Saturday, April 10, 1915. Knights of Saint Columbanus

The Knights of Saint Columbanus was established in Belfast to provide charitable service to Irish citizens.

Last edition:

Wednesday, April 7, 1915. Billie Holiday born.

Labels: 1910s, 1915, entertainment, Jazz, Music, Personalities

Californians who don't "get it" about their drought and water rationing.

 

 Imperial Valley, California, 1940s.

As those following the news are aware of, California has imposed water rationing in light of the severe drought they are suffering.

 

Some are now wondering why farmers haven't been subject to the same strict rationing.

 

Well, because that's where the food comes from.

 

At the end of they day, you can't eat your lawn, and in terms of economic importance, agriculture may be only 2% of California's economy, but its the percentage of that economy that people eat.  And not just people in California.  You can't eat a semiconductor, or intellectual property.

 

Not that there aren't problems of all sorts that this is exhibiting, one being that California in general takes more water to sustain its population than it actual has.  Of course, California's agriculture built that population in the first place, for good or ill, and it feeds more than California.

This Day in US History… 1865: General Robert E. Lee Surrenders, ending the Civil War | Wyoming Postscripts

This Day in US History… 1865: General Robert E. Lee Surrenders, ending the Civil War | Wyoming Postscripts

Lex Anteinternet: Protesting Too Much: Lex Antein...

There's clearly something going on in conservative circles in which a general animosity towards the Federal government has started to translate into a goal to transfer Federal lands to the states.  I wrote about that last here, in regards to a bill in the State Legislature:

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Protesting Too Much: Lex Antein...: Well the bill discussed here: Lex Anteinternet: Protesting Too Much: Lex Anteinternet: The return... :   I've commented several tim...

That bill passed the Wyoming legislature, but of course, in spite of what Wyoming may think, the Federal government isn't going to pay much attention to a bill of this type from us.  More signficantly, similar bills died in Colorado and Idaho, and they've now become deeply unpopular with Westerners and sportsmen.  65% of the Western population opposes this idea.

But apparently what ever is going on is strong enough that the U.S. Senate feels that it can ignore the feelings of the country.  They recently passed an amendment to a budget bill supporting such a proposal.

Supposedly the passage of the bill, introduced by a comittee chairman from Alaska, is non binding, but this almost surely signals that such an attempt will be made later in the year in an actual bill. The bill passed the Senate on a straight party vote, with one Republican voting against it.

It's already had repercussions.  Idaho sportsmen blasted their Senator who is now trying to defend his action and residents of Montana likewise did the same to one of their Senators.  No outcry has been heard in Wyoming yet, but in a state where the majority of the residents use the public lands, they will.   I know that I am strongly displeased with at least Mike Enzi, one of our two Senators, whom I formerly held a generally favorable view of.  I imagine I'm not alone, and I know that our other Senator already had a dedicated body of some who didn't think much of him.  Senators in the West that thought they had safe seats might find that this will not sit well with some who traditionally supported them.  The other Senator, who seems to be perpetually on the same flight back to Casper that I routinely am, is going to get an earful from me next time I see him, if I have the chance to talk to him.  I'm not pleased.

The excuse for this nonsense is that  the Federal government is slow to permit oil exploration, and that's hindering the oil producing state's economies. That's nonsense.  There was never a time during the recent boom with oil exploration was occurring on all of the leased lands.  There was always a backlog, and the hold ups in drilling were largely attributable to infrastructure and lack of equipment, not leasing.  Now, with oil down consistently around $50 bbl, the hold up is that American oil can not be produced at a profit, and with Saudi Arabia dedicated to keeping it that way, and with some suggestion that the price might decline to half of the present price, giving leases away wouldn't make a difference.

A broader thesis is that Westerners are oppressed by Federal regulations and actions, and in some ways that is somewhat true, but a land transfer will not impact that at all.  Focusing in on the land aspect of this focuses attention in the wrong area, where regional complaints are not really found.  Indeed, the one thing that Westerners really like about the Federal government is the free access to the public domain, something states have not been quite as generous with, at least as concerns our state.

Indeed, something that people miss here, if they're worried about government, is that a state government can be just as burdensome as a national one, and there are plenty of examples of the Federal government being the entity that imposes freedom on an area, rather than a state.  States react to their population more directly, to be sure, and part of that reaction is pushing certain sections of that population around from time to time.

People should make no mistake.  What such a transfer would do is fairly simple.  It would transfer land to the States, no doubt for gratis or nearly so, and the states would transfer it to existing lease holders sooner or later, who would then find themselves selling to out of state interests, and the entire culture that has existed here for over a century will be gone.

Critics of Wyoming's economy, and there are quite a few, have long held that Wyoming has a third world economy.  I dispute that, but those who maintain that hold that the land is agricultural and the industry is both foreign and exploitative. Again, I think that's a bit much, but I do think that the effect of this bill would be to give us a colonial economy.  The land will belong to somebody else  and all the wealth derived from it will go either to the government our out of state interests.  Locals will be mere landless peasants, not even able to go on what was formerly theirs.

