Bundy's, go home and go away.

The last thing ranchers need, and residents of the West need, is some ill thought out occupation of Federal property anywhere.

It's going to hurt us.

And it is hurting us.

Okay, for those living in a cave (probably on public land), the Bundy's I'm referring to to are the ranchers in Nevada who were involved with a standoff down there regarding their use of the public domain without compensation to the Federal Government.  One member of that family now figures prominently in a standoff on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in unwanted support to some ranchers in that locality who got into trouble with the law due to a fire.

I'm not going to go into the background on the underlying incidents, but the thought that some have that occupying Federal property is going to end up with it being "given back" to the states is delusional.  On the contrary, the far more likely result is to bolster those who would kick ranchers off the Federal domain entirely.

Now, there are a lot of ranchers who rely on the Federal domain, and I've gone into the ill thought out nature of this movement before, including just about one year ago.    The entire "take back" the Federal domain movement is a phenomenally bad idea.  And tossing ranchers off the domain would also be a terrible idea, and very unjust.  

But acts like those by the Bundy's serve to boost that sort of idea.

Indeed, it's getting the fires burning again on an idea that seemed to have died down a bit recently, as the economy in the West starts to collapse due to the collapse of coal, gas and oil prices.  That the big bad Federal government isn't stopping oil production and exploration, and that the Saudis are, is now pretty evident.  Also evident is that we here in this state have a budget we can't afford now, and ironically only government spending, in part Federal, is keeping us from having an economic collapse. We weren't hearing much about this movement recently.  Indeed, local sportsmen, who vastly outnumber ranchers, tend to be quite unhappy about this movement in general, and one Wyoming legislator who backed a bill to study it kept that fact out of his annual "this is what I did in the legislature" newsletter.  That legislator is now running for Congress now, I'd note.

And so is one Rex Rammell, a veterinarian who recently relocated from Idaho who is on the "take back" side of things and proclaiming it.  Chances are that he's vastly overestimated his chances of success in a Wyoming election, but the fact that this is now being interjected into a Wyoming campaign is both interesting and bad.  For one thing, if this gets rolling again it'll tend to revive the split in the GOP that was so evident in the last general election, which they don't need, and the state doesn't need either, given that the GOP is effectively the only party here in the state right now (although the split in the GOP has lead to a tiny, but real, slow revival in the Democratic Party).

With the state sliding into an economic crisis and not having any money to spare anyone who believes that "ownership" doesn't turn into "let's sell a few things" is deluding themselves.  Indeed, it's a short step from budget deficit to sale.

It's also a short step from "we're being abused" to looking like spoiled children.  The overwhelming majority of ranchers who lease land from the Federal Government do so without complaint or problem.  But it is public land.  Occupying it goes over as well with most people as occupying an apartment building over a rent dispute would.  I.e., that doesn't engender love from the landlord.

Bundy's.  Go home.  And go away.

Wheat, War and Export Economies

Prior to World War One, 42% of the globe's wheat was grown in Russia.

42%.

 Russian wheat warehouse, 1904

World War One ended that.

 Russian POWS, World War One.

With the war, the global means of transporting Russian wheat were severely disrupted.  Germany, which depended on Russian wheat, was at war with Russia.  The United Kingdom depended upon it too.  And Russia, whose wheat distribution system was designed for export, not internal consumption, had neither the means to export it or internally consume it, in spite of a war requiring the consumption of vast amounts of foodstuffs.

 

So the United States, Canada and Australia stepped into the breach.  In the case of the United States and Canada, that was often down through the endeavors of immigrants from Russia, who knew how to grow wheat on plains and steppes.

That sparked a wheat boom in Canada and the United States, as would be and actual wheat farmers flooded the prairie to grow wheat.  That cemented Canada, the US and Australia as major wheat producers, but it also set up the wheat growing belts of those countries for economic disaster during the Great Depression.  Russia, for its part, is still a major wheat producer, but it never returned to its former globally dominant status.

Movies in History: The Revenant

 Newspaper article with C.M Russell depiction of the attack of the bear upon Glass. This depiction is probably more correct than any depicted in film.

This movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio is currently touring, and as anyone following movies knows, its a fictionalized telling of the legendary grizzly bear attack upon trapper Hugh Glass and his subsequent abandonment by his companions. Glass, by any measure, has to be one of the toughest men who ever lived.

So how does the movie hold up, in terms of history?

Well, not bad, but not perfect.

Still, better than the 1971 Man In  The Wilderness, based on the same event, by a long margin, and quite good in some surprising ways.

Okay, let's first look at the real life Glass.

Glass was a frontiersman born in the Province of Pennsylvania, ie., colonial Pennsylvania, in 1780.  1780 is obviously rather late in the colonial period, as the Revolution was well under way at that time, but it is relevant in the context of exactly how early of Western frontiersman Glass was.  Glass was born at a time when the British could claim him as a subject, as could the fledgling United States.  His parents were Scots Irish from Ulster, putting him in a demographic that supplied a lot of frontiersmen.  His early history is murky, but he seems to have moved West, perhaps to Texas, while still a young man and he married a Pawnee woman at that time.  He was even part of a Pawnee delegation that met with met with representatives of the United States in 1821.

A year later he is to be bound with the Ashley Henry Party, a very significant enterprise undertaken by the Rocky Mountain Fur Company which has just been the subject of a post on Wyoming Fact and Fiction.  Rather than try to go into the history of that enterprise, I'll just refer the reader to that post, which was just made the the other day.

Glass became famous, of course, as he was badly mauled by a grizzly bear on the Grand River in present day South Dakota in 1823.  Indeed, he was already a wounded man at the time that occurred, as he'd been shot that prior May in a raid by Arikara's upon the party's camp, but he'd apparently recovered in the intervening months.  Badly injured he was expected to die.  Thomas Fitzpatrick and a young Jim Bridger were left behind to stay with him, but left him for dead, later claiming they were attacked by Arikara's and had to retreat from the location. At any rate, the left Glass, who managed to revive himself sufficiently, in spite of being in horrible condition and having a broken leg, who made it 200 miles down river to Ft. Kiowa.

A truly amazing story, the details of which make it much more amazing than the short synopsis I've provided here.

Well, how does this compare, in terms of history, to the film The Revenant?

First let me note that simply as a film, The Revenant is very well done.  Filmed with all natural light in spectacular scenery, the film stands out as a very good film. That doesn't make it good history of course, but it should be noted. This is all the more the case as some of the film is quite surreal, and intentionally so, something that a popular movie very rarely gets away with.

Okay, having noted that, let's take a look at the film in history. The film gets some things right, indeed very right.  In other places it departs significantly from the true history of of the story and in some ways that are fairly significant.  Let's look first at what the movie gets right.

In terms of material details the film is very well done.  The weapons in the film are period correct.  This includes not only the flintlock rifles and pistols, but also the edged weapons.  It also, and quite correctly, depicts traditional Indian weapons in use at the time, and in use very effectively, which is not always the case in films depicting this period.  A scene depicting an Arikara attack early in the film does a very good job showing high volume of fire on the part of the Native Americans, which is something that is well accounted for in the historical record.

