Saturday, March 19, 2016

Lex Anteinternet: Marathon, Peabody and the airlines

This thread appears immediately above:
Lex Anteinternet: Marathon, Peabody and the airlines: This past week the state received the bad news that Marathon Oil Company, formerly Ohio Oil Company, which was once headquartered in Casper...
The only reason it appears here as an additional link is that there topics, or "labels", that pertain to this topic, that the system won't let me enter them all in. So, I'm adding this second item here to cover all the labels that pertain to the topic.

The existing labels in the entry above are:


 

The Bests Posts of the Week for the Week of March 13, 2016

The Necktie (and inevitably the suit somewhat as well).

Blog Mirror: Vintage Camping - Camping on All Four

We've done all sorts of vehicles; 4x4s, SUVs, trucks, etc.  But we haven't done this one yet.  The camper:
Vintage Camping - Camping on All Four: The four wheel camping experience is not a new concept. Check out these awesome vintage campers that started it all.
When I was a kid, a lot of sportsmen around here had campers, and there were a lot fewer camp trailers.  Now the opposite is very much the case.  Perhaps because when you use a camper, you use up the pickup bed as well, people have moved away from them.

We never had a camper when I was a kid, or a camp trailer either.  I always envied them as I imagined that you could head up to the hills at any moment to go hunting or fishing, and some of the families of my friends did indeed have them.  But we never did.

Upon getting older, the camper lost its appeal a bit as I couldn't figure out what you did with big game if you were hunting from a camper. Apparently others felt the same way, as there are a lot fewer of them than there used to be, but I've always wondered about their history a bit.  This article does a really nice job with them, taking us through the various odd models from 1945 forward.  

Friday, March 18, 2016

The Punitive Expedition: The Casper Daily Press, March 18, 1916


The Necktie (and inevitably the suit somewhat as well).

This an item I started on something called International Necktie Day, which is in October.  I didn't finish then, and even though I thought about timing it to automatically post on that date when it rolls back around, I decided just to go ahead and post it. 

There is probably no piece of apparel that is more useless than the necktie.  They are at best a nuisance and at worst uncomfortable, and they always have been. And yet, they're a standard part of business and formal dress, and probably because we're used to them, under certain circumstances men look odd without them, even now while they are clearly in decline.

Store display, with hand holding the tie with some trepidation, much the way many younger men do today.
Those circumstances are becoming less and less common, however. 

The origin of the necktie, in my view, is obscure.  I've read it attributed to 17th Century Croatian mercenaries and to fox hunters more recently. Whatever its origins, by the late 19th Century they'd become pretty much standard for any sort of formal dress, and indeed by the early 20th Century pretty much any man who wasn't doing manual labor, and some who were, were wearing them.  

 Man manufacturing neckties, as a cottage industry, in New York, in 1912.

When exactly they became so standard isn't entirely clear to me, but it they were around in analogous form and use as early as the mid 19th Century.  Suits of that period were not exactly the same as they would be later, and the frock coat and morning coat were quite common at the time for regular formal wear as they had not yet evolved into species of tuxedos.  The bow tie, in a little bulkier form, was quite common, but then so was the conventional necktie as well.  If they do not look quite the same it's because suits, not so much ties, had not evolved into their present form.

The "lounge suit", which is oddly enough what the current business suit was originally called, made its appearance in the mid 19th Century, but nobody really knows the full story of it.  It hit in Europe before the United States, but even here in the mid 19th Century it was around.  And it was part of a slow trend in men's wear where the somewhat informal has evolved into the formal.  Military uniforms, which will be dealt with elsewhere, very much demonstrate this trend, but business suits have followed it.  Originally the lounge suit was simply a suit that was to be less formal that something like a morning coat, so you could wear it in the evenings.  But it quickly supplanted the bulkier frock coat and morning coat and became standard men's wear.

 The victorious heads of state following World War One.  The man in the suit is Italian Vittoria Orlando, showing that, truly, the Italians have always been on the cutting edge of fashion.

And with them, of course, you always wore a tie.

By the mid 19th Century, ties were basically required for office work.  You simply do not find instances of men working in offices who were not wearing them.  I doubt very much you'd find a decently dressed man in an office by the 1880s, who was lacking a tie.

