Expatriates: Looking at it a bit differently.

Okay, I know that this is a history blog, and it's now been running so long as research for a book, that it's becoming historical in and of itself, but we do a lot of commentary.  Oh well.

Here's one, however, that has a real history to it, and which touches on an aspect of history.

Wyoming, for my entire adult life, has been worried about the young leaving the state.  But so often, the analysis isn't really quite on or perhaps it's not too deep.  Perhaps that is in part why we're still talking about it in 2015, as we have been for the past 30 years or more.  The Oil City News recently noted the following:

The outmigration isn’t as bad today as it was in the 1990s. Back then Wyoming’s sluggish economy spurred an exodus of young people that one reporter referred to as a “brain drain.” Census data from 2014 shows Wyoming’s population of young people age 25-34 has grown over the past decade, but mostly in the larger counties with active energy development.

Even so, young people continue to leave the state in droves — among 18-year-old workers in the year 2000, only four out of 10 were still in Wyoming a decade later, according to state data.

Who are they, and who are "we"?

Okay, first of all, what is the general topic. Well, it's long been noted that around 50% of Wyoming youth leave the state after high school graduation, and this is conceived of as a problem.  "We're" losing out young, is the thesis. And let's start with the thesis.

No doubt the figure is correct, but who is that "we"?  Almost never noted in that analysis is the fact that about 50% of Wyoming's residents at any one time are from somewhere else, and we have a high transient population. Given that, the "our young" we identify with to a certain extent aren't really "ours", but rather are people who likely already identify with some place else or don't identify with any place.  New residents from Colorado, New York, or Chihuahua.  If they pick up and leave, they aren't doing anything that unnatural and, frankly, perhaps we ought not to worry about it.

In any one high school class there's a fair number of students whose connection with Wyoming is pretty thin.  Many are very recent arrivals.  It isn't really realistic to think of them having a close connection with the state, and at least a few of those people no doubt retain a strong connection with where they were from to start with, or they have no real connection with any place at all.  Indeed, I once overheard an oilfield too salesman talking to another one, who was new to the job, in an airplane reflect that the city was basically two cities, one made up of people passing through, and another made up of people from here who knew they were going to stay.

This is even truer of college and university populations, I"d note, as Wyoming attracts a lot of out of state students, often from neighboring states.  Yes, these people graduate and move on, but they moved on when they entered school as well.

The transient economic model.

Indeed, if we are to worry about the young leaving their homes and families, perhaps we should worry about it nationally. The entire nation is transient to some extent, and missed in this analysis is that society in general, and quite frankly rural society in particular, has bought off on the idea that "success" means a transient job.  We tend not to think of it that way, but that's how we actually behave.

Success, in the modern economy, means getting a job that takes you to that in place, and moving up the ladder to that next place, and so on.  When Wyoming, including the governor's office, worries about that, it's actually arguing against the prevailing economic model, including the one that's basically taught to high achievers in school.  Do "well" and you can get a "good job". That good job is going to be in Denver, or Chicago, until it takes you to Houston, or so on.  Interestingly, here in the state, while we promote that, we also argue against it, and interestingly sort of pitch a distributist economic model of "we can have good jobs locally". We can, but we need to be what those are, and we tend not to.

“Any given year, we have about 50 percent of youth leaving the state,” Gov. Matt Mead (R) said at a recent press conference. “We have great career opportunities and they are leaving the state

The governor's statement here is the typical one. So what are those "great career opportunities"?  Well, perhaps not that great really.

I'll start here by noting that Governor Mead was born into a well connected political and ranching family.   That isn't saying anything against him, but things are different for people like him than they are for somebody whose father was a laborer.  Mead has a landed connection to the state and political ones as well.  Most people would like to have the landed connection (more on that later), but really don't, other than maybe their parents' home.  So they get an education, and they have to apply it.

Mead's concept on good jobs was spelled out in his statement on the topic in which the Oil City News noted:

In response, Mead recently rolled out a Department of Workforce Services website called Wyoming Grown. The program touts a high quality of life in hopes of enticing Wyomingites living out of state to move back home, no matter what age. Mead said the program is aimed at recruiting workers for in-demand positions like computer programmers, doctors, welders, engineers and others.

So, great, right. Ever young person can just get a job like that?

Well, quite a few can actually, and quite a few actually have.  My father had a professional degree as did one of my local uncles, which allowed both of them to stay here. I have one as well, and likewise I've been able to stay here.  Yesterday I was at an event where four out of the six lawyers on the location were all from the state and a fifth one had grown up here, but wasn't born here.  Only one had moved in as an adult.   And were in fact plenty of opportunities like that.  Doctors, lawyers, accountants, mechanics; there really are a lot of local opportunities.

Wait, did you just say were up there somewhere?

Yes I did, were. As this is changing and we best be aware of it.

I don't want to exaggerate this too much, as that would suggest something that isn't true, but something that should be kept in mind is that at the same time the state makes pronouncements like this it actively operates to hurt some local professions.  For example, there's the UBE.

Governor Mead, in addition to being from a ranching family, is a lawyer.  But when he practiced law we didn't have the UBE.  Now we do, and the effect of the UBE has been to cause a swell of admissions to the state bar of lawyers who live in Denver.  This is only one example, of course, but its not insignificant.  The profession of lawyer in a rural state has always attracted a different type of person that it does elsewhere.  Lawyers in Wyoming have tended to be from the state, rarely does somebody move into Wyoming to practice law, although it does happen.  Now, however, people can practice without moving here at all.  This is happening to a notable extent, and over time, and it won't take much time, this will impact the nature and even the ability to practice law in the state, to the detriment of Wyomingites.  

As another example, a profession that at one time attracted a lot of locals, that of Game Warden, is now being filled by out of staters.  The field has always been very competitive, but in some ways it was a natural Wyoming profession for a lot of people here.  So much so that its probable that most people who pursued a degree in wildlife management weren't able to obtain a job.  At any rate, for a long time the way it worked is a person applied to take a test administered by the agency, and if they passed that qualified them to be hired. The test was administered annually in  Cheyenne.  It was possible for an out of state resident to take it, but it wasn't really easy.

Now it is. The test has even been given out of state recently and a person can apply for the position on line, making it easy to do so. The new hires that the Game and Fish announce, I've noted, are almost 100% out of state residents.  Now, I have nothing against these bright happy new faces, but when we tell our own residents that opportunities are available here, and for something a lot of them would like to do, and they help cut them out, we're not thinking things through.  In comparison Alaska requires a game warden applicant to be a resident of Alaska.

We could easily do things just like that.  A game warden applicant could be required to be a resident of Wyoming. A lawyer could be required to take a real state bar and have a real office in the state, and so on.  But instead, while we decry the loss of our young, we set out making it difficult for them to stay with policies that tend to operate against them.

State v. Region

And just where are they leaving anyway?

That may sound like a strange question, and I'll start expanding on it with this.  I love Wyoming, and very strongly identify with it.  My love of Wyoming is like the Dr. Zhivago like love of Russia in the movie.  When Laura turns to Komarovski and says "he'll never leave Russia", that's pretty much how I feel.

But even at that, I have to note that Wyoming is an American state, and most American states have sort of arbitrary borders.  Not all.  Some actually have natural boundaries, but most do not.  Wyoming, like Colorado, or North Dakota, is a big rectangle, and that's not a natural boundary.

This isn't to say that there isn't actually a distinctiveness to Wyoming, or Colorado, or North Dakota, but we need to be aware that there are actually regional boundaries naturally formed in the United States, and they play into this in a huge way.  While people may be leaving the state, quite frankly, a lot are not moving out of the region, and for that matter, there's a lot of movement within the region into Wyoming.

Of my four really good high school friends, two are still right here in town. So, out of the four of us, three have statistically beat the odds.  Of the other two, one lives in Colorado.  Indeed, he lives in norther Colorado, just 50 miles away from where we attended university and where his Wyomingite wife grew up.  He didn't really move far, but he isn't in the state.  The other friend has been more of a traveler, having worked in California for quite awhile. But he also moved back here in town and worked for a very long time, before just taking a job in Utah. Again, he's left the state, for the second work life time, but he's not really far outside the state.  Of the five of us, four were from Wyoming, indeed this town, but the fifth was from Bartlesville Oklahoma.

In my own family, my grandmother was from Leadville Colorado, but spent quite a few of her formative years in Denver.  My family has strong connections with the Scotsbluff Nebraska area.  Of my cousins, one set of cousins has moved all over the country, but another set has basically moved north of this city, with most of them now living in Buffalo, a really neat Wyoming town, but one of them having gone as far north as Montana, with that all being, however, on one long highway drive.  One of my late partners also had strong connections with Nebraska, even though he'd been born here in the early 1920s.  Of my son's friends, yet another has very strong connections with Nebraska, where he's from. One of the local Federal judges is from western Nebraska and his father is a practicing lawyer in western Nebraska and eastern Wyoming.  Here in the office, one of my partners is from North Dakota.  We had a paralegal at one time that was from North Dakota and has returned there.  Another paralegal was married to a man from North Dakota.  