Even more amazing, the details concerning animal use and consumption throughout the film are unabashedly shown and shown correctly.  Film has always been bad about demonstrating this and over time as people have become more and more squeamish about real life and nature this has continued to be the case except as to humans themselves. But the fact that all the populations depended upon hunting to survive, that this is a trapping party, etc., is shown very realistically.

The use of boats by parties on tributaries of the Missouri is also nicely depicted.  

Clothing is done well as well, showing a mix of Euro-American clothing and animal skin clothing, but in a worn fashion and by subjects who are often dirty from living outdoors.  In older films attempting to depict this, and particularly on television, the subjects are often depicted as being absurdly clean, which is not the case for people who live continually outdoors.

As an odd detail, Glass was in fact nicknamed "The Revenant" following his return, that term applying to people who have returned after a long absence or from seeming death.

So, all in all, very well done on material details.

So where does the film do poorly?

A notable departure from historical reality is that events in this film seem to take place pretty uniformly in the Fall and Winter and in high Rockies.  In terms of appearance, it would appear that most of the events depicted take place in the Canadian Rockies.  In reality, however, this expedition was very wide ranging and while it did range into the Rockies, Glass was attacked in rolling country in South Dakota, territory that is nothing like the Rockies in terms of appearance.  A lot of the terrain shown in the film is spectacularly wet, if not covered by snow.

Indeed, the bear attack scene in the film takes place in something that's very obviously bordering on a temperate rain forest, while in reality the bear attack occurred on the Great Plains.  It's hard to grasp for modern audiences that grizzly bears were a plains animal, but they were. The attack is depicted correctly in terms of it being done by a mother grizzly with two cubs, however.

In terms of Glass' six week trip while horribly wounded, the trip was both more arduous and less.  In the film Glass encounters continual stress from hostile Indians and engages in some amazing physical feats.  A few of those are in fact based on actual incidents, including feeding on a buffalo killed by wolves.  But for the most part Glass, while suffering immensely, was aided by the Indians he encountered.  His trip was additionally partly by raft, although it was partly early on by crawling.

Which gets to the more arduous part.  In reality, Glass was not only mauled by the bear, but sustained a broken leg in the attack, which he set himself.  He also had to contest with the threat of infection, which he attacked by allowing maggots to eat the dead portions of his flesh.  

Perhaps more significantly in terms of the history of his ordeal, the human elements inserted in the film depart from reality in some significant ways.  He was at a camp attacked by Arikara's, and indeed lost his life in an Arikara attack ten years later, but that attack was some months prior to the bear incident.  He wasn't traveling with a son.  Jim (Jeb in the film) Bridger was one of the men who abandoned him, but when Glass tracked him down he forgave him for having abandoned him.  He more or less did the same thing with Thomas Fitzpatrick, who wasn't the lout described in the film, and who went on to have a role in negotiating at least one Indian treaty later on.

A peculiarity of the story, which must come from the plot line of the novel, is to provide a rationale for the Arikara attack in the form of an Arikara chieftain's daughter having been kidnapped by white trappers. We later learn that the kidnappers are a party of French trappers show are generally shown to be less than reputable.  This is a bit peculiar as its the only film I've seen in which French trappers are cast in a negative light, and in reality they generally had fairly good relations with native populations.  The Pawnee are shown in a positive light, which is at least a break from the treatment they generally get in film for some odd reason.

All in all, it's a good film, and of course it is a work of fiction, just based on fact.  The positive points, from an historical prospective, are quite good.  The areas where the film doesn't hold up will not bother most audiences, but they might irritate the historically minded viewer.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Related Pages:

Movies In History: The List

Unsolicited Career Advice No. 7: Should I enter the service?

Now that's a risky one.

Unlike other careers, the service basically exists for one reason. And that is to kill people and break things.

Now, I'm not a pacifist by any means.

 Me, in 1987.

But I'm not unrealistic either.  I know why we have an Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

To fight.

And when we fight, some of us get horribly injured and killed.  A person has to be realistic about that.

Now, I also know that there are a lot of servicemen today who are very unlikely to ever see hostilities of any kind, due to their role in the military.

But I also know that we're in a long, protracted, guerrilla war with a dedicated opponent who has a demonstrated capacity to hit us about anywhere.  So, everyone is exposed, and servicemen more than most.

I also know that the service can offer training in areas that have civilian application.

But not all military careers do.

U.S. Army Rangers in training in World War Two, with British sailors.  This photograph is unusual as it shows U.S. troops in Europe with the old World War One style helmets, meaning this photograph was likely taken in 1942.

And, also, when you sign up, you are committed for a period of years.  That's fine if you like what you are doing (and I generally liked what I was doing in the  Guard for most of the time I was in), but if you don't, that's a bad deal.

And some aspects of service life are boring.

A person who lacks maturity and discipline can obtain it in the service.

But as Kipling informs us about Tommy Atkins, soldierly associations do not necessarily encourage virtue either.

So, think carefully.

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: The Ashley-Henry Party Opening the West

Wyoming Fact and Fiction: The Ashley-Henry Party Opening the West: In 1822,  General William H.Ashley organized the Rocky Mountain Fur Company. Of all the famous mountain men that books and movies were made...

The New Republic is put up for sale

My subscription notice for The New Republic came yesterday.

I promptly decided to ignore it.  Recently, more often than not, I haven't been reading it.  Sure, it's slicker than ever, but content wise, it just hasn't been what it once was, although the last issue had, oddly enough, a really good article on the evolution of dogs and wolves.

When the magazine turned 100 years old I posted about it and included this summation on  my views at that time:

Since that time the magazine has sold, and it's now a monthly.  It's thicker, and its resumed some of its eclectic nature.  However, perhaps reflective of my own evolution in political thinking, or perhaps reflective of the fact that many who were once regarded as "Liberals", perhaps inaccurately, in the past no longer are, as they have no home in current Liberalism, or perhaps because the magazine seems so solidly Democratic Party Liberal, rather than Progressive Party Progressive, or whatever, I don't like it nearly as much as I once did, and I never read it cover to cover anymore.  Indeed, I haven't for quite some time, probably since the mid to late 1990s.  Some issues I'll hardly read a single article from, and  in the last decade I've found at least a couple of the articles so offensive to certain views I hold, that I've thought about dropping my subscription.  It sure doesn't interest me the way it once did.

My thoughts have continued to evolve in that direction.  I pretty much decided to give my subscription up, and really at this point the reason that I hesitate to do that is that I've subscribed to it since 1986, a long time.

As noted then, the magazine sold to a Facebook some time back.  Originally he apparently claimed that he was not going to really remake the magazine so much as work towards rescuing it.  And it was already in trouble.  But he soon took to remaking it and actually sparked a staff revolt, although I wasn't aware of that until learning that it was now for sale. Writers actually walked out.  Now he's given up.