Enough is enough on this idea.  It's time to let our leadership, or rather our representation, know we're not having it.

Painted Bricks: A Casper Wyoming Plaza?

Painted Bricks is the oldest of our blogs, as we created it for a specific purpose.  Like most of our blogs, it's evolved somewhat, but stayed pretty close to its original purpose.  Having said that, we depart from that today with our commentary here:

Painted Bricks: A Casper Wyoming Plaza?: As reported this past week in the Tribune and in an article in the Journal , the Casper city counsel has given provisional approval to dedi...

We've never done commentary on that blog before, and are unlikely to much. But it seemed warranted for that topic.

Writing inspirations – posing answers to the questions left by an abandoned trailer « M J Wright

Writing inspirations – posing answers to the questions left by an abandoned trailer « M J Wright

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: And the pumps ...

Our most recent look at the state of the oilfield was posted several days ago, here:

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: And the pumps ...: This past weekend, the week after I posted this Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: And the pumps kept on. : And following on this: Lex...

At the time I posted that entry, Chesapeake energy was the regional bright spot, having announced a few weeks prior that it was keeping on with its oil exploration program in the state.

Well, now its reversed course and is scaling back, like everyone else.  If there's a bright spot in the oil economy, therefore, this isn't it.

We still here that some exploration is going on in North Dakota, in shallow fields (I'm told, but which I somewhat doubt).  As I don't get the North Dakota news readily, I don't know the full state of things up there, but I wonder.

Postscript

And, also today, Noble Energy has announced that its cutting employees in Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania. 

Wednesday, April 7, 1915. Billie Holiday born.

Eleanora Fagan, better known to history as Billie Holiday, was born.

Last edition:

Tuesday, April 6, 1915. The Battle of Celaya commences.

Labels: 1910s, 1915, Álvaro Obregón, Battle of Celaya, Battle of Hartmannswillerkopf, French Army, Mexican Revolution, Mexico, Pancho Villa, World War One

At the end of the road.

Holscher's Hub: Where you have to hike in.

 

These are all photographs, taken from a long distance away, of an old ranch house.

The location of the house isn't a bad one.  In a valley, near a stream that runs year around. The house is a two story house. I'd guess it was built somewhere in the 1900 to 1920 time frame.

Now it's abandoned.  I have to wonder why, but I can't help but note that a newer house is within eyesight of the highway.  Perhaps that provided the incentive?  This house would have truly been out at the end of the road, the only thing on the road at that.  I wouldn't have abandoned this location, and I don't really know why the owners did, but it's interesting to speculate on.

The Rise and Decline of the "SUV".

 Some time ago, on this transportation obsessed blog, I published this item:

Lex Anteinternet: SUVs before SUVs: 

A 1962 Dodge Power Giant Carryall.  Not mine, I saw it for sale the other day while driving through town.  It appears in nice shape, and still features bias ply tires.  This is a D100 Carryall, which means its rated at 1/2 ton, although it has a two speed rear axle.  Of course, I don't know anything about it or what is, or isn't original.  It looks pretty original, however.

Anyhow, it's interesting how SUVs are supposed to be a modern concept, with the Chevrolet Suburban supposedly sort of ushering them in. But Suburban's themselves go way back, and before them were vehicles like this Dodge Carryall.  Carryalls, in fact, go all the way back to World War Two.

Of course, these aren't easy to drive.  It has a manual transmission and armstrong steering.  And, of course, conventional hydraulic brakes.  Not something a soccer mom, or dad, would probably drive.  Still, it's interesting to note how far back the concept of a full sized 4x4, built on a truck frame, goes.  About as far back as 4x4 trucks themselves.

Since that time, I posted a comment on trucks or SUVs on the M K Wright blog, and Jenny, who has a couple of excellent blogs herself, including the 1870-1918 blog, noted that she'd be interested on how SUVS became the sort of bloated light duty vehicles that they've become. To a fan of 4x4s, which I obviously am, that question struck a chord and so I'm back on the topic.

I guess to start off on this, we'd have to define what an SUV actually is. The term isn't really that old in comparison to the vehicles that arguable fit the definition.  SUV, as we know, stands for Sport Utility  Vehicle.  But what's that?

It's a bit hard to say. When the term first was used, it seemed to fit any 4x4 that was a light carryall, but over time it expanded to include all the traditional carryalls and perhaps even things like Jeeps. So, here we'll take a look at that class of vehicle, that being the 4x4 that isn't a pickup, but is designed to carry multiple passengers.

 

M151A1 Jeep in the foreground, with self propelled artillery in the background, South Korea, 1987.  The M151 was the last of the US military Jeeps.  Today, the Jeep is basically almost back to a single manufacturer after having had as wider run at one time.