We see a lot of Colorado law firms practicing in the state (and at least one Montana one).  I've noted that before, and complained about it, but I should further note that of the Colorado lawyers I work with, two are actually from Wyoming originally.  We at one time had a lawyer who was from Colorado who worked here, before returning to Colorado.

So, what's all this have to do with anything? Well, one thing that is rarely noted is that young people may be moving out of the state, but they tend not to be moving out of the region. The region may actually be a more "natural" entity than the state. Perhaps, put another way, the state is a natural and political entity within a larger natural region.  That changes things quite a bit, and the fact is that its well demonstrated that most of the young people who move out move to a neighboring state, usually Colorado.

Part of what makes this all the more interesting is that the nature of the region in contemporary terms has rarely been explored.  We will hear of the "Rocky Mountain Region", but I"d submit that while there is such a thing, it isn't accurate in this context.  The cultural region is larger, and it somewhat omits at least one of the states in the Rocky Mountain region, that being Idaho. We find some Wyomingites moving to Idaho, and vice versa, but not many. Idaho is really part of the Pacific Northwest.

If we look at cultural and demographic ties, the region that Wyoming is in would include, really, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, and even to some extent New Mexico and Oklahoma. It also includes Alberta and Saskatchewan.  People in these areas share a lot of mutual identity and tend to recognize a lot in each other, and in their localities. They also travel to each others states and provinces like there is no tomorrow.  It's nothing for a Casperite to travel to Billings Montana or Sidney Nebraska for sporting goods.  Wyomingites travel up to Alberta to hunt waterfowl, where the hunting is better for ducks and geese, just as they also go to Nebraska for the same.  Quite a few people from neighboring states will hunt antelope here.  Residents of rural Saskatchewan tend to occupy the same professions and have the same hobbies as residents of rural Wyoming.  Rodeo, the regional sport, stretches south to the Mexican border and north to the Arctic circle.

As regions are natural, whereas political boundaries are not always natural, that may be more significant than we think, and we ought to take that into consideration.  If we consider the area mentioned a vast region, what we would tend to observe is a different pattern.  Young people might move out of the state, but they don't tend to move out of the region as much.  Moreover, much of the movement pattern reflects a big type of movement that's been going on since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

What we tend to see in Wyoming is what we've seen everywhere since industry converted our economy from an agrarian one to an industrial one.  People have been moving from the fields to the towns, and from the towns to the cities.  We see that a lot in a Wyoming context.  It's not unusual to find people from Thermopolis or Greybull living in Casper.  They grew up in those smaller towns, graduated high school, went to university, and then pretty much had to relocate in one of the larger cities in the state. Just the other day I was working with a lawyer who was from Buffalo but whom had spent his entire working life in Cheyenne, which isn't even remotely similar in location or character.  A lawyer he's related to is from Sundance, a small Wyoming town, but has practiced his entire life in Sheridan, which isn't large, but which is the largest town in north central Wyoming.  We had a lawyer who was from Laramie (but whom moved back there) and we have another who is from Greybull.  And I know two lawyers from very small Wyoming towns who work in Denver.

This is the classic American, indeed Western World, situation.  If a person grows up in a very small town their economic options are very limited.  If they obtain an education, ironically the options shrink.  If a person gets a law degree, for example, and comes from a town like Medicine Bow, he can't go back there.  It's impossible.  His choices are to look for a job in one of the larger towns or cities, or to go to a big city, which quite a few do, but with the typical option being Denver.

Expanding this out, and looked at regionally, what we'd see is that in this region there are a lot of little towns, but most of them have very limited economies.  Economies that are, in fact, much more limited now than they were 50 years ago, in spite of the recent oil boom which has impacted some of them in the other direction.  Every 200 miles or so, there's a sizable city.  In Wyoming there's Casper and Cheyenne that are fairly sizable cities.  North of the state border there's Billings, which is also a fairly sizable city, and is a city which in fact residents of northern Wyoming look up on as the "big city".  For southwest Wyoming there's Salt Lake City.  For northeast Wyoming, there's Rapid City.  For the "Wyobraksa" region, there's Scottsbluff.

All of the region, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, etc., look to Denver as the true big city, and for anyone doing business, they're going to do business in Denver to at least some extent. Salt Lake City stands in as distant second in those regards, but it does stand in.  For people associated with the oil and gas industry in any sense, Tulsa Oklahoma and Houston Texas are also "must go to" cities.

The point of all of this is that a pattern naturally exists, with the economy we ave, which will draw a large segment of our population in this state, as well as that of Montana and Colorado, to Denver.  It just will.  The same is true of Salt Lake.  There's absolutely nothing that can be done about that.  The young from really small towns sometimes go to larger towns or local cities, but those we send into certain industries or whom we send through with university degrees stand a really good chance, indeed an in creasing chance, of being "from Wyoming", but living in Denver or Salt Lake City.

So, what can Wyoming do?

So what of that?  Considering the last item first, but approaching the overall topic as well, what does that leave us with.  Should we just abandon the whole topic?

I'd say no, but at the same time we need to realize that failure in this area is not only a possibility, but perhaps a high likelihood.  Or maybe not. But in order to really address things, the typical solutions of funding local starts ups and the like is a waste of time, in my view.

Some fixes are pretty easy, if we'd only do them.  Part of the problem in doing them, however, is that Wyoming has a massive inferiority complex.  For some reason, we feel that bringing in outsiders is always the solution to any problem, and as already noted, we actually gear some industries that way. We should stop that.

A good way to stop that would be to stop actually exporting jobs.  Can the UBE, require lawyers to have real offices here.  Require that game warden applicants, and law enforcement applicants, actually live here.  This won't create a massive number of jobs for locals, but it will create some, and not an insignificant some.

Next, however, perhaps its time to look towards what we have, rather than look at other towns and cities elsewhere and wish we had what they do.  Not that swiping good ideas isn't a good idea.

What we do have, is what we've always had. We have a lot of agriculture.  While we've been wringing out hands on this topic and the demise of the most recent oil boom, agriculture just keeps on keeping on, not that it doesn't have problems.  The big problem it has, like everything else, is that while at the same time agriculture is boosting the economies of the Mid West massively, we're exporting it here.  That is, we're exporting the ownership of our ag lands.

We should stop that, and realize that agriculture is actually the one economic constant we've always had.  If we took some steps to require, as Iowa has, that land be held be held by local corporations, we could work towards supporting local ownership, and that supports local farmers and ranchers.  It also supports local jobs, albeit typically low paying, for those who work for them.  

And we might also consider that we are exporting nearly 100% of the agriculture products we produce.  As late as the 1970s, there was a large packing plant here in Natrona County (my family owned it in the 1940s).  Now there isn't a large one in the entire state.  Indeed, I can't think of there being any facility in the state that actually produces any locally grown or raised agricultural product on a large scale, other than sugar (and one of the sugar processing plants just closed).  We grow wheat, but we don't refine it. We raise cattle, but we don't pack them. We raise sheep, but we don't process wool.  We grow barley, but we don't brew beer on a large scale.  We timber, but we have few timber processing plants.  In short, we just export everything.

Now, some would say that the day of local processing of these items is over. But it doesn't really seem to be on a regional scale.  Colorado has a large meat processing facility in Greeley and three substantial breweries, in addition to a fairly large commercial canning facility.  We just don't do this.

Now, at this point, doing something along these lines would require some thinking out of the box, and that would require state assistance.  That usually makes Wyomingites cringe, but the state already provides seed money to other industries (there's some, for example, being provided to our local airport for a large new hanger).  Doing something to get a local packing plant going, or to get Budweiser or Coors up here brewing beer, etc., would be a good idea, even if we have to take the approach that North Dakota, which has a state owned flour mill, did.  I.e., if we can fund a lot of peculiar business propositions as start ups, we can look towards some of the ancient ones that actually have a direct and strong connection with the state.

Not that this is the only thing we can do.  Wyoming has a law school (and the UBE), but it has no medical school, no dental school, and no veterinary school.  We import a lot of doctors from all over, when we could simply educate our own.  Those who go off to study in these areas do in fact often come back, but not always.  Indeed, life is what it is, and if you are in medical school and meet an attractive opposite, whose from Wichita and who wants to go back there, chances are good that that's where you are going to go.  Accepting life as it is and having that medical school in Laramie makes more sense.

And it would be better for the state as well.  I've long been baffled by why Wyoming thinks it needs a law school in this day and age, when there are so many, and while its seeking to export the practice of law elsewhere anyhow, but it doesn't have any sort of medical, dental, or veterinary school.  Everyone gets sick, and most people own cats and dogs.  Making it easier for Wyomingites to enter these fields would be a good idea.