The magazine, influential though it has been (and it truly has been) has never been a money maker and, given the  mindset of the original founders of the magazine, that can hardly be regarded as a surprise.  As noted earlier, it's had its ups and downs, but the recent diversions, in my view, took it away from whatever chance it had of being cutting edge in its field.  I frankly don't think it will survive, and at this point, I really think it probably ought to have died off about a decade or so ago.

I don't think I'm going to bother to renew my subscription.

Lex Anteinternet: The economic bad news just keeps on keeping on.

From Sunday:

Lex Anteinternet: The economic bad news just keeps on keeping on.: The decline in the mineral industries was undoubtedly the biggest news story around here for last year, as I noted here earlier: Today I...

And this morning we learn that Arch Coal, the nation's second biggest coal producer, has filed for bankruptcy.  Arch operates Wyoming's Black Thunder Mine.

Women's hats. . .

there's just no explaining them.

Introverts and the law

According to the most recent ABA Journal, 60% of lawyers are introverts, a surprising statistic.

Origins Of The Jeep: Birthing A 75-Year Legend

Origins Of The Jeep: Birthing A 75-Year Legend

The economic bad news just keeps on keeping on.

The decline in the mineral industries was undoubtedly the biggest news story around here for last year, as I noted here earlier:

Today In Wyoming's History: 2015 In Review:  It hasn't been my habit here to do end of the year reviews, and indeed there are no doubt more items on Medieval history on this site than there are on the year 2015.  So, this is an exception and departure from the norm.  Perhaps it will become the custom, or perhaps not.  We will see.

This year I'm doing one, however, as this year has really been an exceptional year for Wyoming, and not at all in a good way, but in a way that has been somewhat predictable.  We entered an oil crash.

Early Wyoming oil field.

Now, oil crashes aren't new to Wyoming, but this one may prove to be unique and a watershed.  Only time will tell, but the evidence sort of eerily suggests that it might be. . .

Well, now it's 2016 and the news so far this year is headed in the same direction.

Earlier this week the Tribune revealed that Wyoming natural gas production declined 14%, a fall which was the sixth annual fall in a row for Wyoming gas.  It isn't that production is down nationally.  It's up.  It's down here, and the price is down.  Indeed, it's likely down here as production is up nationally.   Wyoming has a lot of natural gas, but so do a lot of other places in the United States.  Added to this, for various reason, coal bed methane production is really down.

Added to this, Wyoming producers are now starting to shut in wells, according to the Tribune.  That isn't a good sign, but with Saudi oil falling to $35/bbl last week, perhaps that's no surprise.

And then last week coal took another blow.

When coal started to decline in Wyoming there were a lot of local backers of the industry who maintained that "clean coal technology" would pull  the industry out of the hole, or maybe if the Federal government slacked up on one thing or another.  I haven't been hearing that recently and I think a sense of realism about these things has set in.  It must have set in within coal consuming industries themselves as we learned today that Pacific Power is backing a bill in Oregon that would require power generation to switch over from coal to gas in the Northeast.  Pacific Power is one of the largest consumers of coal in Wyoming, and if they're backing move away from coal it's telling.

Coal is already at its lowest production figures since 1986, although I don't think those 1986 amount s seemed bad at the time.  Coal exports, moreover have dropped way off, something like 40%. To add to it, coal production overseas has dropped way down, as foreign markets in some localities have switched to other fuels.  That might not seem related, but if foreign production is dropping at the same time ours is, it naturally will reflect itself in a diminished export market.

At the same time, Wyoming governmental budgets, both statewide and locally, are in trouble.  Casper appears set to have deficit spending to a degree next year, although oddly enough that didn't keep Casper from funding an above appraisal purchase of some downtown property for an anticipated civic plaza.  Perhaps the thinking is that this is a wise move in this climate, as it will encourage downtown reconstruction and innovations, which if so is an example of the sort of surprising New Dealish type of economic action that I wrote about recently here.

And locally, Wolfords Shoe Store, in business for 80 years, closed.  Business had dropped 44% over the last year as work slowed down locally, and the family that owns the store decided the time had come to close it.  The store had focused heavily on work boots in recent years, although it had always sold them.  A pair of Red Wing boots I got there lasted me for decades.  

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: Cathedral of the Holy Family, Tulsa Oklahoma

Churches of the West: Cathedral of the Holy Family, Tulsa Oklahoma:

Movies in history: Devil In A Blue Dress

There got to be enough movies that are reviewed here, in a historical context, that I began to forget which ones I had done, so I added a new page on Movies In History.  In doing that, I saw a few movies that should be added here that I've failed to include.

One of these movies is the excellent 1995 movie Devil in  Blue Dress.  Based on a novel by Walter Mosley, the film stars Denzel Washington as Ezekiel "Easy" Porterhouse Rawlins. a recently discharged black Army veteran from World War Two.  Out of work and living in Los Angeles, Rawlins takes work as a detective trying to locate a mysterious woman who is connected with two rival politicians.

Excellently done, the story presents a really nice look at the world of African Americans in the late 1940s, a time at which they were following up on a World War Two migration out of the south and into various cities. Rawlins is shown living in a black middle class neighborhood in Los Angeles that is obviously new to him, having relocated after the war to Los Angeles from his native Houston Texas.  Most of the residents of his neighborhood are blacks who are similarly from Texas.

The material and cultural details of this film are superbly done.  Everything is period correct, including the attitudes towards blacks in this less racist, but racist still, region of the country, compared to where the residents of the neighborhood are from.

Explaining the movie in greater details would entail plot spoilers, so I'll leave it at that.  Suffice it to say, this film is excellently done.  For that matter, the story is a very good one and it's a shame that this character hasn't returned to film.

World of Tanks: Inside the Chieftain's Hatch. The BT-7

These are two World of Tanks videos of the Soviet "cavalry" tank, the BT-7.



The BT-7 was a revolutionary tank in some ways, in part because its American designed Christie suspension system would be used on all World War Two generation Soviet tanks.  Ironically, the U.S. Army did not use it.



The BT-7 was classified as a cavalry tank, as the Red Army envisioned using it in the cavalry scouting role.  It did not replace horse cavalry in the Red Army, however, as horse cavalry remained in the Red Army establishment until 1953, seeing a fair amount of use during World War Two.

Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015

Some good history from surprising sources

I don't like video games, or whatever we call them now, much.

And by "much", I mean hardly at all.

I didn't really like the primitive ones that were around when I was a teenager, and I don't like them now in general.  I don't like Play Station or Xbox, or whatever they are.

Which causes this to be all the more surprising.

I found that there are some really excellent videos that have been put out by companies that have video games dedicated to armored warfare.

They're frankly excellent.

I'm stunned, quite frankly, as I never would have expected that. But they are very good.

Therefore, I'm going to start linking some in.

You'll have to be a student of World War Two or armored warfare history to really care about this at all, and that is frankly outside of the time frame that this is supposed to focus on, but they're so good, I can't help but link them in. So those will start appearing here soon.

