Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Walking
For the overwhelming majority of human history, if a person wanted to get somewhere, anywhere, they got there one of two ways.
They walked, or they ran.
That's it.
Saddle horse, indeed a Saddlebred, saddled and ready to go. People have been riding horses for maybe 20,000 years or so and they remain a significant mode of transportation in some areas and for some things today. From our A Revolution In Rural Transportation thread.
Indeed, some might note how in Italy there are a large number of dioceses, whereas in the U.S. this tends not to be true. Wyoming or Montana, for example, have one Catholic diocese for the entire state. In Italy, the next town might have its own diocese and its own Bishop. Why? Well, when those diocese were set up, which might be as long ago as the 1st or 2nd Centuries, the Priests had to walk. Generally, the extent of a Diocese was defined by how far those operating from the Cathedral could walk in some reasonable number of days. In England, this was done in a similar fashion with the Priest living in a central community within a days walking distance of a variety of places they served, and then returning to their central community.
They walked, or they ran.
That's it.
Businessmen, Washington D. C., 1940s. Walking.
Alternative modes of transportation didn't even exist for much of human history. The boat was almost certainly the very first one to occur to anyone. Or rather, the canoe. People traveled by canoe before they traveled by any other means other than walking.
Nez Perce Canoe. This type of canoe is basically the prototype for all watercraft.
Animal transport as an alternative to walking happened a long time ago, and gets pushed back further and further, in an example of Holscher's First Law of History. We probably took up riding horses no later than 15,000 years ago, and in all likelihood probably earlier than that. Maybe 20,000 years ago. According to some, riding horses actually followed riding reindeer, and it may have been an observation of horse herding people, who were doing that from the ground, upon encountering reindeer herding people, who riding reindeer for the same purpose. Something along the lines of "hey. . . .that looks easier than chasing horses. . . "
Imperial Russian soldier riding a reindeer. Some students of the topic believe that people probably rode reindeer before any other animal. I don't know if any culture rides them today, but they were still used as a mounted transportation animal in Siberia within the past century.
It was never the case, however, that people rode horses by default. The school age myth that "everyone rode horses" prior to the automobile, is just that. It's a myth.
Saddle horse, indeed a Saddlebred, saddled and ready to go. People have been riding horses for maybe 20,000 years or so and they remain a significant mode of transportation in some areas and for some things today. From our A Revolution In Rural Transportation thread.
We've dealt with this topic at length before, in our A Revolution In Rural Transportation thread, but that dealt with the topic in a different fashion. What we didn't emphasize there is the simple fact that prior to the automobile, most people walked in most places. Even in the rural West, people who lived in towns and cities, and that was most of the population, walked. Keeping a horse in town is expensive, and most people didn't do it, anywhere.
Black Horse Livery Stable, South Pass City Wyoming, from HABERS study, Library of Congress. Livery stables were sort of the combo gas station/parking garage of their day, as you boarded your horse there while visiting a town or city.
The average working man, in the pre-automobile era, in the US walked seven miles to work, according to Henry Fairlie's "The Cows Revenge". That's quite a hike, and that tells us a lot about conditions and how people lived, and how they viewed walking, prior to the car. Simply put, the introduction and acceptance of the automobile has bizarrely impacted everything about this topic. It's impacted when we walk, how we view walking, how we build our cities, and even our health.
Crowd walking to work in 1916.
Living in a world that was afoot, the default means of getting anywhere for everyone was shoe leather. So, for most men, to get to work everyday, they walked. So what you may ask? Well, that tells us a lot about how they lived. As noted above, they tended to live within walking distance of their work. For the more well to do, that tended to mean that they lived within walking distance of the heart of the city or town, as that meant that they had the luxury of walking less. If they were poorer, they lived further out, unless they were industrial workers, in which case they often lived right next to the plants or mines they worked in. The other day here, we had a thread up on Salt Lake City depicting "Greek Town", which is where working class Greek immigrants lived, right next to the industrial are of Salt Lake City at that time.
Lawyer walking in early 20th Century New York.
That tells us something right there about how cities and towns were laid out, as opposed to now. If people were largely walking to work, and the wealthiest lived closest to their businesses in the heart of the town, the current "suburban" and "bedroom" community natures of so many of our cities simply didn't exist. The very wealthy had country homes they'd retreat to in the summer, when they also could afford to be away from their businesses, but otherwise people generally lived in much more compact neighborhoods than they do now, and they didn't want to live in a place which wasn't within some reasonable walking distance of their occupations. Indeed, while there's been a trend in recent years towards trendy city centers, the post World War Two trend of the middle class and wealthy living away from the city center with those who are less well off living towards it was the opposite of the historic norm, although there were always poor neighborhoods within cities.
For women, as conditions generally meant that they worked at home as a rule, it meant that they tended to walk to and from those areas strongly associated with their daily tasks, such as markets. This meant, of course, that local markets were common, as there was no advantage to having a large store with a large parking lot, obviously, if people had to walk to it. Such small stores were the norm. Today they are the exception. And grocery stores within residential districts were also very common. This city had at least three such grocery stores at one time, and now has a single one, which has become somewhat of a specialty store.
For women, as conditions generally meant that they worked at home as a rule, it meant that they tended to walk to and from those areas strongly associated with their daily tasks, such as markets. This meant, of course, that local markets were common, as there was no advantage to having a large store with a large parking lot, obviously, if people had to walk to it. Such small stores were the norm. Today they are the exception. And grocery stores within residential districts were also very common. This city had at least three such grocery stores at one time, and now has a single one, which has become somewhat of a specialty store.
Young workers returning to work, on foot, after break for noon meal.
Small shops, normally family run, tended to mean that the people who ran them, who usually worked very long hours, often lived in the shop. People lived above their stores, which saved money on lodging, but also saved time hiking. If you had to be in your grocery at 4:00 am, you probably didn't want to have to start walking by 2:30 everyday, particularly in the winter. You just walked down the stairs instead.
Lumberjacks walking home after work. 1944
And it even impacted how and where people worshiped. I've noted here before, in a different thread, how many Catholic churches there are in Denver. Some of them are not really very far from one another. Why is that? Well, if you had to walk to Mass on Sunday, they would be far. Now people think nothing of driving ten or more miles to a church. If you had to walk that distance very Sunday, it would. And that would be considered by the denomination as well.
Holy Ghost Catholic Church, downtown Denver.
St. Ignatius Loyola Catholic Church, Denver.
St. Elizabeth of Hungary and St. Cajetan Catholic Churches, Denver Colorado, as viewed from the Embassy Suites.
The Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, downtown Denver.
Indeed, some might note how in Italy there are a large number of dioceses, whereas in the U.S. this tends not to be true. Wyoming or Montana, for example, have one Catholic diocese for the entire state. In Italy, the next town might have its own diocese and its own Bishop. Why? Well, when those diocese were set up, which might be as long ago as the 1st or 2nd Centuries, the Priests had to walk. Generally, the extent of a Diocese was defined by how far those operating from the Cathedral could walk in some reasonable number of days. In England, this was done in a similar fashion with the Priest living in a central community within a days walking distance of a variety of places they served, and then returning to their central community.
Service people often also walked, although not exclusively. Many policemen, for example, operated out of a district office and covered their "beat" on foot. This wasn't for more effective local policing, as is so often the case today, but because walking was the default norm for everyone. Some were mounted of course, and that was for more effective coverage of an area. Most soldiers, in an era before extensive logistical support, were infantrymen, as most combat solders remained, and they walked everywhere as a rule. Officers, of course, rode, but because they were officers.
Pedestrians, New York City, 1897. Policeman to far left.
And when I mean infantrymen walked, they walked. When we read of infantrymen during the Revolution walking from one northeastern location to another, that's what they did. When we invaded Quebec during the war, most of the American troops walked in, and walked out. Hundreds of miles. And we read of the Mexican War, in which the United States gathered and entered Mexico with one army, and then switched out to a second as call ups expired, we're reading about men who walked all that way to and from Mexico, for the most part.
French infantry, 1914.
In more modern wars, railroads entered the picture, and automobiles about a century ago, but still infantry largely walked. German infantry in World War Two, for example, remained largely of the old type. Walking everywhere. When we see photos of German infantrymen in Russia during World War Two, those troops were largely on foot the entire time, some rail transportation notwithstanding.
This changed, for Americans anyway, only fairly recently, as the automobile really came in. Other forms of transportation added to that, of course, but as cars were fully adopted, and adapted to, Americans came to the idea that they should drive everywhere, and they largely do. This too has changed everything about everything, how we view our cities, how we view transportation, and even how we view ourselves.
Unemployed, Great Depression, walking towards Los Angeles.
But it didn't change it for everyone, at least not completely. Some walkers of the old type hung on, and do even today. If you are one of them, the change tends to be self evident, even if you don't conceive of it in that fashion.
I was one of the walkers, that is one of the people who kept walking for daily transportation. My mother was, and perhaps because of the way I grew up, or the fact that I am just cheap, I continued to be and still somewhat am. When I was a kid, we still walked to get where we were going, normally. My mother was a terrible driver anyway, and if we asked her for a ride, it was due to something exceptional going on. Walking within a couple of miles was the norm for anything we wanted to do that was that close, including going to school. Riding a bike was the norm beyond that. When I went away to college, and every dime counted, I went fully over to walking. I always walked to school, to church, to nearly everywhere, unless I needed to carry something or was going more than a few miles away. When I returned home to work, I walked to work and back everyday until I got married, at which time I moved a greater distance from downtown. During the summer I'll still ride a bike to work, however, if the weather is nice.
Given that prospective, some interesting observations nearly have to occur to you. One thing is that Americans now tend to view walking as a form of "exercise", rather than something that just is.
There's no doubt that it is exercise, and as people like to point out, it's "good exercise". But its actually exercise that we would have normally gotten just by living. The automobile has not only caused us to forget that, it's helped make us unhealthy and fat to some degree, as we sit and ride where formally we would have walked. But even while accurate, the idea that walking is "exercise" is a peculiar thought, if you tended to walk to get somewhere anyhow.
And how it exhibits itself as exercise is interesting. People buy clothing and shoes just for walking. Walking shoes, in fact, have existed for a long long time but that there are "walking shoes", when walking is the default means of transportation, is odd. Walking clothing, on the other hand, is downright odd.
In any prior era, when people walked somewhere, including to work, they simply wore what they were wearing for whatever other activity they were doing. Not now. Now walkers dress in some cases like runners, in special athletic clothing. Its not necessary and a little peculiar, as walking is simply something that humans do, or at least in most eras in most places it was something that they simply did.
For those who have retained the old ways, this is particularly striking. When I lived in Laramie, every Saturday night I walked to Mass, a round trip of about six miles, and then the next morning I walked another round trip of six to buy a newspaper. In doing that, I sometimes ran into an elderly couple that was headed in the same direction, probably to church, and an exercise walker who took that course on their exercise beat. I just wore what I wore. The elderly couple was dress appropriately for church. The exercise walker was wearing exercise clothing. The irony was that the elderly couple and I typically passed the exerciser and out paced him, probably because we were more used to routinely walking. I always wondered about the special clothing, as I wasn't working up a sweat, but the fact that the exercise walker felt compelled to wear special clothing made you feel as perhaps you should too. Was I sweaty and didn't know it?
Not that walking in prior eras didn't also impact clothing, it did, and even the change in this is very noticeable to those who have experienced the change, which has continued to develop even in our own time.
Students of costume often note how heavily people dressed in prior eras, and how common hats were. Well, hats were common as everyone spent part of their days outdoors, even if that only meant walking to work. If you had to walk a mile when it might rain, you'd wear a hat. And probably a real hat, rather than a cap.
You'd also wear enough clothes to protect you from the elements. Presently, if you go by any place their are young people, you'll notice some wear light clothing, including shorts, even in the dead of winter. You wouldn't do that, and couldn't do that, if you had to walk to school a mile or more. That's a byproduct of modern heating, and transportation.
Walkers who simply walk also will find that almost everyone else in American society finds that odd and resists it. If you walk because you'd prefer to, you're going to be offered rides. I've sometimes found that the same people will repeatedly offer you rides, convinced that you can't possibly prefer walking, and they can be quite persistent about it. It's a fairly surprising thing, given as sidewalks are everywhere and walking is our design norm. Psychologically, however, it seems eccentric to many.
Friday, November 7, 2014
Random Snippes: "Invasion"?
Is an Arctic cold front such an event that it actually can be termed, on Good Morning American, "an invasion of the Polar Vortex"?
Seriously?
Seriously?