And with that came the requirement, basically, to wear them anywhere you weren't doing manual labor.  And indeed, I suspect the spread in part as an effort to show that you weren't doing manual labor.  Ties became necessary for any many who was half way well off if he was going to be doing pretty much anything that was physical labor.  And certainly, if he was going out for a night on the town, or courting, or whatever, he was going to be wearing a suit and tie.

By the early 20th Century they'd become so amazingly standard that they even appeared in costumes we would not expect.  Soldiers started being issued neckties by the early 20th Century, but you wouldn't generally see them in the field with them until the 1930s in the U.S. Army, even though U.S. soldiers were issued ties to be worn with their shirts (under their service coats) prior to World War One.  U.S. officers, as opposed to the enlisted men, were routinely wearing shirt and tie by the time the U.S. entered Mexico in the Punitive Expedition


 U.S. officers during the Punitive Expedition.  If you look carefully you can see that Col. Herbert J. Slocum, on the left, is wearing a tie.

In the British Army, they start showing up field applications with officers during World War One, as amazing, and inappropriate, as that seems.

British soldiers, World War One

Indeed, wearing a tie in combat is, truly, foolish. But it was becoming common, at least in the officer class, by regulation.  No doubt to signal that they were gentlemen.  But at least in some armies, at the same time, ties were issued universally to enlisted men as well, who might nor might not be seen wearing them in field conditions.  Almost as foolish, I suppose, was the spread of ties to policemen, many of whom still wear one.

 White House policeman, 1929.

But they'd become just generally common with even people who had outdoor occupations, unless seemingly conditions simply precluded it.

 William Fox, Underwood Photo News Service, official photographer with the U.S. Expeditionary Force in Mexico 1916.  While otherwise outfitted for rough service, and to ride, he's wearing a tie.

And so it was throughout the mid 20th Century. Even as late as 1943 one legendary U.S. general, Gen. Patton, attempted to have his men wear ties while serving in combat in North Africa, although the effort failed and even Patton conceded that point.

Patton wearing a modified B3 flight jacket with pockets and elbow patches added.  If we could see his collar, he'd be wearing a tie.  He attempted to require his enlisted men to do so in North Africa, but the effort failed.  You can bet, however, that at least senior officers not immediately in combat, if serving with Patton, were wearing ties.

Now, at some point this very obviously changed.  Go into any office today, including professional offices, and there's a pretty good chance that the men working there are not wearing ties.  Some may, and probably will be, but this is less and less true all the time. What happened.

Maybe its easier to start not with what, but when ,and go from there.  And on this, I'm pretty sure that quite a few people would link it to the turbulent changes of the 1960s.  But I tend to think that isn't wholly correct, although it partially may be.

I think tie wearing started to actually decline in one of the eras we associate the most with ties, the 1930s.

If you look through photos of the 1930s, it seems to me that it had become acceptable for men not to wear ties in some settings where they just had been as recently as the 1920s. And I think that the Great Depression brought that about.

The 1920s was the high water mark of tie wearing.  Men were wearing them everywhere you could, and in nearly every occupation that existed.  In the 1930s that slacked up a bit.  It's easy to see why, to a degree. The Great Depression made an extra useless piece of silk extra useless. But beyond that, the tie probably just didn't mean quite as much as it once did for some of the reasons we addressed back in this post:

The massively declined standard of dress (and does it matter?)

This blog notes, as we've stated many times before, changes over history. Specifically, it supposedly looks at the 1890 to about 1920 time frame, but we also frankly hardly ever stick to that.  Oh well.
Business men (lawyers) in the early 20th Century. These men aren't dressed up, they would have been dressed in this fashion every day.  Given the boater style hat worn by the man on the left, this photograph must have been taken in summer.
As we noted there:
In an earlier era, when every vocation was more "real", if you will, or rather perhaps when more men worked in manual vocations, there was little interest in fanciful dress.  For those who worked in town, at one time they desire seemed to be to show that they'd achieved an indoor status.  Indeed, some have noted that the standards of dress remained remarkably high in the 1920s and 1930s, first when many Americans started moving off of farms and into the cities, and secondly during the Great Depression, as that was the way of showing that you'd overcome your past.  The standards then carried on until they had a reason, or at least there was some sort of cause, or lack of a reason to change.
I think every bit of that is true, but that it applied a little more in the 1920s than in the 1930s. And while clothing standards were very high in the 1930s, in spite of the economic crisis, there was also just a little more slack, but just a little, on tie wearing.  Not much, but some.