It was. . . January 1916

Caption:  25. SAR-2, SHOWING TAILRACE REPAIRS AFTER FLOOD OF JANUARY, 1916; ALSO FLUME CONNECTION TO MENTONE SYSTEM. SCE negative no. 3904, July 13, 1916. Photograph by G. Haven Bishop. - Santa Ana River Hydroelectric System, SAR-2 Powerhouse, Redlands, San Bernardino County, CA

We brutes killed them all. . . or actually we didn't. Misplaced guilt.

This related to the item I just posted about Neanderthals and allergies, and I've posted directly on this topic, in regards to our ancient ancestors, before.  But I'm doing so again, as the way this topic has been historically treated is rather interesting. It says something, well. . . about us.  Not them

It's invariably the theory amongst any historical or scientific work written by Europeans or European Americans that our ancestors were Bad. And those Baddies killed off any other group of people that they came in contact with.  Always.

Well, DNA studies are showing not so much.

And I'm not surprised.

Perhaps the classic example of this is the long accepted story of the Anglo Saxon invasion of Great Britain.  Classically, the story is that Horsa and Hengest came in as mercenaries and saw that Britain, or at least southern Britain, was ripe for hte taking and this sparked the invasion of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes.  They came in, killed all the British save for those basically north of Hadrian's Wall and who didn't manage to hold out in Wales, and established the series of Kingdoms that became England in later years.  Some, like Winston Churchill in his classic History of the English Speaking Peoples, allowed for the survival of a British woman here and there, but not much.

 Brothers Horsa and Hengest come with the tribe, as depicted in the Renaissance.  In reality, they probably not only didn't look this calm, but they wouldn't have looked this modern, if you will, either. They probably looked a lot like what we imagine Vikings to look like, as they really weren't much different. Assuming they existed at all.  Their names, oddly, mean "horse" and "horse", and they might be allegorical.

Well, a study of DNA on Great Britain reveals that the British, including the English, are mostly truly British. That is, while that German DNA is in there, it's not in there so much.  Seems the Germanic invaders came in, or sort of meandered in really, and ultimately gained political dominance over any one region, but never gained a population dominance. And while entire tribes moved, once settled, they started marrying amongst the existing population.

Gee, what a surprise.

This is true, by the way, for the Vikings too.

Now, I'm not saying the Vikings weren't bad. They really were.  And I don't appreciate the latter day revision of them which would hold that they were a bunch of misunderstood hippies. Baloney.  They did invade, and they ultimately brought their families with them.

But, missed in the modern stories of them somewhat, their language was intelligible with the Old English of the time, and they weren't all that different in some ways.  A huge difference, of course, was religion, as they adhered to a really primitive form of the old Germanic paganism. . . for a time.

But they started converting themselves. By the last Viking invasion of 1066 their king was a Catholic monarch.  So, like the Angles, Saxon and Jutes before them, they slowly melted into the existing population. You can tell, by their DNA, where they were strong today, but the British remain the dominant British genetic contributors.

Although some British DNA, it should be noted, like Irish DNA, goes back 10,000 years.  That's right. All the way back. Showing, once again, that earlier populations were not slaughtered like people like to imagine.

Now this is becoming increasingly evident about the Neanderthals.  The popular imagination has held that the Cro Magnons, i.e., us, came in and killed the whole lot of them, because we are bad.  Well, not it appears that the populations, which weren't as different as we imagine, merged.  Some would have held that "oh they were too ugly that can't be true", but that's turning out to be less true as well.  They did look a bit different, but then existing populations do as well.  Existing populations of humans mix readily today and frankly there will come a day when the mixing is sufficiently complete that there will be no differences in human populations (i.e., no races), so why we ever thought that it was the case that no Cro Magnon began to think that some young Neanderthal female wasn't somewhat cute is beyond me.

Now, all of these examples go a ways back. But it might serve to reconsider some ideas that became very popular in the United States in the 1970s, about European Americans and their presence in North America.  At that time, the old image of heroic colonist taming a wilderness yielded to an image of savage Europeans dominating the native populations.

Now, the conquering of North America was violent. And, contrary to the popular imagination, the conquering of American east of the Mississippi was much more violent than that event west of the Mississippi. But the use of terms like genocide are really misplaced. The killing impact of disease is very real, but what is probably the case is that it was much more accidental than anything else. That isn't good, but it also isn't quite what its recently been portrayed as. And, as with the other example, populations mixed a lot more than sometimes imagined.  This is particularly true in Spanish and French speaking regions of North America, where there tended to be a lot less fighting and a lot more attraction than seems to be commonly considered.  Indeed, we should be well aware of this as it's well known that the first Spanish Indian couples showed up as early as Cortez' conquest of Mexico and even English colonial populations, which were amongst the least likely to mix in North America, started mixing right from the onset.

Rebecca Rolfe, the wife of John Wolfe.  Known better to history as Pocahontas, although that was a nickname and she had several other "Indian" names.  She married John Wolfe in 1614.

So, what's the point of this?  Well, perhaps simply a pleas that occasionally we slow down and consider human beings as human beings before getting retrospectively indignant and righteous.  It's easy to look back and condemn all of our ancestors for avarice and violence.  But truth be known, most people have always been people.  And, frankly, most people here are the product of mixed ancestries even if they aren't ware of it.  Somebody crossed that color line, cultural line and even that subspecies line at some point.  Probably a lot of your ancestors did.

And, let's give ourselves credit.  We don't always do the right thing.  But we don't have a roadmap to the future either.  And we might do the right thing more often than not.  And at least here, while it's easy to imagine everyone from our culture, as we belong to that human culture that uniquely feels guilt about itself, was a baddie.  More often than not, chances were high that what happened is that young hunter Gronk of the newly arrived Cro Magnons was invited over for aurock by the family of young gatherer Gronella of the old Neanderthals, and things went fine.

 As mundane as it might seem, scenes like this probably have a lot more to do with average human ancestry that warfare.

Neanderthals are making me sneeze. . .

Neanderthals who are in my distant family tree that is.

I've never been bothered by the thought that I likely descend partially from Neanderthals.  Indeed, I long ago concluded that the theory that Neanderthals weren't out competed, and weren't wiped out, but disappeared to, well, attraction, was likely the correct theory.  And now I'm proven almost certainly correct.

Oh, now I know, you have in mind that obsolete image of a hump backed Neanderthal, but that's no longer the correct one. We know know that while they were heavy boned and stockily built, they probably didn't look all that different from heavily boned stocky people you run into today.  Most of us don't look strongly like Neanderthals, but some of us do. And no doubt there were comely Neanderthal.

Anyhow, and not very surprisingly in  my view, it turns out that Europeans tend to have a percentage of Neaderthal DNA in their genetic makeup.  And apaprently part of that DNA is related to their immune systems, whcih are sort of turbocharged.

That's a good thing in one way, but as allergies are basically an over-response by the immune system to something, that's bad.

And as I'm quite allergic to some things, for me that's a bummer.

But, as interesting as this new information is, I have to wonder why it didn't apparently plague Neanderthals, assuming that it didn't.

