Blog Mirror: Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and adoptive mom Orlando…

Ramblings of a teacher, Redskins fan, and adoptive mom

Orlando…

June 18, 2016 | leann28

It has obviously been several days since we heard of the tragedy in Orlando. I don’t even know where to begin with my thoughts about this horrible tragedy. And I don’t want my friends and family to think that my silence for this long means that I have not been thinking about it or that I am not saddened or angry by it. It simply means that I have been thinking about it and trying to figure out exactly what to say or do about it.

The Punitive Expedtion: Mgr. Lavelle Reviewing the 69th, New York, June 21,1916

Monsignor Lavelle reviews the New York National Guard's "Fighting" 69th Infantry Regiment.  The unit, which had Civil War fame, would go on to World War One fame.  It is particularly associated with Irish immigrants and shares Garryowen, the Irish tune, with the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment.

Blog Mirror: Painted Bricks: The Clyfford Still Museum, Denver Colorado

Painted Bricks: The Clyfford Still Museum, Denver Colorado:

Most of the signs up here are of older painted brick signs, of course. There are exceptions, and this is one, but this is particularly an exception as I'm going to comment.

Commentary from me isn't unusual, but usually it's on our Lex Anteinternet blog and not here.  But I cannot resist.

This is a very large sign skillfully rendering a photo of Clyfford Still into a sign. The big streaks on the end of the sign is a late example of Still's allegedly artistic work, better regarded as junk.

Still was a 20th Century artist who, starting off in the 1920s, had a public art career. Early on he actually painted figures but, starting in the 1930s, his work began to somewhat resemble that of other period modern artists and following that it was reduced to colored blotches such as we see Still, smoking a cigarette, contemplating here.  It's ironic that, in order to represent Still to the public, the museum hasto use a photograph, rather than one of his crappy pointless blotched up canvasses.

On the side of the photo the following is set out:

The canvas was his ally.
The paint and trowel were
his weapons. And the
art world was his enemy.

Apparently art itself, at least in an intelligible fashion capable of conveying some meaning to 99.9999% of humanity, was also his enemy as the result of the use of his weapons was the slaying of intelligibility.  It's complete junk.

But then, a lot of "modern" art is.

Well, in that war the guerilla of public indifference is probably the victor, as the big result of stuff like this is the separation of humanity from its artists.  So, if any meaning was intended to be conveyed, it's conveyed to a pretty self contained little crowd.

The Casper Record for June 20, 1916. War with Mexico inevitable

Compared to many other newspapers, the Casper Record always had a calm appearance. Nonetheless, on this day, Casper Record readers learned that we were almost certainly on the brink of war with Mexico.

More Monday At The Bar. U.S. Supreme Court: The Bill of Rights still doesn't apply to Indians on the Reservation.

One of the most shocking features of US Constitutional law is that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply, at all, to Indians on the Reservation.  It fully applies off the reservation, but not on.

This is so shocking that people will often refuse to believe it.  Even skilled legal practitioners will scoff at the thought.

Well, this past week the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion with no dissents, confirmed that this remains the law, overturning the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Bryant.

I understand the basis of this line of legal thought, but frankly, I think it's appalling and that this old doctrine is long obsolete.  I can think of solid legal arguments for changing it that do not do violence to the Constitution, and which would certainly be less novel than Obergefell.

So, in the name of protecting tribal sovereignty, a laudable goal, the population that's been within the geography of the nation the longest, remains the one with the fewest rights, on the land where they are sovereign.  That's just wrong.  I realize that the Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the ability to do what they will with the sovereign entities of the Tribes, and I realize that a less than stout Indian Bill of Rights is supposed to do something for Indians on their own lands, but in 2016, depriving Indians of their full rights on tribal lands is wrong, even if that means somewhat diminishing the sweeping authority that the tribes themselves have, as sovereign entities, within the reservations.

Additional Monday at the Bar. Lex Anteinternet: The ghost of the Crow Treaty of 1868 appears in a Wyoming Court (and soon in the Wyoming Supreme Court)

As we earlier reported on this item:

Lex Anteinternet: The ghost of the Crow Treaty of 1868 appears in a ...:    Crow Indians, 1908. These men may have been living at the time the Ft. Laramie Treaty came into being. The Casper Star Tribune rep...

the Crow game warden convicted in a Wyoming court of poaching just over the Wyoming border was, as noted, convicted.  Based on the reporting of the trial, the 1868 treaty wasn't asserted much, rather mistake of geography seems to have been. However, we need to keep in mind that reporting on legal matters is usually not completely accurate.