And maybe boosting the non Laramie campuses of the University of Wyoming would be as well.  That's already been a huge success, and something that's changed things enormously since I was 18, and encouraging the further expansion of the University of Wyoming outside of Laramie would appear to be a win win proposition.  One of the really attractive things about UW, truth be told, is that for Wyomingites its not only an excellent education, but it's cheap.  If you can attend where you already live, it's cheaper yet.  And if you attend where you have a connection, you're more likely to stay there.  Indeed, while its a bit counter-intuitive based on he supposed statistics, quite a few people who graduate in Laramie never get any further than that.  Indeed, just yesterday I was working with a lawyer from Casper who grew up here, but met his spouse who was from Laramie.  When he graduated, they both found jobs there.  One good friend of mine, while he didn't stay in Laramie, stayed in nearby Fort Collins, only fifty miles away, which is another sort of example.

Anyhow, those are my thoughts on these thorny issues.  This is another one of those areas where we seem to repeat the old ideas to our detriment.  Maybe its time to look around at what we have, and what we don't, and do something with it.

"Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel". Musical references and economic trouble.

When I ran this yesterday: 

Lex Anteinternet: Coal in the ICU:    Mine haul truck on display in Wright Wyoming. Wyoming has had a long association with coal. The first coal mines in the state date...

I resisted the temptation to quote from John Prine's "New Grass" song "Paradise".

I'll note that the Tribune, while it didn't actually name the song, couldn't, and the reporter today started off his article about the Peabody Coal Company noting the sad song, and then turned to it again a second time.  Interesting.

For those who haven't heard it, the really sad song involves the demise of an actual Kentucky town named Paradise, and features the chorus:

And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away

Well, the Peabody Coal Company won't be hauling Gillette away, although coal mining, as the article details, is really in huge long term trouble.   That doesn't help Gillette much either, rather obviously, but that's not Peabody's fault.

Old Picture of the Day: More Gas Lines

Old Picture of the Day: More Gas Lines: OK, another picture today of the long gas lines of the late 1970's. If I remember right, it was about this time that most all serv...

Old Picture of the Day: Gas Lines

Old Picture of the Day: Gas Lines: Welcome to Gasoline Week here at OPOD. We will be looking back at pictures associated with that fuel that keeps the world moving. We s...

Old Picture of the Day: Migrant Labor Camp

Old Picture of the Day: Migrant Labor Camp: Today's picture shows a migrant labor camp during the 1930's. I note that amidst a sea of tents, someone has a travel trailer....

Old Picture of the Day: Travel Trailer

Old Picture of the Day: Travel Trailer: Welcome to Trailer Week here at OPOD where we will look at tailer life. I would love to hear your trailer stories. Have you ever lived ...

Old Picture of the Day: Florida Trailer

Old Picture of the Day: Florida Trailer: This is another trailer park in Florida. This picture was taken in 1937. These trailers look like they are being used as residences and n...

Old Picture of the Day: Trailer Life

Old Picture of the Day: Trailer Life: Today's picture shows a family living in a trailer. It looks like they have expanded their living space by creating an additional r...

The Joy of Field Rations: Bread of the Poilu, Part II

The Joy of Field Rations: Bread of the Poilu, Part II: And now in this post we will resurrect pain ordinaire, and pain biscuit é,   the bread that fed the French soldier, or poilu, in two wor...

Camp Douglas Prisoner of War Camp

Coal in the ICU

 

 Mine haul truck on display in Wright Wyoming.

Wyoming has had a long association with coal. The first coal mines in the state date back to the Union Pacific Railroad which, coming through as it did during the 1860s, needed sources of coal to fuel its trains.  Mining near the railroad started contemporaneously with the laying down of the tracks.

Coal's been in ill health for quite awhile, and it's been suffering of late along with petroleum oil.  More than oil really.  This makes a big difference to the state, as the state is funded on mineral severance taxes which have accordingly been declining.  And it makes a big difference to coal mining towns, like Gillette.  And, of course, the decline in coal fuels some delusional thinking in which "if only" the Federal government wasn't doing this or that, the market would recover.

Well, in today's Tribune, there's a double whammy for coal.

First, Peabody, the legendary coal mining concern, is laying off 250 people in Gillette from a corporate office its closing there. That's a significant thing for Peabody to do, as the area features a number of huge coal mines, albeit ones that have been suffering lately.  For an outfit with a history that is coal to signal that it's giving up on its local office is not only a personal disaster for the people who worked there, it's a huge signal of what going on in coal.

If that signal wasn't clear enough, also in today's paper we learn that Rocky Mountain Power, a large regional electrical generation company, has determined to switch away from coal over the next couple of decades. For a power company centered in a coal producing region that owns many coal fired power plants, and its own mines, that's a huge decision.  It will be going to alternative means of generation, such as wind.  It's announcement wasn't that it's "supplementing", or something, its coal fired plants with alternative means of generation, but that it actually anticipates replacing them.  That's a pretty stunning position assuming it was accurately reported, for a regional power generator.

This would seem to be a pretty clear indicator that coal's in a long term decline.  And with that, so are the state's revenues.  It's not as if coal is going to disappear, but it does seem to be slowly reducing in significance with no likely reversal of that trend in sight.  And that reduction in significance has been fairly dramatic and observable.

The expansion of coal mines into the Powder River Basin is something that really came on during my lifetime, and it built Gillette into what it currently is.  The decline will likely occur over the rest of my life time, but that it would become so evident, while not really a surprise, is fairly dramatic. 

I should note that it's hard to write something like this and not sound as if you are coming off as "anti coal".  In reality, however, I haven't said anything of the sort. When I was a geology student, eons ago, my specialty was in coal, simply because it seemed stable while petroleum was in decline.  But I was wrong about that stability, and the changes we now see are ones that I've been predicting for some time.  Being right about a trend tends to be confused with being partisan in a debate, but it isn't.

 

Geology classroom, University of Wyoming, 1986.

Lex Anteinternet: "This land is my land, but shouldn't be your land"...

 

 Grass Creek Oilfield in the early days.  At the time of this photo, oil entrants could still patent their claims, in the same way that mining claims could be patented, and indeed as "placer oil claims".

The incredibly bad idea that is circulating on both the Congressional level and the local legislative level that we spoke about here, (and elsewhere):

Lex Anteinternet: "This land is my land, but shouldn't be your land"...: This land is your land This land is my land From California to the New York island; From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters ...

turns out to have even seeped down to the county level.

We learn in today's Star Tribune that, in spite of the fact that the majority of Wyomingites oppose the concept, Natrona County is one of four Wyoming counties that have sent money to an entity called the American Lands Council, headquartered in Utah, backing this bad idea.  Big Horn, Lincoln, and Weston also have.  Two other counties, Teton and Albany, have gone on record opposing it, and a third, the heavily mining district of Sweetwater County, earlier sent a resolution to the Legislature opposing it.

An interesting thing about this is that it would seem to reflect an ancient split in Wyoming's politics.  At least two of these counties, Natrona and Sweetwater, have traditionally been dominated by the extractive industries in terms of their economies, but politically Sweetwater has traditionally been dominated by the rank and file of the mining industry, i.e., the miners.  In the 1932 Presidential election a majority of Sweetwater County votes went to the Socialist candidate that year, and the county has tended to be fairly Democratic up until very recently (and perhaps remains somewhat old school Democrat today).  Natrona, which is the local petroleum industry center, together with Fremont County (whose local GOP, the only real party there following the demise of the Democratic Party in Wyoming) at this point in time feature politics which tend to reflect the views of the industry itself, although the influence of mining in Fremont County meant that it was actually a conservative Democratic county up until some point in the late 1980s, when mining there shut down and the national Democratic Party began increasingly to loose its conservative wing.  

Note, I'm not arguing about this, merely noting that it tends to be the case.  History and reality are what they are, so there's no point in arguing about this.  Locally, however, the average citizen in Natrona County would most likely be very much against this view, and occasionally the county's sportsmen have really risen up when provoked. This happened in the early 1990s, when that was seen statewide in an effort to privatize wildlife in the state, and it also happened in reaction to the earlier Sagebrush Rebellion, which had very little sympathy in the towns and cities.  Indeed, for that matter, the rank and file of the petroleum industry, i.e., the guys on the rigs, if they are local (and often if they are not) are outdoorsmen themselves and aren't really keen on anything that might disrupt that.

One additional thing I should note is that the last time this sort of idea went around it was really spearheaded by the ranching industry.  No longer.  Agriculture really has more reason to be worried about the Federal government and its regulations than anyone else, and last time this movement expressed that. Since then, however, the real threat to agriculture has become increasingly clear, and that's the sale of ranch land to developers, often out of state, and to very well monied out of state interests.  This has caused local ranchers to no longer really conceive of the Federal government as a threat and it further has slowly started to recognize that keeping Federal lands in Federal hands also keeps that land in local ranching hands as well. So, this time, we don't see any angry ranchers in the mix.  What sportsmen have long dreamed of, an alliance of sportsmen, conservationist, and agriculture has actually occurred, although in the Taylor Grazing Act era, it took nearly 80 years for it to become a reality.