Friday Farming: 7 Vintage Photos of Draft Horse Farming

7 Vintage Photos of Draft-Horse Farming:  Long before tractors and trucks, horses were the muscle of the farm. Some small farmers today are turning back to true horse power, but take a moment to travel back to a time when mechanized farming wasn't even an option...

Hot surplus item

The manual:

TM 5-646

The page in the manual:

Section II:  Coal Fired Space Heaters.

Today In Wyoming's History: 2015 In Review

Today In Wyoming's History: 2015 In Review: It hasn't been my habit here to do end of the year reviews, and indeed there are no doubt more items on Medieval history on this site t...

Is Saudi Arabia out of its mind?

Monarchies haven't fared well in recent decades and some have ended very badly.

Among those that ended badly are those that got their nations into big spats.  Anyone recall Kaiser Wilhelm II, for example?  Took his country into war in support of the Hapsburg's.  He didn't have to do that, but it ended up getting him retired to Holland.  What about the Hapsburg's, who felt that they had to pick that fight as their archduke was gunned down by a pathetic?

Or what about Czar Nicholas II.  Nicky was an absolute autocrat, and took his nation into World War One, which resulted in the Romanov's falling and his entire immediate family getting gunned down.

This past week, the Saudi's executed a prominent Sunni cleric.  The Saudis are Sunni Arabs and allied with Wannabism.  The Iranians are Persian Shiias.  The didn't like each other to start with.

What on earth were the Saudis thinking?

Now protests in Iran have broken out and diplomatic relations have been severed.

Last week, at a New Year's Party, I heard form somebody employed in the oil industry, as a joke (he was not serious), what we need is a war.

Well, we may be getting one.

A Cornucopia of Unsettling Career Advice and Commentary

 Plan for stained glass window depicting the Lamb of God surrounded by depiction of  modern professionals: architect, dentist, typist, housewife, construction worker, doctor, businessman/husband, and psychiatrist.  To what extent this culture places anything more central than money is questionable.

Some of these posts meander, and this one certainly is going to.  But that's in part because I've been experiencing both some unsettling conversations in this arena and experiencing some synchronicity regarding it as well.  So here goes.

Let's start off with a comment I recently heard.

 Lawyer, sitting, at a desk (probably in a law library). Sitting remains a lawyer constant, but trips to the law library have nearly completely vanished due to on line legal research.*`

Recently I was sitting in a deposition when the very bright young lawyer across the table, who no doubt has a bright career in the law ahead of him, commented on how he just couldn't stand to be sedentary indoors.

Eh?

And you're a lawyer?

Lawyers may try to fool themselves about it, but being a lawyer is, always has been, and always will be, a sedentary career.  Indeed, it may be growing slightly more sedentary due to the computer, although it's always been fairly sedentary.  No two ways about it. It so surprised me that I commented "well you picked a funny career then", to which the another lawyer sitting there laughed and the court reporter loudly exclaimed "yeah".  The young lawyer seemed surprised, like maybe that had never occurred to him, and even looked unsettled.

Maybe he should be unsettled, as it wasn't all that long thereafter that I discovered that the Wyoming State Bar Association has a Facebook page.  I checked that Facebook page out as, of course, I'm a member of that association, all lawyers in the state are.  It was a bit of a shock for a peculiar reason. 

Wyoming lawyers have long used a phrase coined by one of our late bar presidents, Gerald Mason, that we're "proud to be a Wyoming lawyer".  Mason was seriously distressed by all the animosity directed at lawyers and thought if we had pride in ourselves it would combat and even reverse this, or at least he said that.  He seemed to be a pretty sincere fellow, based upon what very little I knew of him, so I think he genuinely believed it.  If so, he was highly naive on that score.

Indeed, I'm probably a rarity in that I've always been skeptical of the phrase, although I'll concede that there was and is some merit to it.  If we're proud to be a "Wyoming" lawyer, that means that there's something unique about being a Wyoming lawyer, as opposed to merely being a lawyer.  I think sometimes people using this phrase really mean that they're boosting the concept that lawyers should be proud of being lawyers, and indeed a recent article in our bar association magazine struck me that way.  There may be some merit to that as well, and I've listed an impressive list of lawyers on this website with some famous, and let's be frank, some infamous characters listed on it.  Anyhow, people who says we're "proud to be [Wyoming] lawyers" usually point to all the positive things lawyers do in society.  And there are quite a few.  If we say we're "proud to be a Wyoming lawyer", that ought to point to the unique things about that status, and there are quite a few, including that our state bar has been small enough that it has encouraged collegial behavior among lawyers.  Of course, that fact that the Wyoming Supreme Court forced the Uniform Bar Exam upon the state means that we're now to the lawyer population megalith of Colorado and there's been a flood of Colorado lawyers getting admitted into Wyoming while living in Colorado.  That's changing the practice here, and for those of us who still keep using the "proud to be a Wyoming lawyer" tagline I'll suggest it's now obsolete, and probably ought to be "proud to be a UBE lawyer with a connection to Wyoming", something that is becoming increasingly accurate and which is difficult to get enthused about.*

Anyhow, that isn't really my hope, even though I retain some hope that maybe the committee that overseas the bar exam will act on behalf of the state's citizens and go back to an actual state exam, a diminishing hope, and probably a pipe dream, in which case I have no hope that the UBE won't do a vast amount of damage to the state.  My actual point is this. Mason's comments about being "proud to be a Wyoming lawyer" cutting into the negative views about lawyers were naive, and that's something that those proud folks should probably be aware of.  People hate lawyers.

Chances are, however, that Mason knew that, and his comments really meant that we shouldn't add to the perception by being part of the commentary.  Indeed, if I recall correctly, he didn't approve of lawyers circulating lawyer jokes for that reason, although it's been a long time since I've read that article.

Apparently the Wyoming State Bar is actually aware of that.  That is, that people don't like lawyers so much.  The last issue of the Wyoming Lawyer (do Colorado UBE lawyers guffaw when they get that?) has an article about the perception of lawyers from outside the law, and one of those commenting flat out states that, save for when a person needs to hire a lawyer, in which case they generally like that lawyer.  There's been more and more comments in our bar journal noting that, and also more and more noting that a lot of lawyers are apparently slipping into emotional trouble in the practice.

Which brings me back to the comment about the Wyoming Bar Association's Facebook page.  It's full of articles about lawyers in trouble with their lives and beyond that, even ones that  are really  harsh on the practice in general.  It's almost like a Caution sign for those pondering a legal career, although anyone reading it surely (or mostly) must already be a member of the bar, I'd guess.  It wasn't what I was expecting.

One article that I saw listed on that site was actually called "25 Reasons Most Attorneys Hate the Practice of Law and Go Crazy (and What to Do About it)" by one Harrison Barnes (whom one other blawg refers to as a "windbag").** Wow, that's a pretty surprising thing I think for a bar association to list on their Facebook page.  And it's a pretty surprising title in and of itself.  "Most"?  Hmmm. . . .  I know at least a couple who love their jobs and are pretty open about that, and they don't have odd malignant personalities or anything.  Most has to be an extreme overstatement.  Maybe he was trying to shock.