After World War Two that carried on, and the tie declined first in the military, where it had been one of the late entrants.  At the start of World War Two the U.S. Army was theoretically requiring ties for field use. By mid war it clearly was not, and that was all gone by the end of the war.  In the post war era ties became less and less common with military wear in general, until they were really something associated with fairly formal wear in the Army, but more common in the Marine Corps, the latter of which is more formal in general. As an example, during World War Two we find generals typically wearing ties no matter where they were.  By Vietnam, they were wearing the same field uniforms that combat infantrymen were if they were in a combat theater.

Still, ties kept on for office wear in strength in the 1950s and really up into the 1970s and the decline really can be associated with the 1960s.  In the late 1960s menswear reacted to the clothing changes going on with young men and suits and ties became really funky.  That change didn't last all that long and it was soon followed by quite a few men just abandoning ties and suits in general. And who can blame them.  Nobody really wants to wear a fat flowered tie and a polyester suit, so the death of the standard soon followed the standard's modification.  I can remember it occurring.  My father, when I was a kid, wore a sports coat (itself a relaxed standard) and a tie down to his dental office everyday.  The tie was a clip on which itself is a concession to not liking ties but needing to.  In older photos of him in the late 50s, however, he wore a suit.  By the mid 1970s the ties were no longer being worn by dentist generally and the sports coats went as well.  The standard had changed.

And it continues to.

When I started practicing law in 1990 ties remained very common for male lawyers.  Now, most days nobody wears a tie unless they are going to court or have something formal going on. As recently as about five years ago or so ties remained standard for depositions, but now I often find myself being the only lawyer at a deposition with a tie.  A real change has occurred.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

The Punitive Expedtion: Forces reach Colonia Dublán


The U.S. Army's 2nd Provisional Cavalry Brigade reaches Colonia Dublán where the U.S. Army establishes its main base of operations for the Punitive Expedition.  The town was 52 miles south of the border and was a Mormon colony in Mexico.

The Punitive Expedition: Casper Daily Press, March 17, 1916


The Punitive Expedition: Congruess authorizes the expedition. March 17, 1916

While it was, in fact, already on, on this day Congress authorized military action in Mexico "for the sole purpose of apprehending and punishing the lawless bands of armed me" who had raided into the United States.

St. Patrick's Day, 1916 in Ireland.

Dublin battalions of the Irish Volunteers held public maneuvers under arms.  Other Irish Volunteer units did the same in other parts of the country 

The demonstrations were not universally popular with the Irish public given that a high percentage of Irish me had volunteered to serve with the British army then fighting in Europe.  They did reflect rising tensions following the extension of conscription to Ireland.  Authorities were distressed by the large number of firearms showing up in Irish Volunteer hands. 

The Irish Volunteers was an Irish militia formed to support Home Rule, should there be violent opposition to it.  Home Rule was coming on, and only the Great War had delayed it.  By this time, however, the Volunteers had been infiltrated by nationalist with their own designs, which would soon become evident.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

The Punitive Expedition: The Casper Daily Press, March 16, 1916


This may be the first one of these that was really fairly correct in that the American intervention was indeed very unpopular in Mexico.

Merrick Garland nominated to the Supreme Court

President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, age 63, to the United States Supreme Court.

I don't know anything about Judge Garland, and indeed rarely do we know anything about a Supreme Court nominee prior to his nomination.  He apparently has a reputation as being a moderate to liberal Federal Judge.  He is a Harvard Law graduate (yet again) and he clerked for the legendary Judge Herbert J. Friendly prior to clerking for United States Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan.  Brennan was a liberal Supreme Court Justice and we will likely be hearing about that if the confirmation process begins.

His remarkably older than recent nominees, which is interesting.  At age 63 this will be his one and only chance to make the Supreme Court.  He also has more experience, apparently, on the Federal bench than any other prior nominee.

Other than that, I can't comment much on him.  I would note that this is yet another instance of the Ivy League law schools having a seeming lock on the high court, which I don't think is a good thing, and its also another instance of the only people being considered being people who are currently sitting on the Federal bench in a lower appeals court.  Having said that, given the political dynamics in play, President Obama had to either nominate a sitting judge or a non controversial politician.  An attempt to do the latter seems to have been made with the vetting of Nevada's current governor, who declined to be considered.