Suggesting that it was not, in fact, fully accurate we learn today in the Casper Start Tribune that the warden is appealing his conviction and asserting his rights under the 1868 Treaty as a basis for it. The article is somewhat confusing, however, in that it states he's appealing it to Wyoming's 4th Judicial District, which can't be accurate as that's the trial level court.  He'd have to appeal it to the Wyoming Supreme Court.  His lawyer indicates that they'll take it all the way up to the United States Supreme Court if they can and must, although getting a case up there isn't easy as it isn't by right.  Additionally, based upon last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bryant I wouldn't be terribly optimistic about that  effort as the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty clearly telegraphing that while it may have abandoned the traditional reading of the law in various things, in this area, Indian law, it apparently has not.

 

The courthouse for Wyoming's 4th Judicial District in Sheridan Wyoming.

The Big Picture: Holscher's Hub: New York Yankees v. Colorado Rockies, Coors Field....

Holscher's Hub: New York Yankees v. Colorado Rockies, Coors Field....

Cuts in higher education? Is this a good time? And a comment on UW football

 

 S.H. Knight Geology Building, 1986

Earlier this week Wyomingites were reading about new UW President Laurie Nichols declaring a "financial crisis" in existence that will allow her to act with greater freedmon in making the $41,000,000 in cuts that she has to make due to budget shortfalls, brougth about by the decline in energy revenues.  This followed the University of Wyoming Board of Trustees declaring an emergency to be in existence.

And an emergency it surely is.

And its an emergency for the University of Wyoming because the funding isn't there, but that  is, in part, a man made emergency.

It makes me sound  like a follower of John Maynard Keynes, which I am not, but this is a very poor time for the state to be cutting our colleges and university in terms of funding. The worst possible time, in fact.  Young men and women who were working in the energy sector will not be enrolling in college and university in droves, hoping that education will give them a second chance.  And for many of them it will.  Law school gave me a second chance when the energy industry collapsed in the early 1980s.  And I'm not the only one who was in that situation, and law wasn't the only route taken.  But the educational opportunities were there.

Class room in the S. H. Knight Building, 1986. 

This state makes a lot of noise about "learning" from our past mistakes. But we don't.  We don't diversify our economy. We don't seem to learn that limiting education means exporting our young population.  And we don't grasp that trying to grab the Federal domain, which we attempted in an earlier Sagebrush Rebellion that we're trying again, comes back to haunt us.  

Cutting education now is a terrible idea.  If we are really going to diversify our local economy, the generation entering college now is the generation that's going to do it.  This guts their chances, and ours by extension.

Before I leave U.W., I'll additionally comment, although I probably shouldn't, on the pablum in today's paper about UW football.

There's a column in the paper today just gushing about how "we" all love "our" football team.  It's just flowing with gushing admiration and praise about how this institution pulls the state together.

Well, bull.

I've lived in Wyoming my entire life and I haven't ever seen a UW football game.  Never.  I attended UW twice, starting off in 1983 and finishing up in 1990, and not once did I go to a game while I lived there.  When I lived there I mostly noted the home games by the influx of alumni and football attendees flooding Laramie, which after all isn't that big.

And I'm not a lone in that.  Yes, while I attended UW students went to the games, but I don't recall there being a fanatic devotion to the team while I was there.  Indeed, the basketball team seemed to have a bigger following, perhaps because it was really good in that time period.

Now, I'm fine with people having a fanatic level of devotion to UW football, but how is it that that the same week I'm reading about education, which is the real, and only, purpose of a university, being cut, while still reading about a program, football, that's entirely surplus to that purpose?  Something is amiss in that.

 

UW women's rugby. . . there are other sports other than football at UW.

Wyoming Tribune for June 19, 1916. The Guard Mobilized

Cheyenne residents were waking up this morning with news of the Punitive Expedition back on the front page.

We haven't run the 1916 local newspapers for awhile, but it's pretty clear that things were really heating up in regards to Mexico.  World War One had tended to push our expedition south off the front page for awhile, but it was back on in strength today.

While the Punitive Expedition was back on in strength, the huge battles occurring in the East were also making front page news.

Sunday Morning Scene: Churches of the West: St. Helen's Episcopal Church, Crowheart Community, Wyoming

Churches of the West: St. Helen's Episcopal Church, Crowheart Community, Wyoming

This church is located in Crowheart, Wyoming and, according to the sign out in front, it serves two denominations. It is, as the photos show, a small rural church.

The Crisis on the Border in 1916: The National Guard Mobilized

 New York National Guardsmen in Texas, 1916.

The National Guard is mobilized due to the ongoing crisis on the Mexican border caused by the Villista raid of Columbus New Mexico.  This included, of course, the somewhat short handed Wyoming National  Guard.

Mobilized New York National Guardsman.

