So states a professional photography blog naming the Pentax K1 full frame one of the three bests cameras of 2019.
And they are.
The review also goes on to note that you could "dive off a board into a pool" with the K1, which isn't something I'd do for sure (it's not water proof) and that it shares its all weather characteristics with every other digital Pentax.
And so it does.
I've long been a Pentax fan and have lamented the absolute rise of Canon in the digital age. Indeed, I've been glad to see the recent rise of Nikon come along and take some of the wind out of Canon's sails.
It's not that Canon 's are a bad camera. They aren't. It's just that they aren't the only great camera and frankly they compare poorly to Pentax camera's in several respects, the rugged outdoor nature of Pentax being one of them.
That's always matter a lot to me, as I regard photography as an outdoor thing. And so do a lot of other people. For that reason alone Pentax's outshine Canon's. Pentaxians, as they call themselves, laugh with glee when Canon users run for cover in poor weather. If your camera can't be out in nature, what good is it?
Pentax cameras also will take old bayonet lenses made for Pentax 35mm SLR film cameras. That's something most DSLR users will tell you is impossible, and that's a major plus for people who were using those cameras prior to the digital revolution.
So why so little love?
Well, it actually is there, and not just from die hard Pentax fans. The cameras tend to rise to the top when rugged use is a major issue and when objective reviewers discuss it. A few years back, for instance, a compact DSLR of Pentax's was awarded the position of best camera of the year by a photography magazine because of its all weather durability. And a noted press combat photographer about that time was also noted as a Pentax user.
But that's all a type of press and word of mouth popularity. Pentax's marketing department, frankly, sucks.
The Ricoh company has owned the Pentax line for some time and while it markets its copiers, it flat out does the worst job in the world in marketing its cameras. There's simply no excuse for it. It makes you wonder if they given any thought to marketing them at all.
Well, they do give a lot of thought to their cameras. And as a company that's come out with a rugged full frame they deserve applause.
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary. Show all posts
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Friday, October 4, 2019
The Aerodrome: Is it time to stop flying the old ones? The B-17 N-0-Nine Crashes
The Aerodrome: Is it time to stop flying the old ones? The B-17 N...:
I've been in quite a few B-17s and ridden on one. If you go back and look through the posts here you'll find photographs of them.
Two of those B-17s were the Nine 0 Nine and the Liberty Belle.
Both are now gone.* The Nine O Nine crashed this week at a demonstration, killing ten people including some who had paid to ride in the old classic bomber.
I'm generally not inclined to tell people what to do with their own property. That's not something that squares with my own world view, nor with what we might generally call "American Values", although increasingly there are plenty of Americans who are ready to tell other Americans exactly what they can and cannot do with all sorts of things. And I'm not of the view that merely because something is old, it shouldn't be used. I use plenty of old things myself, including driving on occasion an old truck that probably some feel shouldn't be driven due to its age.
But few of us have something that's an historical treasure. Once all of the flyable models of any one aircraft are done for, and the law of averages alone will bring that day upon us, more likely than not, there are none left and the history associated with them is gone as well.
B-17s weren't made to fly for 70 years.
Indeed, nothing made in the 30s or 40s that flew or rolled was. Simply nothing was expected to last that long.
While most B-17s were made in the 1940s, during World War Two, the plane's first flight was in 1935. In 1935 when the plane first flew flight itself was only 32 years in existence. That's over 80 years ago now, and if we look back the other way, eighty years prior, people were not only not flying, they weren't driving either.
Trains didn't last for eighty years. Wagons certainly didn't. Automobiles, when they first came out, tended to be used up very quickly, in spite of their vast expense. And airplanes cycled through generations incredibly quickly.
The first "heavy" bombers came into existence during World War One, but just as with fighter aircraft, the bombers of mid war were already obsolete by the end of the war. The first U.S. bombers to have the "B" designation (fighters had a "P" designation, for "pursuit") came into service in the 1920s and exited service nearly as quickly as they entered. The fact that the U.S. Army Air Corps was up to the number "17" with the B-17 shows us how very quickly they cycled through the service.
The heavy aircraft that came into military service with the US largely made it through World War Two. None the less, there's no doubt that aircraft like the B-17 and the B-18 were obsolescent by the time World War Two started, already primitive in comparison to aircraft like the B-24. They were kept in production not because they were first rate modern aircraft at that time, but because it was necessary. Save for odd uses, as soon as the war was over, they were phased out of service. For that matter, the aircraft that made them obsolescent were already obsolescent themselves. In terms of heavy bombers, which were really something that only the United States and the United Kingdom fielded, the world had gone from the aircraft of the mid 1930s, to the those of the late 30s and early 40s, to the B-29, which made them all obsolete. And the B-29 would only remain a first rate bomber until the late 1940s when jet powered bombers made their appearance. The B-36 had its first flight in 1946. The B-47 in 1947. The B-52 in 1952.
The B-52 is still in Air Force use, and will be for the foreseeable future. It will be, most likely, the first military aircraft to see 100 years of continual use. But it was built in a completely different era. Vastly more expensive than the B-17, which entered service less than 20 years prior to the B-52, it was designed to be flown by men who would have college educations and who were already use to a technical world. The B-17 was designed to be flown by farm boys who were used to tractors and made the Model A.
There's no earthly way that the designers and builders of the B-17 imagined them flying for 70 to 80 years. Chances are, they didn't see them flying for more than ten. During World War Two, those savvy to aircraft development didn't see a future for aircraft like the B-17 beyond the end of the war and, had they been quietly asked, would have already regarded it as obsolete. It only had to offer its crew a chance of living through their tour.
And the fact that it did offer such a chance is why there remain any around today. They were rugged.
But they weren't built to fly forever. And the flying ones will not. The time has come to let them rest, while there are still any left that are capable of flight.
That is sad. The fact that they still fly from town to town allows people to see them who would otherwise never get the chance. But the end conclusion to continuing to allow them to fly seems evident.
_______________________________________________________________________________
To add to this sad tale, I've also been in an HE-111 that crashed later. And I've viewed a P-51 which did.
Is it time to stop flying the old ones? The B-17 Nine-0-Nine Crashes
I've been in quite a few B-17s and ridden on one. If you go back and look through the posts here you'll find photographs of them.
Two of those B-17s were the Nine 0 Nine and the Liberty Belle.
The Nine 0 Nine.
I'm generally not inclined to tell people what to do with their own property. That's not something that squares with my own world view, nor with what we might generally call "American Values", although increasingly there are plenty of Americans who are ready to tell other Americans exactly what they can and cannot do with all sorts of things. And I'm not of the view that merely because something is old, it shouldn't be used. I use plenty of old things myself, including driving on occasion an old truck that probably some feel shouldn't be driven due to its age.
Nine O Nine.
B-17s weren't made to fly for 70 years.
Indeed, nothing made in the 30s or 40s that flew or rolled was. Simply nothing was expected to last that long.
Trains didn't last for eighty years. Wagons certainly didn't. Automobiles, when they first came out, tended to be used up very quickly, in spite of their vast expense. And airplanes cycled through generations incredibly quickly.