Still the article made me recall the conversation above, as it listed this as one of the twenty five reasons***:

They are miserable being behind a desk all day. Most attorneys spend the majority of their days trapped behind a desk. There is very little one-on-one interaction and socializing when you are under pressure to bill as many hours as possible. While television shows and movies glamorize the practice of law, most attorneys spend their time in an office, sitting at a desk, staring at a computer monitor.

That's a pretty accurate statement.

 Middle aged lawyer at his desk in 1919. . . something that middle aged, old aged and young lawyers in 2015 are doing just as much, if not more, than the subject of this photograph did.

Of course, a lot of modern professions do that, and I've commented on that on this blog before.  People truly not meant to do that, but we're building a world in which that's what everyone is going to have to do, it seems.  That's a very curious fact, as it isn't really good for us.  And I suppose that a person, in pondering careers, should consider, as my young friend mentioned above, their ability o handle that.  If they really "can't stand" to be in a chair all day, the law, and a lot of other professions, probably should be considered in that context.

Another comment that struck me

One that struck me was this comment:

They are exhausted from the constant conflict (conflict with peers, conflict with clients, and conflict with opposing counsel). The constant conflict attorneys face can take a massive toll on them. This conflict is never ending and something that drains attorneys emotionally and physically.

The same author stated, concerning the rising (or perhaps now simply appreciated for the first time a a real problem) of substance abuse:

If I were to pick you up and drop you in the middle of a war zone in the Middle East, give you a machine gun, and tell you that you had to fight there for the next 30 years, that would screw you up pretty badly. You'd want some liquor and antidepressants, and you'd be pretty sweaty and pissed off. Practicing law often feels the same way. At least in the war zone, you would know who your enemy was, and there would not be so many rules!

That's actually not a bad summary of what litigators do, and of course we should keep in mind that not all lawyers are litigators by any means.  I do think that's a factor in lawyer discontent and substance abuse, however.  Indeed, I was pretty surprised a few years ago when I completed defending a pretty hard deposition of a tough deponent, and jokingly asked the opposing lawyer if that lawyer "would like a beer" only to have that lawyer accept. We actually did have some in the office and that lawyer gladly took it, saying to me "I don't think it would be possible to practice law without beer." 

It ought to be possible to practice law without beer, and of course I know a few lawyers who don't drink at all, including a few litigators who don't.****  Frankly, I haven't known all that many lawyers who really had a substance abuse problem either, although it's apparently a rising problem.  I've written on stress and the law before, and I guess this is part of that scene.

Slipping away from the law, however, but noting that I heard the following at a party of all legal professionals, I've been a bit bothered by the western concept of career once again for a peculiar reason.  I've also written on that before.

This one comes up on a personal level, I'll note.

At this party, a friend of mine made an inquiry as to what my son's career plans are.  Oddly enough (synchronicity?) the same topic was simultaneously being explored by somebody else with my wife, which I know as I could hear her discussing it.

We don't really know what his plans are and perhaps he doesn't as well.  I have to say, at age 18 a lack of a plan worries parents but at the same time can a person rationally be expected to have one?  I'm not so sure that everyone should, and a person ought not to rush to one just because everyone thinks you should have one.

And people do think you should have one, and it turns out that they have ones for you, which is quite surprising.

Now, he tested very well on the ACT. Very well. And without bothering to do any studying for it.  So, when his ACT scores were mentioned by my wife (not me) to the above referenced friend, and it was noted that he may start off at the local community college, he was taken aback.  He was frank that a person with such high ACT scores should not do that, very much not do that, and rather should go to a major university from the onset.  Indeed, he thought about it and determined that my son should go to Georgia Tech to major in engineering.

Maybe he should major in engineering, and maybe he should go to Georgia Tech (about which I know nothing at all), but that raises an interesting aspect of Weltanschauung that hard for almost anyone in this society not to have, including myself. That is, in the western world (and my friend here is a European immigrant from one of the highly ordered European societies) there is a very strong concept that a person should exploit academics and then career to the maximum possible extent, even if that means leaving the place of their birth and all they know.

Why is that?

As far as I can tell, the only thing that's based on is a concept of money.  The general idea seems to be that a person should make as much money as they can.  It's a really primitive instinct and it probably derives from the idea that we need to keep the wolf from the door. But it's a particularly pronounced cultural concept, in my view, in Protestant societies.  By that I do not mean that only Protestants have it, that would be completely and utterly false, but it's a cultural aspect of those societies and generally held by nearly everyone in them, without any question of its correctness whatsoever.*^

And it's not as if its devoid of any rationality. There is some.  It's well proven that money won't make a person happy, but poverty sure doesn't help that situation much either. At least a little monetary surplus helps keep some anxiety at bay, unless a person is irresponsible with money.

But the acquisition of it can lead a person into areas that they would otherwise not naturally go.  Its stated by some that a person can't be a monetary success unless he loves what he's doing but the evidence of that is quite poor, and at least by my historical and personal observation the opposite is true in at least some cases.  A lot of people do well, at least for a time (whether they can indefinitely is another matter) doing things that they would rather not.

Indeed, I'd argue that this is responsible for one of the things that is constantly noted in articles like the one linked in above.  People start to compensate for their discontent, with some of that surplus money, with things that lead them into trouble.  According to Mr. Barnes, whose article is cited above:

Here are some incredible statistics:

• The American Bar Association estimates that 15-20 percent of all attorneys are alcoholics or suffer from substance abuse problems. Jones, D. (2001). Career killers. In B.P. Crowley, & M.L. Winick (Eds.). A guide to the basic law practice. Alliance Press, 180-197
   
• Lawyers have the highest rate of suicide of any profession. Greiner, M. (Sept, 1996). What about me? Texas Bar Journal.
   
• Lawyers have the highest rate of depression of any profession according to a John Hopkins' study of 100 professions. Occupations and the prevalence of major depressive disorder. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 32 (11), 1079-1087.

Pretty grim.  I think, however, that the last two items are statistically incorrect, and actually dentist have a higher rate of depression and suicide than lawyers do.

All the dentist I've every met, and I've known a lot as my father and one of my uncles were dentists, seemed to be a happy lot but obviously not all are.  Indeed, maybe only the upset in any profession draw attention.  However, I will note that dentist do suffer from some of the same liabilities that lawyers do, namely that people are pretty vocal to express their discontent with the entire group of them and at the same time complaint about their fees, etc.  Like lawyers, they make a lot less money than people believe that they do and they tend to have massive overhead.  Oddly, at the same time, it's a profession that, like the law, people from the lower middle class have pushed their children towards for a long time.  My father got into it in his own, like I did with the law, but college in general was something he was reluctant to do but for a big push from my grandmother.  His father owned a meat packing company and died young.  My uncle's father was, I believe, a construction worker.  One of my father's good physician friends, I'd note, came from a farm in Nebraska and other dentist friends had fathers who were, respectively, a railroad worker and a miner.

Which brings me back to community colleges for a moment.