Anyhow, this story is particularly interesting in terms of Natrona County, as at the same time that the commissioners voted in favor of backing this concept, reflecting the view that what's good for the local industry is good for the county, the county has supposedly been undergoing a major demographic and economic shift which would, in the relatively short term, make that industry much less significant.  Indeed, the county is boosting its natural (i.e, sporting and wild) attributes as part of this, which would mean that the residents who are attracted to this county now, as the oil industry goes into a slump, would tend to not be particularly sympathetic with it.  Acts like this are therefore likely, in very short order, to be dimly viewed, and the politicians who support them likewise dimly viewed.  Something local politicians never seem to be able to grasp is that encouraging new industries, and new residents, means the importation of new political ideas, and those ideas are often totally opposite of their own. As a rule, new residents to Natrona County aren't likely to be from Niobrara County, and are more likely to be from the Napa Valley.  Whether this is good or bad can be debated, but a person can't really simultaneously back the county as a good place to live due to its natural attributes while also backing an idea that would possibly imperil them, and then have the people you induced to move look at you charitably.

Indeed, one of the original drafters of the act that passed the State Legislature to study transferring management of the lands did not specifically mention it in his post legislative success sheet.  That he'd omit it should not be regarded as an accident.  He's from this county, and he's no doubt already gotten an unhappy earful from sportsmen and conservationist.  He's likely to keep getting one, in spite of not mentioning this in his recent sheet.

Now, I'm not seeking to pick on the oil industry here, and the national industry didn't ask for this at all and is probably regarding it as absurdly naive. The local industry hasn't openly supported it.  So this tends to be a bill backed by the locally naive, who have so poorly thought this all out that should it pass, in the future they'll look very poor indeed.  But they may look very poor in the short term as well. With Natrona County changing its economy rapidly, Sweetwater County returning to its traditional politics, and Fremont County, where one of the major backers resides, is involved in a huge struggle with the Democratic Wind River Reservation which may shrink the practical impact of the county politically.  Riding the crest of this waive may end up getting some of the riders drowned. That tended to be the case a couple of decades ago, the last time this happened.

And if they do drown, perhaps its somewhat deserved.  One of the penalties for riding the waive of trends is not being able to recognize the swell behind them.  And one of the penalties for failing to have learned history is not grasping when something fundamental has changed. The Taylor Grazing Act brought in an 80 year history of slight antagonism between agriculture and conservationist in this state, or perhaps more accurately between ranchers and townsfolk, over the public land.  But that struggle has now really ended.  The state was built by agriculture, but it hasn't done much to assist and support it over the years, and various counties, including Natrona County, certainly have not.  The petroleum and mining industries have been the heavy employers, but they tend not to be local and are buffeted by the swings of the international economy.  The political swing to the right nationally and locally in recent years didn't really reflect much of a change on many key local issues, and all politics is local.  The Democratic Party in Wyoming may not be dead, but it's a mere shawdow of its former self, but those who looked to middle of the road Republicans and Democrats for protection of public lands are still there, but are seemingly being ignored.  Last time that happened, they rose up and slapped the politicians who forgot that.

Monday at the bar: Courthouses of the West: Sheridan County Wyoming Courthouse, Sheridan Wyomi...

Courthouses of the West: Sheridan County Wyoming Courthouse, Sheridan Wyomi...:

Lex Anteinternet: UW Foundation intent on cashing-in gift of Y Cross...

This past week the respective Wyoming and Colorado university benefactors (or actually the Colorado one, in what I read) of this substantial ranch land gift indicated that, having prevailed in their lawsuit with the donor, and having failed to reach an accommodation that would have otherwise helped preserved the donor's intent, announced that it's going up for sale.

Lex Anteinternet: UW Foundation intent on cashing-in gift of Y Cross...: UW Foundation intent on cashing-in gift of Y Cross ranch We've commented on this before , but an ongoing "boo hiss" is in or...

Well, once again, but Boo Hiss.

And people wonder why the Wyoming average citizen and sporting public is skeptical about the state acquiring the Federal domain.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: First Methodist (First Methodist Episcopal), Salt Lake City, Utah.

Churches of the West: First Methodist (First Methodist Episcopal), Salt ...:

William G. McAdoo, Former Secretary of the Treasury – 1919

William G. McAdoo, Former Secretary of the Treasury – 1919

From when 78s were a means of mass communication. Really weird to think of people buying or recording a political speech such as this, let alone one by somebody who was the "former Secretary of the Treasury".

Visiting the battlefield

 

 "Last Stand Hill", Little Big Horn.

You can't understand a battlefield, really, unless you've visited it. You certainly can't as a writer, anyhow.

Now that's a dispiritiing thing for a writer to admit, but it's quite true.  You just can't.  Yet some try to do it.

 

 Fetterman Fight battleground.

Relatively recently work took me on a trip which put me within easy driving range of a very famous Civil War battlefield.  I'd read about it many times before, but I'd never seen it.  Quite a shock to actually see the field, it wasn't really what I'd expected, even after having read the books, seen it depicted in film, and having reviewed the maps many times.  Seeing, I realized what a desperate confusing affair it was, and what the overall conditions must have been like.

Likewise, there's several Indian Wars battlefields I'm quite familiar with, and several of those are repeatedly written about, not always very intelligently.  The prime example of that would be the Battle of the Little Big Horn, which is oddly subject to a lot of discussion about "why did this happen?".  Well, visit the battlefield and what happened is pretty obvious.

Today In Wyoming's History: The Casper Star Tribune decides to put out a book ...

Today In Wyoming's History: The Casper Star Tribune decides to put out a book ...: The Casper Star Tribune is collection pre 1940s photographs for a book on Casper's history up through 1939 that it's putting out.  I...

An example of your public lands

 

The Trapper's Route landing, a location on Bureau of Land Management property.

This land of multiple use is leased for grazing, and is near a trail still used by cattlemen. The area is frequented by hunters and fishermen, and there are camping spots not far off.

Here, however, is a boat landing, used extensively by fishermen on this blue ribbon trout stream.

Federal land. The land that some in Wyoming want to take away from the Federal government and have the state administer.  Or even own.  There's no reason that to believe the state could do any better. 

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Sheridan County Drug Court, Sheridan Wyoming

Courthouses of the West: Sheridan County Drug Court, Sheridan Wyoming:

This court is now the "drug court", but it was pretty clearly an early courthouse in Sheridan that was preserved and later converted t this use. As the existing courthouse in Sheridan is quite old, my guess that this one doesn't predate the other (maybe) but that it might have served some other court rather than the district court.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Mark's Episocopal Cathedral, Salt Lake City Ut...

Churches of the West: St. Mark's Episocopal Cathedral, Salt Lake City Ut...: \

Movies In History: Band of Brothers

Band of Brothers

Before reading this entry, a person probably ought to read the entry for Saving Private Ryan.  This film isn't revolutionary in being highly materially accurate, as it followed in the wake of Saving Private Ryan which was revolutionary in those regards. Still, this movie not only met the standard (which isn't surprising given the involvement of the same people) but it mastered them. This includes odd material details, such as German horse usage, which is typically omitted from World War Two movies.

The film is of course based on the work of straight history by Ambrose, and it covers it very well, even including some things that were omitted in the book.  It undoubtedly stands as the most accurate single work on World War Two in Europe by leagues, and is a monument to both the American Army of World War Two and to this genera of film.  If a person was to see only one movie about the war in Europe (which would be a mistake), and if you wanted that movie to depict an American topic, this would be it.  And if a person is doing a study of films on the war that portray it accurately, this is a must see.

Postcript

I just noted in my review of Battleground that I was going to review this, and going back and looking at my earlier entries on "Movies In History", I saw that I already had.

I"m actually  suprised to see how short this entry was, as this is such a major cinematic work. but the summation is a good one. This film surpasses any other in historical accuracy and accuracy of material details.  It's excellent.

Indeed, in thinking about it, it occurs its so excellent that it might slightly skew the field in some ways. Taking one single company of the 101st Airborne, the movie might properly be viewed in context as representative of about any American infantry company of the war.  I think it is generally viewed that way, but the fact that the film portrays paratroopers of the 101st Airborne, and is a true story, has caused a degree of over focus on this particular company in this particular division.  The title said it well, Band of Brothers, but it's important to note that the same could be said of about any single ground combat unit of the US Army during the war, and the fact that this story is focused on this particular unit doesn't mean that this particular unit was truly unique.  As the only film following an American Army infantry unit from training all the way through past the German surrender, the film is not only excellent, but probably best regarded as representative of the entire class of American soldier during the war.

Again, excellent by any measure.

Friday Farming: Guest workers in sheep ranching

I haven't been following the story, but apparently the Federal government is about to impose a rule, maybe this week, which would redefine certain things about the "guest workers" which sheep ranchers rely upon. Specifically, it would have the impact of increasing their wages several fold. The industry is opposed to it.

Now, I like sheep and I like sheep ranching, although my direct exposure to it is fairly low.  So this may sound surprising, but I don't really buy off on the industries argument here.

The industry is really opposed to this change as they view it as economically devastating.  I don't buy it.