Today In Wyoming's History: Federal Court rules on same gender marriage case....
A few days ago I wrote a post here about the history of marriage. Last Friday, one of the three Federal judges in Wyoming struck down Wyoming's statute on marriage, which I've written about here:
Today In Wyoming's History: Judge Skavdahl rules on same gender marriage case....:
I haven't actually read Judge Skavdahl's decision, so my commenting on some aspects of it may be bad form, but I'm going to do so anyway. One of the things I've often struck by in legal matters is how people and the press often fail to understand what a ruling actually does, or may do, and that even lawyers fail to understand how the law of unintended consequences tends to apply to big legal decisions and even the amendments of laws. For example, it's probable that the original proponents of no fault divorce never guessed that it would help usher in an age when many people would live in the same circumstances that previously would have been regarded as a common law marriage, but with no recognized marriage at all.
Anyhow, amongst the interesting questions is this. Does Judge Skavdahl's ruling operate the way he probably intended it to operate, or is the door now open to just argue that henceforth marriages in the state can't occur until a new law is drafted? The existing law starts off reading as follows:
It's an interesting question, but it's one that nobody is actually asking. And nobody will unless somebody tries to argue that in court, which would be unlikely. Generally, nobody has an obvious interest in arguing that, which doesn't mean that it won't occur. Probably if it were to occur, the Court would just "fix" the ruling to fit the desired goal.
That's basically what's happened in the overall context of the same gender marriage issue. No matter what side of the issue a person is on, it's really basically an example of judicial legislation, although people aren't arguing that. For those who take an original intent approach to Constitutional interpretation, the fact is that under the Natural Law marriages were always regarded as strictly male/female. I know that people like to cite some odd examples, but they are extremely rare and usually rapidly break down under analysis. At the time the Constitution was written, the drafters were all familiar only with marriage as it then existed, and same gender unions would not only have been regarded as impossible, but illegal. So any originalist interpretation of the Constitution would have to take that view into mind. A person might still be able to reach the same results, by citing changes in other states and the Equal Protection provisions of the 14th Amendment, and that might be what the Court has done here, but that's a different position that what people conceive as having occurred.
Okay, on unintended consequences, it's almost certain that the one I noted above will not occur, but there are a host that I suspect will, and it will be interesting to see how they develop.
One that I'm almost certain will now occur is that "poly" marriages, i.e., more than one man or woman in a union will become inevitable. I just don't really see how the courts can't find them constitutional under the same set of rationales that were used here. At least one Federal Court has already issued that ruling, but then held its decision in abeyance. This may seem far fetched overall, but only to people who don't live in the West where there are religious groups, presently small in number, that already espouse this view and always have. So I think that's a given.
One unexpected probable result, however, is that in really thinking about the issue in a civil context, I suspect that the actual impact of the decision only effects something in actual legal terms to a very, very small degree, and ironically, in a way that the proponents of the change probably wouldn't fully want. The real impact, in so far as I can tell, is mostly just on the division of property in a divorce.
The reason for this is that the civil law impact of marriage has been reduced pretty much to the provision of naturally born children (although even here it is greatly diminished) and property. These features of marriage as a civil institution have always been part of the reason that it is a civil institution. At first blush, a person might think that well of course, now those apply here, but that might not be fully correct.
It's incorrect, to be sure, as the "natural born" children part of it doesn't occur with same gender couples. Yes, they can adopt and they can use surrogates, but they could before and the legal relationships that causes are already controlled by the law. So there's no changed there.
There is, however, in regards to property acquired during a marriage as opposed to a couple simply living together outside of marriage. Generally, the law doesn't control the distribution of property by break ups or death of couples that aren't married but living together, save for circumstances in which they'd contracted in some fashion to address that or there's a dispute about who owns what, which is fairly rare. Now the law of marriage will apply.
That probably will have relatively low impact in testamentary proceedings, but it will now definitely bring in the law of divorce. So an irony now exists in that one of the first impacts of a law changing the definition of marriage also expands out just a bit who is subject to the law of divorce.
Another area it will definitely impact is the area of insurance and benefits where a general "spousal" benefit exists, although that impact will be smaller than supposed because in the case of governmental employees it seemed to be expanding towards a "partner" definition in general. It'll also impact the couples tax structure, although again a person has to wonder at which point a "partner" definition is brought into that, or at what point single people complain that tax benefits to the married no longer serve their original purpose and are themselves unconstitutional. I think that effort would fail, but a person could at least argue that. Probably not very successfully, however.
Another irony of this is that it takes this issue away as one that existed, to the extent it did, in the current Governor's race. Governor Mead is almost certain to win reelection, but he was getting asked about this a fair amount by the press. At least the local Casper Star Tribune was clear in its view that the state should change the definition of marriage, and as the Tribune is present at every debate, this was going to come up every single time. Mead, to his credit, was clear that he based his views both on his philosophical position and his his religious views. Not every candidate would be willing to admit this his religious views (Mead is an Episcopalian) had a role in it. And citing to conservative Episcopal views in a state where the Episcopal church has really declined in numbers, and where that church has been in turmoils over this issue amongst others,is a pretty frank and bold position to take. Now, however, this is removed as an issue for him, and should he decide to run for this or any other office in the future, he can take credit for his views but not have to live with the matter, maybe, as a continuing controversy. That all presumes, of course, that the Supreme Court doesn't enter into this debate soon, which is not a safe assumption at all.
If Mead is off the controversy hook here a bit, a group that may not be are people with strong religious convictions on this issue who hold public office in some fashion. This is an issue that has been little explored, but this ruling might spark a crisis of conscious in some of these people, or perhaps might not, I honestly don't know. What is the case now is that we will have a situation in which County Clerks and Circuit Court Judges will be asked to issue marriage licenses and perform civil marriages and some of the people in those office, and perhaps more importantly some future potential office holders, may now have to reassess their ability to hold these offices, I'm just not sure. At least Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Orthodox Jews hold religious views that regard some unions as immoral. At the current time Catholics and Mormons are a significant portion of the state's demographics and also a significant portion of the legal community, with representatives on the bench as well. Greek Orthodox Christians are a significant demographic in some, but not all, Wyoming towns and likewise are fairly well represented in the legal community, although the only Greek Orthodox judge, a District Court judge, retired some years ago. Muslims are a very small demographic in the state at the present time (as opposed the Catholic and Mormon demographic which are growing), although they're interestingly well represented in the medical community. Orthodox Jews, however, are nearly completely absent from the state. How this shakes out I do not know, and it should be noted that none of these demographics has so far found it morally objectionable to issue marriage licenses in the case of divorce, which some also have moral objections to, so perhaps its a non issue. It comes to mind, however, as a County Clerk in an eastern state just resigned from that office last week, feeling morally obligated to do so, so perhaps this issue might exist. If it does, this will actually be a real problem as demographics that are very well represented in the state should not be excluded from holding office, and if they do this will operate as type of prejudice that will have real, although as yet unknown, negative consequences.
On other things about the decision, while I'm not in the habit of criticizing Federal judges, I do think that Judge Skavdahl was very unwise issuing his decision so rapidly as the rapid release inevitably discredits it. Those who are familiar with this process know that whenever a judge released a decision that quickly, he basically had his mind made up going into the hearing. Generally, that doesn't bother lawyers, but it does bother the members of the public in matters of significance. That should have been on his mind as the general history of public respect for Federal decisions on decisive issues is that the public doesn't respect them. The Federal courts already have pretty low credit in Wyoming, as they're constantly overruling the state on matters of importance to the state, although that's usually the D. C. Circuit. But beyond that, big socially divisive issues, while the Federal Court has jurisdiction over many of them, generally do not sit well with those on the loosing side if they are judge made. The case of Roe v. Wade is the classic example, as its never been accepted by a large portion of the American public and this line of decisions is unlikely to with those who disagree with them either. It's probably partially for that reason that the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to take it up right away. People on both the left and the right are constantly complaining of "judge made law", and here in this area the change in the definition of marriage is becoming increasingly judge made. When so many people feel alienated from the courts and disrespect them rushing to a judgment was foolish.
It was also frankly foolish to take the matter up on an expedited basis. The better course would have been to take it up when it came up in the natural progression of the case and then rule on it. That does involve a lot of delay due to the naturally slow progression of a case, in the eyes of the public, but it doesn't look that way like the judge made his mind up immediately and forced a rapid decision, which is how this otherwise will look to many. Additionally, there was no real harm in delay in the legal sense, as changing the definition of something that's been read one way for centuries can't rationally create an emergency situation. Of course, the argument would be that the 10th Circuit's decision created that emergency, but that too would have been a reason to go slow, as if the court had, chances were good that the 10th itself would have taken this matter up or perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, and the local Federal court would never had to have done so, maybe. Now it has, and some are celebrating, others are upset, and yet others will note that the same judge recently made a ruling on the Federal health care act here that didn't sit really well with everyone. Sometimes proceeding slowly is a better approach to take.
Postscript
A couple of additional comments, as this story moves along.
The impact of the ruling came a couple of days early, as the Attorney General determined not to appeal. Given the recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions that Judge Skavdahl relied upon, the Attorney General was correct. No point in doing a doomed appeal. It wouldn't even serve to try to get these issues to the U.S. Supreme Court, for those who hope to do that, as the existing opinions already stand and that did not occur.
However, the Federal District Court in Peurto Rico issues an opinion going the opposite directly that was scathing in its view of the recent decision such as the 10th Circuits. Whatever a person may think of this issue one way or another, that decision is undoubtedly the most legally correct. Whether it will stand or not is yet to be known, as presumably the loosing parties will appeal to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. For those hoping in a split in the circuits, this might be it, or it might actually present another basis for a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, as its so clear in its views.
On another matter, here in this county we saw the spectacle of a non denominational woman cleric loitering around the courthouse all day hoping to find some same gender couples to marry, and finding one. There's something unseemly about that. Presumably any same gender couples that determined to marry weren't really looking into just bumping into a person commissioned to do it casually, which another female cleric who was supporting this movement noted in an interview yesterday.
Postscript
The other day I was looking at some old statutes, and in doing that I was curious as to how this set of laws originally read. I couldn't find the absolutely oldest variant, but here's one that dates to the 1890s:
Today In Wyoming's History: Judge Skavdahl rules on same gender marriage case....:
I haven't actually read Judge Skavdahl's decision, so my commenting on some aspects of it may be bad form, but I'm going to do so anyway. One of the things I've often struck by in legal matters is how people and the press often fail to understand what a ruling actually does, or may do, and that even lawyers fail to understand how the law of unintended consequences tends to apply to big legal decisions and even the amendments of laws. For example, it's probable that the original proponents of no fault divorce never guessed that it would help usher in an age when many people would live in the same circumstances that previously would have been regarded as a common law marriage, but with no recognized marriage at all.
Anyhow, amongst the interesting questions is this. Does Judge Skavdahl's ruling operate the way he probably intended it to operate, or is the door now open to just argue that henceforth marriages in the state can't occur until a new law is drafted? The existing law starts off reading as follows:
If that's what a marriage in Wyoming will be until Thursday, when Judge Skavdahl's ruling takes effect, can it now be argued that the definition of marriage fails under his ruling, and they just won't be at all?20-1-101. Marriage a civil contract.Marriage
is a civil contract between a male and a female person to which the consent of the
parties capable of contracting is essential.
It's an interesting question, but it's one that nobody is actually asking. And nobody will unless somebody tries to argue that in court, which would be unlikely. Generally, nobody has an obvious interest in arguing that, which doesn't mean that it won't occur. Probably if it were to occur, the Court would just "fix" the ruling to fit the desired goal.
That's basically what's happened in the overall context of the same gender marriage issue. No matter what side of the issue a person is on, it's really basically an example of judicial legislation, although people aren't arguing that. For those who take an original intent approach to Constitutional interpretation, the fact is that under the Natural Law marriages were always regarded as strictly male/female. I know that people like to cite some odd examples, but they are extremely rare and usually rapidly break down under analysis. At the time the Constitution was written, the drafters were all familiar only with marriage as it then existed, and same gender unions would not only have been regarded as impossible, but illegal. So any originalist interpretation of the Constitution would have to take that view into mind. A person might still be able to reach the same results, by citing changes in other states and the Equal Protection provisions of the 14th Amendment, and that might be what the Court has done here, but that's a different position that what people conceive as having occurred.
Okay, on unintended consequences, it's almost certain that the one I noted above will not occur, but there are a host that I suspect will, and it will be interesting to see how they develop.
One that I'm almost certain will now occur is that "poly" marriages, i.e., more than one man or woman in a union will become inevitable. I just don't really see how the courts can't find them constitutional under the same set of rationales that were used here. At least one Federal Court has already issued that ruling, but then held its decision in abeyance. This may seem far fetched overall, but only to people who don't live in the West where there are religious groups, presently small in number, that already espouse this view and always have. So I think that's a given.
One unexpected probable result, however, is that in really thinking about the issue in a civil context, I suspect that the actual impact of the decision only effects something in actual legal terms to a very, very small degree, and ironically, in a way that the proponents of the change probably wouldn't fully want. The real impact, in so far as I can tell, is mostly just on the division of property in a divorce.
The reason for this is that the civil law impact of marriage has been reduced pretty much to the provision of naturally born children (although even here it is greatly diminished) and property. These features of marriage as a civil institution have always been part of the reason that it is a civil institution. At first blush, a person might think that well of course, now those apply here, but that might not be fully correct.
It's incorrect, to be sure, as the "natural born" children part of it doesn't occur with same gender couples. Yes, they can adopt and they can use surrogates, but they could before and the legal relationships that causes are already controlled by the law. So there's no changed there.
There is, however, in regards to property acquired during a marriage as opposed to a couple simply living together outside of marriage. Generally, the law doesn't control the distribution of property by break ups or death of couples that aren't married but living together, save for circumstances in which they'd contracted in some fashion to address that or there's a dispute about who owns what, which is fairly rare. Now the law of marriage will apply.
That probably will have relatively low impact in testamentary proceedings, but it will now definitely bring in the law of divorce. So an irony now exists in that one of the first impacts of a law changing the definition of marriage also expands out just a bit who is subject to the law of divorce.
Another area it will definitely impact is the area of insurance and benefits where a general "spousal" benefit exists, although that impact will be smaller than supposed because in the case of governmental employees it seemed to be expanding towards a "partner" definition in general. It'll also impact the couples tax structure, although again a person has to wonder at which point a "partner" definition is brought into that, or at what point single people complain that tax benefits to the married no longer serve their original purpose and are themselves unconstitutional. I think that effort would fail, but a person could at least argue that. Probably not very successfully, however.
Another irony of this is that it takes this issue away as one that existed, to the extent it did, in the current Governor's race. Governor Mead is almost certain to win reelection, but he was getting asked about this a fair amount by the press. At least the local Casper Star Tribune was clear in its view that the state should change the definition of marriage, and as the Tribune is present at every debate, this was going to come up every single time. Mead, to his credit, was clear that he based his views both on his philosophical position and his his religious views. Not every candidate would be willing to admit this his religious views (Mead is an Episcopalian) had a role in it. And citing to conservative Episcopal views in a state where the Episcopal church has really declined in numbers, and where that church has been in turmoils over this issue amongst others,is a pretty frank and bold position to take. Now, however, this is removed as an issue for him, and should he decide to run for this or any other office in the future, he can take credit for his views but not have to live with the matter, maybe, as a continuing controversy. That all presumes, of course, that the Supreme Court doesn't enter into this debate soon, which is not a safe assumption at all.
If Mead is off the controversy hook here a bit, a group that may not be are people with strong religious convictions on this issue who hold public office in some fashion. This is an issue that has been little explored, but this ruling might spark a crisis of conscious in some of these people, or perhaps might not, I honestly don't know. What is the case now is that we will have a situation in which County Clerks and Circuit Court Judges will be asked to issue marriage licenses and perform civil marriages and some of the people in those office, and perhaps more importantly some future potential office holders, may now have to reassess their ability to hold these offices, I'm just not sure. At least Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Muslims, Mormons and Orthodox Jews hold religious views that regard some unions as immoral. At the current time Catholics and Mormons are a significant portion of the state's demographics and also a significant portion of the legal community, with representatives on the bench as well. Greek Orthodox Christians are a significant demographic in some, but not all, Wyoming towns and likewise are fairly well represented in the legal community, although the only Greek Orthodox judge, a District Court judge, retired some years ago. Muslims are a very small demographic in the state at the present time (as opposed the Catholic and Mormon demographic which are growing), although they're interestingly well represented in the medical community. Orthodox Jews, however, are nearly completely absent from the state. How this shakes out I do not know, and it should be noted that none of these demographics has so far found it morally objectionable to issue marriage licenses in the case of divorce, which some also have moral objections to, so perhaps its a non issue. It comes to mind, however, as a County Clerk in an eastern state just resigned from that office last week, feeling morally obligated to do so, so perhaps this issue might exist. If it does, this will actually be a real problem as demographics that are very well represented in the state should not be excluded from holding office, and if they do this will operate as type of prejudice that will have real, although as yet unknown, negative consequences.
On other things about the decision, while I'm not in the habit of criticizing Federal judges, I do think that Judge Skavdahl was very unwise issuing his decision so rapidly as the rapid release inevitably discredits it. Those who are familiar with this process know that whenever a judge released a decision that quickly, he basically had his mind made up going into the hearing. Generally, that doesn't bother lawyers, but it does bother the members of the public in matters of significance. That should have been on his mind as the general history of public respect for Federal decisions on decisive issues is that the public doesn't respect them. The Federal courts already have pretty low credit in Wyoming, as they're constantly overruling the state on matters of importance to the state, although that's usually the D. C. Circuit. But beyond that, big socially divisive issues, while the Federal Court has jurisdiction over many of them, generally do not sit well with those on the loosing side if they are judge made. The case of Roe v. Wade is the classic example, as its never been accepted by a large portion of the American public and this line of decisions is unlikely to with those who disagree with them either. It's probably partially for that reason that the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to take it up right away. People on both the left and the right are constantly complaining of "judge made law", and here in this area the change in the definition of marriage is becoming increasingly judge made. When so many people feel alienated from the courts and disrespect them rushing to a judgment was foolish.
It was also frankly foolish to take the matter up on an expedited basis. The better course would have been to take it up when it came up in the natural progression of the case and then rule on it. That does involve a lot of delay due to the naturally slow progression of a case, in the eyes of the public, but it doesn't look that way like the judge made his mind up immediately and forced a rapid decision, which is how this otherwise will look to many. Additionally, there was no real harm in delay in the legal sense, as changing the definition of something that's been read one way for centuries can't rationally create an emergency situation. Of course, the argument would be that the 10th Circuit's decision created that emergency, but that too would have been a reason to go slow, as if the court had, chances were good that the 10th itself would have taken this matter up or perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, and the local Federal court would never had to have done so, maybe. Now it has, and some are celebrating, others are upset, and yet others will note that the same judge recently made a ruling on the Federal health care act here that didn't sit really well with everyone. Sometimes proceeding slowly is a better approach to take.
Postscript
A couple of additional comments, as this story moves along.
The impact of the ruling came a couple of days early, as the Attorney General determined not to appeal. Given the recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decisions that Judge Skavdahl relied upon, the Attorney General was correct. No point in doing a doomed appeal. It wouldn't even serve to try to get these issues to the U.S. Supreme Court, for those who hope to do that, as the existing opinions already stand and that did not occur.
However, the Federal District Court in Peurto Rico issues an opinion going the opposite directly that was scathing in its view of the recent decision such as the 10th Circuits. Whatever a person may think of this issue one way or another, that decision is undoubtedly the most legally correct. Whether it will stand or not is yet to be known, as presumably the loosing parties will appeal to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. For those hoping in a split in the circuits, this might be it, or it might actually present another basis for a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, as its so clear in its views.
On another matter, here in this county we saw the spectacle of a non denominational woman cleric loitering around the courthouse all day hoping to find some same gender couples to marry, and finding one. There's something unseemly about that. Presumably any same gender couples that determined to marry weren't really looking into just bumping into a person commissioned to do it casually, which another female cleric who was supporting this movement noted in an interview yesterday.
Postscript
The other day I was looking at some old statutes, and in doing that I was curious as to how this set of laws originally read. I couldn't find the absolutely oldest variant, but here's one that dates to the 1890s:
As we can see, the original text defined marriage similarly, but omitted the "between men and women" language. Not that this is surprising, as marriage would have been conceived of in no other way at the time.
The language that follows is sort of interesting, and clearly is cast in terms of male and female. It's odd that males could marry only upon reaching 18, but females needed to only have reached the age of 16. Minors could marry, however, with the consent of apparently one parent, with the father given the veto power on that if he was alive.
Postscript II
What my personal prediction on this was has come true.
A lot of judicial decisions on any one big social issue have a certain "me too" quality to them, which shouldn't be the case but which does tend to be. That is, no one Federal judge wants to seem to be the last man left on the boat when a social issue seems to be going one way in the courts.
But some don't seem to be influenced by that, and some will stick with a reading of the law as it exists, rather than jumping on a trend. That's happened twice now since the Wyoming decision.
The first time happened with a Federal District Judge issued an opinion in Puerto Rico, which of course has Federal Courts. That opinion was pretty scathing towards other Federal decisions, and noted that Supreme Court precedence doesn't really allow for the district courts to overturn the law in this area. Really, the Federal Courts have been acting in contravention to precedence.
Now the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has done the same thing.
This was inevitable. Sooner or later, and more likely later as has happened rather than sooner (although quicker than I supposed) a Federal Court was actually going to apply the law accordingly to existing case law, which is what they are supposed to do. The Court noted that social concerns were not supposed to be part of its opinion at all:
One of the things here that has concerned me about this decisions going on the other way is that its my feeling that judicial decisions on social issues are very rarely accepted by the populace, and that people who rely on them under the theory that it means they've achieved some real victory fail nearly completely to understand that achieving a legal victory does not equate with actually winning an argument in the larger society. Moreover, in a matter like this, in which people are relying on the decisions of judges in opinions that are pretty poorly based, they're really risking them being upheld. Here, they are unlikely to be, and the law as it is actually written will blast back into existence literally with the stroke of a pen. It's highly probable that same gender couples that believe they are married in the states with laws that don't recognize those marriage, but which are being conducted under the fiat of judicial authority, will find that they were never married in the first place.
That will undoubtedly result in a lot of protest and decrying of the Court, but the irony of it is pretty thick. Having failed to really achieve what they wanted in most places through the legislatures, and having grown impatient with that process, they resorted to the Courts, which by their nature are, at the end of the day, non democratic. The Vox Populi is not supposed to be heard in court. And not only is it not supposed to be heard, it tends to shut it up. In a divisive issue, the group that gets shut upped tends to grow in strength if its view is widely shared, as there's the sense that a few jurists are substituting their personal views for that of the electorate. People who had no prior strong feelings on an issue will develop one at that time as Americans really don't have that much respect for the judiciary really. It was for that reason that the liberal The New Republic opined years ago that Roe v. Wade should be opposed by Liberals. Here, in a year or so, the 6th Circuit opinion is likely to be upheld and the law of the states which found their law suspended by their Federal Courts will be restored, and this debate will return to the legislatures, but with positions very much hardened.
Postscript II
What my personal prediction on this was has come true.
A lot of judicial decisions on any one big social issue have a certain "me too" quality to them, which shouldn't be the case but which does tend to be. That is, no one Federal judge wants to seem to be the last man left on the boat when a social issue seems to be going one way in the courts.
But some don't seem to be influenced by that, and some will stick with a reading of the law as it exists, rather than jumping on a trend. That's happened twice now since the Wyoming decision.
The first time happened with a Federal District Judge issued an opinion in Puerto Rico, which of course has Federal Courts. That opinion was pretty scathing towards other Federal decisions, and noted that Supreme Court precedence doesn't really allow for the district courts to overturn the law in this area. Really, the Federal Courts have been acting in contravention to precedence.
Now the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has done the same thing.
This was inevitable. Sooner or later, and more likely later as has happened rather than sooner (although quicker than I supposed) a Federal Court was actually going to apply the law accordingly to existing case law, which is what they are supposed to do. The Court noted that social concerns were not supposed to be part of its opinion at all:
This means that this will now go to the Supreme Court, probably in the next term. It nearly has to, now that there's a split in the circuits. My guess is that the Court will hold as the 6th Circuit has, that there's no Constitutional basis for changing the definition of marriage that has always existed as being a male/female union. The Court's decision will be in part based upon its prior decision in Baker but also on the fact that the Court is well aware that big Federal decisions on social issues discredit the court and become societal disasters, and moreover they open up the door to endless successor cases as the boundaries of the change in the law are tested. That would undoubtedly be the case here, should the Court go the other way.Of all the ways to resolve this question, one option is not available: a poll of the three judges on this panel, or for that matter all federal judges, about whether gay marriage is a good idea. Our judicial commissions did not come with such a sweeping grant of authority, one that would allow just three of us—just two of us in truth—to make such a vital policy call for the thirty-two million citizens who live within the four States of the Sixth Circuit: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. What we have authority to decide instead is a legal question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a State from defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman?
One of the things here that has concerned me about this decisions going on the other way is that its my feeling that judicial decisions on social issues are very rarely accepted by the populace, and that people who rely on them under the theory that it means they've achieved some real victory fail nearly completely to understand that achieving a legal victory does not equate with actually winning an argument in the larger society. Moreover, in a matter like this, in which people are relying on the decisions of judges in opinions that are pretty poorly based, they're really risking them being upheld. Here, they are unlikely to be, and the law as it is actually written will blast back into existence literally with the stroke of a pen. It's highly probable that same gender couples that believe they are married in the states with laws that don't recognize those marriage, but which are being conducted under the fiat of judicial authority, will find that they were never married in the first place.
That will undoubtedly result in a lot of protest and decrying of the Court, but the irony of it is pretty thick. Having failed to really achieve what they wanted in most places through the legislatures, and having grown impatient with that process, they resorted to the Courts, which by their nature are, at the end of the day, non democratic. The Vox Populi is not supposed to be heard in court. And not only is it not supposed to be heard, it tends to shut it up. In a divisive issue, the group that gets shut upped tends to grow in strength if its view is widely shared, as there's the sense that a few jurists are substituting their personal views for that of the electorate. People who had no prior strong feelings on an issue will develop one at that time as Americans really don't have that much respect for the judiciary really. It was for that reason that the liberal The New Republic opined years ago that Roe v. Wade should be opposed by Liberals. Here, in a year or so, the 6th Circuit opinion is likely to be upheld and the law of the states which found their law suspended by their Federal Courts will be restored, and this debate will return to the legislatures, but with positions very much hardened.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Lex Anteinternet: Why did the bond issue fail?
Yesterday the County's voters approved both the Optional One Cent Tax and the Lodging Tax, leading me to wonder once again about the topic raised here:
Perhaps they were, and they shot their bolt with the Bond. Of note, at the time of the Bond election local Tea Party elements were particularly active and seemed particularly strong, but in the later Primary and General elections, they really fell flat.
More probably, however, the strategy of holding a separate bond election was a bad one. The City wanted the District to do it, as they feared that if the Bond election was unpopular it would take the One Cent down with it, but what more likely probably occurred is that the elements opposed to any taxation or in the Tea Party camp in general were motivated to go tot he special bond election, which most people aren't It didn't fail by much.
General elections here, however, get good turnout. Chances are, I suspect, that if the Bond had been in the General election, it would have passed.
Lex Anteinternet: Why did the bond issue fail?: I can't ever recall a school bond issue failing here before, like the one that did yesterday, and it was only last year that the voters...I really wonder, as the forces that seemed lined up against the School Bond also seemed lined up against the One Cent Tax.
Perhaps they were, and they shot their bolt with the Bond. Of note, at the time of the Bond election local Tea Party elements were particularly active and seemed particularly strong, but in the later Primary and General elections, they really fell flat.
More probably, however, the strategy of holding a separate bond election was a bad one. The City wanted the District to do it, as they feared that if the Bond election was unpopular it would take the One Cent down with it, but what more likely probably occurred is that the elements opposed to any taxation or in the Tea Party camp in general were motivated to go tot he special bond election, which most people aren't It didn't fail by much.
General elections here, however, get good turnout. Chances are, I suspect, that if the Bond had been in the General election, it would have passed.
Courthouses of the West: 2014_Statewide_Judicial_Summary.pdf
Courthouses of the West: 2014_Statewide_Judicial_Summary.pdf: 2014_Statewide_Judicial_Summary.pdf As is typically the result, every Wyoming judge up for retention this year easily won retention. That...
Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming History In The Making: The 2014 Wyoming G...
Today In Wyoming's History: Wyoming History In The Making: The 2014 Wyoming G...: After one of the most unusual election seasons in recent Wyoming history, the voters returned results that were actually fairly typical for...
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Election Day: The Inherant Disfunction of a Two Party System and Today In Wyoming's History: Sidebar: Elections and History in Wyoming
Republican, then Progressive, then Republican Governor Carey of Wyoming.
Some time ago, as we were riding up on a general election, I made this post regarding the history of Wyoming's elections:
Today In Wyoming's History: Sidebar: Elections and History in Wyoming: This is the election season, and therefore, naturally, many of the items that are showing up on this blog pertain to anniversaries of elect...
What surprised me at the time, and what I think would surprise many people in this state now, is that Wyoming's political story was much more fluid in prior years with a couple of third parties showing very well in the past, and even some parties we'd never suppose doing well here, such as the Socialist Party, actually doing well on a local regional basis.
Those days are long gone in the state, and as that post notes, this state has become very solidly Republican. So much so, in fact, that the Republican Primary was effectively the general election for nearly every office save but a few, and some real splits in political thinking erupted during the Primary. Indeed the GOP was really split between the traditional Wyoming Republican Party, which is traditionally conservative and "Tea Party" elements, some of which seemed to be backed by something called the Wyoming Liberty Group. This split first became somewhat apparent during the 2010 election, but it's absolutely erupted since that time.
The purpose of this post isn't to comment on current politics per se, however, but to note that in some ways this is the story of the entire country right now. We complain about gridlock in Washington D.C., but somehow we've really fully accommodated ourselves to a two party system. So much so that now, unlike a century ago, when a third part makes a run at anything, chances are that it's basically on the fringe of things. That is, only those people who hold views so far from the mainstream that they can't accommodate themselves to one of the other two parties fall into third parties, with most of those parties pretty much in the Libertarian camp, even if they aren't all the Libertarian Party. This past year we saw at least three such parties in operation in our state, but all of them were really various types of Libertarian parties.
This is, quite frankly, a very unfortunate occurrence and it contributes both to gridlock and a lack of real democracy in the country. The reason is that it cannot possibly be the case that the overwhelming majority of people neatly have their views divided into two camps. Indeed, the disruptions within the state's GOP shows that's not the case, and the desertion of the rank and file of the Democratic Party from that party also show that this isn't the case.
To go out a bit further on this, it seems to me that the Libertarian elements of the GOP really do have very little in common with the traditional conservative elements of the GOP. It would make more sense if they were two parties, rather than one. The strong activism of the Tea Party element has tended to drag that party towards Libertarian positions between elections, but as we just saw, in spite of their active campaigning and backing by an outside active group, the GOP rank and file was not very impressed by them. Wouldn't two parties, at least, make more sense where the GOP currently is?
To go on, it seems to me that a lot of "social conservatives" are probably only conservative on social issues. Men and women who register in the GOP because they are opposed to same gender unions, terminating pregnancies, and the like, might also actually be quite liberal on other issues. I"ve met, for example, plenty of supporters of the Right to Life who extended that into opposing the death penalty and supporting social programs aimed at women and children. The political left likes to go after the conservatives for this, but I suspect that's because they don't actually track those voters. If the there was a party something like Germany's Christian Democratic Union, these voters would be in it, and I suspect that they would not be quite as conservative as people suppose.
By the same token, a lot of opponents of gun control around here are super sincere about that, but they're also sportsmen. They may seem to be hard core conservatives in a national poll, but if they were polled on public lands issues or environmental issues, they'd seem hard core left. It's not intellectually inconsistent at all to know that a person can safely have and use firearms, and support free access to public lands, and to worry about environmental issues. Indeed, I've just described several of the local conservation organizations that have sprung up in the state. A Wyoming Green Party, if there was one, would probably get NRA A ratings on everything.
I don't mean to pick only on the Republicans here, it's just easy to do as the Wyoming Democratic Party killed itself and buried itself six feet under well over a decade ago and it largely doesn't exist. The only people mostly left in it are far to the political left, although rare exceptions pop up, but have to distance themselves from their own party. It's a pretty sad state of affairs. But here too, I really wonder if Democrats were given a chance to be in a party that expressed their actual views, what that party would be like.
It used to be famously observed that Wyoming Democrats would be middle of the road Republicans anywhere else, and if there was a party like that here, that's probably where they'd be. Indeed, that is where they are, as most of them left the Democratic Party and registered as Republicans long ago. But, once again, looking at it is an interesting thing to do.
Using an example above, one thing that drove a lot of Democrats out of the party here, and elsewhere, is that it became impossible to be a Democrat and not support certain social views that many simply do not. Traditionally in much of the country Catholics were Democrats, but there's no doubt now that Catholics in the Democratic Party have either allowed themselves to compromise their religious views or they stand as the odd men out in their party. Supporting the poor was traditionally a big issue with these voters, and if there was a party that had traditional social views, but still advocated for the poor, and the environment, etc., they'd be in it. There's really no reason to suppose somebody who worries about hte poor also supports same gender marriage, for example, which isn't really a big concern amongst the poor.
It also seems that it would really be the case that the hard left edge of the Democrats, just like the Libertarian edge of the GOP, really ought to be its own party. That party would more closely resemble the Social Democratic Party. There's nothing wrong with that. It would be a big party in some areas of the coats, and a tiny party in the middle of the country, but it would more purely reflect its actual views in that form.
We don't do this as the parties believe that the only way that they get their agendas across is by being big blocks. But because they don't really have an agenda that makes sense, in a larger sense, this is not true. Parties that try to house so many really divergent views can't possibly be effective when they try to put their views into effect. For that reason, it's probably not too surprise that so little gets done, and when it does, it's only on issue that broadly unit a big patch of one of the two parties, and probably even cross over members of the other party.
European Parliaments do not work this way and typically they have a multiplicity of parties within them. Of course, the majority party in a parliament is the government, which is not true of the majority party of Congress, which does not pick the Executive. Still, if we had more parties, chances are that the deals they'd have to make amongst themselves would also mean for a more effective government. If the GOP nationally was the two or three parties it really is, and the Democrats were the two or three parties they really are (or if the middle of these two parties became one), we'd see a Congress with as many as twelve parties in it, and probably new fewer than six or so. They'd have to trade with each other to get anything done, but they almost certainly would. Right now, they just have to sit and wait and hope for better fortunes.
No third party has made a serious run at anything in the US since the Progressive Party, which split the GOP in two, and which had the collateral impact of causing a progressive takeover in the Democratic Party at the same time. The Populist had made a pretty serious run just a decade or so prior to that. Now, the parties seem set in stone and occasional runs at creating a third party fail. Too bad, as perhaps a third, fourth, and fifth party would be more democratic, and effective.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet? Rexamining our purpose.
Here's our first post on this blog:
Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet?:
More properly, the blog has ostensibly tried to focus on changes over a century, or comparing the period of roughly a century ago to now. That was always a secondary focus anyhow, and it rapidly became the primary one. Even here, we've strayed a bit, but I think we'll try to get back on focus somewhat. Not that diversions won't continue to occur. . . .
Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet?:
Lex Anteinternet?
The Consolidated Royalty Building, where I work, back when it was new.
What the heck is this blog about?
The intent of this blog is to try to explore and learn a few things about the practice of law prior to the current era. That is, prior to the internet, prior to easy roads, and the like. How did it work, how regional was it, how did lawyers perceive their roles, and how were they perceived?
I"m not too sure, looking back, that we ever did a very good job sticking to the purpose, but we did used to do a better job at it. Over time, indeed nearly darned near immediately, the "practice of law" aspect of the blog, while never absent, diminished. Indeed, the most popular practice of law thread on the blog, which right now stands at number ten on the all time popular posts on the blog is on a contemporary issue, the mal-adoption of the Uniform Bar Exam, (but which is decreasing in rank in recent months as the dismal situation the Wyoming Supreme Court created by forcing the adoption of the UBE sinks in and become the low norm, and therefore less interesting, as a lessor standard always does once adopted).Part of the reason for this, quite frankly, has something to do with minor research for a very slow moving book I've been pondering. And part of it is just because I'm curious. Hopefully it'll generate enough minor interest so that anyone who stops by might find something of interest, once it begins to develop a bit.
More properly, the blog has ostensibly tried to focus on changes over a century, or comparing the period of roughly a century ago to now. That was always a secondary focus anyhow, and it rapidly became the primary one. Even here, we've strayed a bit, but I think we'll try to get back on focus somewhat. Not that diversions won't continue to occur. . . .
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Shipping and Preg Testing. 2014
Shipping and Preg Testing. 2014: ...
An institution as old as agriculture, now shared by distressingly few. . . .
An institution as old as agriculture, now shared by distressingly few. . . .
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.
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.Saturday, November 1, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)