Not all of the National Guard was Federalized at one time.  The entire National Guard had been Federalized prior to the entry of the United States in World War One, but the mobilization came in stages, with various units taking tours of duty along the Mexican border while the crisis with Mexico endured. The mobilization came to be a critical aspect of the United State's preparations for World War One, although accidentally, as it effectively meant that a huge proportion of the American defense establishment was mobilized and effectively training prior to the American entry into the war.

National Guard Camp, Camp Ordway Virginia, 1916.

Corporate farming. Why?

Nebraska prohibits corporate farming in its constitution:

XII-8.

Corporation acquiring an interest in real estate used for farming or ranching or engaging in farming or ranching; restrictions; Secretary of State, Attorney General; duties; Legislature; powers.

That Article XII of the Constitution of the State of Nebraska be amended by adding a new section numbered 8 and subsections as numbered, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Constitution.

Sec. 8(1) No corporation or syndicate shall acquire, or otherwise obtain an interest, whether legal, beneficial, or otherwise, in any title to real estate used for farming or ranching in this state, or engage in farming or ranching.

Corporation shall mean any corporation organized under the laws of any state of the United States or any country or any partnership of which such corporation is a partner.

Farming or ranching shall mean (i) the cultivation of land for the production of agricultural crops, fruit, or other horticultural products, or (ii) the ownership, keeping or feeding of animals for the production of livestock or livestock products.

Syndicate shall mean any limited partnership organized under the laws of any state of the United States or any country, other than limited partnerships in which the partners are members of a family, or a trust created for the benefit of a member of that family, related to one another within the fourth degree of kindred according to the rules of civil law, or their spouses, at least one of whom is a person residing on or actively engaged in the day to day labor and management of the farm or ranch, and none of whom are nonresident aliens. This shall not include general partnerships.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(A) A family farm or ranch corporation. Family farm or ranch corporation shall mean a corporation engaged in farming or ranching or the ownership of agricultural land, in which the majority of the voting stock is held by members of a family, or a trust created for the benefit of a member of that family, related to one another within the fourth degree of kindred according to the rules of civil law, or their spouses, at least one of whom is a person residing on or actively engaged in the day to day labor and management of the farm or ranch and none of whose stockholders are non-resident aliens and none of whose stockholders are corporations or partnerships, unless all of the stockholders or partners of such entities are persons related within the fourth degree of kindred to the majority of stockholders in the family farm corporation.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(B) Non-profit corporations.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(C) Nebraska Indian tribal corporations.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(D) Agricultural land, which, as of the effective date of this Act, is being farmed or ranched, or which is owned or leased, or in which there is a legal or beneficial interest in title directly or indirectly owned, acquired, or obtained by a corporation or syndicate, so long as such land or other interest in title shall be held in continuous ownership or under continuous lease by the same such corporation or syndicate, and including such additional ownership or leasehold as is reasonably necessary to meet the requirements of pollution control regulations. For the purposes of this exemption, land purchased on a contract signed as of the effective date of this amendment, shall be considered as owned on the effective date of this amendment.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(E) A farm or ranch operated for research or experimental purposes, if any commercial sales from such farm or ranch are only incidental to the research or experimental objectives of the corporation or syndicate.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(F) Agricultural land operated by a corporation for the purpose of raising poultry.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(G) Land leased by alfalfa processors for the production of alfalfa.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(H) Agricultural land operated for the purpose of growing seed, nursery plants, or sod.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(I) Mineral rights on agricultural land.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(J) Agricultural land acquired or leased by a corporation or syndicate for immediate or potential use for nonfarming or nonranching purposes. A corporation or syndicate may hold such agricultural land in such acreage as may be necessary to its nonfarm or nonranch business operation, but pending the development of such agricultural land for nonfarm or nonranch purposes, not to exceed a period of five years, such land may not be used for farming or ranching except under lease to a family farm or ranch corporation or a non-syndicate and non-corporate farm or ranch.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(K) Agricultural lands or livestock acquired by a corporation or syndicate by process of law in the collection of debts, or by any procedures for the enforcement of a lien, encumbrance, or claim thereon, whether created by mortgage or otherwise. Any lands so acquired shall be disposed of within a period of five years and shall not be used for farming or ranching prior to being disposed of, except under a lease to a family farm or ranch corporation or a non-syndicate and non-corporate farm or ranch.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(L) A bona fide encumbrance taken for purposes of security.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(M) Custom spraying, fertilizing, or harvesting.

These restrictions shall not apply to:

(N) Livestock futures contracts, livestock purchased for slaughter, or livestock purchased and resold within two weeks.

If a family farm corporation, which has qualified under all the requirements of a family farm or ranch corporation, ceases to meet the defined criteria, it shall have fifty years, if the ownership of the majority of the stock of such corporation continues to be held by persons related to one another within the fourth degree of kindred or their spouses, and their landholdings are not increased, to either re-qualify as a family farm corporation or dissolve and return to personal ownership.