What I do think is the case is that we've seen a real evolution in sheep ranching since World War Two.  Up until the Second World War, and indeed for some time there after, we saw a lot of immigrant labor in sheep ranching to be sure, but we saw a lot of family labor too.  Almost anyone who had sheep in that period, and well into the 1980s, can tell you about spending plenty of time on sheep trails and in sheep trailers.  My wife, for example, can relate those stories.  Ranches had hired herders if they had enough sheep, but family members also spent a lot of time doing the same thing.  The herders themselves included a lot of Europeans, quite frankly, including Basque and Irish herders.  I can well recall Basque herders from my youth and at one time I sort of naively assumed that all sheep herders were Basque.

An interesting thing about this is that it was sort of commonly assumed that the European herders were born into this line of work, but that was never true.  The Basque in particular tended to have no experience in sheep tending until they got to  the US.  Rather, for cultural reasons it was easy for them to take the sheep herding jobs and  for many years this was a step into sheep ranching.  In later years it wasn't, as acquiring a ranch became too expensive, but it was a step into some other line of work.  The same is true of the Irish tenders, who typically were working for somebody they were related to in the US.

Now, there are no more Basque and Irish sheepherders. Economic conditions have changed in Europe and with that the desire, probably, to move to a foreign country and herd sheep had  gone.  Most of the herders now are foreign, and they're mostly from South America. Some are from Mexico, but I'd guess that right now there are more Peruvian herders than Mexican ones (and it's worth noting that economic conditions in Mexico have so improved over the last 20 years that the same story with Irish and Basque herders is likely playing itself out with Mexican herders).

Anyhow, the story always is that the ranchers rely on these guest workers and implicitly, they have to be paid very low wages in order to make this work out. The extended argument is that Americans won't do this work. 

Well, I doubt much of that is fully accurate. 

For one thing, I've tended to notice in recent years that sheep ranchers leave a lot of sheep untended.  They never would have done that in the past. As I see family members heavily involved in cattle ranching, I wonder what's going on with sheep ranching.  I'm sure that most family members on a sheep ranch don't want to live out their existence in a trailer, but as plenty have and do on cattle trails, I'd bet that they would for a time on sheep ranches too.

And I'm skeptical that no Americans will take these jobs.  Indeed, I've seen the phenomenon of young idealist college grads taking low paying agricultural jobs just to be part of it.  And I've also noted that there are quite a few young, and even old, men who take ag jobs as it suits them, even with the wages in the basement.  So, by paying really really low wages, the effect I think is to actually exclude Americans who would take the jobs if they could.

Of course, that would mean some changes to the industry to be sure, but part of that change might men more, but smaller, bands of sheep, on more family places.  That might very well be how the economics of that would work out.  And that would be okay.

The Big Speech: Aldo Leopold on farming.

There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.

Aldo Leopold

 

Movies In History: Battleground

This movie was filmed in 1949 and released in 1950, making it one of the immediate post World War Two films.  It not only is a good one, it's one of the very best films about World War Two ever made.

The film follows a fictional squad in the 101st Airborne during the Battle of the Bulge.  Character development is excellent.  Minor details about the squad are highly accurate, which is perhaps because the film's director was a veteran of the battle (but not of the 101st).  Very unusual for its time, the characters are in fact somewhat cynical and display some probably typical emotions for any unit, even the 101st, including some degree of cowardliness in one character, and war weariness in many. 

Also unusual for a film of this era, material details are highly accurate. This is surprisingly uncommon for a film of the period, but this film gets them right.  Uniforms and equipment are not only correct, they're correct for an airborne unit of this period.

One of the best World War Two films made, this film stands with later small unit films like Saving Private Ryan or Platoon.  It's one of the few films of this era that doesn't suffer from the Saving Private Ryan effect, however, in that its material details are correct.  Well worth seeing.

The film featured a cast, it might be noted, that was excellent, but not featuring any of the huge stars of the era.  It made a star out of one of the characters, Denise Darcel, for her supporting role, but other actors in the film, like John Hodiak and Van Johnson were known, but not big names like John Wayne or Errol Flynn, for that era.  In some ways, that actually makes the film better, as there are no big names that dominate the ensemble cast.

Postscript

Because this blog has a history focus, and because the purpose of even mentioning movies here is to analyze them from an historical point of view it occurred to me that I missed something in this review that's actually quite significant.  Indeed it occured to me as I'm adding a selection of films here that are well known, but also all ran over the recent Memorial Day holiday.  One of those films was Band of  Brothers.

Now, I'll get around to  Band of Brothers, but one thing that a person might note is that Band of Brothers is a story about a unit within the same division, the Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne.  So it'd be easy to think that as both movies concern the 101st Airborne, both movies are about paratroopers. They aren't.

Battleground's fictional soldiers are part of the 327th Glider Infantry.

The airborne units of the US Army (and the British Army) during World War Two included parachute infantry and glider infantry.  In the case of the glider infantry, their make up was considerably different, which is easily forgotten.  Because almost all attention to airborne units has focused on paratroopers, and in fact it did at the time, it's easy to forget that glider infantry was a huge airborne element.

Paratroopers were all volunteers in that role. Glider infantrymen, however, were not.  Gilder infantrymen were simply regular infantrymen that had been assigned to those units and then trained as glider infantry.  Unlike paratroopers, therefore, the volunteer element was missing.  Indeed, until the end of the war, the extra pay that paratroopers drew was not drawn by glider infantrymen.  Their role was ever bit as dangerous, and indeed it might have been even more dangerous as glider landings in combat were notoriously dangerous and lethal.  As Ambrose recounts in the book,. Band of Brothers, one paratrooper who rode with the glidermen in one operation was horrified by the experience.

An interesting thing, however, is that their effectiveness is revealing about some things.  While paratroopers were regarded as elite as they were all volunteer, and indeed some joined the paratroopers in order to avoid being in units made up mostly of draftees, glider infantry proved to be ever bit as combat effective. So, while they were often conscripts and had no role in their assignment to airborne units, every positive thing you can say about paratroopers you can also say about glider infantry.

Anyhow, as this movie is about men in the 101st Airborne, it'd be easily to believe that it's a movie about elite all volunteer paratroopers.  It isn't.  It's a movie about regular soldiers assigned to the glider infantry, the only movie about them specifically of which I'm aware.

Movies In History: The Best Years of Our Lives

I've just posted a series of movies in this topic, "Movies In History", which has been in part inspired by the fact that we've just gone through the Memorial Day holiday and a few of the movie channels run war pictures during that holiday weekend.  I caught more than usual as I've been fighting a cold, and its been rainy, so I didn't get out much.

This film is one that has occasionally been run on such weekends, and which would be very fitting to be run, but wasn't this time. This movie isn't a war picture, however.  It's an "after the war picture".

The Best Years of Our Lives was released in 1946, which is stunning if we consider that World War Two ended in 1945 and the topic of the film was the sad adjustment to civilian life by veterans, and even the changed post war world.  It's a brilliant picture and is no doubt the best of its type, which is all the more amazing given that the war had just ended and many of the observations in the film should not have been obvious when it was filmed.

The film surrounds the stories of three returning veterans and their families.  One is a young returning bomber pilot, another is a middle aged banker who is just out of the infantry.  The third, portrayed by an actual veteran, was a young sailor who had lost his lower arms in action.  All of them experience difficulties adjusting to civilian life

The film touches on a series of really touchy topics, and does it very well. The pilot, Cpt. Derry (Dana Andrews), is shown to have a failing marriage, with that failure brought about by the fact that he hardly knew his war time bride at the time he married here.  Banker Al Stephenson, a discharged infantry NCO, is shown to have come back a heavy drinker.  And sailor Homer Parrish (Harold Russell) has a difficult time coming back to his fiance and family after his traumatic injury. 

Some of the plot line is nearly shocking, even when currently viewed. That Fred Derry's marriage is in trouble is obvious, but that Al Stephenson's young daughter would determine to break the marriage up is a very much outside of the film norm.  Divorce is treated in this film in a manner that's so unusual there's really no easy comparison and certainly no comfortable comparison to the treatment.  The flow of booze is a bit of a surprise as well.  All of this does in fact depict problems that were common to returning veterans.

In terms of material details, we'd expect this movie to be accurate as it was set in the time in which it was made. So that it does well is no surprise, but what may come as a surprise is how the details come through for 1946.  War planes are already being destroyed for salvage in the film, which is worked into the plot but which is an amazing plot detail for something that was practically news at the time the movie was set.  The small size of the houses (deliberately filmed undersized) would take a current audience by surprise, but is also accurate for the time.

What may be more interesting, in terms of our analysis, is the cultural details.  Here too, the film does really well, only making a few minor errors.  Unlike many films, the movie has it right when it has a banker as an enlisted man, but a former soda stand worker as an officer, as the status of officer and enlisted man was based much less on education than it is now.  The ages are basically correct for the characters as well, except for that of Al Stephenson, portrayed by Fredric March, who 49 was really too old to be a combat NCO.  His wife, played by Myrna Loy, was the best known actor in the film when it was made, is better cast as she would have been about age 41 when the movie was made.