On the politics of this, this now puts the Senate to the test.  If it declines to consider Garland it gambles on the Republican Party taking the Presidency, which is looking increasingly unlikely.  Garland is likely to be less liberal, maybe, than anyone Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, may make.  Additionally, given the extreme contentiousness of the current political season there is some question, although only sum, on whether the GOP shall hold the Senate.  I think it likely that it will, but if it fails to then the next nominee will definitely be a more liberal judge. Indeed, it is not impossible that the next justice, under that scenario, could be President Obama, following in the footsteps of President Taft.

Of course, backing down from the pledge not to consider a nominee would have political consequences, the most likely one being that it would become fodder for the Trump campaign, which is currently under siege from the Republican "establishment" and which would argue that the GOP was betraying the base.

Mid Week at Work: Resting on the march, 1916


Weary U.S. soldiers in Mexico, 1916.

Bleh.


Heart attacks and accidents have been shown to rise after the time change comes into effect.

And I don't doubt it.

For whatever reason I have a hard time adjusting to it anymore.  I never used to, but I sure do now.  It takes days for me to adjust to the time change.

Of course, I know that this is hoping against hope, but I hardly ever find anyone who is really thrilled about Daylight Savings Time.  I wish we'd dump it.

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

The economic realities hit home

It was announced today that Wyoming sustained the largest jump in unemployment in the nation.  We now have 4.7% unemployment, up form 3.8% last year.  This is due, of course, to the decline in the extractive industries.

Chances are high that his rate is actually higher, in real terms, than it might appear.  Indeed traditionally 4.7% is statistically below "full employment".  But here that 3.8% reflected a situation in which there was a labor demand, and labor as coming in.  4.7% reflects a situation in which labor is leaving, so the actual rate is higher, as people who are unemployed leave, particularly those who recently arrived.

The Punitive Expedition: The Casper Daily Press, March 15, 1916


Blog Mirror: NPR: Forget The Red Sports Car. The Midlife Crisis Is A Myth

 An interesting item from NPR:
Forget The Red Sports Car. The Midlife Crisis Is A Myth

If you've ever considered buying a red sports car or quit your job to follow your muse, if you've ever related to Lester Burnham in American Beauty, there's some good news. Midlife crisis is not inevitable, and reaching 45 is not the first step in a slow, agonizing decline. After interviewing more than 400 people, I found that midlife, while complicated, is, for many if not most people, the peak of their lives.
And sort of interesting to note that I found this the same day I posted the anniversary of Pershing's force crossing into Mexico at which time he was. . . .a fit 56.

 Pershing, age 58.

Note, however, the article doesn't claim everything at Middle Age is rosy. And note the importance of exercise (something Pershing was adamant about).

Forces under John J. Pershing cross into Mexico.

A U.S. Army expeditionary force under the command of John J. Pershing crossed into Mexico.

 Pershing in Mexico some days later.

The force was made up of 4,800 men from the 7th, 10th, and 13th Cavalry, 6th Field Artillery, the 6th and 16th Regiments of Infantry, the 1st Aero Squadron, and support personnel, with that force divided into two columns.  The western column entered Mexico from Culberson's Ranch New Mexico, entering Mexico at midnight and marching 50 miles that day to Colnia Duban.  A march of that rate remains a significant advance for an army on the march and in 1916, when the primary means of transportation was foot leather and the horse, that was a really remarkable march.

The second column crossed the borders south of Columbus with there being some legitimate fear that it might immediately encounter Carranaza's forces in hostile resistance.  In the days since the Columbus Raid Carranza had reluctantly entered into an agreement allowing U.S. forces to operate in Mexico against Villa, but the agreement was a reluctant one and it was not clear if Mexican forces would honor it.  The column technically entered at noon, but in fact entered some hours earlier.

Monday, March 14, 2016

Barker issues instructions to Funston and Pershing. The night of March 14, 1916.

 Secretary of War Newton Diehl Baker, a pacifist, who had the misfortune to serve during the Punitive Expedition and World War One, with officers.