The Secretary of State shall monitor corporate and syndicate agricultural land purchases and corporate and syndicate farming and ranching operations, and notify the Attorney General of any possible violations. If the Attorney General has reason to believe that a corporation or syndicate is violating this amendment, he or she shall commence an action in district court to enjoin any pending illegal land purchase, or livestock operation, or to force divestiture of land held in violation of this amendment. The court shall order any land held in violation of this amendment to be divested within two years. If land so ordered by the court has not been divested within two years, the court shall declare the land escheated to the State of Nebraska.

If the Secretary of State or Attorney General fails to perform his or her duties as directed by this amendment, Nebraska citizens and entities shall have standing in district court to seek enforcement.

The Nebraska Legislature may enact, by general law, further restrictions prohibiting certain agricultural operations that the legislature deems contrary to the intent of this section.

North Dakota prohibits corporate farming by statute: 

10-06.1-02. Farming or ranching by corporations and limited liability companies prohibited.

All corporations and limited liability companies, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, are prohibited from owning or leasing land used for farming or ranching and from engaging in the business of farming or ranching. A corporation or a limited liability company may be a partner in a partnership that is in the business of farming or ranching only if that corporation or limited liability company complies with this chapter.

10-06.1-3. Retention of mineral interests prohibited.

For land and minerals acquired after July 1, 1985, any corporation or limited liability company that acquires mineral interests through foreclosure or in lieu of foreclosure which were not specifically valued at the time the security interest in the minerals was acquired, and which prohibited from owning or leasing land used in farming or ranching, is prohibited from retaining mineral interests in land used for farming or ranching when the corporation or limited liability company divests itself of the land, and the mineral interests must be passed with the surface estate of the land when the corporation or limited liability company divests itself of the land under this chapter.

South Dakota also prohibits its statutorily:

47-9A-1.   Agriculture prohibited as corporate or limited liability company purpose. The Legislature of the State of South Dakota recognizes the importance of the family farm to the economic and moral stability of the state, and the Legislature recognizes that the existence of the family farm is threatened by conglomerates in farming. Therefore, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state, and shall be the provision of this chapter, that, notwithstanding the provisions of § 47-1A-301, no foreign or domestic corporation, except as provided herein, shall be formed or licensed under the South Dakota Business Corporation Act for the purpose of owning, leasing, holding or otherwise controlling agricultural land to be used in the business of agriculture.

It is further declared that no foreign or domestic limited liability company, except as provided herein, shall be formed or licensed under the South Dakota Limited Liability Company Act for the purpose of owning, leasing, holding or otherwise controlling agricultural land to be used in the business of agriculture.

So does Kansas:

17-5904. Restrictions; exceptions; penalties. (a) No corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership, other than a family farm corporation, authorized farm corporation, limited liability agricultural company, family farm limited liability agricultural company, limited agricultural partnership, family trust, authorized trust or testamentary trust shall, either directly or indirectly, own, acquire or otherwise obtain or lease any agricultural land in this state. The restrictions provided in this section do not apply to the following:

(1) A bona fide encumbrance taken for purposes of security.

(2) Agricultural land when acquired as a gift, either by grant or devise, by a bona fide educational, religious or charitable nonprofit corporation.

(3)  Agricultural land acquired by a corporation or a limited liability company in such acreage as is necessary for the operation of a nonfarming business. Such land may not be used for farming except under lease to one or more natural persons, a family farm corporation, authorized farm corporation, family trust, authorized trust or testamentary trust. The corporation shall not engage, either directly or indirectly, in the farming operation and shall not receive any financial benefit, other than rent, from the farming operation.

(4)  Agricultural land acquired by a corporation or a limited liability company by process of law in the collection of debts, or pursuant to a contract for deed executed prior to the effective date of this act, or by any procedure for the enforcement of a lien or claim thereon, whether created by mortgage or otherwise, if such corporation divests itself of any such agricultural land within 10 years after such process of law, contract or procedure, except that provisions of K.S.A. 9-1102, and amendments thereto, shall apply to any bank which acquires agricultural land.

(5) A municipal corporation.

(6)  Agricultural land which is acquired by a trust company or bank in a fiduciary capacity or as a trustee for a nonprofit corporation.