View from the now gone Liberty Belle.
The heavy aircraft that came into military service with the US largely made it through World War Two. None the less, there's no doubt that aircraft like the B-17 and the B-18 were obsolescent by the time World War Two started, already primitive in comparison to aircraft like the B-24. They were kept in production not because they were first rate modern aircraft at that time, but because it was necessary. Save for odd uses, as soon as the war was over, they were phased out of service. For that matter, the aircraft that made them obsolescent were already obsolescent themselves. In terms of heavy bombers, which were really something that only the United States and the United Kingdom fielded, the world had gone from the aircraft of the mid 1930s, to the those of the late 30s and early 40s, to the B-29, which made them all obsolete. And the B-29 would only remain a first rate bomber until the late 1940s when jet powered bombers made their appearance. The B-36 had its first flight in 1946. The B-47 in 1947. The B-52 in 1952.
The B-52 is still in Air Force use, and will be for the foreseeable future. It will be, most likely, the first military aircraft to see 100 years of continual use. But it was built in a completely different era. Vastly more expensive than the B-17, which entered service less than 20 years prior to the B-52, it was designed to be flown by men who would have college educations and who were already use to a technical world. The B-17 was designed to be flown by farm boys who were used to tractors and made the Model A.
There's no earthly way that the designers and builders of the B-17 imagined them flying for 70 to 80 years. Chances are, they didn't see them flying for more than ten. During World War Two, those savvy to aircraft development didn't see a future for aircraft like the B-17 beyond the end of the war and, had they been quietly asked, would have already regarded it as obsolete. It only had to offer its crew a chance of living through their tour.
And the fact that it did offer such a chance is why there remain any around today. They were rugged.
But they weren't built to fly forever. And the flying ones will not. The time has come to let them rest, while there are still any left that are capable of flight.
That is sad. The fact that they still fly from town to town allows people to see them who would otherwise never get the chance. But the end conclusion to continuing to allow them to fly seems evident.
To add to this sad tale, I've also been in an HE-111 that crashed later. And I've viewed a P-51 which did.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Casper Eclipse Festival: August 19-21, 2017. And a note on the Eclipse in general.
Newly opened Casper bar, The Gaslight Social.
As Casper was right in the center of the 2017 Solar Eclipse, it took advantage of the situation and had a three day festival to commemorate it. The festival featured the openings, basically, of three new bars (or one bar/restaurant reopening, one new bar/restaurant and one new bar) and a new city feature, a downtown plaza. It was well attended.
Downtown revelers and a carriage. Casper, unlike Fort Collins or even, occasionally, Denver, generally doesn't have horse drawn carriages downtown.
There were wildly varying predictions for the eclipse. Frankly, I doubted some of them. But maybe more of them came true than I would have guessed.
Map showing where people had come from to view the eclipse. Some of the locations were so surprising, I wonder if they were really true.
Over 1,000,000 people, according to the Star Tribune, entered the state during the eclipse. Assuming that's correct, that means that the state's population tripled yesterday. Having said that, it didn't appear to be the case that Casper's population more than doubled, as had been predicted. I know that not all of the camping spots filled that had been predicted to, although perhaps many did. I also know that people were camping right in the neighborhood, in front of people's houses that they knew.
This doesn't do this map justice. There were visitors, according to the map, from Greenland, Ascension Island, and North Korea. All quite surprising, if true.
Europe seemed pretty well represented. I met one Irish visitor who had just left the Wonder Bar, which has a nice restaurant. Apparently he hadn't realized that as he asked me and my son for directions to "a pub" so he could get something to eat. He was surprised when I directed him back to the Wonder Bar.
New downtown plaza. I was skeptical that this would be complete on time.
It's not everyday you see a municipal judge on the guitar.
New downtown Rotary sidewalk clock.
Picking up my trailer, which I had loaned out to friends
I'm included amongst those that had camping visitors. Some good friends of mine were in town for the eclipse. They'd planned on staying in Gillette and driving down, but I loaned them my camp trailer and let them camp near our garden land. That became three couples by the time of the eclipse. This land has never had residents, although the neighboring land does and has for quite some time, so I suppose its population increased from 0 to six.
Another old friend of mine drove up from Salt Lake to Riverton, where they also experienced an influx. And I guess the Jackson Hole Airport received a huge corporate jet boost.
Interesting event.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Blog Mirror: Why ‘free’ stuff destroys our sense of worth – a lesson from photography
Why ‘free’ stuff destroys our sense of worth – a lesson from photography
I read a while back that a proportion of the photos being taken these days don’t even get looked at afterwards. The advent of the cellphone camera hasn’t just killed the ‘pocket snappy’ camera, it’s thrown us into the age of disposable imagery where photographs are taken and then forgotten . . .
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Those photos I don't take.
Salt Lake City airport
I have an entire collection of blogs. Originally, I thought that this one would be the most active, but in fact Lex Anteinternet is by far the most active of them. This remains, however, where I post my photos, as a rule, unless they are taken for a specific purpose.
Still, I can't help but note that there are a lot of photos a person would suppose I'd take, that I don't. And there are a couple of places I've gone to a lot, that I don't photograph hardly at all.
Those places are Houston and Salt Lake City.
It's not because I hate Houston and Salt Lake City, its' because, in part, I'm a business traveler and in part, those cities are sort of hard to photograph.
As a business traveler, the places I go to the most are hotels and airports. Not very exciting. And as a practicing lawyer, what I see to photograph is pretty haphazard. Sometimes I have extra time and can see something, but a lot of times, if I seem something to photograph, it's because I've gone to that locality for work, or I pass by it on the way to what I'm going to. Indeed, it was just such an event, in Salt Lake City, that caused the creation of our Churches of the West blog, as I happened to hike by the St. Peter and St. Paul Orthodox Church and took a photo of it with the camera on a really old flip phone I was then using.
Foot traffic actually explains a lot about why I have photographed a lot of things in some cities, and hardly any in others. I actually have photographed a fair number of churches in Salt Lake City, but some would not that I've never photographed the LDS temple. I've just never been on foot near it. By the same token, even though I've been to Salt Lake a lot, I just posted a photo of a Salt Lake courthouse on our courthouse blog for the very first time today. And I've been to other Utah towns and cities, I'd note, and am equally remiss, sort of. Just didn't have the chance in a busy work day.
I've been even worse with Houston, but Houston is frankly hard to photograph. Lots of glass and steel, but I hardly ever walk anywhere very far in Houston. All driving, which makes for bad photographs.
Also making for bad photos is that a lot of photos here are cell phone or compact camera photos. I like DSLRs and SLRs, but I can't pack those easily. Recently my wife's old compact Canon died, so recent photos here are cell phone photos. Far less than idea.
Just noting it, FWIW.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Bond Issue — NCSD Transform
Bond Issue — NCSD Transform
Bond issues haven't done well here recently, except those associated with Casper College. I 'm hoping that this one proves to be an exception, however, and passes. The facilities associated with NCHS and Kelly Walsh are, in my view, necessities or near necessities.