My father attended the local community college, Casper College.  He did so as his mother wanted him to.  He was employed at the post office at the time, after the death of my grandfather, and his basic plan was to stay there.  My grandmother recognized that he undoubtedly had the intelligence to advance in university and she urged him to do so.  He was the single most intelligent man I've ever met and that was obviously apparent to my grandmother.  He started off in engineering and then went right from Casper College to the University of Nebraska, after a brief stop at Creighton which he didn't care for.  So, he did well, as we've been using the term, by Casper College.  And he's not the only one of his generation around here who did.  And who still does.

Indeed, recently I spoke to a lawyer about a decade younger than me who related to me that he'd started off at Casper College, in education.  He related that it was his opinion that if he hadn't have started there, he ultimately would not have graduated from university, in his opinion.  His father was a mechanic, I'll note.

Likewise, I've often suspected that if I hadn't have started off in Casper College I may have not made it far in post high school education.  Indeed, my earlier college career strongly suggests that to me.

I had no plans at all of going to Casper College at the time that I graduated from high school.  When I was in my senior year of high school, my vague thoughts were that I'd go to the University of Wyoming and major in Wildlife Management.  Like my son, I tested well on the ACT and my mother told me I could go anywhere I wanted, which frankly baffled me as I'd never thought of going outside the state.  Indeed, she darned near scared me by suggesting that I could go anywhere, in part because she cited the example of an older cousin who was going to a very prestigious university and whom I thought of as a really good student.  I didn't think of myself that way and probably regarded myself as an indifferent student.  I don't know that I really was, but I didn't have any developed study habits and therefore must muscled through high school on what I liked or what I needed to learn, when I needed to learn it.  I'd become a student, really, in college and university, a habit that became a personal character trait that's never left.*****  Anyhow, I declared then that UW was where I was going, which seemed to disappoint my mother a bit.

Shortly after that, or perhaps before that, I had my ACT scores as noted and also had to take some sort of personality career test, one of the very few and fairly pathetic things the school district did here at that time to attempt to help students find a career.  Wildlife Management was mentioned and my plan was loosely fixed, sort of. My idea was to go to UW and major in that while enrolling in ROTC, as I also wanted to see if a career in the Army, another outdoor profession (I believed) might be for me.  If it was, I figured I could do that for twenty years and then retire, and enter the Game & Fish here.  If it wasn't, I could do four years and come back and work for the Game & Fish. The concept that I wouldn't get hired by the Game & Fish didn't really occur to me, oddly enough.

I mentioned that to my father, who replied that there were a lot of people around here who had Wildlife Management degrees and no jobs.  That was all the more he said about it, but he so rarely gave advice of that type that any time he did, I listened.  Indeed, I don't ever recall ignoring his advice on such topics, which was always very rare.  That was enough to deter me from majoring in Wildlife Management and I decided instead to major in geology, which was an outdoor science that I was good at in high school.  It might be the case that avoiding  a career with the Game & Fish saved me from disappointment as a game warden later told me that he didn't get out hunting much as he was always working during the season, something that would seem self evident I guess, but which didn't occur to me at the time. That same sentiment is contained in an interview by Brett McKay, of the Art of Manliness, of his father Tom McKay, who was a New Mexico and later Federal game warden.  In that interview he relates:

9. What is the biggest misconception people have about the job?

The biggest misconception is that game wardens spend all their time hunting and fishing. The good wardens and agents have no time for this as they are in the field managing the other nimrods out there during hunting season. I hunted and fished much more before I became a game warden, not at all after I became one.

I would have had a hard time with that.

I did make it down to UW and I did obtain a degree in geology, but I didn't go down right away.  I enrolled in UW and went down to orientation.  Something about it turned me off right away.  It might just have been the hugely unfamiliar environment.  We were supposed to stay in the dorms and the crowd of people there, for an only child and solitary introspective personality was too much, and I backed off that very day.*~ I went home and announced I was going to Casper College.*~~ The very next day I went down and enlisted in the Army National Guard as I felt not starting off in ROTC would be disingenuine.  Joining the National Guard was one of the very best post high school decisions I ever made.

 

Me, as a Sergeant in the Wyoming Army National Guard in South Korea.  My parents weren't happy about me joining the Guard, but it was one of the absolute best post high school decisions I ever made and I have no regrets about doing it at all.

Going to Casper College may have saved my entire academic career.  My mother was very ill at the time and I lived at home.  In the afternoons when I didn't have class I went hunting or fishing.  In retrospect it was the freest I have ever been.  I got into the swing of studying at the post high school level and when I went to UW two years later I was ready for it.  In the meantime I'd learned that I didn't think I wanted a career in the military and my desire to experience that had been satisfied by the National Guard, indeed it'd last beyond that as my enlistment period of six years took me all the way though my undergraduate career. 

Would I have made it through university if I hadn't have gone to Casper College?  I don't know. Maybe I would have, but even during that first two years there were times when I wanted to quit pretty badly and acknowledge my desire to do so, although even now I'm not quite sure why I occasionally harbored those feelings.  On one occasion I recall even asking my father to ask a sheep rancher friend of his if they had any jobs, which would have been a turn in a much different direction, had it lasted, to say the least (that ranch long ago sold).*~~~   By the time I went down to UW however the urge to quit was behind me and it never occurred to me again.

Would my father have gone at all if it hadn't been there?  I don't know that either, maybe he would have.  It's hard to say.  But I can't sneeze at community colleges.  Indeed, as earlier mentioned in a post on this blog, at least actor Tom Hanks feels that he wouldn't have made it through university but for starting at a community college first.

 

Casper College geomorphology class, 1983.  This was the last Casper College class I took in my path towards a Bachelors of Science, and I already had just obtained my Associates when I took it. Technically it was a University of Wyoming class.  Of the individuals depicted, three of us I know went on to UW but only one other went on as a geology major, a good friend of mine who I am still in contact with today.  The professor remains at Casper College to this day.

Circling back around, a crash in the oilfield, much like the one we're experiencing right now, left me unemployable without after I graduated with a geology degree and I ended up in law school a year later.  I'd first contemplated the law, however, as far back as Casper College, when it became evident that I'd probably have to go on to grad school in order to find a career in geology.  I did take the Graduate Records Exam as well as the LSAT, and did well in both, and took the law route.*~~~~

 

Classroom in the S.H. Knight Building, the geology building, at the University of Wyoming, 1986.

Which oddly enough brings me back to this topic.  Recently a dental hygienist, asking my son's career plans, suggested that as his father was a "famous" lawyer, he could go on to law school and then capitalize on the last name.

Well, the thought that I'm famous is flattering, but quite inaccurate.  Indeed, if I'm famous I should be getting on television and capitalizing on my fame by hanging out with the people who are famous for being famous.  But that's not going to happen.  And unless you have a really famous lawyer last name, that's just not going to work.

But the thought that this is good advice is interesting.  Being a lawyer, in reality, is really hard, tough, work and anybody who is familiar with it probably ought to pause before recommending it to anyone.  Some lawyers I know have claimed that they'd not recommend it to their own children, although the very few I know whose have a child who is a lawyer are proud of it.  One person I know fits both of these criteria.  Of course the recommendation is based on a misunderstanding, at least in part, as to what we actually do.