(7)  Agricultural land owned or leased or held under a lease purchase agreement as described in K.S.A. 12-1741, and amendments thereto, by a corporation, corporate partnership, limited corporate partnership or trust on the effective date of this act if: (A) Any such entity owned or leased such agricultural land prior to July 1, 1965, provided such entity shall not own or lease any greater acreage of agricultural land than it owned or leased prior to the effective date of this act unless it is in compliance with the provisions of this act; (B) any such entity was in compliance with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal by this act, provided such entity shall not own or lease any greater acreage of agricultural land than it owned or leased prior to the effective date of this act unless it is in compliance with the provisions of this act, and absence of evidence in the records of the county where such land is located of a judicial determination that such entity violated the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal shall constitute proof that the provisions of this act do not apply to such agricultural land, and that such entity was in compliance with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal; or (C) any such entity was not in compliance with the provisions of K.S.A. 17-5901, prior to its repeal by this act, but is in compliance with the provisions of this act by July 1, 1991.

(8)  Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation or a limited liability company for use as a feedlot, a poultry confinement facility or rabbit confinement facility.

(9) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation for the purpose of the production of timber, forest products, nursery products or sod.

(10) Agricultural land used for bona fide educational research or scientific or experimental farming.

(11)  Agricultural land used for the commercial production and conditioning of seed for sale or resale as seed or for the growing of alfalfa by an alfalfa processing entity if such land is located within 30 miles of such entity's plant site.

(12) Agricultural land owned or leased by a corporate partnership or limited corporate partnership in which the partners associated therein are either natural persons, family farm corporations, authorized farm corporations, limited liability agricultural companies, family trusts, authorized trusts or testamentary trusts.

(13) Any corporation, either domestic or foreign, or any limited liability company, organized for coal mining purposes which engages in farming on any tract of land owned by it which has been strip mined for coal.

(14) Agricultural land owned or leased by a limited partnership prior to the effective date of this act.

(15)  Except as provided by K.S.A. 17-5908, as it existed before the effective date of this act, and K.S.A. 1998 Supp. 17-5909, agricultural land held or leased by a corporation or a limited liability company for use as a swine production facility in any county which, before the effective date of this act, has voted favorably pursuant to K.S.A. 17-5908, as it existed before the effective date of this act, either by county resolution or by the electorate.

(16)  Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership for use as a swine production facility in any county where the voters, after the effective date of this act, have voted pursuant to K.S.A. 17-5908, and amendments thereto, to allow establishment of swine production facilities within the county.

(17) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership for use as a dairy production facility in any county which has voted favorably pursuant to K.S.A. 17-5907, and amendments thereto, either by county resolution or by the electorate.

(18) Agricultural land held or leased by a corporation or a limited liability company used in a hydroponics setting.

(b)  Production contracts entered into by a corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership and a person engaged in farming for the production of agricultural products shall not be construed to mean the ownership, acquisition, obtainment or lease, either directly or indirectly, of any agricultural land in this state.

(c) Any corporation, trust, limited liability company, limited partnership or corporate partnership, other than a family farm corporation, authorized farm corporation, limited liability agricultural company, family farm limited liability agricultural company, limited agricultural partnership, family trust, authorized trust or testamentary trust, violating the provisions of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 and shall divest itself of any land acquired in violation of this section within one year after judgment is entered in the action. The district courts of this state may prevent and restrain violations of this section through the issuance of an injunction. The attorney general or district or county attorney shall institute suits on behalf of the state to enforce the provisions of this section.

(d)  Civil penalties sued for and recovered by the attorney general shall be paid into the state general fund. Civil penalties sued for and recovered by the county attorney or district attorney shall be paid into the general fund of the county where the proceedings were instigated.

Food for thought for Wyoming?

Mixed energy news

Kiewit  layed off forty-five workers earlier this week at its Wyoming Buckskin Mine.  More bad news for coal.

The state's actually looking at filing suit on the moratorium on leases for coal on Federal land, a suit which won't bring any jobs to the table, coals struggles right now are economic, not regulatory, but showing how the whole issue raises distracting issues at the local level, that in turn end up in political campaigns.

On the flip-side, however, one of the local drilling companies is now advertising for hands, quite a change over recent trends  Perhaps reflecting a bet on the stabilization of oil at the current price?

Twitterification

How is that we have become so unfortunate that every politician  now "tweets"?

My, what a change in a century. From an era when political oratory was so advanced that people would listen to it for hours, to one in which every politician now feeds snippets via Twitter.  A sad development indeed.

Boy Scouts Incorporated under Federal Statute, June 15, 1916

Boy Scout poster during World War One encouraging participatin in the Third Liberty Loan.

The Boy Scouts of America were incorporated on this date under a Federal statutory provision.  This is very unusual, as most corporations are legal creatures of state law, not Federal law.

The Boy Scouts of America were part of a huge international movement started by Lord Baden Powell, a British Army officer who had once been the British Army's chief cavalryman.  Distressed by the lack of outdoor skills in British soldiers during the Boer War, he created the scouts tin encourage manly virtues in youth.  A girls variant soon followed.  The early movement emphasized "scouting", i.e., bush craft, as well as many virtues and Christian morals.

Preparedness Day Parade, June 14, 1916.

With "he kept us out of war" getting to be an increasingly unlikely statement for his second term, President Wilson lead a Preparedness Day Parade, held on Flag Day, June 14, 1916.

The Naysayers Busy Bodies. People who feel they have to stop other people doing something harmless, or even fun, or know what you ought to do where you have no moral obligation to do anything.

Oh just stop.

You know who you are.  That person is doing that thing, something you probably don't do, and they're having fun doing it.  It isn't immoral, it isn't dangerous, it just bugs you.

Well, sir or madam, you have a problem and should knock it off.

Over the last several years I've been confronted with Naysayers and Busy Bodies. Indeed, I think I've written on one of these encounters before, but I'm not quite sure where that entry is, so I'm repeating the topic and adding to it.  In part because I am, quite frankly, irritated.

Now, first I have to note something.

I own some land.

That doesn't make me a massive land owners. By some, I mean a little.  I don't often note this, but one of these small parcels was recently noted here in the context of a garden that's on it.  And I own a little more than that. Not so much that I could make a living off of it or anything.

Now, I don't publicize this much on purpose. Say anything, and unless a person already knows you well, in which case they already know that you own some land, they make assumptions that are wildly inaccurate.  A person can be dirt poor and be a landowner, for example, but people will not assume that.

Now, one of these small plots of land is quite near an area which is itself now quite near the city.  When my family acquired it, this was not true.  So that means that we're likely the people with the oldest continual title to the land in the area, or nearly so.  As we also don't feel compelled to put up a house on something simply because we have it, so over time its become one of the few undeveloped parcels where it is.  This means, apparently, that people observe it. I'm fine with that, to a degree.  But I'm amazed by how people react to things in regards to that.

For example, there used to be a couple of teenage girls who lived about a mile away who had horses.  They'd ride them around the area and, as this lot is on the river, they'd ride down to the river on their horses.  I knew that somebody did that, as I could see their shod prints, but I like horses and riding and so it never bothered me.  

Apparently it bothered a neighbor, however, as the girls went riding by one day.  Knowing that they'd never asked permission to come on, they rode on by, but not before a neighbor came out and chewed them out as the horses deposited horse flop in the road.

Now, I find it exceedingly difficult to care about that, but the neighbor in question was so offended by horse flop in the road that after she chewed the teenager out she came over to inform me of just her doing that, and that they rode on my place.  I told her that was okay with me.  The girls then rode back by, on their way home, and entered the place, probably having witnessed the lady speaking to me and feeling they'd been caught.  They confessed their trespass.  I simply gave them permission to come on.

I guess I appreciate that my neighbor (now passed on) watched my place so carefully, but why the offense over the horses?

At the same location, about a decade ago, I stopped by on the way home from duck hunting, with my then young son, to see if there might be some ducks in the river.  I did get a passing shot.  Another extremely reclusive neighbor (I saw him for the first time today) called the sheriffs out as I'd shot.  They came on, thinking I must have been a trespasser, and they were sheepish when they found out that I owned the place.  Shooting is legal in the county and the neighbor had no business calling the sheriffs out on me on my own place, even if he didn't know who I was.  Today, if the sheriffs showed up that way, I'd read them the riot act. At the time I was pretty polite about it.

Well, just this past week my son was out on the place and fired a couple of shots from a pistol. The neighbor came out and yelled at him.  He hung around, probably recalling a decade ago, in case the sheriffs came out, but they didn't come.

It turns out they were called, which I now know, as I was burning dead timber, very carefully, when the neighbor came out and called over the fence to ask if I had a fire going. Well, of course I did, and I appreciate the concern over fire, but then asked about the pistol shots.  After learning they were ours, he went on about how you couldn't shoot there etc., he'd called the sheriff, until I did something I rarely do, which is to say "I'm a lawyer and I know you can shoot here". The grimace on his face told the story, he knew that he'd blown it.  I was polite about it.  He, and his wife, then went on a long conversation detailing other complaints of a minor variety he had in the area with other people.  The ultimate irony was that he was wearing a National Rifle Association hat.

Well, I don't appreciate being told that I can't do something that I know I can.  One real advantage of being a lawyer is knowing the rules.  I also don't appreciate the enforcement of a self declared set of rules by a guy who is, from my prospective, a new comer even if he's been there for years.  I further don't appreciate instructions on this score from somebody who isn't even from this country.  If he doesn't like life in the county, he can move to the city, or better yet back to his native country.

Well, on another piece of land that I have there are a set of building associated with it. They aren't on ours, but they're close.  I know on that land a person called up the owner to complain about the cows getting in, some of which are mind.  The buildings are indeed very old, but hey, they're not some remote persons and the cows are part of our livelihood.  Geez, man, give us a break, we're not tearing the old buildings down or anything.

Again, I know that this is whining, but I'm amazed by the degree to which people choose to police the harmless conduct of others.  The fellow who gets upset about our shooting has a yard that looks terrible in comparison to the prior owners.  We're not stopping him from doing anything, why is he trying to stop us.  People have a right to ride horses in rural areas here, why harass teenagers who are doing that?  And were the horses going down to the river that big of deal?  And why are you watching the old buildings on a place you don't own?

Golf returns to the Olympics for the first time since 1904

Silver medal winner in Olympic Golf, U.S. Golfer Chandler Egan.

Golf is returning as a sport to the Olympics.  It hasn't been one since 1904.

I don't care for golf. That doesn't mean that I don't know how to play it.  I find myself curiously like the Matthew Quigley character in Quigley Down Under, who in the final scene (spoiler alert) guns down the evil opponent with the opponents own Colt Navy revolver, which that character has provided to him, in a duel, and then states "I said I never had much use for one. . . not that I didn't know how to use one."  I know how to play golf, I just don't like playing it.

It's not like I hate the sport either, I just find it sort of dull.  I suspect that in its original version this wasn't so.  The origin of golf is murky, but nobody doubts that the modern game had is origin in Scotland.  Oddly, the first mention of it is when King James II banned it as a distraction to practicing archery.  King James IV lifted the ban.  He was a golfer.

I suspect that the origins of the game probably had something to do with bored Scottish sheepherders, and maybe Scotch Whiskey.  But that's just my theory.  In the modern era it became associated for a time with wealth, and then later with a sort of WASPish culture, but that was probably always somewhat unfair.  To the extent that reputation was warranted it probably stemmed from social conditions in which only the fairly well off had leisure, and golf takes quite a bit of time to master and play.

Woman's champion golfer, Katherine Harley, 1908.

Still, it had that reputation sufficiently by the 1920s that the occupation of female golfer was used for one of the well to do, Jordan Baker, in Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby.  Of note, Tom Buchanan, the old money figure in the novel who doesn't really do anything, is defined by his college sporting activity of football and his present sport, polo, which sort of shows their position at that time.  But whether or not (and I think not) all golfers were well to do, it certainly also became as port widely played by professionals and businessmen at one time.

President Taft and his golfing pals.

Around here, when I was growing up, it seemed like golf was pretty popular generally.  At that time Casper had three golf courses and my mother played golf.  She was very good at it, and had one a trophy when she first moved here from a championship that involved people working in the oil and gas industry.  My father never played it, but it seemed like quite a few of the men that he knew did.  Golf was certainly played by a wide variety of people and by that time it didn't cost a great deal to do it, unless, like all sports, you wanted it to cost a great deal.  

I never developed an affinity for it, however, in spite of my mother's efforts to teach it to me. As a kid I spent one whole summer learning it and golfing fairly regularly.  I still know quite a few holds on the golf course by heart.  But it never took.  After that one summer I gave it up (I must have been in junior high at the time) and never looked back.

When I was first practicing law, however, my lack of golfing status was almost unusual.  Lots of lawyers played golf and the association with lawyers and golf, which doesn't come from Wyoming (where a golfer is just as likely to be an oilfield roughneck) is so strong that in some places not being a golfing lawyer is a surprise to outsiders. Recently, for example, I went to Florida on depositions and the area I was in, Naples, is apparently well known for its golf courses.  I didn't know that.  At the depositions the court reporter asked if we (me, and the opposing lawyer) golfed.  "No", came our reply and I noted that the same area is apparently noted for tarpon fishing, and I do fish.  No matter, the court report expressed surprise and went on to list the many undoubtedly fine golf courses in the area.

As an other example, some years ago I had a case with an older lawyer from Cheyenne, and every time we were anywhere in the case he asked if I golfed.  "No" came the reply, and each time he replied "oh, you should take it up" and a listing of the local courses.  

Well, I'm not going to take it up I think, unless I get lucky enough to retire and have some of my good friends also retire and they take up golf, something that appears unlikely to ever occur.  I'd rather fish and hunt, or do other outdoor activities.  Golf doesn't interest me that much.  I sometimes joke that a golf course is a waste of a good hay field, but in all honest I"m glad golf courses are t here, as when they disappear, they tend to turn into housing developments.  And there are now four courses here in town, although the one, on edge of the river, on the edge of town, has so many geese I also sometimes joke that it should be opened up for goose hunting in the Fall.

Golf seems to have fallen a bit on hard times recently as a sport in the US, and at least by my observation that is reflected in the professions.  Younger lawyers I know don't golf.  When I first was practicing law in our firm, all but one of the lawyers golfed (or all but two, if I include myself).  Now, only one does.  Nobody younger than me, and I'm not young, golfs. The county bar association used to put on an annual match, but it's given it up and hasn't held it now for years.  I think all of this is associated with a decline in leisure time in the US, and frankly that isn't good.  Leisure it self has been defined by a wide variety of philosophers as the basis of civilization, with that thought being so wide that it has been stated by both Eastern and Western philosophers.  But in recent decades, at least in the US, time for anything but work has tended to evaporate for a  large number of people.

Well, back to golf in the Olympics.  I'm glad its returning, and I'm quite surprised, really, that it ever left.  Its an individual sport that a lot of people in a lot of places play. Good decision, Olympics, to restore it.

Monday at the Bar: Courthouses of the West: Federal Building, Anchorage Alaska

Courthouses of the West: Federal Building, Anchorage Alaska:

This is the Federal Building in Anchorage Alaska, which was built in 1941.  The Art Deco style building is very substantial, and the building is one of several in Anchorage which show the extent of development in the city in the 1930s and 1940s.  It was, and is, a very modern building for the port city, which might surprise those who wouldn't have expected this type of architecture and development for Anchorage in this, pre oil development, era.

The courtroom was, and is, a prominent feature of the building.

Rushing to favorite conclusions and arguments: Terrorist strike in Florida

It's interesting, and a bit sad, that after any one particular type of act masses of people, from political commentators, to news article "comment" posters, rush to arguments they like to make as if they are really relevant to the issue at hand.

We're in a long term, mostly urban, domestic guerilla war being waged by a mostly foreign enemy but one that does have fighters on our own soil.  We haven't, as a society, ever dealt with a war of this type really.  The last Western nation to do so was France, in Algeria when it fought the FLN in Algeria, including Algiers, and in France itself.  In a war of this type, individuals and groups of individuals can and will strike on an almost entirely random basis.  But strike they will.

Some of these terrorists are weak minded and unhinged. Not all are. But some certainly are. And of those, some will act fully independently in a way that we cannot not only not predict, but, added to that, in ways that aren't even predictable to those whose campaigns these people adopt.

It can't be fully said that these people would not act in this fashion but for the guerilla war.  But that can at least partially be said.  And again, not all are weak minded. For the weak minded and mentally ill, the war gives them something to focus on and define themselves by.  Not every radical during the Russian Revolution had thought out Socialism.  Plenty of the German street fighters for the Nazis prior to 1932 who joined the SA hadn't delved into Nazism deeply.  There's no reason to believe that Muslim terrorists, foreign or domestic, have really struggled with their consciences and determined to act out of deep conviction.  Probably plenty of them were angry or confused young men, and women, prior to defining their anger by jihad.

Still, we should not discount that some have done just that. Islam does have dark passages that do indeed call for violence against the infidel and tens of thousands of young Muslims, some converts, have answered the black flag of ISIL. And ISIL is calling for its adherents to strike here.

Under these circumstances the instant argument on gun control that immediately comes up is really misplaced.  Firearms technology, in real terms, has changed very little since the 192s really and automatically cycling weapons have been available since just after 1900.  Handgun technology was perfected around 1911 and hasn't really changed at all since that time.  What has changed is that we're at war with a domestic enemy on our own soils.  And what has also changed is that we have a large number of mostly young men whom we've sidelined in our new computer driven technological world, with that world being one in which all morals are treated as simply being personal choices. We dealt with this in depth in our thread (once one of the most read here) Peculiarized violence and American society. Looking at root causes, and not instrumentalities.  And we also dealt with the very topic we're now addressing in this thread in our also once highly read Playing Games with Names and Burying Heads in the Sand. Mischaracterizing violence and ignoring its nature at the same time.

It isn't as if, however, pundits, politicians, and commentators of all types are going to come here and read this and be convinced of anything, however.  But mark my words, sadly, all the debate on this topic is darned near pointless.  Restriction and police action did nothing whatsoever to stop the FLN's campaign for Algerian independence.  Only Algerian independence did, although a counter terrorism campaign featuring terrorism itself darned near achieved the opposite result, before the French public became disgusted with it (I'm not suggesting here we adopt such tactics).  Control of various types did not prevent this same thing from happening in Brussels and Paris.  What will stop it is the defeat of ISIL, which is actually occurring. But that's a long term effort.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Related Threads:

Peculiarized violence and American society. Looking at root causes, and not instrumentalities.

Playing Games with Names and Burying Heads in the Sand. Mischaracterizing violence and ignoring its nature at the same time.