If we look at it that way, I suppose the Jeep, which we've discussed here before several times.  Probably the last time I looked at them at length was in this post:

Jeep

I've owned Jeeps twice.

 

My first car, a 1958 M38A1 Army Jeep.  In the words of Iris Dement, "it turned over once, but never went far."*

My very first vehicle was a Jeep.  I bought it for $500 with money I had earned from a summer job.  I was 15 at the time, and not old enough to actually drive, but I still had it when I turned 16.  

The engine was a mess, in need of rebuilding or replacement, and as you can see, the prior owner had hit a tree with it.  As the engine was so worn out, it burned nearly as much oil as gasoline, and I sold it when I was 16 and bought a Ford F100 to replace it.

My second Jeep was a 1946 CJ2A, the very first model of civilian Jeep.  I kept it for awhile, but ultimately when my son was small, I sold it too.  The CJ2A, particularly ones made in the first couple of years of production, was nearly unchanged from the World War Two Army 1/4 ton truck that gave rise to the species, and indeed, the model I had, had some parts commonality otherwise unique to the Army Jeeps of the Second World War.

Depiction of Jeep in use on Guadalcanal, bringing in a KIA.

Jeeps got their start in that role, as a military vehicle, a 1/4 ton truck, entering service just prior to World War Two.  Bantam, a now extinct motor vehicle manufacturer, gets a lot of credit for the basic design, and indeed the Bantam Jeep did enter U.S. and British service.

Bantam Jeep being serviced by Army mechanic. The Bantam was actually lighter than the Willys Jeep.

But it was Willys, with larger manufacturing capacity, that really gets credit for the design.  It was their design that became the Jeep, although Ford made a huge number of Jeeps during the Second World War as well.

Coast Guard patrol with Jeep.  The Coast Guard also had mounted patrols during the Second World War, acquiring horses and tack from the Army.

American and Australian troops with Jeep serving as a field ambulance.

Jeeps became synonymous with U.S. troops during World War Two.  Indeed, there's a story, probably just a fable, of a French sentry shooting a party of Germans who tried to pass themselves off as Americans, simply because the sentry knew that a walking party of men could not be Americans, they "came in Jeeps."  A story, probably, but one that reflected how common Jeeps were and how much they were admired by U.S. forces at the time.  It's commonly claimed by some that Jeeps replaced the horse in the U.S. Army, but that's only slightly true, and only in a very limited sense.  It might be more accurate to say that the Jeep replaced the mule and the horse in a limited role, but it was really the American 6x6 truck that did the heavy lifting of the war, and which was truly a revolutionary weapon.  

None the less, the fame of the Jeep was won, and after the war Jeeps went right into civilian production.  For a time, Willys was confused over what the market would be for the little (uncomfortable) car, and marketed to farmers and rural workers, who never really saw the utility of the vehicle over other options.  Indeed, for farmers and ranchers who needed a 4x4, it was really the Dodge Power Wagon that took off.  The market for Jeeps was with civilian outdoorsmen, who rapidly adopted it in spite of the fact that it's very small, quite uncomfortable, and actually, in its original form, a very dangerous vehicle prone to rolling.  Still, the light truck's 4x4 utility allowed sportsmen to go places all year around that earlier civilian cars and trucks simply did not. The back country, and certain seasons of the year, were suddenly opened up to them.  For that reason, Jeeps were an integral part of the Revolution In Rural Transportation we've otherwise written about.  You can't really keep a horse and a pack mule in your backyard in town, but you can keep a Jeep out on the driveway.

Not surprisingly, Willys (and its successor in the line, Kaiser) soon had a lot of competition in the field.  The British entered it nearly immediately with the Land Rover, a light 4x4 designed for the British army originally that's gone on to have a cult following, in spite of being expensive and, at least early on, prone to the faults of British vehicles.  Nissan entered the field with the Nissan Patrol, a vehicle featuring the British boxiness but already demonstrating the fine traits that Japanese vehicles would come to be known for. Toyota entered the field with its legendary Land Cruiser, the stretched version of which I once owned one of, and which was an absolutely great 4x4.  Indeed, their smaller Jeep sized vehicle, in my opinion, was the best in this vehicle class.   Ford even entered the field with the original Bronco.  Over time, even Suzuki would introduce its diminutive Samurai.

So, what's happened here to this class of vehicles anyway?

Recently, for reason that are hard to discern, I decided to start looking once again for a vehicle in this class.  I know their defects.  They are unstable compared to trucks, and they don't carry much either.  But there is something about them.  Last time I looked around there were a lot of options, and costs were reasonable for a used one. Well, not anymore.

I don't know if its the urbanized SUV that's taken over everything.  But whereas once a fellow looking for a Jeep like vehicle could look for Jeeps, Land Cruisers, Land Rovers, Samurais, Broncos and International Scouts, now you are down to Jeeps, the Toyota FJ Cruiser or the soon to be extinct Land Rover Defender.  The Defender is insanely expensive, but the Jeep and Cruiser sure aren't cheap.  Even used vehicles in this class now command a crazy price.  I'm actually amazed I see so many around, given that most people don't use them for what they are designed for, and they're so darned expensive.

The Jeep  was the first of the SUVs, although only barely so.  The Jeep came about just prior to World War Two, as the U.S. Army, which had quite a bit of experience all read with front and rear axle drive vehicles, sought to have a really light car, or truck developed for military use. Being light weight was a requirement for the vehicle, as was it being four wheel drive, a revolutionary requirement at the time.  Jeeps were the result, with there being two Jeeps to see U.S. service during the war, the Bantam Jeep and the Willys type Jeep, which was also made by Ford.  The Willys type Jeep was made in much larger numbers.  By the wars end, the Soviet Union was making its own version of the Jeep, based on the Willys and Bantam examples they'd acquired via Lend Lease.  The Germans, who loved all things mechanical, had also experimented with light weight 4x4s after being exposed to the Jeep, and came up with 4x4s based on the Kubelwagen. The Germans, however, never made the full switch to 4x4s so their examples are much less common that their 2x4 vehicles.

Civilian Jeep fans would tend to identify this as a CJ5, but it's actually a M38A1, in service with the South Korean Army in 1987.

I've addressed at length before, but Jeeps have had a long run as a popular civilian 4x4, and have actually outlasted their use by Americans in the civilian role, the Army no longer using Jeeps at all.  Those armies that do use a Jeep like vehicle today, use Toyota, Land, Steyr or Mercedes trucks, not American ones.  But the Jeep lives on as an American 4x4, but only made by Jeep.  A small close cousin, but much lighter, does exists in the form of the Suzuiki Samauri and the General Motors equivalent of it, but that vehicle seems to be an example of what generally seems to have occurred here.  Starting out a sub Bantam type Jeep, but made for the outdoors, it's evolved into a little 4x4 car.  As we'll see, that seems to have been the general trend.

The Jeep wasn't the only 4x4 passenger vehilce (ie., I'm omitting trucks) introduced by the military during World War Two.  Just as the Army sought to introduce 4x4 trucks and the Jeep, it also introduced, during the war, a class of vehicles we'd later know as Travelalls or Carryalls, and which like the Jeep, we find that there was explosion of types, but that we're now down to a singular example.

I've posted an example of a Dodge Carryall above, so we know what the type is, but we can probably define it as a 4x4 panel truck with seating.  Indeed, the first vehicles to carry that name were in fact 4x2 panel trucks.  Just before the Second World War, however, the Army decided to introduce a Dodge variant of the panel truck for passengers, just as Dodge was also producing a 4x4 heavy duty pickup truck for the Army. And, in addition to that, Dodge also introduced a vehicle called a "command car" that went under a variety of WC designations.

We'll take a quick look at two of these vehicles, before going on to the third, as it's interesting how Detroit sort of missed the boat on these early on, although that's true of nearly all of the early 4x4 vehicles.  Truth be known, they just didn't see much of a post war use for any of them.

 

One of the WC Command Cars

Command cars were a Dodge product based on at first the 1/2 ton Dodge military pickup chassis, and later the 3/4 ton chassis. They were a great vehicle, and were very popular with the service at the time.  Sometimes called a "weapons carrier", they were basically the first true SUV.  Senior officers with access to them, such as George Patton, frequently used them rather than the Jeep, as they were just big enough to be a bit more useful, and small enough to remain really maneuverable.  When we see the later SUVs of the 80s and 90s, we're really seeing something that's pretty darned close to these, conceptually.  Oddly, however, not only did the automobile manufacturers basically fail to appreciate that there's be a post war market for them, the Army phased them out after the war in favor of the Jeep, which isn't quite as useful.

Dodge 4x4 military ambulance, essentially a panel truck.

Also based on the Dodge truck frame was the Dodge military ambulance. This vehicle was hugely successful and a nearly identical model was put into production after the war when the Army adopted the M35, an updated version of the World War Two 3/4 ton Dodge military truck.  Again, however, this didn't seem to inspire the manufacturers to produce a civilian model, and perhaps that's understandable as these were, after all, military ambulances. They did find some favor with civilian users, however, post war as a surplus rugged panel truck.  Here two, however, we can see something that would come back into favor later in another form.

Dodge military carreyalls.

Dodge also produced true carryalls for the Army during the war, and it's hear that we really see the beginnings of something that would find widespread post war use.  The least significant of Dodge's wartime vehicles, it's almost hard t find a picture of them actually being used overseas.  But they set a pattern, along with the Dodge 4x4 truck, that would soon find expression in post war vehicles.

Wartime manufacture.

After the Second World War, Dodge kept its military truck in production, in a civilian variant, as the Power Wagon, vending the heavy 4x4 to commercial and agricultural customers as being "job rated".  Willys kept the Jeep in production as well, struggling to vend it to a market it didn't quite understand.  Soon, sportsmen proved to be the market for Jeeps, while Power Wagons were bought by the anticipated market.  Nobody kept a 4x4 panel truck in manufacture except for Willys, which alone made one in this class, based on its small frame 4x4 pickup truck.  This vehicle, termed by Willys a "station wagon", also very much anticipated the later size of common SUVs, although the car, nicknamed the "rumble wagon", was very much a truck.

In 1954, however that suddenly changed.  Dodge came back out with the vehicle depicted above, the Town Wagon.  But they were late by a year. The prior year, International Harvester, the heavy truck and implement company, came in with the Travelall, a vehicle built on the same concept.  Chevrolet was already making its panel truck, the Suburban, but in 1957 it entered the 4x4 market with the panel truck as well.  As odd as it may be to think of the "family truckster" starting off as a fairly heavy 4x4, they all were.

So, by the late 1950s three American manufacturers were making heavy 4x4 panel trucks for passenger use.  The Carryall, the Travelall and the Suburban all vied for the same, fairly off road, passenger market. A fourth, the Jeep, was a smaller vehicle nearly alone in its class. None of these vehicles was  the plush type vehicle that the Suburban is today, but they are all recognizable as being in that class.  

That class took a new turn in 1963 when Jeep took a huge leap and abandoned its station wagon in favor of a luxury carryall, that vehicle being the Jeep Wagoneer.  There was nothing really like it.  Dumping all pretensions of commercial use, the Wagoneer was the luxury vehicle in the suburban or carryall class, and it did really well. While Jeep vehicles, save for the Jeep itself, have been somewhat forgotten as being pioneering, this one clearly was. 

Just a few years thereafter Chevrolet ramped up the competition by taking it in another direction, when it introduced the Blazer.  Based on a half ton, short box, pickup truck frame, the Blazer took the carryall one notch down in size, marketing its vehicle to the smaller family size now emerging in the US and the weekend sportsman. The Blazer was a huge success.

1972 Chevrolet Blazer.  This type of Blazer (without the lifted suspension and large wheels) was the first model of the popular 1/2 ton SUV.

The Blazer was such a successful vehicle that soon there were others in its class.  Ford, which had a contender in the Jeep market which was very much loved, the Bronco, dumped it in favor of a larger Blazer sized vehicle, still called the Bronco. Dodge, which of course had a military vehicle in this class as long ago as 1940, came back out with one based on its 1/2 ton short box pickup frame, calling it the Ram Charger.  By the early 1980s, Ford, Chevrolet and Chrysler were all competing in this class, and International and Chevrolet were still competing in the carryall class, Dodge having dropped out.

In the meantime, other manufacturers had not been idle.  Toyota had come out with a stretched Land Cruiser, and entered the field, by the 1960s.  Land Cruiser had as well, but it's temperamental expensive 4x4 was never really popular in the US, so that variant was rarely seen.  International Harvester, which had competed in the Jeep class with its Scout, came out with a new larger variant of the Scout which also competed in this smaller, but not Jeep sized, class.  Jeep itself would attempt to enter it from time to time, but was never successful in really figuring it out.

 
 Chevrolet Blazer in use by the U.S. Army, in this case the 3d Bn, 49th FA, Wyoming Army National Guard, in South Korea.  It's odd to think that this class of vehicle, which basically started off as a military vehicle, had a return, albeit a not too successful one, to military service.

By the late 1980s, this latter class, the smaller, but not 1/4 ton, 4x4 market really took off.  Nissan entered the class with its rugged Pathfinder.  Toyota, already in the class, came out with an additional vehicle in it called the Four Runner.  Mazda entered it as well.  Seeing what was going on, Chevrolet abandoned its trailblazing full size Blazer in favor of a smaller model in this class, also called the Blazer.

And then, something happened.

Somehow these vehicles quite being what they were, which was offroad vehicles, and simply became panel trucks, with 4x4, once again.

How it happened isn't clear, but whole class of rugged personal 4x4s began to evaporate.  The Bronco disappeared.  International quit making personal vehicles.  And the small SUVs increasingly became large 4x4 cars, but not really trucks.  

Some of these vehicles are still around in one form or another, but only some.  The Jeep class is principally occupied by Jeep, unless a person is so well off they can afford a Mercedes or Land Rover.  The mid sized SUV still sees a rugged Toyota class vehicles, and Jeep has finally figured it out, virtually dominating the field now with its four door Jeep.  General Motors still makes a Suburban class vehicle and a Blazer sized vehicle, but both vehicles now are nearly luxury vehicles, not the field vehicles they once were, although they can still do the back country and come with off road options.

People will buy, of course, what they want.So the manufacturers can't be blamed for producing what they do. But the evolution is an interesting one.

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: Bill Barlow and his Sagebrush Philosophy

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: Bill Barlow and his Sagebrush Philosophy

World War One Division Patches

This is a topic which likely interests only me, but these photos depict World War One U.S. service coats, for the most part.  The photo immediately above also depicts some leather jerkins, a type of long vest that's almost Medieval in appearance, but which made a reappearnce in the Allies forces during World War One, due to their utility.

Anyhow, these photos show a lot of divisional patches from the Great War.

The U.S. Army hadn't assembled on this level since the Civil War, which was also the last time the Army had been large enough to use large unit symbols and badges.  That had fallen completely by the wayside after the Civil War, but during World War One, it came back in.  In the Army, it's remained the norm ever since.  In the Marine Corps, which was in the 2nd Division during World War One, it disappeared, reappeared during World War Two, and disappeared again thereafter.

I frankly don't recognize all of these patches, although I do a fair number.  Fans of U.S. uniforms, or those who have been in the service, will also recognize quite a few, sometimes in a bit of a surprising way. The "AA", ie., All American, division patch of the can be seen above, but before that unit was airborne and therefore before it had an airborne tab.  Quite a few other patches are recognizable, others not.

I"m unfortunately not familiar enough with the other patches to recall what they symbolize.  Some are obvious, like the small machinegun patch on the 82nd uniform above.  Others I generally don't recognize. Some may be wound badges, and some represent months overseas.  Why the private stripes on so many of these service coats are red, I don't recall, as generally at least World War One enlisted stripes were the same olive color as the coat, so that they were not easy to spot by enemy troops.

Tuesday, April 6, 1915. The Battle of Celaya commences.

The Battle of Celaya commenced  which would see Constitutionalist under Álvaro Obregón repelled Pancho Villa's attack at Celaya.  

It was a large-scale battle, with 15,000 Constitutionalist contesting 22,000 Villistas.  Obregón had arrived early to prepare defensive positions over which Villa would attempt blind cavalry charges to his defeat.

A French attempt to take German defense positions on the lower slopes of the Hartmannswillerkopf failed.

Last edition:

Friday, April 2, 1915. The Battle of the Wasa'a

Labels: 1910s, 1915, Australian Army, Egypt, Egypt (Cairo), New Zealand Army, World War One

Courthouses of the West: Federal District Courthouse, Denver Colorado

Courthouses of the West: Federal District Courthouse, Denver Colorado:

Are deeply held, but unpopular beliefs, worthy of protection?

Some topics become so controversial, you're tempted to self censure and not comment on them. But that's chicken, really, and those are the ones you probably should comment on.  This is one such matter, to some degree.

Some time ago, when the Legislature was in session, I wrote a couple of items about a bill then pending that was supposed to protect people from same gender attraction from discrimination, while there was also a bill pending that sought to protect those who had religious convictions opposed to recognizing same gender unions as marriages from having to serve in some capacity associated with those unions.  I noted at that time that the debate was descending to the sub intelligent level.  The debate had already descended to the trite with words like "fair" and "bigoted" being thrown around without adequate consideration as to the actual nature of the topic at hand, while some on either side struggled to keep the eye focused on the real issues, but not really succeeding in getting everyone to do that.  A legislator even ended up being tossed out of a committee meeting after making some childish comment. 

Both of those bills failed, which is no wonder given the descent of the debate, but other bills like them, maybe (I haven't read any of them)  have passed elsewhere in the US and now a raging debate is going on about one of those bills in Indiana, which as become law, while another in some other state (Alabama?) just passed.  This raises an interesting question that's getting ignored, but shouldn't be.  It's one that has come up in our country's history on more than one occasion, and the country has flunked it more than once.

That is, are the deeply held views of people protected when they counter the majority view, and should they be?

Keep in mind, we're not referencing free speech.  Everyone always claims they support free speech, even if they don't. No, what I"m talking about is conviction backed by action.

Where this has come up most notably in our country's history has been in the context of military service.  We've had conscientious objectors all the way back to the Revolution, where some men declined to serve in militia units based on conscience.  During  the Mexican War, and during the Mexican War some people went to jail, rather than be mustered into their state militias, as they were morally opposed to the war.  Others deserted the U.S. Army for the Mexican Army during the war.  During the Civil War the situation was similar for Southerners, although in the North a person could provide a substitute for service.

During World War One a few objected to the draft, and even during World War Two some did. And as we know, quite a few did during World War Two. What was the country's reaction?

Well, generally, it was hostility.  People didn't appreciate that one darned bit and were pretty hostile to those who refused service.  Reactions varied, some paid fines and some were prosecuted criminally.  Ultimately, of course, it came to be the case that a person could claim conscientious objector status, which was the law at least by World War One, but people generally don't like that being done.  Refusing any service, as late as World War One, was a crime  By World War Two, and since, conscientious objectors have been allowed to forgo service.  It's a law passed to protect people with such beliefs, but that doesn't keep those people from being harassed during wartime.  The thought is that no matter how popular the cause, a person shouldn't be penalized for holding to their deeply held beliefs.  We admire that our country has such a law, although it's fairly recent and things haven't always gone well for conscientious objectors, who are a small minority of the population with their views usually based in religion.

There are other examples.  

One famous one, now a celebrated cause, is that of members of the far left in American politics who were hauled up to Congress to answer the question, "are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"  Now regarded as a terrible witch hunt, the truth is that more than  a few of the people brought up to answer that question were, in fact, Communist, former Communists, or near Communists.  The hearings themselves were aimed at, originally, trying to determine if there was a large Soviet run espionage program at work in the U.S. government and in various industries. As it turns out, and as we now know, the Soviet Union in fact did have a pretty substantial espionage program going on dating back prior to World War Two, so the fears weren't completely unjustified.  Still, it rankles us now that this question was asked as, no matter how deeply repugnant Communism may have been, it ought to be legal to be one.  Indeed, it was, which makes the question all the more offensive, considered alone and without the additional context.

Opponents of slavery who acted upon their beliefs in the Antebellum South, weren't admired generally either, although from a legal prospective their situation was different from what we now are considering.  When Prohibition was the law, those women in particular who came out against it were subject to some real criticism, although again there was no legal bar to them doing so.    And I"m sure there are other examples.

My point is that right now, people who have deeply held religious beliefs to the effect that same gender unions are not valid marriages, and that they cannot morally serve them, shouldn't be castigated as bigots or forced into service any more than people who believe that a war is morally wrong ought to be made to carry a rifle in support of it.  By the same token, it seems self evident that it shouldn't be legal to discriminate in a conventional sense against people merely because they have a same gender attraction.  It isn't perfectly possible to craft a perfect law, but generally nobody really wants people fired from their job for having a same gender attraction but it's also the case that people who find same gender unions morally objectionable shouldn't be forced to serve that process thereby putting them in moral crisis or making it appear that their views are irrelevant or that they actually approve of something they do not.  The gist of it is that a person shouldn't be fired from their job at the caterers for having a same gender attraction, but the same caterer should be allowed to decline a job at a same gender wedding reception.  Seems easy enough, but the sides are now so backed up that people are yelling at each other on this one and some are no longer willing to yield to others who cite moral conscience.

The point isn't whether they are right or wrong, but whether or not unpopular beliefs can be tolerated.  Surely, they should be, particularly in the area we are discussing, in which the reverse was the case so recently. Indeed, it's unpopular or untrendy beliefs that probably need the most protection, as a society that tolerates those who hold them protects everyone at the end of the day.  That is, people who object to military service on moral grounds shouldn't be made to serve in the military, people who hold radical political views shouldn't be penalized at law for holding them, and people who have moral convictions that preclude them from doing something, such as taking oaths, or serving at certain functions, shouldn't be made to.  

The fact is, there are entire groups of people who very sincerely hold religious views that are unpopular or at least untrendy.  It is not correct, nor dignified, to force these groups into public submission, as that is a form of oppression.  People yelling at them right now are actually arguing contrary to the things they claim to be supporting.  You can't be tolerant by being intolerant. 

The Amish will not bear arms in service of their nation. Should they be forced to?  I doubt anyone thinks they should, even though most people believe its your patriotic duty to bear arms when the country calls.

Indeed, they largely will not mix with others, should they be made to? Should their children be forced to go to public school, Carlisle Indian School style?   Nobody would argue that they must.

Jehovah's Witnesses will not take oaths, and therefore they won't even say the Pledge of Allegiance. Should we make them?  I doubt it.

Some Moslems so object to eating pork they won't handle it.  If there is an Islamic caterer and we want pork roast for a wedding, should they be forced to serve us?  Nobody would rationally argue that they should.

Ultra Orthodox Jews will not do anything on Saturday.  If the rest of us work on Saturday, should they be made to do so if we do?

Some Protestant Christian denominations strongly object to the consumption of alcohol, and won't  have anything to do with it.  Nobody argues for Prohibition anymore, and while there are dry counties, by and large you can buy alcohol in most of the country.  If people with an objection to alcohol are caterers, should they be required to attend a wedding where alcohol is served if they object to it?  I doubt anyone feels that way.

The point is that in the current public debate, there's a lot of overreaction going on, and we've done that before.  