I particularly hope that NC gets its new swimming pool. The old one is simply ancient and completely inadequate. A new one is really needed. Teaching students to swim is wisely mandated by the State, and there's really no other realistic way to do that but to have a pool there.
Bond issues haven't done well here recently, except those associated with Casper College. I 'm hoping that this one proves to be an exception, however, and passes. The facilities associated with NCHS and Kelly Walsh are, in my view, necessities or near necessities.
I particularly hope that NC gets its new swimming pool. The old one is simply ancient and completely inadequate. A new one is really needed. Teaching students to swim is wisely mandated by the State, and there's really no other realistic way to do that but to have a pool there.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Aftermath of Winter Storm Atlas II
As of today, five days following the storm, there are still downed trees, and piles of leaves, everywhere, all over town. Some folks have picked up, some haven't, which is probably due to their ability to do the heavy work, and their access to the equipment to do it. There's a chain saw shortage in the area, for example, right now.
Anyhow, one of the things I noticed today, on my way to work, is that even inside my truck I can smell the rotting wet leaves. Its starting to smell like silage. Weird to smell that in town.
Anyhow, one of the things I noticed today, on my way to work, is that even inside my truck I can smell the rotting wet leaves. Its starting to smell like silage. Weird to smell that in town.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Lex Anteinternet: What people read
Lex Anteinternet: What people read: We've had this blog up for a couple of years now, with the first posts being in 2009 . There were none in 2010, but we really took off in p...
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Lex Anteinternet: Wyoming Adopts the Uniform Bar Exam, and why that'...
Lex Anteinternet: Wyoming Adopts the Uniform Bar Exam, and why that'...: Students of legal minutia know that the phrase "to pass the bar", or "to be called to the bar", refers to an actual physical feature in an ...
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Lex Anteinternet: Peculiarized violence and American society. Looki...
Lex Anteinternet: Peculiarized violence and American society. Looki...: Because of the horrific senseless tragedy in Newton Connecticut, every pundit and commentator in the US is writing on the topic of what cau...
Monday, December 10, 2012
Lex Anteinternet: Spam, Spammers, and Counter Revolution
Lex Anteinternet: Spam, Spammers, and Counter Revolution: Recently here I wrote on the topic of junk mail, and touched upon the topic of email Spam . In what is perhaps an over-site, and perhaps a ...
Saturday, November 10, 2012
An update on the proposed Wyoming Constitutional Amendments
Prior to the election, I summarized all three proposed amendments to the Wyoming Constitution. Now that the election has come and gone, it can be noted that two passed and one failed.
That two passed isn't a surprise. Amendment B, which concerned the right to hunt, fish and trap was a Wyoming natural, although I've heard some observe that it wasn't necessary. The voters probably felt it wasn't necessary, but wanted to act before it was.
Amendment A was the amendment that was supposed to make health care decisions constitutionally protected. I have doubts about this one, frankly, as I feel that the legislature's escape clause actually might operate at some point in the future to have the opposite effect of the one intended. I'm sure that most people think that very unlikely, and perhaps it is, but Constitutional interpretation is just that, interpretation, as critics of the law, lawyers and courts so often note. The amendment proved popular with the voters, however, and there was never really any doubt that it would pass.
The real surprise to me, however, was that Amendment C failed. The purpose of this amendment was to make clearly legal what is actually already occurring in some of Wyoming's judicial districts. That is, allowing court commissioners to fill in more broadly for judges. I really can't figure out why it failed. It did have a majority of votes cast in favor of it, but it failed to pass in that it wasn't a majority of votes cast in the election. That means a number of people didn't vote on the issue at all. And it did draw a fair number of no votes to be sure.
As to those who declined to vote on it, well, that's probably because this topic seems obscure, and it is. I don't blame people for not voting on an issue they don't understand, particularly one like this. But I don't understand the large number of no votes. I wish I did.
I guess the large circulation statewide newspaper in Wyoming came out against the Amendment. I missed that, but a knowledgeable person informed me of that. The paper's apparent position was that if more judges are needed, more should be provided for.
Well, there's some logic to that, but providing for more judges is a legislative act that takes quite a bit of time, and perhaps doesn't quite understand the many roles that the judges fill. In the popular imagination, judges don robes and hear trials all day. Not really. They do that, of course, but they also do a lot of oddball odds and ends, such as marry people, that can just as well be filled by a court commissioner, if they judges are overtaxed. Do we need to add judges, for example, if small matters that can be handled by a commissioner are taking up a fair amount of their time? I wouldn't think so, but apparently most do feel that way, perhaps.
A distressing element of this is that some districts have been broadly using commissioners and others, sticking to the absolute letter of the law, have not. One lawyer told me that one of the districts, some time ago, used commissioners in a fair number of divorces in that district. Not because the judges were "out of their office", but because they had so many, and one of t he commissioners was skilled at them. Would that district be better served if that didn't occur? It's hard to see how. And what does that mean for those cases in which that has occurred to date?
That two passed isn't a surprise. Amendment B, which concerned the right to hunt, fish and trap was a Wyoming natural, although I've heard some observe that it wasn't necessary. The voters probably felt it wasn't necessary, but wanted to act before it was.
Amendment A was the amendment that was supposed to make health care decisions constitutionally protected. I have doubts about this one, frankly, as I feel that the legislature's escape clause actually might operate at some point in the future to have the opposite effect of the one intended. I'm sure that most people think that very unlikely, and perhaps it is, but Constitutional interpretation is just that, interpretation, as critics of the law, lawyers and courts so often note. The amendment proved popular with the voters, however, and there was never really any doubt that it would pass.
The real surprise to me, however, was that Amendment C failed. The purpose of this amendment was to make clearly legal what is actually already occurring in some of Wyoming's judicial districts. That is, allowing court commissioners to fill in more broadly for judges. I really can't figure out why it failed. It did have a majority of votes cast in favor of it, but it failed to pass in that it wasn't a majority of votes cast in the election. That means a number of people didn't vote on the issue at all. And it did draw a fair number of no votes to be sure.
As to those who declined to vote on it, well, that's probably because this topic seems obscure, and it is. I don't blame people for not voting on an issue they don't understand, particularly one like this. But I don't understand the large number of no votes. I wish I did.
I guess the large circulation statewide newspaper in Wyoming came out against the Amendment. I missed that, but a knowledgeable person informed me of that. The paper's apparent position was that if more judges are needed, more should be provided for.
Well, there's some logic to that, but providing for more judges is a legislative act that takes quite a bit of time, and perhaps doesn't quite understand the many roles that the judges fill. In the popular imagination, judges don robes and hear trials all day. Not really. They do that, of course, but they also do a lot of oddball odds and ends, such as marry people, that can just as well be filled by a court commissioner, if they judges are overtaxed. Do we need to add judges, for example, if small matters that can be handled by a commissioner are taking up a fair amount of their time? I wouldn't think so, but apparently most do feel that way, perhaps.
A distressing element of this is that some districts have been broadly using commissioners and others, sticking to the absolute letter of the law, have not. One lawyer told me that one of the districts, some time ago, used commissioners in a fair number of divorces in that district. Not because the judges were "out of their office", but because they had so many, and one of t he commissioners was skilled at them. Would that district be better served if that didn't occur? It's hard to see how. And what does that mean for those cases in which that has occurred to date?
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Wyoming Constitutional Amendment Proposed Amendment B: Opportunity to hunt, fish and trap.
Included amongst this year's ballot proposals for amending the Wyoming Constitution (there are three such proposals) is a proposal to amend the constitution to provide for the protection of the right to hunt, fish and trap.
That such an amendment would even be regarded as necessary would have been a shock a couple of decades ago, and perhaps it really isn't needed now. Participation in hunting is increasing in the United States, reversing a trend of some years, and in Wyoming hunting participation is dramatically up, grossly countering a trend of some years. Nobody knows the reasons for this, but it appears that hunting is now increasing remarkably in popularity and participation. And even on television, where we have not seen a great deal of hunting for quite some time, the reverse is now becoming true. A couple of adventure type channels have been running hunting related series, with the most recent being Yukon Men. And these shows have become pretty unapologetic about depicting what amounts to subsistence type hunting, which is the type that most American hunters actually do.
Nonetheless, in this day and age when many people live in urban settings that are so distant from nature that they have not connection with it, and often don't understand it, it serves to have an amendment that reminds us of the most basic nature of things, which we are never very far removed from in spite of what me might think. Hunters and fishermen truly engage in an activity that's so deeply connected with nature and who and what we are as humans that this shouldn't be necessary, but this "modern" age has allowed many to become deluded, debased and indeed depressed, by their lack of connection with nature in this most fundamental of senses. Therefore, this amendment serves a vital purpose now, even if some feel it is presently unneeded. And, of course, by the time a right is under attack to such an extent that it needs protection, it's difficult to provide it, which is another reason to support this amendment.
Some have also suggested that this interferes with wildlife management in a way that's not helpful, but that concern seems misplaced. Nothing in this amendment requires the Game and Fish Department to do any one thing, even if it can be argued that it does provide a mandate as to how the natural resource would be looked at in part. I'm confident that the interference, to the extent it exists, will be easy to overcome and perhaps it only really exists if its somehow perceived to.
Therefore, like Amendment C below, I feel this is a good proposal and should become law.
Wyoming Constitutional Amendment Proposed Amendment B:
That such an amendment would even be regarded as necessary would have been a shock a couple of decades ago, and perhaps it really isn't needed now. Participation in hunting is increasing in the United States, reversing a trend of some years, and in Wyoming hunting participation is dramatically up, grossly countering a trend of some years. Nobody knows the reasons for this, but it appears that hunting is now increasing remarkably in popularity and participation. And even on television, where we have not seen a great deal of hunting for quite some time, the reverse is now becoming true. A couple of adventure type channels have been running hunting related series, with the most recent being Yukon Men. And these shows have become pretty unapologetic about depicting what amounts to subsistence type hunting, which is the type that most American hunters actually do.
Nonetheless, in this day and age when many people live in urban settings that are so distant from nature that they have not connection with it, and often don't understand it, it serves to have an amendment that reminds us of the most basic nature of things, which we are never very far removed from in spite of what me might think. Hunters and fishermen truly engage in an activity that's so deeply connected with nature and who and what we are as humans that this shouldn't be necessary, but this "modern" age has allowed many to become deluded, debased and indeed depressed, by their lack of connection with nature in this most fundamental of senses. Therefore, this amendment serves a vital purpose now, even if some feel it is presently unneeded. And, of course, by the time a right is under attack to such an extent that it needs protection, it's difficult to provide it, which is another reason to support this amendment.
Some have also suggested that this interferes with wildlife management in a way that's not helpful, but that concern seems misplaced. Nothing in this amendment requires the Game and Fish Department to do any one thing, even if it can be argued that it does provide a mandate as to how the natural resource would be looked at in part. I'm confident that the interference, to the extent it exists, will be easy to overcome and perhaps it only really exists if its somehow perceived to.
Therefore, like Amendment C below, I feel this is a good proposal and should become law.
Wyoming Constitutional Amendment Proposed Amendment B:
Opportunity to hunt, fish and trap
.Article 1. Section 38. Opportunity to hunt, fish and trap. The opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state, subject to regulation as prescribed by law, and does not create a right to trespass on private property, diminish other private rights or alter the duty of the state to manage wildlife.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
WYOMING STATE BAR SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT C
From the Wyoming State Bar:
I concur with the opinion of the State Bar. This would be a worthwhile amendment to the Wyoming State Constitution. The actual text of the Amendment reads as follows:
WYOMING STATE BAR SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CThe Wyoming State Bar would like to encourage Wyoming citizens to vote in favor of Constitutional Amendment C.The purpose of Constitutional Amendment C is to enhance the efficiency of the district court by removing two obstacles to the court’s use of court commissioners. The state constitution currently allows court commissioners appointed by the district judge to conduct “chambers business”, and it grants the court commissioner authority to act in the absence of the district judge from the county.However, much has changed in the operation of district courts since the 1890 when our constitution was adopted. The statutes impose more duties and deadlines that can be difficult to fulfill promptly when the district court is conducting trials or other business. The amendment would give the court commissioner authority to act in matters beyond “chambers business,” such as emergency hearings in mental health and juvenile cases, where the district judge is within the county, but is otherwise occupied, such as in a jury trial. This would allow the district court to more promptly act on matters of great importance to members of the public.“This is a simple, necessary and practical change that will increase public access to the court system,” said John Cotton, President of the Wyoming State Bar. “It will improve the legal system and enhance the administration of justice. I strongly encourage support of the amendment.”
I concur with the opinion of the State Bar. This would be a worthwhile amendment to the Wyoming State Constitution. The actual text of the Amendment reads as follows:
Article 5, Section 14. District courts generally; commissioners.
The legislature shall provide by law for the appointment by the several district courts of one or more district court commissioners (who shall be persons learned in the law) in each organized county in which a district court is holden, such commissioners shall have authority to perform such business as may be prescribed by law, to take depositions and perform such other duties, and receive such compensation as shall be prescribed by law.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Hidden America?
NPR recently interviewed author Jeanne Marie Laskas regarding her new book, Hidden America. The apparent thesis of the book is to explore the hidden employments that keep the nation running, noting that the author explores such hidden jobs as coal miner and cowboy.
Hidden, really?
Perhaps its just because I'm from Wyoming, but I know coal miners and lots of cowboys, photographs of some of which appear on this blog. I'm even a sort of cowboy myself. I didn't know I was hiding.
It isn't that the gist of the book doesn't have some relevance. I've often been amazed about all sorts of occupations that never would have occurred to me when I was young, and thinking about what to do for work. There are, indeed, many such jobs that I really don't know how people even think to get into. Court Reporter, for example, is one such occupation. I've known many court reporters due to my work as a lawyer, but when I was a teenager, in school, that occupation wouldn't have even crossed my radar screen. I didn't know any then, and I didn't know anybody thinking of becoming one. Indeed, I don't know of anyone who was amongst my school associates back then who in fact became one. I don't know why that is, but even thinking of it is something that I don't think most of us could have done, as there wasn't any real way to know about the occupation. I suppose there are many other such occupations, many such as court reporting, that require a special education, but which we generally just don't think about.
So, to a degree, I'd have to confess there is a certain "hidden" set of occupations, in that they're hidden from us unless we become exposed to them somehow.
But the focus of this radio interview had less to do with that, it seems to me, than it did with agricultural, industrial and manual labor. It really seemed the author was amazed to learn that not everyone works in a cubicle in a large city.
For example, there was the reference to coal miners. They seemed amazed that there are coal miners. Are we that far removed from reality in some parts of the country that we don't know that? They even seemed surprised the US mines coal. And the U.S. mines a lot of coal. Huge amounts. To be ignorant of the existence of coal miners is to be ignorant of one of the major U.S. extractive industries and energy sources. Simply stunning.
Migrant farm workers was another. Are people really not aware that there are migrant farm workers? Or farm workers in general?
Which brings me to cowboys. They seemed stunned there are cowboys with horses. Here, I have to admit that reaction seems common. Horse mounted cowboys remain a feature of stock raising in a major way, and not just on the range, but at the stockyard as well. Indeed, the horse has survived repeated predictions of its demise, and outlasted numerous mechanical attempts to supplant it. The current form of horse use we now have basically dates back to the late 1940s, when stock raising was heavily impacted by the introduction of the 4x4 vehicle, but in its pattern of use from about 1945 forward it continues on (supplanting the use that dated from around 1920 to 1945). But, for whatever reason, it always surprises me that people are surprised that the occupation still exists. I'm not sure how people figure steak or lamb get into the meat display at Safeway.
Perhaps, in thinking on it, what this really serves to illustrate is that the often cited divide between the rural and the urban is bigger than I imagine. The jobs that tend to catch me off guard are jobs that are largely metropolitan in nature, in the sense that they're jobs that occur in town. Not one of the jobs mentioned on the NPR interview surprised me in the least. I was aware of them all. I guess that they were "hidden" to the author and interviewer as they were city oriented. That may mean that there's not one, but two, hidden Americans, depending upon where a person lives.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Russian Trials, Russian Protests, and Missing the Point
I don't normally engage in political commentary here, but this seems to be the season for that, and by that I don't mean the U.S. Presidential elections. Granted, those are going on. But, more than that, July and August seem to be the seasons for protests of all sorts. July gave us, for example, the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Probably an element of that was that people were hot and cranky, and that makes for some angry actions.
Anyhow, the last couple of months followers of the news have been treated to the Russian trial of the all female members of a Russian punk band, whose name is intended to be somewhat obscene, and therefore I'll abstain from mentioning its name. Anyhow, anyone who watches the news has watched the story play out if for no other reason than that it seems odd, and that one of the band members is photogenic. The band, which I suspect may be of questionable musical quality, staged a highly unauthorized and very insulting protest near the alter of the main Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Moscow. According to news reports, which aren't highly clear on these points, the "punk" protest was supposed to be directed at Putin, or, alternatively, the Russian Orthodox Church's support of Putin. Those put on trial were sentenced to seven years of confinement.
Starting with the trial, there's been a flood of American new stories on this topic. Added to that, various public figures, including such luminaries as Madonna Louise Ciccone (aka "Madonna"), have chimed in to either protest the convictions or urge a lighter, i.e.., non-existent, sentence be substituted. The band, for its part, continues to basically mock the results by its attitude.
Missing from all of this has been any intelligent commentary on what occurred, and what it means. The absence of intelligent news analysis has been stunning. Just today, for the very first time, I heard radio commentary, on NPR, which really accurately and insightfully commented on the entire event, but that commentary came from a Russian ex-patriot caller, not from the person being interviewed, a columnist for the New York Times. Indeed, the NYT commentary provided a perfect example of how far off the mark the understanding of this event in the Western world is.
Generally, in the West, what seems to be the case is that most people feel that the bands actions were really no big deal, either symbolically, or physically. That's because they completely misunderstand the nature of the act and what it symbolizes to Russians and, at this point, have such a high tolerance of offensive acts that they barely register in the public consciousness anyway.. Some people of faith no doubt find the action of this band of deluded young women highly offensive, but even that fails to really accurately explain the Russian reaction, or why the Western reaction is off the mark.
The Russian caller on NPR was a self-avowed opponent of Putin. He was, moreover, living in the West. Finally, he declared himself to be an atheist. Assuming all that is correct, his defense of the Russian court's actions would be surprising, but in listening to him, it made perfect sense.
The caller noted that almost all the opposition to Putin, in the first place, comes from Moscow and St. Petersburg and is therefore, largely urban. Contrary to the NYT columnist's comments, therefore, he did not feel, and I'm sure that he's correct, that either Putin or the Russians in general are going to worry about looking "silly", which the NYT columnist seriously seemed to think would be a concern for the Russians. Ignoring the fact that Russian politics of all types tends to be extremely inward looking, and pays very little regard for what the opinion of outsiders will be, for those voters, and for Putin, looking "silly" is of low importance. Indeed, quite frankly, it would be of low importance to most American voters as well, which traditionally have cared very little about what foreign opinion of the United States is, and I suspect that this is the same feeling that most average voters everywhere have in general. But for Russians, love Putin or hate him, looking Russian is of very high importance, except perhaps in the very large cosmopolitan cities, which share a certain sense of internationalness everywhere. Most Russians do not live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. As the caller went on to explain, the Russian Orthodox Church is not only the largest church in Russia, but it's so closely identified with the soul of Russia that we in the West can hardly grasp it.
The caller claimed that the Russians had "always" been members of the Russian Orthodox Church, dating back "1000 years". There was no Russia without the church and there is no Russia without the church. In his conclusion, he was correct, even if in his history he was a bit off, probably for the sake of brevity.
Depending upon when you start the history of Russia, there was a Russia before the Russian Orthodox Church, but not much of one. Russia, or rather Moscow at first, converted to Christianity well before Moscow became more than a city state. At that time, it converted to the Eastern Rite of the Church, there being no separation at the time between East and West. The Russian Orthodox Church came into being later, when the Patriarch of Constantinople, under whose jurisdiction the church in Russia fell, recognized a separate seat for Russia, given its vast distance from Constantinople. This was, in and of itself, of enormous significance not just to Russia, but to Orthodoxy itself. When the Great Schism occurred, separating East from West, the Russian Orthodox Church generally went with Constantinople, although not consistently at first, with some major Russian Bishops, over a period of many years, declaring primacy of Rome and thereby staying united with Rome, or becoming reunited with Rome, from time to time. In later times, a major event in Russian history would see dissenters separate from the reforms of Russian Orthodoxy and become the "Old Believers", a virtually leaderless Orthodox group which clung to pre-reform liturgy.
At any rate, however, the rise of Russia was very much coincident with the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church. Contrary to what critics may assume, the church and the crown did not always see eye to eye, which is part of the reason that the church continues to occupy the position it does today. It acted as a counterweight to the excesses of early emperors, feeling free to lecture them if it saw fit, and occasionally doing so publicly. Some emperors, for their part, were very critical of the church. When the Empire collapsed in 1917, the church acted as a bulwark, albeit a largely unsuccessful one, against the Communists, who saw fit to put its leaders on trial. Still it remained so much a part of the average Russian's consciousness that even Stalin had to lift much of the suppression of it during World War Two, and Red Army soldiers, even at that point in the country's deep Communist history, made crosses out of scrap steel and crossed themselves before battle. When the USSR fell in 1990, public adherence to the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia dramatically climbed, showing how strong the faith remained (and likewise, long underground Ukrainian Catholics came out of the closet as well). Public figures, either demonstrating a long hidden faith, or perhaps wanting to identify with Russianess, began to openly identify with the church once again (although even one of Stalin's henchmen, after being deposed by Khrushchev, ended his days as a lector in the church).
In this position, it is hard to find anything that compares to the position of the Russian Orthodox Church in relation to the Russians and any Western institution and Western nations. A person might be tempted to point towards the Catholic Church and its position in Ireland up until the 1980s, but even that wouldn't really fully be accurate, although it would be close. Basically, the Russian Orthodox Church is the faith that claims some allegiance from most Russians, but not non-Russians who are within borders claimed by Russia, and it also forms part of the cultural identity of all Russians while also occuping a position basically occupied by the Magna Carta for the UK, and the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution in the US. People can claim allegiance to part or all what the Russian Orthodox Church stands for, even if they are outside of it, or they can define themselves as being against it, as Stalin and Lenin did, but they cannot simply treat it as a conventional institution.
Indeed, it's that last point which makes the actions by the band in question even more problematic to many Russians. It isn't solely that they acted to defile a Cathedral, or to insult the Russian Orthodox Church. They just don't seem to know what they were were doing. It's stunningly ignorant to some degree, at least according to both the suggestions of the Russian commentator and the NYT columnist. The suggestion there is that urban Russians might be out of touch with Russia, a claim made in almost any nation about large urban populations by their less urban fellows.
Anyhow, the point is that to Russians, even non-religious Russians, and probably even to Russians who are members of other faiths, the Russian Orthodox Church is a powerful national symbol unlike nearly any that any Western nation has. It would, therefore, be very difficult to compare what the band did to anything we can think of. Perhaps burning the flag, which caused such concern in the US a couple of decades ago, would be somewhat comparable. More comparable, I suppose, would be if a band broke into an exhibit of the Constitution and performed an insulting performance near and on it. I suspect we'd hear calls for their heads, if that occurred. Combining a major civil insult with a major religious one would, however, be nearly impossible in the West.
The point of all this is not to say that Russia's justice system, which I know next to nothing about, got this right. Nor is it to defend the Russian government, which seems to be internationally headed in the wrong direction to me. But, rather, Western commentators simply don't know what they're talking about here. They don't get it.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
And the word of the season is. . . . "double down".
Every political season, it seems, there's a hot new word or phrase.
Last election, it was "vet", as in "So and so didn't vet their running mate X". You'd hear it everywhere.
This election, it's "double down". All last week the politicians were using the phrase "double down". Today a reporter used it.
I'm not sure how this happens. I remember "que", the British phrase for a line of people, or to form a line, being popular in such a way. I hated the overuse of "vet" last go around, and I'm already starting really dislike double down. I frankly don't think it makes all that much sense in most lines of speech in which it is used, but apparently people like the way it sounds. It is, I think, a term from gambling. I'm not much of a gambler, so I'm not sure, but I think it means to double a bet. Anyhow, enough is a enough, and I hope not to hear it again this season.
Last election, it was "vet", as in "So and so didn't vet their running mate X". You'd hear it everywhere.
This election, it's "double down". All last week the politicians were using the phrase "double down". Today a reporter used it.
I'm not sure how this happens. I remember "que", the British phrase for a line of people, or to form a line, being popular in such a way. I hated the overuse of "vet" last go around, and I'm already starting really dislike double down. I frankly don't think it makes all that much sense in most lines of speech in which it is used, but apparently people like the way it sounds. It is, I think, a term from gambling. I'm not much of a gambler, so I'm not sure, but I think it means to double a bet. Anyhow, enough is a enough, and I hope not to hear it again this season.
Friday, August 3, 2012
The Casper Municipal Golf Course
Casper Wyoming has four golf courses, the Municipal course, the Paradise Valley course, Three Crowns, and the Country Club. Of those, two are private courses, those being the Paradise Valley course and the Country Club. The newest course is Three Crowns, which was put in where the old Standard Oil Refinery once was.
I'm not a golfer. I did learn how to golf when I was a kid, but for whatever reason, interest in the sport never took with me, and I was of junior high age when I quit. My mother was, at one time, a fairly avid golfer, and we have an old trophy she won here in town when she first moved here, from a Pan American Petroleum tournament. She taught me how to golf on the Municipal Course, which was fairly close to our house. Anyhow, in spite of having one parent who really loved golfing, I gave it up. The sad thing is that my mother basically gave it up at the same time as well. I'm not really sure why, but she did.
Anyhow, the City of Casper recently hired some consultants to look at golfing in Casper, as the Municipal Course is loosing money. The preferred option, according to the consultants, is to close the course.
I think this is a terrible option.
The theory behind this suggestion, as one city council-person put it, is that Casper is"over golfed". With four course, for a city of this side, it probably is. But only one of the courses is really cheap to golf at, and that's the city course. Of the four courses, moreover, only two are public. One of those, Three Crowns, borders on being a very end, and therefore expensive, course.
Additionally, it's constantly noted around here that Casper is "growing". If this is true, and for the time being it is, its foreseeable that a day will arrive when Casper is not "over golfed". This is particularly the case given that two of the four courses are owned by clubs, and while the club ownership is very longstanding, by nature private clubs are less long lasting than municipal clubs. There's no public interest, or ability, to keep a private course up and running, and since World War Two private organizations of any kind have had a history of diminishing interest. Moreover, both of the private courses are in areas which have seen a lot of real estate development in recent years which is wholly independent of their existence, and at some point you have to wonder if developers start looking at that acreage and start making offers.
And beyond that, while I'm not a golfer, golf courses make for nice open ground in urban areas, and this is particularly the case with the municipal course, which is between Casper College and Allendale, on the Mountain Road. It'd be a shame to fill that area with houses, which is what would occur should the ground be sold. Having some open areas, even in a region that has a lot of open country, makes for a nicer city.
Granted, the city is loosing $250,000 per year, which is bad. But that was perhaps inevitable when Three Crowns was built. That Tree Crowns was built was a good thing, given that the land was virtually incapable of any other use, but that this would cause a loss to an existing facility should have been expected, and is not really attributable to a fault with the older, Municipal Course. The city should keep it up and running, and I'm fairly certain that the residents of Casper will regret it if they do not.
I'm not a golfer. I did learn how to golf when I was a kid, but for whatever reason, interest in the sport never took with me, and I was of junior high age when I quit. My mother was, at one time, a fairly avid golfer, and we have an old trophy she won here in town when she first moved here, from a Pan American Petroleum tournament. She taught me how to golf on the Municipal Course, which was fairly close to our house. Anyhow, in spite of having one parent who really loved golfing, I gave it up. The sad thing is that my mother basically gave it up at the same time as well. I'm not really sure why, but she did.
Anyhow, the City of Casper recently hired some consultants to look at golfing in Casper, as the Municipal Course is loosing money. The preferred option, according to the consultants, is to close the course.
I think this is a terrible option.
The theory behind this suggestion, as one city council-person put it, is that Casper is"over golfed". With four course, for a city of this side, it probably is. But only one of the courses is really cheap to golf at, and that's the city course. Of the four courses, moreover, only two are public. One of those, Three Crowns, borders on being a very end, and therefore expensive, course.
Additionally, it's constantly noted around here that Casper is "growing". If this is true, and for the time being it is, its foreseeable that a day will arrive when Casper is not "over golfed". This is particularly the case given that two of the four courses are owned by clubs, and while the club ownership is very longstanding, by nature private clubs are less long lasting than municipal clubs. There's no public interest, or ability, to keep a private course up and running, and since World War Two private organizations of any kind have had a history of diminishing interest. Moreover, both of the private courses are in areas which have seen a lot of real estate development in recent years which is wholly independent of their existence, and at some point you have to wonder if developers start looking at that acreage and start making offers.
And beyond that, while I'm not a golfer, golf courses make for nice open ground in urban areas, and this is particularly the case with the municipal course, which is between Casper College and Allendale, on the Mountain Road. It'd be a shame to fill that area with houses, which is what would occur should the ground be sold. Having some open areas, even in a region that has a lot of open country, makes for a nicer city.
Granted, the city is loosing $250,000 per year, which is bad. But that was perhaps inevitable when Three Crowns was built. That Tree Crowns was built was a good thing, given that the land was virtually incapable of any other use, but that this would cause a loss to an existing facility should have been expected, and is not really attributable to a fault with the older, Municipal Course. The city should keep it up and running, and I'm fairly certain that the residents of Casper will regret it if they do not.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
The New Army Reading and Viewing List
The latest list of books, and now films, that the Army feels that officers ought to see:
Military themed literature:
The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
Starship Troopers by Robert A Heinlein
Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Fields of Fire by James Webb
The Good Soldier by Ford Maddox Ford
Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson
Paths of Glory by Humphrey Cobb
The Centurions by Jean Larteguy
The Winds of War/War and Remembrance by Herman Wouk
The Thin Red Line by James Jones
Lords of Discipline by Pat Conroy
Fatherland by Robert Harris
The Regeneration Trilogy by Pat Barker
The Matthew Hervey series by Allan Mallinson
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Bomber by Len Deighton
The Sharpe Books by Bernard Cornwall
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Eagle in the Snow by Wallace Bream
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe
Bugles and a Tiger by John Masters
The Field Marshal's Memoirs by John Masters
Matterhorn by Karl Marlantes
Film List:
The Duellists (1977)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Hamburger hill (1987)
Arn the Templar (2007)
Capitaine Conan (1996)
Days of Glory (2006)
Intimate Enemies (2007)
Alatriste (2006)
Beneath Hill 60 (2010)
Zulu (1964)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Gettysburg (1993)
The Frontline (2011)
The Wind that Shakes the Barley (2006)
Battle for Haditha (2007)
Blood Diamond (2006)
World Trade Centre (2006)
United 93 (2006)
The Hurt Locker (2009)
Restrepo (2010)
Three Kings (1999)
The Kingdom (2007)
Body of Lies (2008)
Documentaries:
The Civil War (1990)
The War (2007)
The Great War (1964)
The World at War (1973)
The First World War (2003)
Culloden (1964)
Australians at War (2001)
The Sorrow and the Pity (1969)
Regarding the books, even though I read almost constantly, I've only read the following:
The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara
The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Fields of Fire by James Webb
Paths of Glory by Humphrey Cobb, I haven’t read, but I’ve seen a film by that name, I presume to be based on it.
The Thin Red Line by James Jones, is a book I started to read many years ago, and didn’t finish, which is farely rare. Usually when I start them, I finish them, but I didn’t care for it much at the time.
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
It occurs to me that I don't read novels all that often, which all of these are. Presumably there's a separate history text list.
I'm not sure what Catch 22 would actually teach an officer. Interestingly enough, in later years Heller stated that the novel is complete fiction, and that in actuality the officers he met in World War Two were remarkably competent. I liked the book when I read it, when I was in high school, but in some ways, the novel is probably uniquely suited for somebody actually in high school. Indeed, my high school guidance counselor seemed to be much like Major Major, in that you could only see him when he wasn't in.
Regarding the films, I’ve seen these.
The Duellists (1977). I like this movie, but I’m really surprised to see it here as I can’t quite figure what lesson it’s supposed to teach that’s applicable to modern soldiers. Don’t duel for decades?
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Hamburger hill (1987)
Zulu (1964)
Apocalypse Now (1979). Really? I liked this film when I saw it in the theater in 1979, but I don't think it stands up. Would the lesson be don't go into the jungle with Martin Sheen, or perhaps mumbling large men like Marlon Brando? Hmmm. . . .
Gettysburg (1993). This was based on the novel The Killer Angles, but I can't see any officer with actual duties watching it, as it's so long, it seems to be almost a minute by minute depiction of the actual battle.
United 93 (2006)
Three Kings (1999). Eh? I can't figure why this one is there.
The Civil War (1990).
The World at War (1973).
The First World War (2003)
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Casper's "neighborhood schools"
I've generally declined the temptation to comment on local events, politics, etc. But in this instance, I'm afraid the temptation is simply too great to avoid.
About 20 or so years ago the school board of Natrona County School district No. 1, a district which cover the entire county (we only have one) introduced an experiment in which a couple of schools, or perhaps only one at that time, were designated "lighthouse" schools. The thought was that these schools would be freed from student population boundaries, and would compete for students based on their curriculum. This was at the grade school level.
The program was deemed a success, and a few years later, in 1997, the entire district went to this system. That is, school area boundaries, which compelled students who lived within them to attend that school, were entirely eliminated and the schools had to compete for students.
This program has generally been regarded by most as a success, although it isn't an unqualified one. But, no matter how a person might view it, what it did mean is that the schools had to compete for their students, and the success rate, and test scores, of the schools suddenly mattered in a way that they never had before. While now seemingly forgotten, this actually resulted in some schools being killed off. Garfield Elementary School, for example, the school that I attended for grade school, couldn't keep an adequate number of students and was closed, the teachers being merged with Willard, which apparently had the same problem. The new Garfield Willard school is on the completely opposite side of town, and the old Garfield grounds were sold (for a remarkably low price) to a neighboring church.
This isn't the only instance of this occurring. Other grade schools passed away. And new ones were built.
Very significantly, the new schools were built on the competition model, and they show it. They're very nice schools, but they're unique to themselves, each based on a model that was designed to compete for students. Area boundaries were not a concern, as there are no areas.
This also became the case for junior high schools. When this process started I think we had three junior highs. Now they are middle schools. Of the three buildings then in use, only two remain. A brand new one was built on the grounds of one of the former ones, and three more, I think, have been built. Again, boundary areas played no roles in the construction of the new schools.
I was frankly skeptical of this system when it was introduced, but since that time, it has become highly developed, and I think it is working well.
Beyond that, I do not think that there is any way to go back. In the 14 years since the system went full scale, all school construction that has occurred here has been undertaken with no regard to a local student population. Indeed, I think the one weakness of our current system here is that it is entirely based on busing or parent transportation. Fortunately for us, the state picks up the cost of the busing, which is massive.
Other than that, however, the system is generally successful. In my experience, engaged parents investigate the individual schools, which do have curriculum and teaching theory differences, and they pick the school that they feel (and they best judge) fit their kids.
Apparently not everyone feels that way, however, as the current school board has decided to reintroduce the neighborhood school concept, and make it so that choosing distance from the school is an option over some other options.
Indeed, the way I currently understand it, the choices are now weighted as follows. When entering a new school (grade school at kindergarten, or middle school at grade 6) the choice of school will be based on:
1. Presence of a sibling at the school.
2. Presence of a parent employed at the school.
3. Parent choice that didn't come into play the prior year.
4. Parent preference for distance from the school.
5. Parent choice otherwise.
So, what had been the primary factor for most parents, #5, will now be the last factor.
This is a mistake.
We no longer have an infrastructure based on a neighborhood school concept. For example, my old grade school, Garfield, which I walked to school to for every year of my grade school career, is no longer a school. All the new schools were built with no "neighborhood" in mind. A couple of the very distinct schools were built in their present locations simply because space was available there.
According to the one of the quoted school board proponents of this change (there were opponents on the board) Todd Ingram, parents were choosing schools based just on personality. But this is not my experience at all. I've seen parents very engaged in choosing schools, which I would not have expected at all. Now this will be dropped down to last place, and those parents favoring locality for their student exclusively are bumped up above them. This will fail to meet the current infrastructure, which wasn't designed to support that consideration, and it stands to be extremely disruptive to the couple of schools that were built in far locations based solely upon available land considerations. If they now will draw a high percentage of local students they'll be drawing students who will not be necessarily suitable to their unique curriculum. And, suffice it to say, this would seem to take the element of competition between the schools somewhat back out of the equalization.
Moreover, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for this decision to have been made. Parents who just wanted to have their child go to school nearby were already free to make that choice, and most parents were getting that choice. A certain element of nostalgia for a time now long gone by seems to have been an unstated factor. Those of us of a certain age may look back fondly, and probably unrealistically, on our "neighborhood school", and our "neighborhood", but in this day and age, how realistically does that reflect our reality. Yes, there are still neighborhoods, but this is is a highly mobile age as well. This change seems to be a step back in time, and not a good one.
About 20 or so years ago the school board of Natrona County School district No. 1, a district which cover the entire county (we only have one) introduced an experiment in which a couple of schools, or perhaps only one at that time, were designated "lighthouse" schools. The thought was that these schools would be freed from student population boundaries, and would compete for students based on their curriculum. This was at the grade school level.
The program was deemed a success, and a few years later, in 1997, the entire district went to this system. That is, school area boundaries, which compelled students who lived within them to attend that school, were entirely eliminated and the schools had to compete for students.
This program has generally been regarded by most as a success, although it isn't an unqualified one. But, no matter how a person might view it, what it did mean is that the schools had to compete for their students, and the success rate, and test scores, of the schools suddenly mattered in a way that they never had before. While now seemingly forgotten, this actually resulted in some schools being killed off. Garfield Elementary School, for example, the school that I attended for grade school, couldn't keep an adequate number of students and was closed, the teachers being merged with Willard, which apparently had the same problem. The new Garfield Willard school is on the completely opposite side of town, and the old Garfield grounds were sold (for a remarkably low price) to a neighboring church.
This isn't the only instance of this occurring. Other grade schools passed away. And new ones were built.
Very significantly, the new schools were built on the competition model, and they show it. They're very nice schools, but they're unique to themselves, each based on a model that was designed to compete for students. Area boundaries were not a concern, as there are no areas.
This also became the case for junior high schools. When this process started I think we had three junior highs. Now they are middle schools. Of the three buildings then in use, only two remain. A brand new one was built on the grounds of one of the former ones, and three more, I think, have been built. Again, boundary areas played no roles in the construction of the new schools.
I was frankly skeptical of this system when it was introduced, but since that time, it has become highly developed, and I think it is working well.
Beyond that, I do not think that there is any way to go back. In the 14 years since the system went full scale, all school construction that has occurred here has been undertaken with no regard to a local student population. Indeed, I think the one weakness of our current system here is that it is entirely based on busing or parent transportation. Fortunately for us, the state picks up the cost of the busing, which is massive.
Other than that, however, the system is generally successful. In my experience, engaged parents investigate the individual schools, which do have curriculum and teaching theory differences, and they pick the school that they feel (and they best judge) fit their kids.
Apparently not everyone feels that way, however, as the current school board has decided to reintroduce the neighborhood school concept, and make it so that choosing distance from the school is an option over some other options.
Indeed, the way I currently understand it, the choices are now weighted as follows. When entering a new school (grade school at kindergarten, or middle school at grade 6) the choice of school will be based on:
1. Presence of a sibling at the school.
2. Presence of a parent employed at the school.
3. Parent choice that didn't come into play the prior year.
4. Parent preference for distance from the school.
5. Parent choice otherwise.
So, what had been the primary factor for most parents, #5, will now be the last factor.
This is a mistake.
We no longer have an infrastructure based on a neighborhood school concept. For example, my old grade school, Garfield, which I walked to school to for every year of my grade school career, is no longer a school. All the new schools were built with no "neighborhood" in mind. A couple of the very distinct schools were built in their present locations simply because space was available there.
According to the one of the quoted school board proponents of this change (there were opponents on the board) Todd Ingram, parents were choosing schools based just on personality. But this is not my experience at all. I've seen parents very engaged in choosing schools, which I would not have expected at all. Now this will be dropped down to last place, and those parents favoring locality for their student exclusively are bumped up above them. This will fail to meet the current infrastructure, which wasn't designed to support that consideration, and it stands to be extremely disruptive to the couple of schools that were built in far locations based solely upon available land considerations. If they now will draw a high percentage of local students they'll be drawing students who will not be necessarily suitable to their unique curriculum. And, suffice it to say, this would seem to take the element of competition between the schools somewhat back out of the equalization.
Moreover, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for this decision to have been made. Parents who just wanted to have their child go to school nearby were already free to make that choice, and most parents were getting that choice. A certain element of nostalgia for a time now long gone by seems to have been an unstated factor. Those of us of a certain age may look back fondly, and probably unrealistically, on our "neighborhood school", and our "neighborhood", but in this day and age, how realistically does that reflect our reality. Yes, there are still neighborhoods, but this is is a highly mobile age as well. This change seems to be a step back in time, and not a good one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)