 

All of which brings me back to a few points.

First of all, I think the concept that a person must maximize their economic potential deserves some serious reconsideration as part of the culture.  Not that it hasn't always been somewhat criticized.  But the idea that a person must do something as that will generate the highest income for them assumes that a high income is the highest goal, and it's pretty clear that point of view is destructive in more ways than one.  At the bottom line, just because a person can do it and make a high return doesn't mean that would make them happy.  I'd wager that there are plenty of high income people who would have been much happier doing something else, and I've heard plenty of high income people who look back on some earlier low income position as their happiest one.  Guys at their desks look back on working on family farms, or working in construction, or being a soldier in the Army, as their golden days, and not without reason.  Indeed, to at least some extent, perhaps we ought to reassess our views on this topic on a societal basis.

Which isn't to glamorize low income, as you'll sometimes find people do. Or suggest that a person can suddenly just up and have no income at all.  Not hardly.

Secondly, people should be cautious pushing a person towards a career if they aren't really familiar with it.  I have a better idea than most about a lot of careers, so I could probably do that better than most, but I don't think that's universally the case by any means.  Indeed, one of the really neat things about being a lawyer in litigation is that you get to know quite a bit about what a lot of other people do. Even then you sure don't know everything, however.  I would never have thought, for example, about game wardens not getting to do much hunting and fishing.  Some occupations we know a lot better than others, but usually because we have a close personal association with them in some fashion.

Finally, I think people should be pretty cautious about their concepts of ideal schools or institutions.  We have a very pronounced societal tendency to view certain schools almost as if they're Hogwarts institution of magic.  It's true that there are very good, and very poor, schools, but as higher education has spread in the US post war there are, quite frankly, a lot of really good schools that offer individual students an individual advantage.  A lot of people who go on to other schools start off at a community college level and beyond that quite a few graduate from universities that are very good, if not very big names.  In some occupations, in my view, such as law, some schools have acquired an inordinately revered reputation and society in general would benefit if their stars faded a bit.  It may actually be the case, in spite of all the criticism of higher education, that it's gotten so good that there are not all that many Yugos amongst the Mercedes really, except in terms of reputation, which does admittedly mean a lot in terms of later employment.

__________________________________________________________________________________

*`I'll make it the topic of another entry, more appropriate for the supposed focus of this blog, but a different comment I read elsewhere noted how the big firm expectation of a certain  number of billable hours of young associates is irrelevant in the modern context, as electronic legal research has made the practice of that sort of law so much more efficient. That is, a single lawyer can do the work of an entire team of lawyers.  Not only that, but one lawyer can research a topic in half a day that formerly would have taken days.  That person's comment noted that his superiors, all of whom had started off well before electronic research and never really learned it, didn't grasp that in his big firm, and therefore they didn't understand that what was for him a four hour project wouldn't result in 24 hours of billable time.  A very interesting point.

*Wyoming has seen a jump in applicants to its bar, but due to the UBE.

** Barnes seems to be employed as a lawyer recruiter, and the rest of his articles, to the very limited extent I've bothered to look at them, seem rather rah rah to me about the profession, so I don't know what to make of this one.  He notes that he was a drop out from the profession in this one, so its perhaps unusually candid.  If so, I don't know how to reconcile his rah rah posts and his occupation which would amount to recruiting people into something he claims drives people crazy.  Of course, maybe if I read all of them I'd feel differently, but I doubt that I will.

 ***I was going to list the full 25, and then comment on them, but it was too much of a diversionary project. Suffice it to say, I don't think all of them were all that common.

In fairness, Barnes offers solutions to his perceived problems as well, although there aren't many listed.  One of them is just to quit working and figure it out next, which strikes me as something that wouldn't be realistic for a lot of folks.

****The beloved late Gerald Mason, who coined the phrase "Proud to be a Wyoming lawyer", didn't drink and held what was, as far as I know, the only dry State Bar Association Annual Meeting.  I didn't go, but then I only rarely do.  I recall hearing some complaints about it, however.

Which isn't to say that I've witnessed a lot of lawyer drinking abuse.  I'm sure that lawyers drink more than airline pilots, but I really haven't seen a significant number of lawyers boozing it up.  Maybe I'd have to hang out more where that sort of stuff occurs, but I doubt it.  I suspect that this may be one of those areas where a lot of attention is being paid to a particular problem, but that means that attention is being paid, not that its increasing. 

*^It may mean nothing at all, but amongst European societies, it is noticeable that the ones that have not had a significant Protestant influence tend to be much less economic driven and have cultures much less focused on an individuals relationship to work..  Pretty much all of Europe and south of the Rhine would fit this category, and their work behaviors and life focus does tend to be quite a bit different.  The work ethic of France, Italy and Spain tends to drive Americans crazy to some extent.

Hillaire Belloc, I learned after writing this, was so convinced of something similar that he attributed Capitalism to the Protestant Reformation, with his analysis having some merit to it.  Belloc wasn't stating that in a nice way, as he was a Distributist and lived in the era of fairly unrestrained Capitalism.

*****While I didn't know it at the time, my parents feared in my later undergraduate stage that I'd become one of the classic "career students", a fear that was very parental on their part but actually not very well founded.  On the other hand, by becoming a lawyer, maybe that is what happened.

*~According to the same individual above who first is mentioned in this long winded essay, "introspection is my cure to bear".   Maybe.

*~~These struggles must be more common than I suppose.  I just watched the film American Graffiti for the first time in a long time and found, which I'd forgotten, that much of the film's central plot is based upon the central character struggling with whether to leave the next day for university or to attend the local community college.  He goes, his close friend who is going with him stays.

*~~~Indeed, I was practicing law when it sold and it was one of the first experiences for me on how agriculture was now really beyond the means of the common man, something that shocked me at the time, and which was a sad experience to observe.  Some out of state person bought it, something I can't help relive every time I drive through it, which I very frequently to.

*~~~~ I did well on both tests without studying for either.  Indeed, while I understand why a person would study for the GRE, it still baffles me that people actually study for  the LSAT.  The LSAT is just a logic test.  If a person can't do well on the LSAT without studying for it, they probably shouldn't enter law school.

Lex Anteinternet: Lamenting the change in the Christmas Season. . .?...

Related to this item here:

Lex Anteinternet: Lamenting the change in the Christmas Season. . .?...: I recently heard two podcasts by a fellow who was lamenting the passing of the traditional Christmas season.  I sort of like the particular...

Today is Epiphany for those using the Catholic liturgical calendar for the United States this year.  And hence, this is also the end of Christmas.

Fezziwig gets down at the Twelfth Night Party.

 

Elsewhere, for those using the Catholic liturgical calendar, January 6 will be Epiphany and hence the end of Christmas.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: First Presbytrian Church, Tulsa Oklahoma

Churches of the West: First Presbyterian Church, Tulsa Oklahoma: