'd have guessed) making the local time here about 10:30 a.m. on that Sunday morning when the attack started.. The national radio networks began to interrupt their programming about 12:30. On NBC the announcement fell between Sammy Kaye's Sunday Serenade and the University of Chicago Round Table, which was featuring a program on Canada at war. On NBC the day's episode of Great Plays was interrupted for their announcement. CBS had just begun to broadcast The World Today which actually headlined with their announcement fairly seamlessly.
We would probably have come home about 3:00 or 4:00, maybe 5:00, and have learned of the days events then. It'd be a stressful, and dare I say it, exciting night, as the future was pondered. Including the future of "what will I do tomorrow morning".
And how about you and yours? How would this day have played out for you?
Random Snippets: Today In Wyoming's History: December 7
Today In Wyoming's History: December 7:
I also note, at least according to an engineer who explained it to me, that December 7 is also a date involving an astronomical anomaly, that being that it is the day of the year which, in the Northern Hemisphere, features the earliest sunset. That doesn't, of course, make it the shortest day of the year, it's just that the sunsets the earliest on this day, or so I am told
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Friday, December 5, 2014
Lex Anteinternet: Levis
A little over a year ago I blogged on Levis with this entry:
Yes, jeans.
That a person would ram a car into a story and steal jeans surprised me, but what really surprised me is that the value of the jeans was reported to be $700.00 a pair.
I'm sorry, but $700.00 for blue jeans is insane. A person shouldn't be buying what are essentially work pants, no matter how dressed up or fancified, for $700.00 a pair. Shoot, a really good men's suit cost about that, and they're practically hand made for a particular purpose.
That there even are blue jeans that are priced at that level, and that people buy them, is disturbing really. There's something just not right about that. Basically, if you want to wear blue jeans, and I do a fair amount, the sane thing to do would be to buy a good pair at a reasonable price. Levis, Lees, Wranglers, all fit that bill. They're relatively expensive, it seems to me, but not at the unreasonable rate. $700 is so high a person is buying them for some reason other than that they like blue jeans, and that ought to be reconsidered.
Lex Anteinternet: Levis: Rancher, wearing blue jeans, in the early 1940s. The roll up cuff was extremely common at that time. At the time I started this entr...I was reminded of this as last week I heard a newstory in which theives rammed a car into a store and stole jeans.
Yes, jeans.
That a person would ram a car into a story and steal jeans surprised me, but what really surprised me is that the value of the jeans was reported to be $700.00 a pair.
I'm sorry, but $700.00 for blue jeans is insane. A person shouldn't be buying what are essentially work pants, no matter how dressed up or fancified, for $700.00 a pair. Shoot, a really good men's suit cost about that, and they're practically hand made for a particular purpose.
That there even are blue jeans that are priced at that level, and that people buy them, is disturbing really. There's something just not right about that. Basically, if you want to wear blue jeans, and I do a fair amount, the sane thing to do would be to buy a good pair at a reasonable price. Levis, Lees, Wranglers, all fit that bill. They're relatively expensive, it seems to me, but not at the unreasonable rate. $700 is so high a person is buying them for some reason other than that they like blue jeans, and that ought to be reconsidered.
WHEELS THAT WON THE WEST®: Wyoming Sheep Wagons
WHEELS THAT WON THE WEST®: Wyoming Sheep Wagons: This year marks the 130 th Anniversary of the construction of the first sheep wagon built by James Candlish. Many have attributed the inv...
NCHS seeks $350,000 for John F. Welsh auditorium
NCHS seeks $350,000 for John F. Welsh auditorium
I realize it isn't in any way related to the failed effort to get a pool, but I guess I don't want to let that one go. Here there's a campaign to improve the auditorium, and the more power to them, but what about the pool?
Of course, they're only seeking $350,000 here, not an unreasonable amount, but if a private drive for the auditorium seems wise, why not one for the pool, while there's still space to put it in?
I realize it isn't in any way related to the failed effort to get a pool, but I guess I don't want to let that one go. Here there's a campaign to improve the auditorium, and the more power to them, but what about the pool?
Of course, they're only seeking $350,000 here, not an unreasonable amount, but if a private drive for the auditorium seems wise, why not one for the pool, while there's still space to put it in?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)