Secretary of War Barker issued the following instructions late this day to Frederick Funston and John Pershing, requiring each to personally acknowledge their receipt, as the United States prepared to intervene in Mexico:
In the view of the great distance between the seat of Government and the forces in the field, the President regards it as of the utmost importance that General Funston and all officers in command of troops of the United States clearly understand the exact nature of the expedition of our forces into Mexico, and he therefore directs obedience in letter and in spirit to the following orders.
ONE. If any organized body of troops of the de facto Government of the Republic of Mexico are met, they are to be treated with courtesy and their cooperation welcomed, if they desire to cooperate in the objects of the expedition. 
TWO. Upon no account or pretext, and neither by act, word, or attitude of any American soldier, shall this expedition become or be given the appearance of being hostile to the integrity or dignity of the Republic of Mexico, by the courtesy of which this expedition is permitted to pursue an aggressor upon the peace of these neighboring Republics.
THREE. Should the attitude of any organized body of troops of the de facto Government of Mexico appear menacing, commanders of the forces of the United States are, of course, authorized to place themselves and their commands in proper situation of defense, and if actually attacked they will of course defend themselves by all means at their command, but in no event must they attack or become the aggressor with any such body of troops.
FOUR. Care is to be taken to have in a state of readiness at all times the means of rapid communication from the front to the headquarters of the General commanding the Department, and, through him, to the War Department in Washington; and any evidence of misunderstanding on the part of officials, military or civil, of the de facto Government of Mexico as to the objects, purposes, character or acts of the expedition of the United States, are to be reported to the Department with the utmost expedition, with a view to having them taken up directly with the Government of Mexico through the Department of State

The Punitive Expedition: The Casper Daily Press, March 14, 1916.


Movies In History: Bridge of Spies


Usaf.u2.750pix.jpg
 Lockheed U2.

This 2015 movie depicts the events that lead to the Cold War prisoner exchange of Americans Francis Gary Powers and Frederic Pryor for Soviet Spy Rodolph Abel.

Directed by Stephen Spielberg with writing by the Coen brothers, the film cast Tom Hanks in the leading role as American insurance defense lawyer James B. Donovan in a film that's remarkably faithful to the actual events.  Donovan, just as the film portrays, was selected by the Brooklyn Bar Association to defend Rudolph Abel, whose real name was William Fisher, a British born (1903) man born to a family of German Russian ex patriot radicals who had returned to Russia in 1921.  He served in various capacities for the Soviet state through World War Two and was infiltrated into the United States in 1946.  His clover was blown in 1957 after a spy colleague defected over fear of being repatriated to the USSR due to Abel's complaints about his conduct.  When he was arrested and charged the Federal Court, using a procedure that has since passed into disuse, assigned the case out to the bar for selection of defense counsel.  Donovan was chosen even though he was an insurance defense lawyer as he had experience with the US government and in particularly the OSS during World War Two.

As the movie accurately portrays, Abel served a few years of his sentence before the concept of exchanging him for Francis Gary Powers, the U2 pilot shot down over the Soviet Union, revived his importance.  At that point, as the film depicts, Donovan was brought back into the picture and the means and operations of Donovan in connection with securing the prisoner exchange are remarkably accurately portrayed.  Indeed, this story may simply be so dramatic in its own right that it needs very little in the way of Hollywood embellishment.  It's excellently done.

Like most films there are some departures from 100% accuracy, but frankly there are very, very few.  To the extent they are, the story of the exchange is somewhat condensed and the U2 aspect of the story is condensed.  The film suggests that Powers flight over the USSR was the first one that occurred, but this is incorrect.  U.S. overflights of the Soviet Union started in 1956, four years before Powers was shot down.  Indeed, at the time of Powers flight the US was beginning to conclude that the flights had reached their limit as Soviet anti aircraft capabilities were improving.  They were not believed to have reached the capability of shooting down the very high flying US yet, but they were believed to be near capable of doing it.  Powers flight was, however, the longest overflight ever attempted and it went deeper into the USSR than any prior flight.

The film also does not go into detail over Powers confinement in the USSR, which is longer than the film would suggest.  Abel was four years into his sentence when the exchange took place and Powers was two years into his.  Details depicted concerning the negotiation of the release are correct, but the length of time the initial stages of the exchange took place to begin to arrange are very much condensed.  The actual process took months.

In material details the film is very well done.   The clothing, including the East German military uniforms, are correct.  The appearance of the characters is quite close to those of the actual characters for the most part, probably only the character of Wolfgang Vogel provides an exception.  Interestingly oddities of the law are also portrayed correctly in this film which deals with lawyers but not in the hyperactive way that most movie portrayals do.  The opening scene in which Donovan negotiates with a plaintiff's lawyer regarding how many occurrences a single collision resulting in five motorcycle injuries is something that an insurance defense lawyer such as myself can't help but be impressed with.  Indeed, off hand I think it's the only film I've ever seen in which an insurance defense lawyer is sympathetically portrayed.

Well worth seeing.