This film is really a bit of an epic, and very well done.  Portraying sensitive topics, then and now, it also does very well in material details and reflects well cultural details from its time.  It shouldn't be omitted from a library of World War Two films, for those who might have one.

Movies In History: Twelve O'clock High

Yet another war movie filmed in 1949, this movie stands with the other mentioned that year as being a classic.  Indeed, this film is the best of its genera, the World War Two flying movie.  Nothing filmed since it has surpassed it.

Twelve O'clock High portrays an early U.S. Army Air Corps bombing wing stationed in the United Kingdom just as those units were first beginning to be used over Europe.  The unit is suffering from poor performance and the commanding officer is relieved from duty when he's judged to be responsible for the condition. The film then portrays the efforts of the new commander, Gen. Frank Savage to get the unit into shape. 

With an excellent story line and very good acting, including  Gregory Peck in one of his best roles, the movie is really well done.  There's surprisingly little flying in it, but the scenes that do portray B-17s in the air are realistic, aided by the fact that a lot of actual combat footage is used, and that the movie was filmed so close to World War Two that B-17s were available to be used.  The movie is excellent in material defects with no obvious mistakes and the sense of the time and era are well done. The movie avoids overdoing either heroism or angst, as later flying movies did, and as the film was close enough to World War Two, it predates any later concern over the nature of strategic bombing, which is a feature of more recently analysis. Simply put, it's the best of the air war movies that are set in the Second World War.

Movies In History: Sands of Iwo Jima

Also made in 1949, like Battleground, this movie is similar in that it follows a single squad, but it pales in comparison with the much better Battleground.

Still, for a film of this period, which was filmed shortly after World War Two, it isn't bad.  Following a single squad of Marines through the island hopping campaign of the Pacific, the movie does a fair job of portraying the Pacific War in some ways, although probably in a much less violent manner than the actual experience.  Using a lot of combat footage, the film is pretty accurate in material details, which as noted in our earlier comments on Battleground, is unusual for the era.

The plot, taking place over a larger expanse of time than Battleground, is quite a bit thinner, but it isn't highly unrealistic either, and the experiences and locals depicted in the film are done well and fairly accurately.

Of course, this is a John Wayne film, but it's a bit unusual as it gives us a glimpse of the broader range that Wayne had than his role typically called for.  Sort of anticipating his later role in The Searchers, he's a bit of an antihero in it, although not to the same extent of that later film, which in my view is his best.

Another film worth watching, and together with Battleground, the two very best films about World War Two which were filmed immediately after the war and which have stood the test of time fairly well.

Summer rules

Recently I saw a bit of a debate on church appropriate clothing, which somehow reminded me of the topic of court appropriate clothing, which I've referenced here quite a few times.  As time goes on, as noted, it lawyer office wear becomes more and more informal, but coat and tie remain the norm for court itself.

But at one time, the coat was dispensed with in the summer.

I don't know what caused me to recall this, but even when I first was practicing law, there were "summer rules" for appearing in chambers. That is, for arguing motions in front of the judge in his chamber.

We don't even argue in chambers anymore.  After 9/11 brought in a new concern for court security, the old habit of arguing in chambers largely ended (although here and there it's still around) and all arguments were moved to courtrooms.  I appreciate the few remaining exceptions, as that seems a better way to handle motions, when the chambers are adequate to allow for that, and they usually are.

At any rate, back some 25  years ago, during the summer, "summer rules" applied.  Shirt and tie only.  Indeed, I later learned that at one time there were written rules for court clothing, and the summer rules were actually written.

I don't know how far they went back, but I suspect they existed because at one time some of those courthouses were pretty hot in the summer.  Only one has been that way in my experience, the district courthouse in Lusk, which at one time lacked air conditioning in the courtroom and chambers.

The Niobrara County Courthouse, the thread on which remains freakishly popular here.  The windows of the chambers are visible in the upper right of the photo.

My guess, and hope, is that air conditioning has since been added.  At that time, however, it didn't have it. And it didn't have heat in the courtroom in winter either.

Now, of course, the temperature of darned near every official building is pretty controlled, and "summer rules" are largely forgotten, although I'll occasionally here them referred to by we old timers. 

The Joy of Field Rations: Bread of the Poilu, Part I

The Joy of Field Rations: Bread of the Poilu, Part I: Bread of the Poilu, Part I: The Bread Ration Poilu   I have returned after a rather protracted absence while experiencing what we use...

Lost Rail: By the Shores of 16 Mile Creek

Lost Rail: By the Shores of 16 Mile Creek: Further east than the Yellowstone and more imposing than the Missouri, the Milwaukee started its journey west along the shores of a vast la...

Blogatopia

Wow, darned near every blog I follow here (visible on the links on the side) has updated in the past couple of days, including two excellent ones that rarely update.

Good to see, but all at once!

The Internet and the Dumbing Down of Culture

The great, partially realized, promise of the Internet has been the global instant access to knowledge by all.

The terrible, fully realized, reality of the Internet has been the instant voice to the mean-spirited dishonest ignorant.  As a result, debate and knowledge, in reality, has become dumber, more simplistic, and often subject to massive error.

This has been pretty obvious to everyone for quite a while, but it's become really obvious lately in watching a couple of debates.

The problem is that the Internet gives equal voice to people of harsh views, who can view them without fear of any sort of negative impact to themselves, and it also gives free rein to those who would simply choose to lie about a topic and their relationship to it.  It also gives a voice to those with free time and low knowledge.  So we see people who are true extremist who spend time shouting down any opposition, or we see people whose views are skewed and limited make representations based on claimed personal experience, or finally we seem somebody shout out opposition with a dimwitted view that would have formerly taken effort to express.

Now there's plenty of intelligent commentary on the net (and I dare say, on this moderated blog, the commentary is excellent, but then it is moderates so that the occasionally really hostile or stupid random post, which always come from somebody who has never posted before, doesn't see the light of day), but to take on the flood of bad commentary takes the dedicated effort of the knowledgeable, who often do not have the time for such efforts.  So, at the end of the day, people who claim to be observational experts on, let's say, the viewpoints of a Russian minority in Kiev might really be chronically unemployed men in their parents basement in Newark.

I'd note that what got me rolling in this particular day, however, is a comment I saw on the Atlantic's photo essay on World War One.  One commenter, which hitting his profile reveals is a frequent commenter, commented to the photo essay "All war is stupid."

Well, that's a stupid comment.

Do reduce warfare to that level of commentary would deserve a dunce hat and a three week silent sitting in the corner.  On the net, however it doesn't.

Well, that comment is stupid.

Eh? There can't be a decline why?

The state statistic's branch has announced that they city's population has hit an all time high of 60,000 souls.

Well, actually I recall it being widely regarded as higher than that in the late 1970s, but apparently that doesn't count for some reason.  Anyhow, according to the state, the population is (back) up to 60,000 due to oil and gas activity.

Perhaps I heard it incorrectly, but when reported on the news the reporter seemed to say that officials had stated that the slow down would not impact the town, as the slow down has happened everywhere in the oil and gas industry.

What?

That would suggest that oil and gas workers are captives to their employment or something, and won't go elsewhere into something else.

Odd logic.

Fame, Turning on Fame, Ignorance, and Double Standards

As anyone who has followed my occasional frustrated comments on television here knows, I was not a fan of the Duggars show, Nineteen Kids and Counting.

Indeed, for reasons that I have a hard time defining, there was something about the Duggars that made me uncomfortable.  A lot of people are going to be saying that now, so that's a little late to be claiming that, but it's true.  I couldn't quite define it then, and I can't quite now, but what I think it is, is that to a certain ill informed audience they defined "Christianity", or perhaps "Conservative  Christianity".  They don't.  And I don't think they claimed to, but rather they were sort of presented that way.

In reality, without delving into it too far, theologically they're a member of a minority offshoot of a certain branch of Protestantism, and from their they're actually part of a patriarchal movement within that minority offshoot, which makes them a minority within a minority.  That was probably obvious to anyone who studies such matters, which means that it's not obvious to most people.  Given that, however, it would be no more fair to even state that the Duggars represented the view of Conservative Protestants than it would be to say the Old Believers represent the views of most Russian Orthodox, or that the members of the SSPX represent the views of most Catholics.  Indeed, those statements, although erroneous, would probably be slightly closer to being true, maybe. And because they hold a minority Protestant view, within a minority Protestant view, their views fall very far from the views of many "mainline" Protestants and certainly quite far from the Catholics and the Orthodox.  Now, the Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, etc., know that, but because television is so ignorant, it doesn't necessarily know that.  Therefore, when we hear things like "the Duggar's conservative Christian views", we're really hearing something that's way, way, far off the mark.

Indeed, again, I doubt the Duggar's themselves would disagree with that, and in fact they would seem to fit into a demographic that would question the Christianity of at least certain other Christian Faiths.  I don't know that for sure, but I do note that they engage in missionary work in Central American, which at least raises some questions as that's a field already plowed by prior Christian missionaries, although they're all Catholic.  Usually when a group does that, they tend to do it because they don't regard the other Christian group as valid, although here again I'm supposing.  I've known some Protestant missionaries (and Catholic ones) who were true missionaries, and they spent their lives in some really wild parts of the world, indeed, in some areas that were downright dangerous for somebody of their occupation, which seems real missionary work to me.