The further point is that, for the most part, I think this topic is one where the majority of people don't want people to be hostile or broadly discriminatory to the group at hand. Pretty much everyone recognizes, and has for a long time, that a person should not be discriminated at work, etc., for this, or any other reason, and should be judge on their work force performance.  I could try to list other topics that are generally similar, but that would be long and pointless.  But there are some groups with deeply held religious beliefs, or sometimes philosophical beliefs, and it's always tempting to leap on them dog pile style and accuse them of bigotry, or whatever.  Again, I don't really think, quite frankly, that Communists in the 30s were really "anti American", so much as they were people who held beliefs most of us abhor.  I don't think that those who oppose serving in wartime deserve harassment for that view either, and they've surely received it in the past.  Again, I could go on, but every time something like this comes up, it seems that the commentary tends towards marginalizing the deeply held beliefs which,  no matter their nature, is not usually fair.  I.e, I don't think on other issues that the Amish or  Quakers are baddies and I don't think that only Democrats and Republicans can love their country.  In this debate, therefore, I don't think that people should disregard the views of those who aren't being bigoted, but rather feel that they must act according to the dictates of their conscience on what are in fact very limited areas that for most people will never occur.  And in the debate, to at least grant an opponent the status of being informed on their position is always a more rational one than simply accusing them of something.

Indeed, as far back as Plato we were warned, through his recounting of the advice of Socrates, that once a debate descended to the shouting down level, nobody actually won them. 

Sunday Morning Scene: Camp Humphreys, South Korea (and a Happy Easter to all, everywhere).

The Evolution of Armor

Renault FT, introduced in 1917.  Some served all the way to 1949 even though they were really obsolete by 1930.

Soviet T33, served in the 1930s in Spain (photo courtesy of Daniel, in the photograph) and into World War Two, during which it quickly became obsolete.

M3 Stuart, produced from 1941 to 1944.  One of a series of light tanks that served in the U.S. Army during World War Two, all of which rapidly became obsolete.

M4 Sherman, it entered service in 1942 and was arguably approaching obsolescence by 1945.  Used by every Allied army during World War Two.

 

M18 Gun Motor Carriage, a "tank destroyer" which was really a sort of tank. Note the chassis evolution from the Sherman.

M48 "Patton" tank of the South Korean Army in 1987, this tank went into service in 1953 but was being replaced in U.S. service by the mid 1960 by what was essentially an upgraded model, the M60.

M60s.

Team Spirit, 1987

Team Spirit, 1987: Back in February 2012 I posted some photos of Team Spirit, 1987.  I did this in a slide show format. Today, I've reposted some (but no...

Farm size

Farm in Pennsylvania

Farming, rather obviously, got its start, as we conceive of it, in the East.  I suppose a person could argue, and some no doubt would, that this isn't completely true as various native groups farmed all over the region east of the Mississippi and down into Central America. And that would, of course, be true.  And it's significant in terms of how the landscape appeared, and even in terms of what was grown, in later times, but for our purposes here, we should really look at European American farming.

For somebody in agriculture in the West, looking at agriculture in the East is really a shock.  I've just had the opportunity to do that several times recently, as I flew in and out of Toronto, and  got a look at the area from the air, and then I flew the next week to Tampa and had to drive from there to New Port Ritchey.  This past week I flew into Baltimore and a friend and I drove up to Carlisle on the state highway, one of the ones that no doubt runs on the 19th Century pike. Very interesting.  Following that, I flew to Atlanta and then back over the south and the big grain belts of the nation.

Viewing the farm ground in Maryland and Pennsylvania was both a delight, and a surprise.  For one thing, there's a lot of it.  Just as Easterners have the erroneous view that the West is empty, Westerners, or at least native Westerners like myself, tend to believe that the East is one big city.  It isn't.  There's a lot of farm ground there.

However, even though I intellectually know better, it's weird to see it. The farms are, and have always been, so small by our standards out here.  Grain farms just east of this region, well in Nebraska and Kansas, are enormous.  Ranches are big, as they have to be.  These Eastern farms are small and you can almost always see a nearby farm.

But, as the countryside in Pennsylvania and Maryland demonstrates, it's been that way for an extremely long time.  Farms that are well over 150 years old are near others that are that age and older.  And this should be no surprise, as they were all farmed with horse, mule, or oxen, under less than ideal conditions.

Indeed, the soil appears very rocky in some places and stone walls are everywhere, with stones taken, of course, from the fields.  The land had to be first cleared of trees, and the forest continue to wage war against the fields and come back at the drop of a hat.

It was of course this sort of farming environment that the drafters of the Homestead Act were familiar with, and that's why the original homestead was only 40 acres in size.  That was extremely unrealistic for this country, where it's always been the case that thousands of acres are needed to run cattle.  What a shock it must have been to the first homesteaders.

And it continues to impact us today, as the unrealistically small homestead allotments yielded to the system we have in the West today by default, rather than by design, in spite of the views that anti ranching elements may hold about them.  The system works, but it was based on a broken model to start with, and had to be repaired to work.

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: The Cattle Drive

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: The Cattle Drive