Anyhow, all that's a long winded way of saying that part of what has made me uncomfortable about the Duggar's is the way that they've come to represent something that maybe they don't.  I'm a pretty conservative Christian (okay, on some things I'm a pretty liberal Christian . . . and on others I'm a pretty neither liberal or conservative Christian), but I don't feel my daughter has to dress in a peasant dress and I'm a pretty big fan of education.

Indeed, on that latter item, one thing that's bothered me for some time is that the girls in this show, which has massive female following, seem so limited in their options.  They seem pretty smart, but they line them up with potential spouses who just don't seem to quite mach their intellect.  Maybe they do, but they don't seem to.  Indeed, that would seem to be the case for whomever Josh is married to as well, but again I could well be wrong.  It all seems sort of odd.

So, anyhow, one thing that's bothered me is the way their identified as something they really aren't.

And by extension, now people who hate them because they re identified that way, are going to be ripping them apart.

Traditional Christians in recent years have come to regard themselves as under the gun.  Well, actually, some branches of Christianity have felt that way for a long time.  And for good reason, they really are.  It's become unsafe in the public sphere to simply hold certain traditional Christian beliefs, or certain beliefs that are consistent with certain Faiths. That's a shame, but its true.  It's also become safe to attack certain religious beliefs as the PC view of the media holds those beliefs to be out of sync with the times.

In truth, Christianity is always out of sync with the times, and if a person reads the Acts of the Apostles, that's clear. The Apostles knew they were out of sync with the times, and the Fathers of the Church were pretty darned plain that they knew that as well.  So that's not new.  What is a bummer, however, is to see some group, here the Duggars, get tarred and feathered by haters because they are seen to represent something they don't, while in turn the rest of us get tarred and feathered because of what the Duggar patriarchy apparently did, which isn't fair to the rest of us by any means.  Ignorance at work.  It's like being a member of one of those rare Middle Eastern religious minorities who get attacked because nobody knows what they actually believe, but they might believe what some other group believes.

Going from that, however, it's also interesting how chicken television and the media really are.  Everything is played so safe.  The Duggars were pulled from the air, which they should have been, but a certain other family which recently had a baby baptized in the Armenian Orthodox Church, a very conservative religions, lives a lifestyle that seems out of sync with that (or not, I'm not sure) and has a family member who is changing genders.   That's being celebrated on television.  Now, in this era, that's in sync with the general liberal view of the media, so the media is not going to take on the very un settled and difficult psychological aspects of that in a way that's controversial. That is, we're not going to hear any press on whether that's wrong in a psychological or metaphysical sense, but maybe we should.  But we won't, as that would be too controversial in the context of the times.

This same logic would apply, even more so, to "Sister Wives", a show that pretty much promotes plural marriage and which appears on the same network as Nineteen Kids".  Here we have a sort of irony that TLC promotes, though the show, the concept that the Duggars are Christian traditionalist, which they really are not, and that the very non traditional view (in the larger societal sense) of the Kody Brown group, should be tolerated.  It's a strangely mixed message, neither of which is very deep in its analysis.

Nor really very interesting, I guess, to the male half of the population.  Both shows really cater towards domestic blandness, which is the basis, oddly, and ironically, of their appeal.  Peculiarly, noting really is going to look at the domestic lives of the millions of other conservative Christian women that are actually part of the culture.  That would just be too normal.

And if we're going to look at really unusual groups, to Americans, maybe we should look at really interesting ones we know aren't part of the larger demographic and obviously are not. Why not, for example, look at Orthodox Jews?  There are a lot of them in the US, but TLC isn't following them around.  Or Moslems (in fairness, there was a show that looked at them, but for a group that has to be unpleasant to be a member of right now, why not look at their lives).  Or, Old Believers.  There are Old Believers in Alaska, why not give them a look?

Finally, stories like this become feeding frenzies in a shark like fashion.  I can't help but recall how, after the very weird Michael Jackson died, the press turned on him.  It seems fame can turn to blistering contempt in an instant.  

That's always been the case.  The people and press elevate people to fame, and then when things go wrong for them, they rip them apart.  Oddly, they create an Idol and then destroy it, and always have.  An odd aspect of human nature.

Speaking for the people. . . and not.

It's interesting to watch debates and commentary on debates of a big national character.

Without going into specifics, I've been watching one that continually claims to represent a major cultural shift in a certain country.  I'm not so sure.  I think it represents a shift, but the claims are so overdone.

But for that matter, many "shifts" are quite temporary in nature.  The Baby Boom generation of the 60s did shift things, but in the long term they turned out to be more conservative than they started out to be, so the shift wasn't quite as dramatic as it was supposed it would be.  That's pretty common.  Lots of things that seem to have been overthrown, in fact, are just temporarily ignored.

The Big Speech: The St. Crispian's Day Speech from Henry V.

WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

King:  What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say “To-morrow is Saint Crispian.”
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say “These wounds I had on Crispin's day.”
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Wind River Indian Reservation Tribal Court

Courthouses of the West: Wind River Indian Reservation Tribal Court:

This is the Wind River Indian Reservation Tribal Court, which also houses various other law related facilities. The court is located in Ft. Washakie, the seat of government for the Wind River Indian Reservation, and serves the Shoshone and Arapahoe tribes on the reservation.

Some Gave All: Highland Cemetary, Casper Wyoming

Some Gave All: Highland Cemetary, Casper Wyoming: This Spanish American War era artillery piece is in a portion of Casper Wyoming's Highland Cemetery that has several features dedica...

I can't help but note how, in this town cemetery, for a town that wasn't founded until 1889, wars of the past have a long reach.  Veteran's tombstone markers note quite a few instances of Civil War service, from the eastern states which these men originally called home, and a few instances of frontier service as well.  And the early introduction of military aircraft, and the late disappearance of the horse also show up.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Corpus Christi, Newcastle Wyoming

Churches of the West: Corpus Christi, Newcastle Wyoming:

Movies In History: The Longest Day

This is Memorial Day weekend, and that means that some movie channels will be running war pictures all weekend long.  I've noticed that this film is getting a real running this year.

This movie is one of my all time favorite films, and it has been since I was a child.  I recall that for many years the movie was played on a Denver television channel on New Years Day, without interruption, sponsored by Lloyd's Furs.  What the movie has to do with New Years I have not a clue, and I doubt that it has anything to do with it at all, but the fact that this was a type of big deal says something about how well respected the film was, and is.

The Longest Day is the movie version of the book by Cornelius Ryan.  The Irish born Ryan was a war correspondent during World War Two and turned towards writing a series of histories of the war thereafter.  He wrote a total of three books on the war, all of which are truly excellent, and all of which are written in the same style which primarily focus on first person recollections by the participants. 

The movie treatment of his 1959 book came out in 1962 and featured a huge star studded cast, which it would almost have to have, given that it is, after all, a series of recollections.  Filmed in black and white so that it had the appearance of a newsreel to some degree, and using a small bit of original footage, the movie excellent portrays the events of the Allied invasion of Normandy in 1944 from both the Allied and the German prospective.  It's a great film.

So nothing to complaint about, right?

Well, sadly no.

As great as this film is, it suffers in one significant manner, particularly post Saving Private Ryan.  Material details are somewhat lacking, mostly in the category of uniforms. 

That may seem like a minor matter, and it is, but this film really blows it in terms of American uniforms.  It's way off.  Part of this was likely because it was being filmed in black and white, and all military uniforms have a drab appearance.  My guess is that another reason was that the sheer size of the caste deterred the filmmakers form having that many period uniforms recreated where they could avoid it.  Indeed, that they knew in part that they were getting them wrong is oddly demonstrated by the uniforms of a few key characters where parts of the uniform details were obviously detailed to try to get a correct appearance. 

Almost all the US soldiers in the film are wearing field uniforms that are correct for when the movie was made, in 1962.  Not for when the film is set, 1944.  In a few odd instances 1962 period jackets have been somewhat reworked to try to look like the paratrooper uniform of that period, but it's pretty obvious that's what's been done.  More oddly still, however, US troops are shown wearing khaki shirts of various patterns under their field jackets, which is completely incorrect.

Not that this should be hugely problematic for most people watching the film.  But for those detail oriented, it is a bit frustrating.  It's still a great film, however.

Taking on ISIL

 

 Bedouin in Palmyra, early 1940s

ISIL has taken Palmyra, a Syrian city with spectacular Roman ruins from the first century.  The global fear is that what time and weather have not done, which is to erase Palmyra from the face of the earth, ISIL, under its extreme interpretation of the tenants of Islam.  So extreme, in fact, that some time ago it issued a disapproval of important Islamic features in Mecca.

No ruin is worth human lives, but there is a bigger question at work here.  And what that is, is this. Should we (the Western World) take on ISIL?

I think we have to.

The reason I think we have to, is that it is taking on us, and what we have to determine is how much ground we're prepared to lose before we can't tolerate losing any more.

I think there's been a very widespread assumption in the West that ISIL is so nutty that it will fail on its own accord. That might be true, long term, and it probably is true, but we have to ask, as part of that, how much damage are we willing to endure in the meantime. And as part of that we have to acknowledge that really nutty ideologies can be hugely attractive, even if nutty. Nazism was both evil and full blown whacky, and I think a lot in the developed world assumed that such an evil, nutty, ideology would fail in such a civilized nation as Germany. It probably would have, but left unchecked that probably would have taken decades. Communism provides another example. Soviet Communism never made any sense at all, but it did manage to make a 70 year run in the Russian Empire, killing millions in the process.

ISIL may look minor in comparison with either of those, but I'm not so sure it really is. It's proven that it actually can exhibit state craft, perhaps at least as effectively as the actual sovereigns in the region in some instances. It's gone from being a radical Islamic militia to an actual army that's not terribly badly equipped, in the regional context. That army seems to be able to hold its own and even defeat the Iraqi army, and to hold its own and occasionally defeat the Syrian army. It's administering a government in the areas that it's captured, and right now it probably controls more ground that the governments in Baghdad and Damascus do. We don't notice it much here, but it's ideology seems to having a real impact in the Islamic regions of the former USSR where there's an ongoing problem of young men being drawn into it and leaving to fight in Iraq and Syria. It's pretty clear that immigrant Islamic populations in Europe have some people who go back and forth into it, and its hardcore Islamic message has proven attractive enough to some in the Western world that there are converts who are drawn into it. In some ways, what we're seeing is sort of analogous to Communism in the 20s and 30s, when it was really attractive to certain groups and during which it seemed to be expanding.

I don't think we can ignore it in the West, therefore, as I think there is a real risk that it'll win in both Iraq and Syria. If it does, it's not going to be content with that and we'll have to deal with an incredibly violent, aggressive, rich, regime that would be hugely problematic to the entire region, and which would sponsor some violence well beyond its borders. The questions is, I guess, what to do.

And as part of that problem, we have to acknowledge that this is a religious war. We don't want it to be, but because our opponents conceive of it that way, it is.

I'm sure I don't have the solution, but what I think we probably have to concede is that this might be a long one. But we probably also have to strangle ISIL in the cradle of Iraq and Syria right now in the hopes that kills it off. The Iraqi army appears completely worthless, and the only fighting force worth its salt seems to be the Kurds. I don't think any Western nation, ourselves included, are willing to put boots on the ground. The only regional one that clearly is, is Iran, and that presents its own problems.

Pretty grim situation.

The Big Picture: Prairie Scene

Holscher's Hub: Prairie Scene

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Converse County Courthouse, Douglas Wyoming

This is the Converse County Courthouse in Douglas Wyoming. This modern office style building houses all of the principal offices of Converse County, as well as one of the four 8th Judicial District courtrooms.

The Converse County War Memorial is located in the lobby of this courthouse.

My annual spring cold has arrived. . .

and I feel miserable.

Most people associate colds with winter.  But I'll go years with no wintertime cold.  Not so spring, I get a spring cold every darned year.  Must be something about the unpredictable weather or something.

From the phenominally bad idea department: M J Wright: Chickenosaurus lives

Chickenosaurus lives!

I'd note that there are a lot of bad ideas that seem to float around in the genetic modification department now days, everything from this step back towards dinosaurs to trying to revive mammoths.  Studying this stuff is fine, but we seem to have utterly no restraint on implementing whatever bad ideas we come up with.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Matthews Church, Gillette Wyoming

Churches of the West: St. Matthews Church, Gillette Wyoming:

The paused that refreshed.

 

Fountain for horses, downtown Denver. These were placed by the National Humane Alliance, an organization that put the up for urban horses all over United States.  They were concerned about the conditions that working horses worked in.  The draft horses are, largely, gone, but the fountains remain.

Blog Mirror: Wheels That Won The West: Studebaker Aluminum vs. Ford?

Studebaker Aluminum vs. Ford?

(Over)acclimating to technology

One of the things that gets cataloged here a lot are technological changes.  How technology, specifically computer technology, has worked a change in my own daily life became abundantly clear to me this pat week. Frankly, I don't think all of the changes are universally good either, which may seem surprising for somebody who is running a blog.

 Amishman, 1940s.  The Amish are a well known North American religious group (Anabaptist) that have restricted their use of technology. Widely misunderstood, the religious concept at work has to do with the use of things that would reduce a human's humbleness and therefore their focus on devotion.  As we become more and more technological, the more a person has to wonder if the Amish don't really have it right on at least recognizing that technology may offer, at some point, as many dangers as it does benefits.

For one thing, this is a new computer.  This computer came about as I recently went from a Pentax K-x to a Pentax K-3.  It's a great camera, but I'm frankly still learning how to use all of its features, and as it's a fairly complicated camera, I probably never will.  Be that as it may, I like it.  And part of the liking it is that not only can you take really good pictures with it, but you aren't leased to film, the way we were with earlier film cameras.

However, because of certain new features in it, it wouldn't work with my old computer, which was truly ancient.  It was in the category of PC's that had an operating system that was supposed to be updated some time back, as it was no longer supported by Microsoft, but as it was working, and as computers are expensive, I didn't do it.  Well, I finally had to as the software for the K-3 was not supported by the old operating system. So one technology lead to another.

That meant, for a variety of reasons, that I was without a home computer for about a week.  That should have been no big deal, but it was oddly unsettling.  This was, in no small part, because I've grown used to checking the computer early in the morning, when most of this stuff is written, and also checking it sometimes in the evening as well.  In other words, I've become habituated to that, and anything you are habituated to you do in place of something else.

Indeed, anything that you are habituated to, you are dependent upon to some degree.  I could easily live in a house with no television, and I only listen to the radio while in a car (although now I frequently listen to podcasts, which is another habituation) but the computer I really noticed not being here.  Not good, in some ways.

Taking this further, last weekend I was in Denver.  I'm not really keen on Denver, but I was there with my family and we went to REI, the big outdoor sports store.  REI has a great store, and a great catalog.  I first became acquainted with both through a college friend, who was a big outdoorsman (and still is).  We went down to Denver, probably in 1983 or 84, and went to REI, which we did frequently thereafter.

At that time, REI was in one of the neighboring towns around Denver, not Denver proper, although where one begins and the other stops is questionable.  Most people would have said we were in Denver.  At any rate, it was in what had been built as a grocery store at the time, but it was amazing, or perceived that way in any event.

Now, REI is in Denver, in a trendy nice area near the aquarium, and it's new bigger store is in a building that had been built as a power plant a century ago.  It's a nice store, but visiting it just doesn't have hte same excitement it once did.  There may be a variety of reasons for that, including that I"m just older, but while there I texted (technology again) my old friend and noted that I was there, and that it just wasn't as exciting as it had been back when.  He texted back that "the internet has ruined the experience".

 Spacious interior of the current REI outlet in Denver.

I hadn't thought of that, but I really think he's right.  It has.  Not completely, but partially.

Now, when you want something, there's none of the sense of scarcity of the item  or the wonderment in finding it.  In a way, of course, that's good.  But at the same time, there was something sweet about finding what you wanted, or even what you liked but didn't know you wanted, and which was difficult to get.  The effort, or just the surprise, meant something.  Now, that's all gone.  In its place, we look up everything on the net and know its whereabouts right away.  Again, that's not universally bad by any means, but it has given us a false sense of super abundance that makes us less appreciative of anything we have or seek to acquire.  That would include, I feel, even the acquisition of knowledge, as now we just "Google it".

While in Denver, as I have several times recently, we made frequent use of the Google Maps navigation feature which allows for voice directions.  This is a nifty feature, but I've found its had a direct impact on my sense of place and direction, both of which have always been very good.

I've always been able to navigate my way around any place, including any city, simply by looking at maps and mentally planning a route.  Now, because of Google Maps, I frequently don't, just having my Iphone do the work.  I've found that this has actually messed significantly with my sense of place and direction, as when I depart from it, I don't have a real good sense of where I am.  Usually, if I go to a place once, I know how to get there, but now it would seem this is less certain.  I don't like it.

Fortunately I can get back to normal simply by not using it, but it was disturbing to see how very quickly I'd become acclimated to it. This is particularly disturbing as I feel that this is one of the many technological things that has the impact of taking us a bit further from the natural world, really, which as I noted the other day has the impact of creating a world that's contrary to our natures.

All in all, while technology definitely has its benefits,  I do question if we can reach the point where it's overall detrimental to us.  Indeed, I think we may have already done that.  We don't have a really good history of self restraint.  Most of us will not take the view of the Amishmen, and it risks making us less in tune with where we are, or even who we are.  Indeed, an entire younger generations doesn't notice where they are or who they are with at any one time, as their heads are buried in their phones.  This trend is not only negative, but to paraphrase from Pogo, we have met the enemy, and its our technology.  Not completely, yet, but partially.